Talk:COVID-19 pandemic

Main table all wrong

Moved to Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data § Main table all wrong

 – MarioGom (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Potential changes to the maps

Cases or Deaths?

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

The second map in the infobox, showing cases per capita

New map, showing deaths per capita

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I also support per capita. We are dividing by large numbers (country populations) that are well-estimated and are constant (assuming we are using some recent census), so any error is overwhelmingly due to the error in cases - which we have anyway. The resulting comparison is meaningful and useful. Here is a link for 'usefulness' [1]. Segoldberg (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

I would be okay with a deaths map and a deaths per capita map being added as part of a package, per my proposal below. Sdkb (talk) 07:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC). ...It would be nice to have a gif showing at each frame the daily situation in the maps.

A statistics predictions for the near futere are welcome...

Deaths per capita map

Deaths per capita

There is now a deaths per capita map. Thanks to @Dan Polansky: I must say it looks excellent! And it does a much better job than confirmed cases per capita of showing the true severity of the regional epidemics, since the testing policies differ a lot between countries. The fatality rate is very much more comparable. Other thoughts? —St.nerol (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I concur that cases data, which was frequently poor already, is becoming ever less accurate. We should therefore de-emphasise it in the text and in the map. Death data is more reliable (albeit not perfect). That said, while moving away from inaccurate cases data, it is still important and useful to describe the spread of the pandemic. The reader should be able to clearly see the global reach of the pandemic. Bondegezou (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Fully agree. As long as we keep the total confirmed cases map, the global spread should be evident. —St.nerol (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Come to think of it, this map also complements the original total confirmed cases better than the cases per capita map: Since both confirmed cases and deaths are important, and both absolute numbers and per capita are relevant, we have four possible maps. But we get as much as possible from just two maps when one is cases in total and one is deaths per capita. Then there's no redundancy! —St.nerol (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky:, do you think you could update the map to reflect the latest data, and give me a ping afterwards? --St.nerol (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Deaths are very likely underreported in at least two countries that have the darkest shading on that map: Italy nursing home elderly resident COVID-19 deaths appear to be underestimated by a factor of 3 in one case listed in that article, and other cases cited in the article suggest that this is widespread in parts of Italy; the COVID-19 death count in Iran is quite likely, according to many different sources of information (see the article) to be a lot higher than the official value. Despite this, I tend to think that the death counts, despite being delayed compared to the positive SARS-CoV-2 detections, will be more reliable than the positive SARS-CoV-2 detection count in many countries. Adding the map, either normalised for population or not, would be useful. Boud (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@St.nerol: I updated the map yesterday evening. Next planned update of the map is today evening. I see no gain in updating the map more frequently, except perhaps to correct errors should there be any. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@St.nerol: I think the article would benefit from both reported cases per capita and deaths per capita maps. The article needs to contain the best caveat about how both reported figures are underrepresenting the real figures as it can, as far as can be done while meeting Wikipedia verifiability guidelines. As for whether we need absolute counts when we have per capita, some have argued that using colored backgrounds for non-capita map is misleading, or even fraudulent, and I can see what they mean: the colors give impression that we are dealing with density, which only applies to per capita maps. It would make sense to me to only include two maps: total reported cases per capita and total deaths per capita. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky: You're right! I made a miscalculation and didn't see that the map was indeed updated. I'll try to start an RFC here to see how we should use the map. St.nerol (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

As of March 19, in cases per capita the undisputed leader is San Marino (4244), followed by Faroe Islands (1474), then Vatican City (1248), then three more mini states (Iceland, Andorra and Liechtenstein), with Italy being only seventh and just above Luxembourg, according to worldometer. Cases per capita demonstrate testing per capita rather than the severity of the decease. Deaths per capita seem to be more indicative of the severity (this data is not given on worldometer or any known to me source, except the map of Dan).--Maxaxax (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

(For reference, on 2020-03-19 19:12:38 UTC, the top 3 figures for deaths per million people calculated from WP data were San Marino: 417; Italy: 56.5; Spain: 17. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC))

RfC on which maps to use

There are three very relevant maps currently being discussed: Absolute number of confirmed cases, Confirmed cases per capita and Deaths per capita. They are displayed above. Which maps should we use in the lede?

1. Confirmed cases per capita, Absolute number of confirmed cases (current)
2. Deaths per capita, Absolute number of confirmed cases
3. Confirmed cases per capita, Deaths per capita
4. All three (in a collapsed state?)

St.nerol (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment on Overlapping RfCs This RfC overlaps slightly with the one already in progress below about whether to list a per capita map first or a totals map first. I'm not exactly sure how to handle overlapping RfCs. I propose we agree that that one take precedence regarding which map to list first/uncollapsed and this one take precedence regarding which map(s) to list. If there is a conflict between the RfCs, the RfC with significantly more participation will take precedence, or if they are roughly equal, that one as the first RfC will take precedence. (Note: I'm making this comment before any !votes have been cast in this RfC.) Sdkb (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4, with one primary uncollapsed map (as decided by the other RfC) and the rest collapsed. All three maps have potential value; let's give readers the option to access them. Collapsed maps take up very little room, decluttering and allowing us to move the photos higher up, while also taking only a single easy click for interested readers to access. They're a win-win. Sdkb (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

  Hmm, St.nerol, it seems like you and I may be the only ones here currently. If no one else comments otherwise, would you be alright with me boldly implementing option 4 with the three maps (leaving out the daily new cases map, which isn't updated/developed enough to be ready for mainspace yet). We'd of course revert if others start chiming in and the consensus moves in a different direction. Sdkb (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I encourage you to boldly implement the change. I also think it can help us in discussing things more clearly (maps shown/hidden, which maps, and priority of maps). Right now a consensus is hard to grasp. St.nerol (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3, if not that then Option 4: My preference is show only two maps: total confirmed cases per capita and total deaths per capita. If non-per-capita should be shown in addition, it should not be a color map but rather a pie map where the counts are represented as pies (circles) of different sizes; the objection against color map is 1) obvious: do not represent as density something that is not density, and 2) on another wiki there is a comment tracing the objection to How to Lie with Maps, Third Edition by Mark Monmonier. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Daily new cases

The daily new cases of COVID-19 on March 13

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

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

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

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

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

1. Only use raw figures from the WHO

2. Use another source that is making maps that we consider to be reliable.

3. Waiting until any WP:MEDRS compatible source at least publishes a table showing per capita case rates. --Almaty (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

ALASKA with 500 is Strange, very !

@Almaty: I would be okay with this map being added as part of a package, per my proposal below. Sdkb (talk) 07:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

thanks mate, sounds like a great way to move this discussion forward from a clear stalemate. —Almaty (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Almaty: Have any updates been made to this map? It needs some changes before it'll be ready for mainspace (in my view). Namely: new updated data, conversion to SVG, moving the legend out of the image itself (to parallel the other maps), and switching to red (the color we're using for case counts). I'd also prefer it be a per capita new cases per day map, rather than totals by country (we could always have both). Sdkb (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

here @Sdkb: but I don’t know how to make it SVG. —Almaty (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems like the easiest thing to do if it's possible would be to just embed the map via an iframe (see the "embed" share link). But I'm not sure if Wikipedia can handle that. If not, map creators @Dan Polansky, Wugapodes, Raphaël Dunant, and Ratherous:, would it be possible to import the data listed on the website (ideally keeping the timeline)? Sdkb (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Cases by density

In addition to maps showing number of infections by country & another showing incidence by population, there should be another showing incidence by density (eg cases per hundred sq kms). That would show where it's most concentrated. Jim Michael (talk) 10:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

And dan please read medrs. It is our most onerous policy to adhere to and this article is confusing because many claims can just have a reliable source, but all medical claims must have a medrs source. This is generally review articles, international authoritative statements (from bodies such as the WHO or the DSM) and medical texts. If you find a CFR in one of those please insert it with all the disclaimers. Almaty (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Per capita data vs. totals by country

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

The data for such an addition is pretty readily available; both the population and case numbers are included in yesterday's WHO daily situation report. Sdkb (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

What would folks think of listing the per capita map before the totals map? (per the logic in my archived comment directly above about why per capita is generally more useful for readers wanting to know where the outbreak is most intense) I'm going to try boldly implementing, but we can discuss here if it turns out to be controversial. Sdkb (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Ratherous, you reverted. What's your argument? Sdkb (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the use of per capita maps, the main informative resource in use by most media outlets and general epidemic data is the total cases map, showing the exact extent and reach the virus had on a certain number of people. --Ratherous (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ratherous: The main thing our readers are looking for in the maps is an indication of where the virus is most severe, and the per capita map does that best. Media outlets using totals are doing so mainly through a combination of poor statistical knowledge and laziness in not wanting to count populations. Another way to look at it: the totals map is also "per" in a way. It's just that rather than using an even unit that allows equal comparisons, the totals map uses "per country", making it look like the virus is worse in more heavily populated countries, e.g. India is darker than Vatican City. That's not what we want. Sdkb (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's very fair to assume laziness of journalists, rather it is a clear indication that readers are indeed looking more for totals of infected individuals at any given place. There is a very blatant reality that larger countries have greater potential at posing risk to the rest of the world due to their larger populations. The one person infected in the Vatican has a much lower probability of spreading the virus than the now 147 infected individuals in India. Regardless of the use of per capita maps, the main maps of the total should always be placed first. --Ratherous (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I've started an RfC below so we can get some more perspectives on this. Sdkb (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC on which type of map to list first

Should this article list a per capita count map first, or a total count by country map first? Sdkb (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Per capita map. The main thing our readers are looking for in the maps is an indication of where the virus is most severe, and the per capita map does that best. The total map, by contrast, is increasingly becoming just a variation on a world population map as the virus continues to spread. It makes it look like the virus is worse in more heavily populated countries, e.g. India is darker than Vatican City. That's not what we want. It makes no sense to display most prominently a map where, if Exampleistan suddenly splits into two countries tomorrow, the outbreak would suddenly show up as half as bad there. Another way to look at it: the totals map is also "per" in a way. It's just that rather than using an even divisor that allows equal comparisons, the totals map uses the uneven "per country" divisor. Sdkb (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Per capita map per Sdkb. — RealFakeKimT 19:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Per capita Per Sdkb, and as a stark example, shading implying San Marino, with around 120 cases in a population of fewer than 40,000, is on par with Hong Kong (181 cases in population of 7.4+ million), is bollocks. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Total Count Still the main resource of information on statistics. Per capita map can be included, but in no way should it go before the main map. Readers should primarily see the amount of actual infected people around the world. Plus still a more accurate exact figure. As I said earlier, it's not only the extent of infection in any given country, but also the threat of any given population to infect other people, which would rely on total count. --Ratherous (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Per capita per Sdkb. Total count map does not need to be listed at all. Per capita is directly calculated from totals. A map for totals with colored background is arguably grossly misleading (not factually wrong but misleading), since the colored background visually suggests we are dealing with density, which is only true for the per capita map. While in the per capita map, China has a slightly less dark color, it is still relatively dark and when the reader considers their background knowledge that China has a huge population, they should immediately see that the China total count is actually very large. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

  Very well put. For China, my preferred solution is to split the data by province — see the proposal for that below. Sdkb (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Total Count Map – This is still the aggregate total and the main source of information on the raw statistics. The per capita count map is something that is not entirely obvious at a glance. While a per capita count provides useful information on the spread density within a population, it fails to provide a picture of the actual, overall spread and can actually be misleading to unfamiliar viewers. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

  But this manner of visual represenation of the raw statistics is misleading; if it were pies (circles) rather than background colors, that would not be misleading. I don't see where the claim that per capita is misleading is coming from: it represents density with a visual representation corresponding to density. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• daily new cases or new cases per capita if we must, cos it shows where the outbreaks are that day, as Cumulative doesn’t give good info like today China and Italy look the same. —Almaty (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Data sources for maps

Extended content

Are coronavirus maps, should we use Our World in Data as a reliable attributable source, or should we be making calculations not yet published in reliable sources? --Almaty (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)I removed the aggregate new cases map which was included in this history section of the page so that we can discuss it first. There are two major issues with the map. The data does not come from the WHO but from a third-party charity website called "Our World In Data"..."a project of the Global Change Data Lab, a registered charity in England and Wales (Charity Number 1186433)." The map claims that there were 0 new cases on March 13th in Iceland, Norway, Belgium, Portugal, Greece, and a few dozen other countries and that's just inaccurate.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC) The reason is I have not seen it published in any reliable source with WHO data, to keep the dispute simple. --Almaty (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC) It doesn't claim that, it claims that there were between 0 and 10. --Almaty (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC) They claim the data does come from the WHO. Are you able to point to any specific inconsistency in the reliability of this source? --Almaty (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Also they aren't just a charity researchers at University of Oxford, who are the scientific editors of the website content. I strongly propose that unless anyone can point to how any of the data is inaccurate, that we use it. The main reason is because myself and other editors aren't able to easily verify the content of the maps. This will worsen as the outbreak progresses. --Almaty (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Yes, Those countries reported dozens if not hundreds of new cases between 12 march and 13 March. That's evident in the table's history page. Belgium for example went from 399 to 559. The map you added shows Belgium with 0-10 cases.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Per capita is absolutely relevant today, as it was a week ago and a month ago. Bed capacity would usually exist per capita, so case totals per capita is very indicative of severity. Furthermore, per capita achieves coloring invariance upon region merge: it is not so badly sensitive to choice of granularity of regions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC) If it is a indicative of severity why can't I see it in a WP:MEDRS source using WHO data to date? Ive done quite a search to come up with this current opinion. --Almaty (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Per capita is at worldometers.info; search for "Tot Cases/1M pop". I don't know about WP:MEDRS; I am not really a Wikipedia editor. In any case, as long as WP:CALC applies, we should be fine. ---Dan Polansky (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC) User @Bondegezou: and myself concur that WP:CALC is not being fully interpreted and with divisions in particular these may not be "obvious and correct". --Almaty (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Worldometer fails WP:MEDRS so severely, that even its updaters have lost faith in it, it appears --Almaty (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Is the above original research or can you support the above claim with reliable sources? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Yes User:Dan Polansky I can support that claim with worldometers own website The live counters show the real-time estimate as computed by our proprietary algorithm, which processes the latest data and projections provided by the most reputable organizations and statistical offices in the world. This is not peer reviewed, is an estimate, is not a study, is not even thought to be verifiable or correct by its publisher. ---Almaty (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Well, your claim is an original observation gained by looking at worldometers.info and using your brain; the claim "worldometers.info is unreliable" is not traced to a reliable source. Of course, your reasoning is very plausible, and one has to take worldometers.info with grain of salt, but is the grain larger than that for WHO data? But my main point is on the meta-level and it stays: you require me to trace the obvious to a reliable source while you do not require yourself to trace the obvious to a reliable source. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC) User:Dan Polansky I dont want to argue, but we all have to use reliable sources. I would love to insert things that were my original research and i've tried to before, but we cant. The pillars of wikipedia apply. --Almaty (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Per WP:CALC, we can do certain calculation ourselves; Almaty claims we can't. Let the reader read this very discussion alone; I see not a single person agreeing with Almaty, who sets unreasonable high standards on what should be common sense but uncritically defers to WHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Ok, maybe we can't trust the maps there, probably a data quirk if their tables are correct. But can we make maps like it - I want to use their "no data", and I truly think that a map with the number of new cases is more important at this stage, than per capita cases. My opinion of this will change, when anyone can show me a WP:MEDRS source that is showing charts with per capita cases. I can't find one --Almaty (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC) I find it obvious that per capita is super useful (total cases, active cases, daily new cases, daily deaths, all per capita), and to support the notion, I mentioned that bed capacities would usually be maintained per capita in a country. I do not have WP:MEDRS sources to support what I just said and what I consider to be obvious reasoning. Maybe someone knows where to find such sources. If WP:MEDRS sources do not report per capita, maybe they should wake up from their dogmatic dream and start reporting also per capita right now, before it is too late. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC) I'd go so far as to say that the use of the current graphic is highly misleading. Some Europeans have remarked at the Danish government's shutdown when comparing it to the apparent inaction in France or the UK, whereas the reason becomes instantly clear if you consider that the size of population matters a great deal. The only truly objective measure that can be used is the per capita figure. -- Ohc ¡digame! 17:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Let me add that the name of the game is bed capacities, respirators, breathing machines and such. If there were no risk of exhausting these, it would be kind of acceptable to give up all flatten-the-curve measures, maybe not entirely acceptable, but kind of. And these capacities, the name of the game, the resource nummero uno that you can run out of, is usually maintained on a per capita basis. And the resource does not increase exponentially at 20% per day rate, only the demand for that resource does so increase. Per capita is super meaningful; maybe some has the WP:MEDRS paperwork to support that claim; I supplied the substantive arguments. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC) I expect that they are doing this in unpublished government data, of course. But that doesn't help our encyclopaedia. Can you even point to a table, let alone a graph or a chart or map that shows per capita? that isn't worldometer? I note that for the second time in 24 hours this has been removed due to errors, once due to the Mediawiki doing it. Its an exceedingly big job, and one I think we need to delegate to the likes of Our World In Data (where their data is verifiable). --Almaty (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Here are links to the data sources for the map. This is certainly not "unpublished government data." Many news websites have map and visualization pages up and running now. There are plenty of examples of per-capita maps out there and the data for making these is widely available at places like: FT[2] and John Hopkins [3]. The Hill even published a list of top map sites[4]Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC) User:Monopoly31121993 I dont trust you to be able to keep up with the volume of data that will be coming through in the next few weeks, to be frank. Its not like I dont think you've done a good job so far. Its just that maps will become completely unverifiable --Almaty (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Does Almaty concede now that there are reliable sources publishing cases per capita? That would be a start. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC) I'm not in this for the argument, trust me, just for verifiability. --Almaty (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC) (outdent) So does Almaty concede the point that has been demonstrated? There cannot be any rational argument if one party refutes to play the argument game fairly. Almaty, do you now agree that "there are reliable sources publishing cases per capita?" --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Guys, I wrote a program that can read a dataset and generate an svg map. [5]. It currently fetches data from John Hopkins University, but the dataset doesn't have every country/territory and is updated daily, not as frequent as the current map. I say we generate the maps using a community-maintained list. Ythlev (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Excellent, makes perfect sense. Let the script fetch data from locations in Wikipedia, and it is then the business of Wikipedia editors to update those locations to reflect reliable sources. Is Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data good for the purpose? It should be easy to extract the data from there using Python. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC) I don't know how though. I only know how to fetch from pages with data only. Ythlev (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Okay, maybe I'll have a look. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC) no I’m afraid that I am still yet to see medrs sources showing per capita statistics. And it’s cos they can’t, so we can’t. —49.179.25.69 (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC) I think it is possible with Wikidata. Ythlev (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Here's a very quickly written grabber that returns a dictionary where the countries are the keys and the values are list of column values as integers (no work of beauty, but it works and is here right now): def grabFromTemplate(): import urllib, re url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data" allLines = [] for line in urllib.urlopen(url): allLines.append(line.rstrip()) allLines = " ".join(allLines) allLines = re.sub("^.*jquery-tablesorter", "", allLines) allLines = re.sub("</table.*", "", allLines) allLines = re.sub("<(th|td)[^>]*>", r"<td>", allLines) allLines = re.sub("</?(span|img|a|sup)[^>]*>", "", allLines) allLines = re.sub("</(th|td|tr)[^>]*>", "", allLines) allLines = re.sub("&#91.*?&#93", "", allLines) allLines = re.sub(",", "", allLines) allLines = re.sub("<small>.*?</small>;?", "", allLines) allLines = re.sub("</?i>", "", allLines) outData = {} rows = allLines.split("<tr> ") for row in rows: try: cols = row.split("<td>") cols.pop(0) cols.pop(0) country = cols.pop(0) cols = cols[0:3] cols = [int(col) for col in cols] except: continue outData[country] = cols #for key, value in outData.items(): # print key, value return outData --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Okay, with a few modifications, it worked. I can incorporate it now. Ythlev (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC) A lot of work is matching those country names to ISO country codes used to colour the map. Ythlev (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC) @Dan Polansky: It's done: [6]. Your code has some bugs though. It does not work for Netherlands for some reason. Ythlev (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC) @Ythlev: It fails for Netherlands since Netherlands has "–" in the 3rd column instead of zero. I don't know what "–" means, or else I could just tweak the script to replace it with zero or maybe place None in the list instead of int. Did you also create a per capita map on the world level? File:COVID-19_Outbreak_World_Map.svg is not per capita. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC) No. Such a map is being question now. Ythlev (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC) NCBI StatPearls link in support of per capita, in addition to actual number [7]. Prevalence, or cumulative cases per capita, is an estimate of the probability for a person in the country to be sick (useful if you are considering walking around in public in that country). Incidence, or new cases per unit time, is useful for tracking rate of new cases. Segoldberg (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Hi there, you may already know, but i would like to inform you that the data for the per capita map is wrong, it shows Australia as >0.1 but it is currently at >10 it has actually been >1 since the 1st march so the map is definitely not accurate as of 13th march as it states. I have not checked for other countries but there are probably more mistakes that need fixing. Just your average wikipedian (talk) 06:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC) You may know x and y, but you may not conduct operations on them. Just want to say this is the weirdest discussion in history. If a map of cases by country is acceptable based on the data available, then a map of cases per capita causing such trauma because it's OR (no it isn't) or it's somehow fundamentally unknowable information, implies that the wiki page "countries and dependencies by population" also needs deleting. Otherwise, x is acceptable, y is acceptable, but x/y is magically wrong. Funny old place. 165.225.81.57 (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Cumulative cases vs peak active cases

Extended content

If the first map is meant to be more directly sourced, the second should be more reflective of impact. Taking into account the health care systems and "flattening the curve", the second map should be peak active cases per capita. Ythlev (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC) If the data is available, I would be okay with this map being added as part of a package, per my proposal below. Sdkb (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC) So right now we have two competing per capita maps; one cumulative and one peak outbreak (see above). At the moment, I think that the cumulative map of @Raphaël Dunant: is preferrable. If China had another major outbreak, the peak outbreak map of @Ythlev: would not change a bit, but the cumulative map would reflect the change. Second, the peak outbreak map has a funny scale. How are the cutoff levels chosen? I appreciate Ythlev's ambition to reflect the intensity of the blow to the healthcare system and the general population. Perhaps this could be accomplished by a deaths per capita map? St.nerol (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Why is "changing a bit" important? Looking at any map so far, can you tell whether the disease is more serious in China than Europe or less? could be accomplished by a deaths per capita map? That's still a third map. Ythlev (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Second, the peak outbreak map has a funny scale. If by funny, you mean not powers of ten, the figures are mostly within 45 cases per million, so compared to the above map, using a smaller scale separates the countries better (e.g. East Africa, South Asia). Ythlev (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Several countries in Europe have over a 100 cases per capita. At the current centre of the outbreak your scale does not separate countries well at all. St.nerol (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC) And why should a world map separate Europe better at the expense of other regions? You want to know about the situation in Europe, there is a map of Europe in the corresponding article. Ythlev (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC) I agree with the consensus that if we are to have one per capita map, it should be the cumulative cases one. I can see the value to a peak active cases one, though, and would like it to be included as part of a package, per my proposal below. Sdkb (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC) The cases per capita map was removed from the article because it needed fixing. A corrected svg was then restored to the article. You have now removed it twice in favour of your own map. I see no consensus for having a peak active cases map instead of a regular cases per capita map. There are also some potential problems with your map that needs to be discussed; @Redav: mentioned some of them. Total confirmed cases per capita is data readily available from e.g. https://www.worldometers.info/ An illustration of this data clearly has encyclopedic value. The regular cases per capita map should be restored to the page until if a consensus here should say otherwise. –St.nerol (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC) As per @Sdkb: and @Redav: (asking for an SVG version of the total cases per capita map) and @St.nerol: comments, the total cases per capita map has been restored. I also feel like total cases per capita has more value to an encyclopedia than peak cases, as it is more useful to know which country have been hit the most, not which countries have been hit the quickest. I am agreeing with the direction the consensus seems to be going, but will abide by any consensus. Raphaël Dunant (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Developing an SVG version

Extended content

I greatly appreciate the efforts of Monopoly31121993(2) to produce a PNG per capita map for the infobox, but there is still an urgent and open request for SVG version that can be updated by all editors, like the primary map. Perhaps the script developed by User:Ythlev and User:Dan Polansky above could be of use to an editor reading this who would like to give it a try? — Goszei (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Copying my comment from the Commons: Monopoly31121993(2), I appreciate the effort you've put into updating this, but I need to re-emphasize that, at this point, by far the most urgent need is for you to convert this file to an SVG. This is an extremely prominent file on perhaps WP's most prominent article right now, and keeping it as a PNG (as well as not specifying your data source) effectively prevents other editors from being able to make updates and improvements to it. Maintaining this map is too big a task for any one editor at this point, and while you may disagree with some of the suggestions, consider that (a) even the uncontroversial ones, like fixing Greenland, cannot currently be remedied, and (b) WP:OWN applies — WP needs collaboration to function best. If you continue to maintain this map as a PNG, the editors whose concerns have not been adequately addressed are going to increasingly clamor for the removal of the map from the article, nullifying your work and doing a disservice to readers who would be better served by a per capita map. Sdkb (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC) @Monopoly31121993(2):@Sdkb: I can agree with what Sdkb writes, and I can confirm that I feel an urge and a repsonsibility to remove the per capita map because also the newer version still has multiple issues concerning a) well-definedness, b) meaningfulnes, c) accuracy, d) verifiability / falsifiability, that I do not see addressed, or at the very least discussed with arguments that might convince, by e.g. Monopoly31121993(2).Redav (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC) From Monopoly31121993(2)'s reply on Commons here, it looks like they may not know how to convert a PNG to an SVG. I don't know how myself; is it an easy thing to do? If so, could someone guide them through it? And if not, it looks like the best approach may be for someone else to build a per-capita map from scratch. Sdkb (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC) @Ythlev and Dan Polansky: Would either of you be able to explain how one might use the code you wrote above to create a per capita SVG map? I'm not a technical expert, but we very urgently need someone who is to help with this task. If you need it, population data for the world and province-level info is provided in the WHO daily situation reports like this one. Sdkb (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC) There is no easy way to convert PNG to SVG; the other way around is easy. PNG is a raster image, like colored tiles in your bathroom; SVG is a vector image, representing shapes as lines, arcs, circles and such. PNG knows no shapes; it is just a huge grid of colored tiles. The script on my talk page already grabs Wikipedia sources and provides calculated output. What I would need to do is to expand the script to 1) download a blank SVG of the political world map from Wikipedia sources, 2) create a mapping from country names to country codes since the calculation uses country names and the SVG map probably has country codes in it, in comments or the like, 3) determine which colors to use for which ranges, 4) use the calculated per capita output to color the blank SVG, 5) save the result to SVG file. In a sense, it is very straightforward, but it still takes effort and attention, and I do not know whether I find time and energy to do it any time soon, in part since I have also to make deliberations, measures, and actions concerning me personally; I do not promise anything. I am happy that I can extract cases per capita and deaths per capita in a snap. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC) There are a few thing to sort out first. What should the map be. As I said, the map should be peak active cases per capita because it reflects the mitigation efforts and health system burden. Data source. Currently the map (cases map) is just updated by whichever figure is latest for a country. It's quite hard to write a script that can read the current map and update it. What is feasible is to read a community-maintained list of figures. Someone wrote a scrip that can read Wikidata. Alternatively we could just use a single source like John Hopkins University with the drawback that it is only updated daily. Either of these approaches would require consensus though. It means the map can't just be edited by anyone who has the latest figure. Ythlev (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC) @Sdkb:@Ythlev: I located what seems to be an svg world map on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Population_density_countries_2017_world_map,_people_per_sq_km.svg. I am hoping my next line will help enlist its author in the map project under consideration.Redav (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC) @Ms Sarah Welch: You appear to be the author of an svg world map. There is a request at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic&action=edit&section=9 for an svg world map showing numbers per capita for, among other things, the reported active COVID-19 cases per country / region / dependency / other division type. Would you be able and willing in helping create such a map? Some work on e.g. scripts that calculate the numbers and label them to either country names or country codes, seems to be done already. Thanks a lot!Redav (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Ta da! Ythlev (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Peak active cases per capita I've included details in case someone wants to check. Ythlev (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC) @Ythlev: This looks promising! Again I propose to include in the title the words "reported" and "active" (or another appropriate word if another quantity is going to be presented) and furthermore to mention the source(s). I can see the list on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data is not the (only) source for your current map, since e.g. the total number of infected for (the country of) the Netherlands (which, by the way, is only part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands) mentioned there differs from the 1,413 your table shows, and the Netherlands do not count the recovered. The latter, of course, limits the meaningfulness of a number A = T - R - D for the Netherlands. (Symbols explained above on this page.) Another remark is that your table shows a date of 18 Feb 2020 for the China data. Are there no more recent data available?Redav (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC) I wish I didn't have to keep repeating this. In a pandemic, people are bound to get sick. What matters is whether they all get sick at the same time, hence the map I made is peak active cases per capita. China is way past its peak. Ythlev (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC) @Ythlev: Thanks for your explanation (again, as you say). You seem to address me specifically (although I am not sure you actually do). If that is the case, I cannot see which part of my input you are discussing or arguing with, since I cannot remember inputting any arguments regarding more / less usefulness / uselessness of current and/or peak active cases. If you mean to say that 18 Feb 2020 was the date with the (reported) peak in active cases, and that the data list you provided concerns this quantity, then I can now understand why this particular date is reflected in your list. But I do not remember seeing / reading that the data list was about peak active cases at the respective peak days for the respective countries / territories / division of whatever kind. Maybe I missed it, maybe it was not provided.Redav (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC) @Ythlev: Is there a substantial number of divisions (e.g. countries, territories, provinces, etc.) that record the number of recoveries from COVID-19? I know that (country of) the Netherlands does not do so. For such countries, I do not see how a meaningful number of active cases can be obtained. I do, however, agree that a map which presents accurate values of the accurate cases per capita, would be very interesting and meaningful indeed.Redav (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC) The data is from John Hopkins University, who collects data from various sources, so I have no idea. But they do report 1 recovery from the Netherlands. Ythlev (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC) @Ythlev: On https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 (which I think is the source you mean) I see mention of 2 recoveries for (the country of) Netherlands. This number is the same as shown on https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/. Following sources from both websites, I have not been able to find any ultimate source for these 2 alleged recoveries. What is more - and I repeat this message that I already repeatedly gave on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data in relation to the (first) table in the article - is that public health authority RIVM in (the country of) the Netherlands does not count recoveries. This can be read on its website https://www.rivm.nl/coronavirus/covid-19/vragen-antwoorden#nederland (in Dutch). There, the text "Hoeveel mensen zijn in Nederland inmiddels genezen van COVID-19? Dat is op dit moment niet bekend. Er is geen meldingsplicht om door te geven dat mensen zijn genezen van de ziekte. Iemand die 24 uur geen klachten meer heeft wordt als genezen beschouwd." translates as: "How many people in the Netherlands have recovered from COVID-19? At this moment this is unknown. There is no obligation to report that people have recovered. Someone who has no complaints during 24 hours is considered as recovered." Does this convince? Therefore, I can see no reason whatsoever to use a number of recoveries for (the country of) the Netherlands. Does this help to reach a consensus that (secondary) sources mentioning a specific number of recoveries are overriden by what can be considered as the best possible source for data about (the country of) the Netherlands at this point in time? (The Kingdom of the Netherlands - I repeat, or maybe I mention it for the first time on this page - includes and is more than (the country of) the Netherlands.)Redav (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC) @Redav: Well, some countries are thought to underreport figures. Some countries have more tests than others. It's impossible for the map to be perfectly accurate no matter what. Ythlev (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC) @Ythlev: Your point in itself is clear to me. In fact, I am convinced that not only some but every country underreports, in the sense that they undertest: not every infected person is tested. On top of that, there may be authorities which deliberately underreport with respect to the figures they know as the outcomes of the tests that they actually (had) carried out. But, as long as we accept to define the quantities used to fill tables and draw maps, as the figures published by the responsible authorities that may be assumed to best know the data (even if flawed by undertesting), in my view there is no reason to accept any figures that deviate from the figures reported by these responsible authorities. So, in the case of (the country of) the Netherlands with the responsible authority RIVM which clearly states they do not count the recovered, I see no reason to accept the number of 2 recovered as mentioned by some. If we would accept such a figure, we would deviate from what I think is probably the most feasible definition of a measured quantity to be presented, and we (would) seem to be following some - not or less well-defined - strategy of, say, estimation. I am not saying estimation is absolutely unhelpful, but I argue that estimated figures be separated from the reported figures, however flawed the latter may be. Contrary to what you write, I am not convinced that the map is bound to be inaccurate, at least not to the degree that I understand you mean. Starting from the definition that what the map and table present are figures reported by the respective responsible authorities, we seem to be able to be certain of at least accurately presenting these reported figures. So, the quantity we would (try to) present are not the actual numbers of active COVID-19 cases - however much we would like to have those figures -, but rather the reported figures just mentioned. The main inaccuracy left is then related to in how far an authority is the only (uncontested) authority for a particular division (e.g. country, province, state, territory).Redav (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Total cases per capita I added an SVG version of the map with the latest numbers and sources. Feel free to comment and/or adapt the map. Raphaël Dunant (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC) @Raphaël Dunant: Thanks for your work; it's nice to have it back! Regarding possible tweaks, I see a few: Greenland appears to reflect the data for Denmark, rather than itself. There's a weird border curving up along the right side. Also, now that we have a workable map back, it would be nice to start trying to figure out how to integrate province-level data for China, as requested above. Sdkb (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Great indeed to have such a map. Of course, we need to realize that its value is limited by under-testing / under-reporting in the reported confirmed cases, but it certainly helps. As to China's provinces, would any of the svg-maps on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_subdivisions_of_China help? (I do not know how svg maps technically work, and hope the specialists can easily assess that.)Redav (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Thank you @Sdkb: for the improvement suggestion. The weird border curving has been corrected. Note that Greenland has the correct value of 1 case per 56171 inhabitants , which is different color from mainland Denmark. I also colored French (Guyane, Reunion, etc.) and UK (Jersey, Gibraltar, etc.) dependencies differently than the mainland, with their correct color. For @Redav: remark on breaking down Chinese provinces, then we could argue of also breaking down big countries (Russia, Brazil, etc.)? Note that it will make the map harder to maintain, and that in this case we also need to do it for the total case map. We can open a new Talk session for finer-grained maps. Raphaël Dunant (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Oops, I assumed it wasn't in Greenland yet, but I guess we're at that point.We're now officially on track to win the IRL Plague, Inc. /humor And yes, good thought to make that a separate section; I'll open that up now. Sdkb (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC) At User talk:Dan Polansky, I now posted a script that creates an svg fully automatically from data that it grabs from Wikipedia. Maybe someone will find it useful. I suspect there are glitches in region match between the sources of data, but overall, my impression is good. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC) @Raphaël Dunant: It looks great that, as far as I can judge from blowing up the map, at least three of the four constituent countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (namely Aruba, Curaçao and (the country of) the Netherlands) have separate values and colours; I did not yet succeed in discerning the fourth, being Sint Maarten, but that may be caused by the relative smallness of that country. You even created a separate value and colour for one the three public bodies within - i.e. belonging to - (the country of) the Netherlands that lie in the Caribbean, namely Bonaire. Again the relative smallness of the other two public bodies (Sint Eustatius and Saba) may be the cause of me not being able to identify them on the map. These are welcome contributions to me. As to breaking down countries into provinces, states: I have not exactly pleaded for such breaking down of numbers - though I have tried to point to svg maps for China broken down into provinces -, but - of course - interesting it would certainly be, if feasible and accurate.Redav (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Total deaths per capita (outdent) I now created File:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map Total Deaths per Capita.svg, using code at Commons:File talk:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map Total Deaths per Capita.svg. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC) The deaths per capita is a nice job! It does seem to indicate the severity of the situation in the respective countries much better than the cases per capita. I hope we can use it! —St.nerol (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Thanks for the remark about the visibility. I brightened the total cases per capita map to make it more readable. Raphaël Dunant (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Including additional maps in collapsed state

Extended content

Draft:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic/Infobox sandbox Old title: Let's introduce an interactive drop-down menu to switch between maps As I explained above, I think the per capita cases map is much more useful for readers than the total cases map, and will continue to become even more so as the virus said. That said, I can imagine some readers validly wanting to see a total cases map, as well as a total deaths map, per capita deaths map, total new cases map, and per capita new cases map. As we (hopefully) work on getting the per capita map turned into an SVG, I was wondering whether it would be possible to, instead of having multiple maps above and below each other, display one map by default (I'd prefer the per capita cases map due again to my explanation above, but that's open to debate), and have a drop-down menu that readers could use to switch between maps, ideally including most or all of the ones I just listed. Do any of the more technically-inclined among you know if we could do that? I know it's fancy, but it seems like it would be worth the effort for the top of an article as prominent as this. Sdkb (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC) This doesn't seem to be getting engagement. Is that since you all don't like the idea, or just since no one who has seen this yet knows how to do it? If you have an opinion for/against the idea, it'd be helpful to know that, as achieving consensus is a precursor to figuring out technical implementation. Sdkb (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Okay, so after looking into this a bit, I think a much easier option that'd have a similar effect would be to include a bunch of maps but just collapse them by default using {{collapsed infobox section begin}} and {{collapsed infobox section end}}. What say you all to that? Sdkb (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC) @Sdkb: It's a little hard to know before I've seen it. It's probably a good idea, but I think at least one map should be visible without clicking. I started an RfC above about which maps to use, which is relevant with regards to your initiative. St.nerol (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC) @St.nerol: I've whipped up a preview of what it might look like in the sandbox and added it along the side here. The maps included or not included are obviously open to debate; your RfC should hopefully help clarify that. Sdkb (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Splitting data by state/province

(mostly copying my comment from above to kick this off) By and large, I much prefer the per capita map. It's main problem seems to be that it doesn't appropriately show how severe the outbreak has been in the part of China where it originated. Fortunately, there's a solution to that: splitting up the data for China by province. That way, Hubei will presumably show up as appropriately severe. The main downside of this approach is that some readers might ask why China gets more granular data than other countries, but I think most won't have a problem (and if the data does exist for generating a world map of prevalence by zip code or some other smaller unit and we could turn it into a map, or just adding data for e.g. Italy, that would of course be brilliant). The data for such an addition is pretty readily available; both the population and case numbers are included in yesterday's WHO daily situation report. Sdkb (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure; I don't mind showing provinces of China, or some other large country where the case concentration turns out to be very different for different parts. But I guess China is the most relevant to show provice-level here. —St.nerol (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Good idea, but could be harder to implement. If you give me a blank world map that has the provinces split and if you give me Wikipedia pages from which I can grab covid and population data for the provinces, I can implement that. I guess I could find the data pages by myself, and the bottleneck would be getting the map. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Interactive timeline maps

Template:Interactive COVID-19 maps lists some interactive maps I created using mw:Extension:Graph. Readers can move the slider at the top to view global COVID cases for a given day, and hovering over a country displays the exact datapoint for that country on that day. I'm interested in feedback on the maps since the user interface could probably be improved, and given the extensive coverage of this pandemic, I'm also interested in how editors familiar with this topic would use them. My first thought was to have them at Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic but maybe others have better ideas. Thanks to Siliconred for suggesting this at WP:VPT. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Interactive map example

@Wugapodes: Ooh, I like these; nice work! Two big issues that I'd want to see addressed before these are implemented anywhere. First, South Korea and North Korea are switched (North Korea is the one that at least claims to have no cases). I didn't look too closely, so there may also be other data issues. Second, when you're at the start of the slider, it's weird to have some countries be gray and others white; it's only at the end that you realize the gray ones are the ones that still don't have any cases. Just make them all white. In terms of use, it seems we may be poised to collapse the non-primary maps, and I'd be fine with a timeline being included among those, or even, if it develops enough, becoming the primary map itself. Sdkb (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Other more minor issues: some weird stuff can happen with the cursor when you move off the image and then back on, etc. Also, given how terrible people are at geography, it'd be nice to display the country name when you hover over a country, not just the case count. And ideally (perhaps pie-in-the-skyly), clicking on the country would lead to the article on the pandemic in that country. Sdkb (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I fixed the South Korea issue; the data are formatted by script, and it chose the wrong korea ISO code. The colors have been changed, and the country name is now displayed on hover as well. The weird behavior when you mouse off the canvas is something I'm trying to fix. As for clicking on a country and being taken to the corresponding article, I think it can be done. I'll look into both of those last two tasks tomorrow. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Definitely agree with Sdkb that as this develops it could be implemented as the primary map. It's displaying information in a similar way but is far more useful, particularly because you can see the country-to-country count and see the progression over time. SiliconRed (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

These are fantastic. Nice work Wugapodes! I'm looking forward to seeing this project as it progresses. Also, would it be possible to add a zoom toggle? Some countries are harder than others to get at with the mouse. SiliconRed (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• I've added a scaling parameter, and you can play with it in the above example. I have also fixed the weird behavior when you drag off the map canvas. After looking into it, I don't think we can set it up so that readers are taken to the associated pandamic page when they click on a country; this seems to be a limitation of Wikipedia's implementation of the graphing software. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  Hmm, I'm not sure how to access that; I don't see any zoom button. Sdkb (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  It's not a zoom button---I'm not sure that's possible, but editors can scale the size of the graphic using |scale= similar to how |upright= is used for images. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Other small issues: I think it'd be better to start at the present than last December; let readers go back rather than making them go forward, so that they're seeing the most essential information (i.e. the most up-to-date) first. And even countries without cases should still be named, rather than appearing as "no data". Sdkb (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The default start date is sorta fixed, but could be more elegant. As for countries with no data, I will look into how to fix that. Currently it gets country names from the dataset, so if there's no data, there's no country name. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Implementing

Now that we've implemented collapsed non-primary maps, I'd say we don't have to wait too much longer before adding the case timeline among them. Let's wait a little longer for some more kinks to be ironed out, then go for it. (It's still a ways away from being ready to be the primary map, in my view, but as I said above, I could see that happening eventually.) Sdkb (talk) 05:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

How can we get this talk page under control?

The amount of attention being devoted to this article is immense, and as might be expected, it's making this talk page really unwieldy and unorganized. Even with the 24hr archiving, there are still tons of duplicate discussions being opened up, making it difficult to centralize discussion on discrete topics like the maps. I'd like to use this thread as a space for proposing solutions to get things under control. Some ideas:

• Introducing a pinned list of established consensuses similar to the one at Donald Trump.
• Relax the norms about not changing section headings, applying WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN to better define what discussions are happening in each section.
• Using the archiving and collapsing templates more liberally to stop proposals unlikely to pass before they suck up too much oxygen and generate clutter.
• More readily transferring comments made in an inappropriate place to the appropriate centralised discussion.

I'm sure there are more ideas that aren't occurring to me, but the basic gist is that experienced editors should be more aggressive about cleaning up this talk page than we normally would be for one with a more normal level of activity. Also, I should note that for the related issue of the edit history of the article itself also being extremely unwieldy, I requested that we add a line to the edit notice encouraging better edit summary usage. Cheers, Sdkb (talk) 04:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I have been grouping discussions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I guess we just need more others helping you and/or more aggressive grouping, then. Sdkb (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I pulled the archival down to 18h to decrease the number of discussions here. Not sure if that's the best idea or not. Feel free to change it back if you disagree. Mgasparin (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

people don’t refactor like they used to, strikethroughs aren’t necessary, one can summarise —Almaty (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with the history (if there's a page documenting that, I'd be curious to see it), but I think refactoring might need to start coming back. Sdkb (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I think a WP:NOTFORUM edit notice might be warranted, for one thing. Dekimasuよ! 15:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dekimasu: Implement that as well as semi-protecting both the article and talk page to only autoconfirmed users. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think protecting the talk page is warranted. It's very rare to make it impossible to add all edit requests. On the other hand, moving the article itself to extended confirmed is a possibility given the level of protection at other related articles. Dekimasuよ! 16:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, then blocking any new users who commit any NOTFORUM infractions. I considered local blocks, but there are too many national / regional sub-articles for that to be feasible and a topic ban would be more feasible logistically anyhow. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Page notice added. Dekimasuよ! 16:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

looks good--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad to see the talk page edit notice. I agree with Dekimasu that protecting talk pages is generally a last-resort; if we did do so, we'd need to create a sub-talk page so that non-autoconfirmed editors could still participate. Regarding extended-confirmed protection, I think a request would probably be denied given there's not too much vandalism currently, and if it did pass, that might just result in this talk page getting flooded even more with edit requests. It does seem that not all editors are heeding the article page edit notice; perhaps change the i icon to a caution triangle? Sdkb (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the problem is none of the header notices, which provide a lot of info, show for mobile users. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352: Are people on mobile really editing a page as huge as this? Oh my. If they are, is there any way to get the notices to show for mobile users? Sdkb (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Copying a comment I made below following yet another instance where we were having a discussion, only to realize that someone (we don't know who) had gone straight to editing the article itself: [There is] a concerning phenomenon with this article, where editors trying to engage on the talk page are being steamrolled by editors completely disregarding the talk page/established processes for consensus and making major edits to the article with poor edit summaries. There is simply such a flood of edits to the page that any given edit is not being given adequate scrutiny unless someone notices the change through reading the article itself. This is the exact opposite of the incentive structure we want, and I think it's leading to a decline in the article quality. Sdkb (talk) 06:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Add a "current consensuses" header at the top

like the one at Donald Trump. This may prevent unnecessary discussions that have been repeatedly been discussed over and over again. Interstellarity (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support. This should be uncontroversial. We just need to make sure that anything on the list actually does represent consensus, and realize that consensus can change. - MrX 🖋 22:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Agreed it should be uncontroversial; it's just a matter of someone taking on the work to create it. It should include only discussions that have taken place on this talk page and either been closed or reached a clear consensus. Sdkb (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• disagree strongly because seemingly minor things such as “exhaled” as User:Doc James and I have disagreed and then agreed on, need to be repetitively discussed, over and over again... the point of the encyclopaedia —Almaty (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

  The point of a current consensus header isn't to prevent WP:CCC; it's just to make it easier to identify what the current consensuses are and to find the discussions where those consensuses were previously achieved. It does have the effect of making consensuses a little more solid, but that's a good thing for an article as important as this one. It'll be nice to have an easy shortcut to give to an editor who tries to overturn an established consensus. Sdkb (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• I was the one who implemented the current consensus table on the Donald Trump page. To do so would require one of two things first: either an agreement by the community here to adopt the "bold, revert, discuss" method which would require a list of current consensus items for people to work with, or discretionary sanctions (such as are found with the template:COVID19 GS editnotice) which would require a list against which editors can determine what does and does not come under the sanctions. Either option will work, its just a matter of which would be preferred here. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

  @TomStar81: Glad to have your input here! I'm not totally clear on what the differences between and upsides/downsides to each of those options would be; could you explain further? Sdkb (talk) 05:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Sdkb: Certainly! The difference is in the purpose of the consensus list. For the Donald Trump article, the consensus list came about as a result of my actions in enforcing the discretionary sanctions for post 1932 political officials. An administrator had applied a 1RR mandate to the article, and I caught an editor who had made two revisions within 24 hours to restore the picture, so I blocked him. After getting an angry reply concerning community consensus I investigated the matter and came to realize that he was right and I was wrong, so I applied a 1RR exemption in the article ([8]). After a few weeks it was realized that the consensus went further, so a talk page discussion spawned the consensus list in an attempt to provide a safe haven for editors operating to keep the agreed to consensus for the page from getting shelled by the admin corps for 1RR violations ([9]), a task that it continues to do to this day. Implementing this scheme would be beneficial should the admin corps apply the general sanctions for the subject matter to this page specifically since a consensus list would then allow editors to revert to the current consensus for article without the risk of being sanctioned or blocked for it, but at present no editor has applied the generation sanctions template to this article. Keep in mind that that a pitfall of this approach is that any current consensus list will of necessity have to be permanently protected to prevent people from tweaking it without a discussion first ([10]), which means that discussions concerning consensus that gain consensus will likely need admin closure in order to add or adjust the list, and if the list builds as Trump's has then current points will be eventually be superseded by newer points, which can make the list long and perhaps for some confusing.

"Bold, revert, discuss" by contrast, would result in something closer to the FAQ list at the Barack Obama article being applied; its intended to by fluid and to answer the questions for the community concerning edits to the page and why things are the way they are here. This is a list still bound by consensus, but since there is less perceived friction for the Obama article than the Trump article it comes across as being more welcoming to the public, but you'll note that it doesn't explicitly allow for 1RR exemptions because the public is better able to police and enforce rulings on the article through the use of the FAQ system as opposed to the current consensus list. Keep in mind though that without specific discretionary sanctions in the article at present any FAQ list may not be read as a "you must do this" pronouncement, it may instead be read as a "you are encourage but not required to observe this" pronouncement. We can partially beat that with protection for the article page, but non-observation may eventually grow enough that people demand a more substantive approach to the consensus list.

As a practical matter, it doesn't matter which option the community chooses to implement, both have the same general purpose, but they differ slightly in the delivery towards the their goals by addressing slightly different problems: the consensus list for addressing the 1RR restriction and thus providing immunity (as it were) to editors enforcing the current consensus, and the FAQ list for addressing the common problems/issues/debates/etc which the community has reached consensus on. Either one works here, its just a matter of which option the community thinks will ultimately allow for better control of the subject matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support, definitely needed considering the amount of traffic and edits this page gets. Would hopefully help to calm the talk page down, even if it's just a bit. QueerFilmNerd^talk 00:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Increasing fatality rate

We have surprassed the 4 percentage of fatality rate, sadly this most important data sometimes was in the article (I mean the overall fatality rate), but it is now deleted. We are now at 7893/194515=4.05 percentage. 87.97.82.243 (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

No, that number is pretty much useless out of context. The number of CONFIRMED case is directly proportional to the amount of tests we throw at it. It's kinda obvious that china gave up testing all of it cases on feb 4. Although they will keep reporting death cases with much more accuracy then confirmed case. I think it's about 100% certain at this point that COVID'S virulence is at least on par with other coronavirus and therefore it's conservative to expect it to hit about 1/20 to 1/10(?) of the world population. In my opinion, you can easily add two 0 to your 194515 give or take one order of magnitude. So we'd be at 0.4% (4x a seasonal flu) to 0.04%(1/2 a seasonal flu). I hope it helps. Iluvalar (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC) That is correct, all the mass hysteria is caused by "1/2 a seasonal flu."--Maxaxax (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

"The cluster of mainland China (except Hubei province) still has a decreasing trend in CFR with an estimate of 0.15% (95% CI: 0.12–0.18%)"[11]. Just found this souce, it was in february. Iluvalar (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Seasonal flu does not overwhelm your healthcare system, and does not make it run out of ICU beds. Start paying attention, and look at Hubei and Italy. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I only see that Italy found a cold during a cold season as soon as they had the tests available. Italy didn't notice or cared about any surge of death before they had the tests. Which correspond exactly to what would happen if the virus was a seasonal cold. I see no exponential growth of death cases in Hubei, staying well under the normal mortality rate of the region. Also strongly indicating that the virus is not in it exponential growth phase and that the starting flow of cases was strictly caused by tests availability (just like everywhere else in the world). This reinforce the hypothesis (up to 99.5%) that the early detected cases in Wuhan were not the very first infected and that COVID-19 (being overall mild) had time to spread across the world. Chances are, it's already in peak strength across the globe. Iluvalar (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Why is Italy seeing healthcare capacity problems that it does not see in common cold? I quote: ' “It’s not a wave. It’s a tsunami,” said Dr. Roberto Rona, in charge of intensive care at the Monza hospital. “It’s something that makes you change completely how you run a hospital.” '[12]. You'll find plenty of such articles; are they unreliable? Do you believe that certain regions in Italy are not running out of ICU beds? Why did Chinese suddenly have to build additional hospitals real quick this year, but not during last year's common cold season? Do you believe that Italy normally run out of ICU beds during common colds epidemics? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

At the peak of the flu season ? Yes. Iluvalar (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any sources on China quickly building additional hospitals during peak flu season, in 2019 or other years? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

It is very unlikely for China to have built any hospitals for flu in the past, since China has been noted for reporting remarkably few deaths from flu for many years - [13][14]. Hzh (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Dan, you have to explain to me how the speed at which we build an hospital prove the deadliness of the virus. I also believe you'd be surprised how many hospital a population of 1.4 billion people need. Iluvalar (talk) 12:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

You have not answered a single question I asked; there is one answer "Yes" and I don't even know to which of the multiple questions. You must not be looking only at things that seem to confirm your hypothesis; you must have a very serious look at things that threaten to refute your hypothesis. Let us try again, one question at a time: Why is Italy seeing healthcare capacity problems that it does not see in common cold? --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

1. Bed Occupation worldwide typically sit at 80%. It doesn't take much to fill the remaining beds during the flu season. I don't know why you say that "it does not" during normal seasons.
2. The mass hysteria at the moment is real. Tell people they will die if they cough, and you get your hospital filled instantly. It's not surprising.
3. Sadly my evaluation rely on the death count. So when I say the cold will likely be 50% tougher this year, I can't really tell if we are talking about fatality rate or virulence. I could be talking about 10'000-100'000 extra cases every week in italy alone. Iluvalar (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

(outdent) Since Wikipedia is not a forum, but Wikiversity allows original research, you may present your original research in Wikiversity:COVID-19/Iluvalar; I placed my questions at Wikiversity:COVID-19/Dan Polansky and there is Wikiversity:COVID-19/Julian Mendez. If you ping me in your original reseach page at Wikiversity, I may have a look to see whether I can ask more questions and continue in the interaction there, but I don't promise anything. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Rankings and active cases and percentages

Can we edit the list of countries affected, by adding in rankings, to check if a country has slowed down or increased exponentially? It's a bit hard to count.

Also, it would help if there was another column for active cases, so we can list them by total infected, active cases, number of deaths, or per 10 million capita.

180.129.74.216 (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

More columns will make it wider. We should try to keep it narrow so it works on mobile better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree with adding active cases to the page. This is the more important number than cases. China is a save country now! Since there is great reluctance to include active cases in the present table, just make a second table for the sake of humanity. In the second table you have three columns: Active cases, percentages with respect to previous day, new cases. Active cases are simply calculated from confirmed cases minus recovered minus deaths. Robads (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Completely agree. The number of active cases has become far more relevant to the current situation than the number of overall cases Romdwolf (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2020 (U

number of active cases is very problematic due to inconsistent reporting of recoveries and no standard definition of what is an active case. You’ll get good info from daily ‘’’new’’’ cases reported. —Almaty (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

So in that case why even have a Recoveries column. If active cases is problematic due to the recoveries...why have the recoveries in the first place ? Regarding the "no standard definition of what is an active case" I'm pretty sure everyone knows we're basically talking about total cases - recoveries - deaths . The only way to truly see the current situation is to basically copy-paste the table into an excel/sheets (or some similar app) and use the formula on the whole table . Romdwolf (talk) 06:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

we shouldn’t have a recoveries column. —Almaty (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

No confirmed recoveries

Nothing was said about any recoveries in Poland yet and the Minister of Health didn’t say that there was a recovery in Poland or nobody yet knows about that. Hi poland (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi poland, your discussion title is a little misleading. Do you mean that out of all confirmed cases, none of them have been reported to have recovered and the article says that there are some who have recovered? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 16:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu in Poland we have only 1 confirmed recovered patient [15] - Polish Press Agency, [16] - Polish Public (goverment) TV, the data from https://www.worldometers.info/ are not accurated, there are wrong Natanieluz (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Natanieluz, maybe the Google translation software isn't up to snuff, but nothing in either article you provided claims that Patient Zero is the only one who recovered; furthermore, those articles were written on the 17th, two days ago, so the situation could have changed significantly by then. I've checked a stats page on Poland and the number of positive cases matches the one on Worldometers, and both were updated today on March 19th. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 16:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu yea, I see your point but Iam watching every day MOH press conferences on TV, maybe you want to look at that- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Poland#Recovered_people. Natanieluz (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Natanieluz, I am not the best person to ask to watch MOH press conferences as I do not speak or understand Polish.

Following that discussion it unfortunately depends on what external sources say. Unless there's a reason to doubt the MoH and KPRM IT that's reported in another reputable source like Boud supposes, it's more than likely that we'll stay with those sources. (Trust me, I feel your pain every time I see South China Morning Post used as a source.)

If you have reputable sources that state that the number of reported cases recovered is inaccurate, please include them, but make sure it's mentioned in the text of the article. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 17:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Non-COVID deaths of SARS-CoV-2 positive people

There is not 6 deaths in Poland there is still 5. Hi poland (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

How to handle this in Wikipedia is (so far) an open question. See the PL COVID-19 talk page and the WikiProject talk page. Boud (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Best reliable source for data on cases, deaths and recoveries???

Which source should be used for the lede? All have different amounts, but the WHO site has wildly differing case and death totals. Expert opinion is required. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 ?

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

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ ? MattSucci (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe Worldometer is the de facto trusted source due to its complete independence from governing bodies, and good reputation (their services have been used by the United Nations in the past, for example). -- Pingumeister^(talk) 12:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

why would we trust a private company and an algorithm that isn’t independently verifiable? Plus they just sourced a wiki and that’s against our guidelines. —Almaty (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Problem with File:FlattenTheCurveCDC.gif

In the section 2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Outbreak is File:FlattenTheCurveCDC.gif.

"Figure 1. Goals of community mitigation for pandemic influenza

This figure is taken from https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/rr/rr6601a1.htm, where it is titled "Figure 1. Goals of community mitigation for pandemic influenza"

The problem with this figure is that it illustrates the result of changing multiple variables, in particular "Reduce number of overall cases" as well as delay the timecourse.

In the source, it is not an introductory figure, but a late discussion illustration of the late discussion of the paper. On this page, a more introductory figure is needed. I suggest a figure that changes only one variable, the timecourse. For a first introduction to the concept, the two curves should have the same area under the curve, the number of cases should be the same in the two scenarios. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the figure. It sounds like you misread the source. The Figure 1 illustrate the Purpose section in the source after the introduction, it is not about any late discussion, it in fact illustrates an early part of the source and it is the introductory figure. Some publications simply put the figures, tables and notes at the end. I suspect you are misled by the silly figure given in the Coronavirus disease 2019#Prevention, which should not have been used, and I have raised objections to that figure before. Hzh (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I have adjusted the figures in Coronavirus disease 2019#Prevention. Hzh (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

User:SmokeyJoe I also agree that figures showing one concept at a time is better. And of course we have two that do a good job at that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James. What do you mean by "we have two that do a good job at that"? I am still having trouble swallowing the caption numbered points: "(1) delay outbreak peak (2) decompress peak burden on healthcare, known as flattening the curve (3) diminish overall cases and health impact." (1) & (2) are different aspects of the same concept, while (3) is a completely different concept. The final clause of (3) "and health impact" I think is a throwaway line that is no more particular to (3) than than (1)/(2). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

One and two are not the same concept. Delay is a separate aim from mitigate. UK health sources in fact identify 4 phases - containment, delay, mitigate and research [17]. The Spinoff one in fact illustrate two concepts (delay outbreak peak and decompress peak burden, therefore it is not just the one that Doc James said), they just did it badly, and their illustration is unsupported by the source (the CDC source does not state it going below healthcare capacity). Since it is based on the one illustrating 3 concepts, I'd say it is an error on their part rather than any attempt to show one concept. They did not know what they were doing. All the academic studies I have seen show shifted peaks and a decrease in number of total cases at the same time. They did another one diagram in Coronavirus disease 2019#Prevention which is about effective measures producing a sharp decrease in number of cases, but that illustrates a separate scenario and should not be taken as a separate concept for the first curve. Hzh (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Map now a mess!

The per capita map has adopted a new level: 1-10/100 million. Unfortunately the colour chosen (cream) wipes out national boundaries, making it impossible to know where one country begins and another ends. This is especially seen in Africa. Please choose a colour which is different from the border colour - or else, choose a different colour for borders! One not in the black/red/cream/white spectrum! Ptilinopus (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Raphaël Dunant: here's another complaint about the light yellow. I'm inclined to agree. Sdkb (talk) 07:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Do you have some colour suggestion? I am not that good with colour picking. Raphaël Dunant (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

How about pale violet? Ptilinopus (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Raphaël Dunant: I'd stick to shades of red for consistency. The totals map seems to be working using only five non-gray shades; I'd stick to the same for the per capita map. Sdkb (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Static link in from Central Notice

Please note, there is a static URL link to this page from a Central Notice (meta:MediaWiki:Centralnotice-Programmatic translations 2020-covid-article-link) please do not move the page without consideration for this. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

thank you for notice--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Australia will closed schools because of lockdown very soon

Australia states will be lockdown like NSW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.208.242 (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

do you have a link for this?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Tsai's "traditional Taiwanese greeting"

I would appreciate if someone wrote an article about the fist and palm salute, and link to it in the caption, because it's not uniquely Taiwanese. It has a history dating back to the Western Zhou[18] Verkanto (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Verkanto — Please feel free to do this yourself. All you need is one to two good sources and a few sentences to start an article. Getting things started helps massively for others to build upon it as well. Help:Your first article. Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I've made the change. The fist-and-palm salute (抱拳) is about as well known in Chinese culture as shaking hands is in the West, so there's no need to have a specific reference to it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

No sanctions for edit warring non-MEDRS content into article ?

In this edit, User:Da Vinci Nanjing reinstated for the second time content to the Epidemiology section that I removed because it is medical content that does not comply with WP:MEDRS and does not belong in the health section of this article. (It probably doesn't belong in the German article either, unless there is a section for political opinion that is not medical content.) This is edit warring. I thought discretionary sanctions were in place on these articles? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The discretionary sanctions header has now been applied to this page, but I do not know where to find the notification template to make sure that Da Vinci Nanjing receives the message. Meanwhile, the non-MEDRS text is still in the first medical section (Epidemiology) of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Community discretionary sanctions are in effect. I suggest requesting enforcement on AN or ANI. - MrX 🖋 18:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a poorly written attempt to explain herd immunity, I've changed it now. Robertpedley (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

No, it is worse than that. It is still using non-MEDRS sources to make a medical statement of dubious accuracy. Robertpedley Please restore the medcn tags until resolved, and do not remove maintenance tags without solving the issue-- the tag clearly said a MEDRS source was needed. Political speculation in medical content based on laysources is harmful. Could we get RexxS or JzG to have a look at lay press sources quoting a politician being used to make statements about epidemiology? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I agree that we should stick to MEDRS for medical content, but this is also a political subject, and Merkel, for example, was summarising what her best experts will have told her. It would be different if it were Trump or Xi of course, for reasons that shouldn't need explaining. Guy (help!) 22:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

And you've highlighted the problem, JzG; if we are going to add political statements to the medical sections of the article, then we open the door to all politicians. There are plenty of COVID articles, and sections of articles, dealing with Germany; the content could at minimum be moved out of Epidemiology to a more appropriate place. Adding a poorly sourced statement from a politician about one country only to the Epidemiology section of a broad overview of a pandemic is not good practice; shall we add epidemiological laysource speculation about every country and from other politicians to that section as well? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, Agreed. But it's tricky because there is a political element. I honestly don't know what to do for the best, other than WP:ATT and clarify the difference between statements of fact backed by WP:MEDRS and political statements. Guy (help!) 23:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

JzG I offered a solution above; the text can be moved somewhere more appropriate for the reasons I outlined (I added to the post above after I pinged you, as I am wont to do :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

ANd if we want to add that kind of speculation to the Epidemiology section, why use laysources when we have models from the Imperial College that could accomplish the same thing content-wise? [19] Why are we using laysources when we have higher quality sources? That is what MEDRS is about, no? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, that seems reasonable to me. Guy (help!) 11:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I've warned User:Da Vinci Nanjing. The present text (sourced to BBC News and Der Spiegel) is

"Official sources in Germany and the UK estimate that 60-70 % of the population will become infected before effective herd immunity can be achieved.

That is still problematical because it ignores the likelihood of herd immunity being achieved through vaccination as it is with measles. Because the mean transmission rate of SARS-CoV-2 is probably between 2 and 3, it follows that it requires a population immunity fraction around 60% to 70% for infections to no longer sustain themselves. That much is accurate, but if immunity were to be achieved by infection alone, we would be possibly be looking at hundreds of millions of fatalities worldwide, and it seems unlikely that any government would be willing to sustain as much as 2%–3% of its population dying from the virus. Unfortunately, I'm having problems finding top-quality sources that discuss the issues around SARS-CoV-2 and herd immunity. The best I can find so far is National Geographic, which gives a decent explanation and a balanced overview. Nevertheless, it's still short of what I'd want for a MEDRS source. My advice would be to remove that paragraph for the moment, pending a quality review article or a statement from WHO or similar to use as a source. --RexxS (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with RexxS ... this slope is too slippery, and not a door we should be opening. MEDRS has served us well, and this is not a good case for ignoring it. If we want to scare readers with models and projections, I suggest we use the Imperial College source instead of the laypress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we please switch to JHU or Oxford as opposed to worldometer as more medrs than worldometer for claims of case count. —Almaty (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Why should those sources be prioritized ahead of Worldometer? MattSucci (talk) 05:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

because worldometer is proprietary and unverifiable, readily admit they are an estimate, and also they source wikis, and have been double counting. —Almaty (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Cases of the Republic of Cyprus

I think that in the list with the cases for every country you should include the TRNC into the Cypriot cases as the North Cyprus is not recognized from any country in the world but Turkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dim.vas.nikol (talk • contribs) 19:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus , yes thank you for pointing this out--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

See Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data § Including TRNC --MarioGom (talk) 09:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Case fatality ratio table

I removed the table you added Axelcabrera100, because it needs better sourcing to be included. The information is certainly interesting, but it is also not properly sourced, and you've clearly calculated the ratios yourself (with far too many significant figures). I'm copying your suggestion here below so that others can see it, and potentially use the data to bring it up to snuff.

By Axelcabrera100:

The case fatality Rate is the ratio between the total number of deaths divied into the total amount of COVID-19 cases. Until the 19th March 2020 the rank of Case fatality Rate of the ten countries with the more cases of COVID-19 in the world are the fallowing:Johns hopkins coronavirus resource center

Country	Total cases COVID-19	Deaths	Case fatality Rate (CFR)
China	80880	3213	3,972551929
Italy	31506	2503	7,944518504
Iran	16169	988	6,110458284
Spain	11825	533	4,507399577
KOR	8413	84	0,998454772
Germany	9367	26	0,277570193
France	5423	175	3,226996128
USA	9454	155	1,639517664
Switzerland	4164	43	1,032660903
UK	1543	36	2,333117304

Best, Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Yah. Better for us not to do original research on this ourselves. It takes time from diagnosis to death so numbers outside of China will have issues with accuracy. It also depends on what proportion of less symptomatic cases are counted / detected, and how many deaths are written off as being due to other stuff. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

For anyone interested in building upon this table, there is some commentary that might be relevant to take into account at [20], with John Ioannidis stating that our only truly reliable numbers are from the Diamond Princess, where case fatality rates have been much lower and indicate a CFR between 0.05% to 1%. While not a WP:MEDRS source, having the Diamond Princess as a separate entry is certainly worth it in a CFR-table. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

We have the WHO who states 3.4% and I think it is still appropriate to go with that. Not everyone from the Diamond Princess have recovered. Well they may have been older they were also healthy and richer than normal. Plus go care in an unburdened health care system. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

There are multiple challenges with CFRs, so we should definitely not be calculating them ourselves. There's the time lag, as Doc James mentioned and see also doi:10.31646/gbio.56 and doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30195-X. There's also the problem about under-counting cases: see doi:10.3390/jcm9020523.

Instead of calculating, we should draw on what reliable sources say about them. We've got the WHO figure and there are lots of other reliable sources to draw on: see Talk:Coronavirus_disease_2019#Case_Fatality_Rate_is_falling_dramatically_and_currently_0.7%_-_from_WHO for some discussion. We've got some text discussing issues at Coronavirus_disease_2019#Prognosis. Bondegezou (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Can a comment be added under this table, acknowledging the big range in case fatality rate, and that this may be related to big differences in how much testing countries have done with - for example - South Korea and Germany doing far more testing than other countries, and showing far lower fatality rates. This is a very important topic, that needs to be explained. There are lots of current news articles about this. For example: https://www.pmlive.com/pharma_news/german_coronavirus_infections_climb_but_deaths_remain_low_1329617?fbclid=IwAR1htLdvxuXXfzX4s4UVYsafboaLlBEf2PdwTrPK8Baczxoi-1_kWOZpxXc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surfingdan (talk • contribs) 22:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The CFR will vary dramatically by region based on testing volume and as Doc James points out, based on population demographics, healthcare system quality, and the time since the outbreak started in each given region. Accordingly, we shouldn't attempt country-level calculations. The 3.4% number was based on data included in the WHO Situation Report from 3 March (90,870 cases and 3,112 deaths). If we are to present a CFR number, I think it is safe to include the WHO situation report global data and divide the two numbers. Something like:

The WHO reported on 19 March that there were 209,839 confirmed cases and 8,778 deaths,[ref here] which indicates a case fatality rate among confirmed COVID-19 cases of 4.18%.

However, there's still a WP:OR risk here so we could look to a reputable source that's regularly doing the calculation or just wait for the WHO to officially divide the two numbers. - Wikmoz (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd say remove, some of these countries have artificially low fatality rates, because people who have the virus and have not died yet remain alive... for now. --Calthinus (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

A more interesting and useful table would be the ratio of recoveries to deaths, rather than counting active cases as survivals. --Calthinus (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Please, please do not remove this table. This is an incredibly important topic, which needs to be acknowledged and ideally explained - i.e. that countries are reporting such widely different case fatality rates. It's also a topic that is getting a lot of news coverage. For example: https://www.ft.com/content/c0755b30-69bb-11ea-800d-da70cff6e4d3 and https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/why-does-germany-have-low-coronavirus-death-rate/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surfingdan (talk • contribs) 22:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

See Case fatality rate. Also see https://www.cebm.net/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/, which appears to be presently being kept updated with info from https://www.cebm.net/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/ the Confirmed Cases and Deaths by Country, Territory, or Conveyance table at https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

this doesn’t look like consensus to me. We don’t need a table, we can use text or put it on each countries page, —Almaty (talk) 08:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no consensus to include the table, or even more explicitly there is consensus not to include it in its current state.
I will see if I have time to go digging for some verified CFRs, as there are decent sources releasing numbers from Italy, Germany, S. Korea, USA, China and the Diamond Princess now. However they all need to be put into perspective with clarification of testing rates and health system loads — which is further reason to delay introduction of any table, because if we compare different sources: we need to be able to describe how or why they are different. Wikipedia doesn't just list pointless statistics. Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Can mention at least be made in the text that there is a very wide range in reported case fatality rates across countries, from 0.27% to 10%. This is a critically important topic, as these are numbers that governments are reporting and referring to, to make policy decisions right now. Also, as the table has now been removed, mention of that table needs to be removed from the text. Thanks Surfingdan (talk) 09:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

User:CFCF I think academic sources, at the moment, are avoiding CFR calculations for all the reasons stated above. In a couple of years' time statsiticians will sit down with the benefit of hindsight and work it out reasonably reliability. User:Surfingdan support your suggestion. Robertpedley (talk) 10:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

First sentence of the second paragraph

"The virus primarily spreads between people via respiratory droplets, produced during coughing or sneezing."

WHO says "The main way the disease spreads is through respiratory droplets expelled by someone who is coughing."

CDC says "The virus is thought to spread mainly from person-to-person .... through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes."

I think this summary is perfectly fine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Is it an important point to make the the respiratory droplets can be picked up from surfaces some time after the cough or sneeze? The wording above might give the wrong impression that you're only at risk if you're coughed/sneezed on. Bondegezou (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure we can add this key less common method. With WHO saying "these droplets land on objects and surfaces around the person. Other people then catch COVID-19 by touching these objects or surfaces, then touching their eyes, nose or mouth." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There has also been much media debate (at least in Sweden) about how long droplets can stick around in the air. It wouldn't hurt to have a short mention of this, seeing as the public is asking the question. Carl Fredrik ^talk 17:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

the WHO say “The disease can spread from person to person through small droplets from the nose or mouth which are spread when a person with COVID-19 coughs or exhales” the main method is respiratory droplets (not airborne droplets)... these droplets can go to the surfaces, it’s the same method. New study shows much less long than previously hypothesised. But we must include exhaled . —Almaty (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: I think this may be incomplete though. As more has been learned about the virus, there's a growing focus on asymptomatic transmission and Wikipedia may be a little behind the curve here. Indeed, once mask shortages are resolved, the US may see mask recommendations change to include use by asymptomatic individuals. Currently, the full CDC statement is...

The virus is thought to spread mainly from person-to-person. Between people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet). Through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes. - CDC

People can catch COVID-19 from others who have the virus. The disease can spread from person to person through small droplets from the nose or mouth which are spread when a person with COVID-19 coughs or exhales. These droplets land on objects and surfaces around the person. Other people then catch COVID-19 by touching these objects or surfaces, then touching their eyes, nose or mouth. People can also catch COVID-19 if they breathe in droplets from a person with COVID-19 who coughs out or exhales droplets. This is why it is important to stay more than 1 meter (3 feet) away from a person who is sick. - WHO

While technically correct in terms of priority, it may be time to reduce the emphasis on coughing. - Wikmoz (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Both the CDC and WHO state that the primary method of spread is through respiratory droplets. Yes there are a bunch of less common ways. We mention a couple in the lead. The rest of the secondary methods belong in the body. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Doc James yes they agree respiratory droplets, but the WHO uses exhale, repetitively, I believe and suspect as a very careful qualifier rather than a strictly known medical reason. So we should emulate. —Almaty (talk) 05:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

WHO says "The main way the disease spreads is through respiratory droplets expelled by someone who is coughing". Lets list the main way first. Spread by simple breathing is believed to be less common. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Almaty it does not say touching contaminated surfaces is a primary method of spread so those two sentences should not be joined together. Maybe we need a RfC to figure this out? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

we agree that the surfaces is not the primary method I’m trying to shorten it so that we can put exhale back in. Because at last count WHO uses exhale many more times than surfaces. people are too worried about the surfaces when they need to be focusing on distance IMO. —Almaty (talk) 05:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

to Be clear, as of today my understanding of the order of mode of spread is as follows, from the WHO, ECDC, CDC and Australian health department.

1. respiratory droplets produced from coughing
2. or exhaling
3. surfaces, although it doesn’t survive as long as hypothesised few weeks ago and
4. asymptomatic transmission.

therefore, the lead needs to give due weight to this order. —Almaty (talk) 06:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Only comment would be that asymptomatic transmission is not mutually exclusive to #1-3 (a throat clearing cough or occasional sneeze) and less easily ranked. Also, ECDC also references exhaling... "The virus seems to be transmitted mainly via respiratory droplets that people sneeze, cough, or exhale." - ECDC - Wikmoz (talk) 06:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• The one issue that I see with "The virus primarily spreads between people via respiratory droplets, produced during coughing or sneezing" is that it indicates no uncertainty, whereas CDC carefully says "is thought to". --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• this has been a hot topic all along, whenever I insert the required qualifiers over the last few weeks User:Doc James has removed them, I have no idea why he feels so certain. We have to leave it to the reader, ECDC seems to be best communicating the uncertainty—Almaty (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Typo in Beginning Section

"It may also be spread from touching contaminated surfaces and than touching ones face"

"than" should be changed to "then". I don't have a wikipedia account, so I'm suggesting here due to the semi-protected nature of the page.

 Done - Appears to have been fixed by another editor. - Wikmoz (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2020

touching contaminated surfaces and than touching ones face.

touching contaminated surfaces and then touching one's face. Kempu2015 (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you - MrX 🖋 18:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

This is WP:NOTAFORUM. - MrX 🖋 18:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

China is, of course, bald-face lying. Only 400 new cases in two weeks in a population sink of nearly 1.4 billion? This is a test to see how much BS the world will swallow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:444:380:8C00:2872:122F:AC8B:AB0D (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC) I'm actually super interested to know if you have a reliable source on that --49.195.179.13 (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC) They are not lying, but now that we know the virus last for about 14 days and have a basic idea of the death rate (and by that i mean, we are not all gonan die), there is no need for systematic tests beyond what they did. We can follow the exponential growth of the virus via their death count alone. And there is no such exponential growth, which is a good news. It's coherent with what China have been saying and the twitter war with trump about who started it. This being said, I heard people speculating that china is miraculously healing, and that's complete BS. They just stopped testing. Iluvalar (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2020

Moved to Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data § Jamaica update

 – MarioGom (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Google results

Apologies if this is not directly related to the article content, but someone pointed out today that we've been given the cold shoulder on this subject by Google. If you search for "coronavirus" the only Wikipedia entry, which appears well down the list of search results, is the general coronavirus article, which isn't directly linked to the current outbreak. I assume they've deliberately suppressed us (Wikipedia normally appears right near the top for most search terms), perhaps because they worry we might not be giving reliable information to the public. It would be interesting to know why.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed that, too. It's a shame. Although given the traffic this article is getting, people do seem to be finding their way here. Does anyone at WMF have connections to Google so they could ask about this for us? (And is there a way to ping the WMF?) I know that SEO stuff is tricky since Google is secretive about their algorithm and every entity on the planet is trying to boost their own ranking, but this is about the public's access to information, not self-promotion, so hopefully they'd at least listen. Sdkb (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Whatamidoing (WMF), since if I recall correctly you've helped out at WV before with SEO-related stuff. Sdkb (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Amakuru, The Coronavirus article already uses an {{About}} template in its header to direct people to the pandemic, 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic; the disease Coronavirus disease 2019; and the virus Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. As far as Google search go searching for "coronavirus wikipedia" gets me two Wikipedia links as the first two hits: the pandemic on top and the general virus article after it.--Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 23:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything of concern here nor any reason to think Google is deliberately suppressing us. Google's search results always depend significantly on where you're searching from, what you're searching for etc. While there is some broad level info, they're very secretive about how their rankings happens. But it's entirely plausible that the results have risen organically. For example, when I search for coronavirus I get [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. The only one you might say we should be ahead of is Worldometers. Well maybe also the first result, but then again that does illustrate it's not just that Google hates us if they give a weird result for us. I search for covid-19 I get more or less the same thing except the generic WHO result is gone but after the main WHO page, there is [27] and also Coronavirus disease 2019 replaces the pandemic article. True the pandemic article is no where in the top results, but then again the next result is [28] which frankly is probably useless for most people. Now here's the other thing. If I search those terms again without changing anything I get different results. One time I even got worldmeters first. True I've never seen Wikipedia at the exact top. But IMO this is reflective of the fact that there are a bunch of good timely sources on the outbreak, and we're also probably not the fastest to update numbers. So it's completely reasonable that other results are ahead of us since for better or worse, that's what people want. There are sometimes where I got some more questionable results, e.g. a news service ahead of us, but again I don't think we can read anything much into this. Nil Einne (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The results definitely vary, but from my anecdotal experience, this page is on the second page of Google results for "coronavirus", which means we'll be receiving very little traffic from that search, and reflects us not being as highly ranked as I'd say we ought to be. I don't think Google is deliberately suppressing us; if I had to guess, I'd say what's likely happening is that people at Google are panicking about misinformation and trying to combat that by including as many official results as possible, so they've filled up the first page with health agencies and pushed us off of it. Sdkb (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Except your anecdotal evidence is directly contrary to my anecdotal experience outlined above so..... Nil Einne (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

do we want to be the most viewed or highest ranked? Working for NSW Health I simultaneously edit this and have to recommend that it is not used as a resource. —Almaty (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

"Biggest global event since WW2" sentence in intro

A day or two ago the sentence Some commentators have called the pandemic the biggest global event since World War II. was added to the end of the intro.

References

I'm not sure that description is all that justifiable — although we don't yet know what the death toll of the virus will be, it's currently around 11,000, which absolutely pales in comparison to something like 220,000 deaths from the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami. And there's the entire Cold War. Even if the description is justifiable, I think we'd need better examples than Joe Scarborough saying so and an opinion piece from Axios. And even if we had stronger examples, tonally I think there are concerns about hystericizing. So, should we remove it? Sdkb (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

seeing as how such text might feed fear its probably best left out, for the time being--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

"Biggest" is ugly, "most significant" is better. Also "one of the most significant" better reflects the sources. --RaphaelQS (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The new version, The global socioeconomic impact of the pandemic has been compared by some commentators to such events as World War II, yet another example of implementation on this page without consensus, is significantly worse. The pandemic in its current state has caused nowhere near the socioeconomic disruption of WW2. I'm going to just take out the sentence. RaphaelQS, "most significant" would have been better than "biggest", but "significant" is still a vague term. Sdkb (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Sdkb, until a scholarly economic analysis can be produced to shown to quantify the economic impact of this pandemic in real terms above all other post-WWII events, the layman commentatariat should be treated as far from definitive. This thing hasn't even killed (yet) as many as the Great Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with RaphaelQS that "one of the most significant" would be better. Clearly it is a massively significant global event of huge magnitude, in terms of both the ongoing health crisis and the economic crisis. I think it would be acceptable to have one sentence in the lead such as "Some commentators have called the pandemic one of the most significant global events since World War II." But more sources to reflect this from well-known commentators would be better and therefore it's perhaps best left out until more sources emerge. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I was happy to see this go. It might be a valid point, but the sources don’t warrant inclusion in the lead. By the time WW2 had lasted as long as this has so far, there were about 85,000 military deaths and tens of thousands of civilian deaths. Multiply that by four for the impact on a world of 2 billion instead of 8.

What I disagree with most is that including that statement here lavishes attention (and money) on the “commentators” who made it. I didn’t check that they’d pass the standard of notability, but, if a statement like that is to appear in the lead, the standard is higher. If a head of state says that, we should include it. But, here, “biggest thing since WW2” is just an opinion, and so is “the <political group the commentator doesn’t like> is blowing this out of proportion”. We cannot reward a “commentator” for saying something first, especially if we ignore those who say the opposite. Roches (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2020

Please add the following text in: Impacts/Environment section. Add the text as a new paragraph, after the last sentence in the Environment section.

As a consequence of the unprecedented use of disposable face masks, significant numbers are entering the natural environment and in particular, to rivers and seawater. In some cases, the masks have been washed onto beaches where they are accumulating. This accumulation has been reported on beaches in Hong Kong and is expected to add to the worldwide burden of plastic waste and the detrimental effects of this waste to marine life. AntC55 (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Panic buying is not precise.

To quote NSW Health, There is no need to bulk-buy products at supermarkets including toilet paper, paracetamol and canned food. It is prudent for households to have a small stock of non-perishable groceries to cover the event that in the coming months the household has been asked to self-isolate for 14 days. However, it’s important to note the role of family and friends in supporting those in isolation and also to note that online grocery delivery services are now available in most areas of NSW. so there is rational reason to stock 14 days of non perishables. —Almaty (talk) 04:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the article is saying the panic buying is rational; just that it's happening. Sdkb (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

yes but some people are panic buying, some people are calmly following government recommendations, some are hoarding, and tis time to comment on the distinction. —Almaty (talk) 05:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

How do you make a distinction between "calmly following government recommendations" and "panic buying" Almaty?

Some governments have suggested those 70+ remain isolated for up to 14 weeks. Given that, I would certainly attempt to buy 14+ weeks of toilet paper, canned food and pasta supply — which of course is textbook panic buying... I don't think you can make a simple distinction.... Panic buying can be both rational and irrational — there isn't anything de facto irrational with panicking if the end-result of the panic is beneficial to the individual. Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I just propise that we don’t say panic buying anymore, for all the reasons noted. Bulk buying is a good term —Almaty (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

It’s still panic buying if it’s done by a person who doesn’t have a valid reason. It means that people who do have a valid reason can’t get things they need because someone bought 200 gallons of hand sanitizer “just in case”. We can’t change the terms we use, at any rate, unless sources do so first. Roches (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems churlish of talksters here not argue for the semantics of the word panic without reference to its wikipedia page - the page exists ! The precision called for here is, like so many words in the English language, open to the interpretation of its metaphoric root, and we must resist the pedantic. Indeed, the differentiation of the roots of panic and pandemic bear scrutiny rather nicely. There might be a better word whose mythic etymology resides in a biblical story for example - loaves and fishes perhaps? The Old Testament abounds with possibilities, but the insipid exegesis demonstrated here amounts to rather barren expatiation. Domskitect (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Limiting the countries covered in the domestic responses section

This page is already longer than it ought to be, and it's very much at risk of becoming bloated further. The domestic responses section is particularly at risk since everyone seems to want to add their home country (Egypt was just added, and I'm sure things are bad there as they are everywhere but we just don't have room). I can add a hidden warning to achieve consensus at talk before adding further countries, but that'll only do so much to stem the tide. Therefore, I think we need to come up with some criteria for which countries get a section and how long those sections can be. I think it's obvious that we need some individualized coverage of e.g. China, Iran, and that countries like e.g. Finland, Peru can safely be shunted to the "other" subsection, but there's a middle ground between them with e.g. the UK where I'm less sure. What are all your thoughts? Sdkb (talk) 05:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• 10,000 cases to be doubled every 5 days —Almaty (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  That cuts off South Korea, which has had a major response to the epidemic and perhaps has a lower case count because of it. But as a rough measure, yeah, that seems about right. Sdkb (talk) 07:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I would remove Japan, as many other countries are more affected, and as Japan is otherwise also not specifically notable for its response (unlike South Korea). Voorlandt (talk) 08:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Why is it a problem if this section includes summaries on every country that cares to add one? This might be the only page downloaded by some people for offline viewing, and as such the single only/best place to get an idea of the kind of responses from each country, at a glance? Also, what makes the US or UK special in any way? 169.0.60.231 (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Too many countries have cases of coronavirus, it is simply impractical to give all of them. I would say keep South Korea because it is cited in multiple notable sources as an example of a successful strategy in dealing with the outbreak. UK is not really necessary, although it attempted something quite different early on that seemed interesting, but it has since abandoned that. Japan is also unnecessary, although I think a brief mention (say a sentence or two) under the "Other countries" section may be warranted if the Olympics get cancelled. Italy as a separate entry is necessary I think, although I think perhaps a new section on other EU countries (or Europe) may be possible since many EU countries have seen significant outbreaks, and Italy can be placed as a subsection in that. Other individual European countries like Spain or Germany would not then not need their own separate sections. Hzh (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Change

In lithuania there's 69 people sick, 1 severe case, 1 dead now. You can check in the 'Epidemiology' section of the main page by pressing on lithuania. There are many refferences. Lukeris14 (talk) 06:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

CFR def'n oopsie?

It says "The case fatality rate of COVID-19 (that is, the fatality rate among the subset of infected individuals with symptoms)".

I am not an expert on the definition of CFR, but shouldn't it be something like "The case fatality rate of COVID-19 (that is, the fatality rate among the subset of infected individuals who have been diagnosed)".

An infected person without symptoms could be diagnosed (an asymptomatic "case"), and conversely an infected person who shows symptoms might not be diagnosed if medical care is not sought (probably mild symptoms, not-life-threatening).

(Also, I wonder, does a false positive diagnosis count as a "case" (included in the denominator)? Or an error in CFR?)

--Slieredna (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Slieredna The devil's in the detail. Any estimate of the CFR is subject to errors & omissions in both the diagnosis and the cause of death; when health services are strained as currently this will be especially the case. There's also a timing issue in an ongoing outbreak. The median time between diagnosis and death is 14 days. Currently there are 11k deaths and 277k cases (CFR = 3.9%) but 14 days ago the number of cases was about 100k so we can assume that today's 11k deaths came about in this group of 100k. That gives a crude CFR of 11% which is scary.

Now that Wuhan has zero new infections, both the deaths and the case count are stable so it's possible to calculate a more reliable CFR.

See also discussion further up [[29]]Robertpedley (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Transmission rewrite details & rationale

Hello, Wikipedians: I came to this article to simply read and became alarmed when I read the following sentence: "Droplets stay suspended in the air for only a short time in air at 65% relative humidity (RH) and 21 to 23 °C (70 to 73 °F),[224] but may stay viable and contagious on a metal, cardboard, glass or plastic surface.[225][226][227] "

The reference is titled "Coronavirus can persist in air for hours and on surfaces for days: study", yet is joined improperly to the statement "Droplets stay suspended in the air for only a short time in air" as if it supports the statement. It says the opposite; the van Dormalen article reported worldwide and summarized in the Gene Emery article in Reuters, says the droplets remain infectious in the air for up to three hours. This is a serious error as it misinforms people about COVID-19 transmission.

Transmission is the heart of this article and the one section people will want to read. I understand this to be a good faith edit; 3 hours is quite a short time to be at Disneyland, but quite a long time for infectious particles to remain in the air. This study has been reported worldwide to the extent that people on the streets have heard about it. This finding means it is plausible that someone can potentially sneeze in a room in a public arena, walk out, have someone else walk in and become infected, hours later.

I began to look at every link to see whether the article says what the citation claims it is saying. There are too many errors not to do a re-write. There is a citation error that creates a misquote of the Appendix summary article, which never refers to the studies' findings as being a "short time", and another error by joining these two independent clauses with a comma, when the articles do not say what the citation says they do.

I separated the two clauses with a period. I checked the references, and confirmed using a word processor that the van Doremalen article has a summary (the Emery article, with a bare URL), and a [preprint from March 13. However, van Doremalen The New England Journal of Medicine article itself with the actual study that found the 3-hour aerosol viability was not here. So I added it.

I added a blockquote for the finding (van Dormalen) summarized by Emery, "The tests show that when the virus is carried by the droplets released when someone coughs or sneezes, it remains viable, or able to still infect people, in aerosols for at least three hours." I left the period inside the quotation mark, because this is a quote from America, as per MOS. This is an easy summary to help readers get the main point.

I added context about how the study was done. Until this study, behavior on surface was uncertain. The second part of the original sentence, saying it "may" stay viable is vague. The Appendix summary shows the data, and the findings need to be reported. I changed a citation error caused that misquoted the Gene Emery summary in Reuters (17 March 2020).

I summarized the findings of the study on viability tested different environments (air, copper, cardboard, stainless steel, and plastic). Added references from CNN and NIH. I made several changes to references (name order, wls, etc). I took out the bare URL and created a link for the Appendix (technical details) page. I then wove material up from the bottom, where there had been two subjects in a single paragraph. I moved one to incorporate into the news about the two SARS viruses' similarities. The other stated it was thought the virus lives on surfaces like other coronaviruses but it wasn't known. This was mis-referenced to material that does not say that. I moved it to join another reference where it is an accurate citation. Also, the material on the two viruses now makes the point that they both may be super-spreaders, which is important to include.

Tying two sentences together (which have their own references) with a comma requires scrutiny that the statement is accurate. I encourage you keep all edits, especially on this global pandemic page, crisp and clean and closely tied to their source. If anyone makes a good faith edit hoping to make the language more friendly by using a comma in this way, I suggest you treat it instantly as an error and undo.

I do these kinds of complicated edits in my word processor. Other editors therefore will not see the step-by-step process with edit summaries, that is why I am leaving this summary report. Thank you for your time in reading these explanatory notes. I preserved all that I was able. Here is a permanent link to the page on March 21, 2020 the time of my edit.

Having not seen this article before (I came here to read it, not to put on my editor's cap), I thank all editors who have been working hard to write it in such a short period of time. It is a remarkable effort, and the visuals in particular, including diagrams, are exceptional.Al Leluia81 (talk) 07:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

thanks al leluia but I worry we are overemphasising one study as opposed to the WHO, ECDC, and CDC as WP:MEDRS compliant sources. They conflict and they don’t clearly explain their rationale when they do. —Almaty (talk) 07:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Area now accurate. WHO does not seem to disagree.Al Leluia81 (talk) 08:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding current impact based on data from WHO

References

• Note: A similar request was made at Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_by_country_and_territory#Impact. Sdkb (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Worldometer vs JHU (CSSE)?

Which is better and for which reasons? JHU has erroneous data for both Austria and Italy. I'm certainly not an expert, but I think consensus should be arrived at here before someone unilaterally decides on the JHU site. MattSucci (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

when we call it erroneous, are we just saying that it’s a little bit behind? We are a WP:NOTNEWS encyclopaedia and we can certainly afford to be a little bit behind, I wholeheartedly disagree with the media statements made in relation to this above. —Almaty (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Please, see Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data § Worldometers/WOMC: we have a problem. Worldometers is great to prioritize countries and find some sources (in their Latest Updates section) but a few times per day they post wrong data. Sometimes because of a transcription error (e.g. Spain a few days ago), sometimes because they use unreliable sources (e.g. viral WhatsApp audio in Angola). Once they post a number based on wrong data, I haven't seen them fixing it by lowering the count in any case. I don't think it meets Wikipedia standards for reliable sources at all (WP:RS). --MarioGom (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

yes I’ve been saying this for weeks like a broken record. —Almaty (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

And I have seen JHU with erroneous info too, and strange country names, as if vandalised. I think either can be used, but need to be checked for errors. In the short run we may copy some errors,but it will soon change, and a suitable comment in the table can point out where things go wrong and not to use the particular site (like for Switzerland). JHU is more opaque than WOM where the information comes from. BNO is even more convenient to find sources, but it too has errors at times. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

For countries that have an official or otherwise stable reliable source updated daily (or even hourly), I think there is no value at all in using WOMC just to get a possibly unreliable figure just a few hours in advance. For others, I prefer looking for reliable sources in the press. --MarioGom (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

More specificity about the 5 day incubation period

This is a reference that I want to put into the main paragraph, https://dx.doi.org/10.7326/M20-0504 -- we know with good confidence that the onset is really around 5 days, and that the vast majority of covid-19 symptoms will appear within that 14 day quarantine, subject to caveats as stated in the paper. --HappyCamper 11:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2020

zimbabwe has 3 cases 41.246.30.236 (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Move moratorium

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

Forward dating to prevent auto archiving. Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - We need to focus on the content, not the title. What the final title will be hinges on what the end-point of this pandemic ends up being: we should be wary about trying to title the current incident while living through it. doktorb _words^deeds 20:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
2. Support The last move was pretty disruptive, taking the usual editors to move all other related pages and updating them to conform to the new page name of this main article. Let's wait for the pandemic to stabilise first (be it for good or bad). robertsky (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
3. Support a 30 day move moratorium, unless and new consensus to lift this moratorium occurs before then. - MrX 🖋 21:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
4. Support. The renamings 3 time a day is ridiculous. Iluvalar (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
5. Support. This is clearly a long-running distraction that has been affecting this page and its related subpages. Carrots have stopped working, so it's time for the stick. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
6. Support. I think that there are reasonable arguments for COVID-19 rather than coronavirus, but there are also good counterarguments, and any proposal along these lines wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being seen as a priority right now. We can get back to this in six to twelve months' time. The change to pandemic was justified, but any other changes (such as from coronavirus to COVID-19, or in terms of the year(s)), are minor matters compared to the content. I propose at least a 3-month moratorium. Boud (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
7. Support. This is clearly needed now, as yet another RM comes along on yet another triviality. Obviously moratoria are not suicide pacts - if something radically changes in the real world, then of course we're allowed to think again. But for now the current names enjoy solid consensus and we should have the ability to shut down quickly the never-ending attempts at moves between the different names, when nothing has radically changed.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
8. In the last 2 weeks, there have been about 13 requested moves, many of which have been speedily closed per SNOW. In the last RM, some editors supported the idea of a moratorium. Therefore, I request that there be a moratorium for the next 3 months on page moves, as having these daily requests is becoming very disruptive. Three months should be long enough for the pandemic to die down somewhat and by then we should all have the time to look more closely at the requests without being bogged down by the rapidly evolving situation currently going on. Thanks. Mgasparin (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
9. would support such action--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
10. Support the standard six month moratorium. No move proposals on this page before September. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 'Oppose': I notice there was some WP:RM recently, but most of them seems to too focus on "wanting to close" despite some merit on the RM starter side. I want to restrict users from attempting to enforce additional rules that would censor voices in RM and prevent users from using vote "Speedy Close" or having it closed for WP:SNOW. Wants them to keep RM open for 7 days no matter how much were started after another. Regice2020 (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Speedy Close As this issue been reviewed. It apparently there is a group individuals wants to prevent name changes unless it fits their "groups" agenda by proposal ridiculous amount rules to restrict voices from the other side. This the regular way to request a move and just make sure no other move are active Request Move Request. The users are following the instructions and these individuals are not allowing it last longer than 1 day for wahtever reason. Regice2020 (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose: we moved too slowly on removing "Wuhan" from the article title. A move moratorium is too extreme of a solution to this problem. We should remain adaptable. This may be for another discussion, but I propose we only allow one move request or move review to be open at a time. This makes sense because move requests/reviews technically conflict with each other. For example, we can move from "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic" to "2019–20 COVID-19 pandemic" or to "2019–20 SARS-CoV-2 pandemic" but not to both. In practice, this means any move request started while a request or move review is still ongoing gets closed immediately, and all discussion redirected to the active move discussion. I am still thinking of how to close the loophole of people NACing a move discussion early just so they can post their own. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 07:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment

• We have proven that we are able to deal with multiple move requests, and we cannot predict the future. So let’s just be the encyclopaedia that we are, and just deal with them when they arise. —49.195.179.13 (talk) 05:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Instead of a formal move request that puts a notice on top of the page, start an informal discussion on this page first to float the ideas. I think almost all of these move requests are wasting effort. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  I support this option. A moratorium on move request notices, not on move discussions. -St.nerol (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  Support this as well. --Efly (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  I support this. Sdkb (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think this is just part of a larger issue of settled matters being dredged up again and again on this talk page. It's indicative of the need for a "current consensuses" banner, as has been proposed below, and is basically awaiting someone to create it. Sdkb (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

North Korea has no coronavirus cases and it has suspected cases

South Korea is a most cases and North Korea has no cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.210.45 (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2020

In Kyrgyzstan 14 cases confirmed I am resident of Kyrgyzstan please update — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabir hussain72 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)