Talk:COVID-19 pandemic

Highlighted open discussions

• #RfC - Limiting the countries covered in the domestic responses section

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
[[Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

01. Superseded by #9

The first few sentences of the lead's second paragraph should state The virus is typically spread during close contact and via respiratory droplets produced when people cough or sneeze. Respiratory droplets may be produced during breathing but the virus is not considered airborne. It may also spread when one touches a contaminated surface and then their face. It is most contagious when people are symptomatic, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear. (RfC March 2020)

02. Superseded by #7

The infobox should feature a per capita count map most prominently, and a total count by country map secondarily. (RfC March 2020)

03. Obsolete

The article should not use {{Current}} at the top. (March 2020)

04. Do not include a sentence in the lead section noting comparisons to World War II. (March 2020)

05. Cancelled

Include subsections covering the domestic responses of Italy, China, Iran, the United States, and South Korea. Do not include individual subsections for France, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia and Japan. (RfC March 2020) Include a short subsection on Sweden focusing on the policy controversy. (May 2020)

Subsequently overturned by editing and recognized as obsolete. (July 2024)

06. Obsolete

There is a 30 day moratorium on move requests until 26 April 2020. (March 2020)

07. There is no consensus that the infobox should feature a confirmed cases count map most prominently, and a deaths count map secondarily. (May 2020)

08. Superseded by #16

The clause on xenophobia in the lead section should read ...and there have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people and against those perceived as being Chinese or as being from areas with high infection rates. (RfC April 2020)

09. Cancelled

Supersedes #1. The first several sentences of the lead section's second paragraph should state The virus is mainly spread during close contact and by small droplets produced when those infected cough, sneeze or talk. These droplets may also be produced during breathing; however, they rapidly fall to the ground or surfaces and are not generally spread through the air over large distances. People may also become infected by touching a contaminated surface and then their face. The virus can survive on surfaces for up to 72 hours. Coronavirus is most contagious during the first three days after onset of symptoms, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear and in later stages of the disease. (April 2020)

Notes

On 17:16, 6 April 2020, these first several sentences were replaced with an extracted fragment from the coronavirus disease 2019 article, which at the time was last edited at 17:11.

010. The article title is COVID-19 pandemic. The title of related pages should follow this scheme as well. (RM April 2020, RM August 2020)

011. The lead section should use Wuhan, China to describe the virus's origin, without mentioning Hubei or otherwise further describing Wuhan. (April 2020)

012. Superseded by #19

The lead section's second sentence should be phrased using the words first identified and December 2019. (May 2020)

013. Superseded by #15

File:President Donald Trump suggests measures to treat COVID-19 during Coronavirus Task Force press briefing.webm should be used as the visual element of the misinformation section, with the caption U.S. president Donald Trump suggested at a press briefing on 23 April that disinfectant injections or exposure to ultraviolet light might help treat COVID-19. There is no evidence that either could be a viable method. (1:05 min) (May 2020, June 2020)

014. Overturned

Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article. (RfC May 2020) This result was overturned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, as there is consensus that there is no consensus to include or exclude the lab leak theory. (RfC May 2024)

015. Supersedes #13. File:President Donald Trump suggests measures to treat COVID-19 during Coronavirus Task Force press briefing.webm should not be used as the visual element of the misinformation section. (RfC November 2020)

016. Supersedes #8. Incidents of xenophobia and discrimination are considered WP:UNDUE for a full sentence in the lead. (RfC January 2021)

017. Only include one photograph in the infobox. There is no clear consensus that File:COVID-19 Nurse (cropped).jpg should be that one photograph. (May 2021)

018. Superseded by #19

The first sentence is The COVID-19 pandemic, also known as the coronavirus pandemic, is a global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). (August 2021, RfC October 2023)

019. Supersedes #12 and #18. The first sentence is The global COVID-19 pandemic (also known as the coronavirus pandemic), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), began with an outbreak in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. (June 2024)

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)

I have no objection to including this map, and I agree that death reporting may be more accurate. Note 1: death data is somewhat biased due to mean age of population in different countries, and to varying quality of available treatment. Note 2: there is a lag (on average, 1-2 weeks) between infection and death. Therefore this map does not represent the severity of infection at the present time, unlike the reported cases map. 77.125.33.156 (talk) 23:23, 21 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))

Can someone please add the number of Moroccan cases up to 109, as confirmed today by the health minister of Morocco — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.253.146.186 (talk) 15:56, 22 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)
• Percentage map Please, it could be good to show a map with the figures in percentages (%) of death people for each national population. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.214.62 (talk) 09:31, 22 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)

I've asked for help with the data at the China pandemic article; they could really use a table just for themselves, but it'd also be helpful for you. Hopefully they'll get on it. Regarding finding a blank map, I'm guessing it exists somewhere, but as I've never created a map before, I'm not the best person to find it. Can someone else help us out with that? Sdkb (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The data is not a problem; my script on Commons now calculates deaths per million people for Chinese provinces and for Italian regions. I need the map. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky: Will this work? File:Blank Map World Secondary Political Divisions.svg Sdkb (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

It could be made to work, I think, but it is not so straightfoward, e.g. the Chinese provinces have ids but no titles, e.g. search for "Hubei" finds nothing in that svg. And the svg is large, so what the script should probably do is pick Chinese province elements from File:Blank Map World Secondary Political Divisions.svg and add it to File:BlankMap-World.svg. However, I am too tired, and I am unlikely to spend more effort in making the script produce a map with Chinese provinces in the coming days; I am sorry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:06, 22 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)
• Update There are two new maps which show the stats per capita for each country based on the UN Population Division statistics for 2019. Even better, this new dataset allowed me to implement Sdkb's request for displaying country names even when the Johns Hopkins dataset has no COVID data for that country. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:31, 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)

@Wugapodes: I'm going to go ahead and implement the cases per capita timeline. Again, great work! Sdkb (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, done! One thing I notice, though, is that I had to make it pretty small to avoid causing the infobox from jumping out too much. Is there any way to implement it so that clicking on it would bring up a larger version? Sdkb (talk) 00:44, 22 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)

At present in many tables it looks like China is still the problem as they lead the rankings in confirmed cases. This gives a wrong impression. China is the country which has successfully fought back against the virus and every country should take them as an example. In order to do so, China needs to move down in the rankings. To all those who are against showing active cases, let me ask you, where would you rather be in China or Germany/Italy/Spain at the moment? Recoveries are coming automatically, in case you are infected the typically length of being sick is 3-6 weeks. That means all confirmed cases more than 6 weeks ago are either dead or recovered. So in case there is no information about recoveries you can use this as a bottom estimate in the recoveries column, which is needed to be shown. As long as you write somewhere the definition of active cases as to be done here "confirmed cases-recoveries-deaths" its fine, nobody will complain. The main purpose of the page is to induce proper action. If people in the US see, that they have less confirmed cases than China why worry. So by not adding active cases and percentages to previous days you are making yourself guilty of people still taking it lightly and infecting and killing others. Don't worry too much about the exact numbers, estimates are still better than not showing numbers at all, as long as you are making clear how the numbers are derived its fine. Its about saving lifes now, not about some nitpicking. Robads (talk) 22:46, 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)

I don't understand how your link relates to sourcing of a wiki. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 18:03, 21 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)

Coronavirus_disease_2019#Prevention User:SmokeyJoe Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:32, 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 [8]. 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)

We now have an infectious disease physician who has weighted in here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:20, 22 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 most 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 [9], 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)

If we have sources to that effect Robertpedley — I think we should describe that as well. On the whole, I also agree with Surfingdan: It is a good compromize to give the range of calculations; give one or two WHO-published major estimates, and then to describe the uncertainty.

We will likely see a large change in the numbers in April, not only because the pandemic progresses, but also because new antibody-tests are being produced, and European countries will start testing asymptomatic people for whether they've had COVID without knowing it, which a fair few actually may have. Carl Fredrik ^talk 13:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of academic sources discussing the CFR: see Talk:Coronavirus_disease_2019#Case_Fatality_Rate_is_falling_dramatically_and_currently_0.7%_-_from_WHO. We can write useful text, describing a range of fatality rates, using WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. We don't have to calculate anything ourselves. Bondegezou (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

After the current text that "The crude mortality ratio (reported deaths divided by reported cases) is 3 to 4% per the World Health Organization as of 6 March 2020.[220] However, the reported rate varies by country, age, and other health problems.[221]" I feel that caveats also need to be added that there is a big risk of "sample bias" in reported numbers of cases and death ratios, and that fatality rates will likely decrease over time, as has been the case in other pandemics, such as Swine Flu. Firstly, some governments have openly admitted that they have focused testing mostly on the seriously ill, and yet it has been known for some time - including by the WHO - that most people who contract the disease have only mild symptoms. This means that (as mentioned above in the epidemiology section) numbers of cases may be underestimated - which in turn means that mortality ratios will be over-estimated (as they are simply deaths divided by cases). Secondly, countries that have done the most testing - notably Germany - are reporting far lower fatality rates. Thirdly, a very similar situation was observed with Swine Flu - there was a wide variation across countries in initial fatality rate estimates (0.1% to 5%), these then decreased over time, and the final WHO estimate ending up being 5 times less than the lowest initial estimate (0.02%). Fourthly, this has already been recorded in China, where initial very high case fatality rates (17.3% - for people with symptoms 1 - 10 January) decreased massively to just 0.7% (for those with symptom onset after 1 February). There is thus a very big risk that current mortality (or fatality) rate estimates are currently being over-estimated in most countries, and it is likely they will decrease significantly in future when more testing has been undertaken, especially of those with only mild symptoms.Surfingdan (talk) 21:39, 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 [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], 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 [16] 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 [17] 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)

No comment on that part. As an update though, earlier just after I posted the above, I did a few searches for coronavirus in incognito and logged in and any Wikipedia results did show up on the second page. But now I've done 2 incognito for coronavirus and the pandemic page was somewhere similar to what I outlined above. IMO this just illustrates my point. Anecdotal Google search results are often not very meaningful. If someone had tried with multiple different IPs and without Google accounts logged in, or multiple different Google accounts with very different histories and locations etc, and over multiple different time periods. Maybe conclusions could be drawn about our location. Otherwise not really except maybe that we're often not within the top 3. (Even this I'd be reluctant to say for sure from the available data.) Further note that although I sometimes see the EU page, the extra stuff before Wikipedia was largely news sources like the New York Times, Al Jazeera etc. There are by no means "official" results. And I'm unconvinced that Google would purposely fiddle with the results to give them higher priority than us. For the Healthline, WHO, CDC results, let me say again given the way Google works, it's entirely reasonable these would arise organically without them needing to do anything. Nil Einne (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

Roches — I'm saying that it's panic buying even if it is for a valid reason. Not wanting to be caught out is a valid enough reason — but is also still panic buying. If you know that toilet paper tends to be out in the store, you're totally rational in buying twice as many rolls as normal in an attempt to avoid it being out of stock when you need it the next time — yet you're still engaging in a collective panic buy, even if you're totally rational about it.

Mass psychology is extremely interesting because it can be irrational at once scale, and rational on another — in the same way that extreme fear and avoiding all contact is irrational for any one individual, but can collectively stop an outbreak. So, there is no reason to stop talking about panic buying, we need to accept that this is the terminology, and that you can be totally rational about panic buying. Carl Fredrik ^talk 13:20, 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)

Panic buying ≠ panic. Carl Fredrik ^talk 13:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Almaty, you've changed the intro to link to bulk buying instead. That page is not relevant; it refers specifically to buying large quantities so that they can at a reduced price, which is not what's going to happen here. I'm going to revert, as I don't see consensus here to change away from panic buying. Sdkb (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I support your revert Sdkb -- Carl Fredrik ^talk 19:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Unintended consequences are missing in the article. As for "panic" a little cheer up that explains everything here.--TMCk (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC - 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)

Only the more severe outbreaks (judged by the death numbers) should be listed. In my opinion, that includes at the moment Italy, China, Iran, Spain. And possibly France. Then optionally the US and the UK. The fact France, and its lockdown, is absent from the page while the UK is described is quite strange. Mayfoev (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, the fair way to do it would be to only list those countries whereby the situation in that country was/is noteworthy and comparatively unique. Whether that be particularly bad outbreaks (China, Italy, Iran) or for some other reason, like particularly effective strategies (e.g Singapore), or like in the UK where the government defied the strategy of most other countries in their response and received backlash. Naturally this will include countries like the US (Trump controversy etc.) and exclude other ones (Germany, France etc.). Countries with moderate outbreaks, or those which had/have responses that are similar to many other countries are not noteworthy and should therefore be only explained fully in their own separate article. Please say if you agree/disagree. How will we know when we have consensus on this? Magna19 (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Magna19: Good question. I've added polls for specific countries below to better gauge that. Sdkb (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Thank you. I have replaced Japan with Singapore using above criteria for now. I will vote below. Would it be better to use 'include' instead of 'keep' and 'exclude' instead of 'remove' given some countries listed here are not currently included in the article? Magna19 (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it would, thank you. I've refactored. Sdkb (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Country Polls

Please vote below with either Include or Exclude for each country. Please keep explanation minimal, and discuss overall criteria above. Sdkb (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Italy

• Include Sdkb (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include Magna19 (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include Bondegezou (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include Worst hit in Europe. Hzh (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include --Calthinus (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include — RealFakeKimT 17:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

China

• Include Sdkb (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include Magna19 (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include Bondegezou (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include A must even if, let's say, other countries have worst outbreak later on. Hzh (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include --Calthinus (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include — RealFakeKimT 17:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Iran

• Include Sdkb (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include Magna19 (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include large number of cases --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include Bondegezou (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include Worse hit in Asia outside of China, cases possibly greatly under-reported. Hzh (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include --Calthinus (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include — RealFakeKimT 17:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Spain

• Exclude - EU section? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include Bondegezou (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include no of cases -Magna19 (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude if a EU section is created Hzh (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include — RealFakeKimT 17:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

France

• Exclude Magna19 (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude - EU section? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include Bondegezou (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude if a section on EU is created. Hzh (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude — RealFakeKimT 17:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

United States

• Include - sheer size of the country. Plus Trump controversies etc. make more noteworthy Magna19 (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include - agree with above --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include Bondegezou (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include especially as the US is rising to the top of the chart.--Calthinus (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include — RealFakeKimT 17:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

United Kingdom

• Include - noteworthy and unique in its very relaxed approach. Only just imposed restrictions. Magna19 (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include- controversial approach has been reversed but interesting --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include Bondegezou (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude if there is a Europe section. Hzh (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Hzh - Though still technically in Europe as a continent, it would just get continually changed due to editors' Brexit opinions etc (sigh), better and easier to leave as separate section. Magna19 (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Include for its distinct approach --Calthinus (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include — RealFakeKimT 17:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Germany

• Exclude An interesting case of low number of deaths, but may go into an EU/Europe section. Hzh (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude- EU section? Reporting in Germany does not seem reliable/comparable to other countries. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include — RealFakeKimT 17:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Netherlands

• Exclude Sdkb (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude Magna19 (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude - EU section? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude Bondegezou (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude Unimportant Hzh (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude — RealFakeKimT 17:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

South Korea

• Include Magna19 (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include - Best practice without lockdown. Over 50 million population and cases declining fast from a major outbreak --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include Example of a successful strategy in dealing with the outbreak without draconian measures. The now lower number of cases compared to other country is an indication of success. Hzh (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include --Calthinus (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include — RealFakeKimT 17:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Japan

• Exclude similar response to quite a few other countries, moderate outbreak. Magna19 (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude — RealFakeKimT 17:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Singapore

• Include - noteworthy and unique in its effectiveness at combating the virus. Magna19 (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude - small country and not so effective now --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Gtoffoletto, although most countries will inevitably end up with lots of cases, I would say it would be right to add one country thought by most to have best tackled the crisis. At the moment, Singapore fits that criteria the best. Please consider changing response based on this, if not then I would be happy to replace it if a more suitable country can be suggested and agreed upon? Magna19 (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Magna19 South Korea is the country you are thinking of. Over 50 million population and cases declining fast from a major outbreak without lockdown. Cases in Singapore are growing fast unfortunately and pop is tiny. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Gtoffoletto, thanks for the info. I will remove sub-section on Singapore for now but will add again depending on any additional votes. Magna19 (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude Too small to be significant. Hzh (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include — RealFakeKimT 17:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Australia

• Exclude - Magna19 (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude -Almaty (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude Bondegezou (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude Unimportant. Hzh (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude — RealFakeKimT 17:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

European Union

• Include- how about creating something for the general European approach where we can group most other European countries except particularly noteworthy ones such as Italy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtoffoletto (talk • contribs) 13:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include - if a grouping of less-affected EU countries can be agreed. Magna19 (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include Covers all other major EU countries except Italy, but must not include minor ones. Possibly titled "Europe" rather than "European Union". Hzh (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude -- until some grouping of "less affected EU countries" is formulated by experts and/or the media, this seems like OR on our part and entirely subjective. --Calthinus (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include As said by Magna19 — RealFakeKimT 17:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Leaning include under the name "Europe". While I'm sympathetic to the concern that the situation in Spain is not the same as that in Poland, and I honestly don't know how much coordination there is between EU countries, there are certainly a lot of similarities between them, and that should make it possible to turn this into a section. 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Europe appears under-developed, so it doesn't give as much guidance as to what the section could look like as I'd hoped when I just checked it out. Perhaps someone should re-write the intro to that and then insert it as an {{Excerpt}} here. Sdkb (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Ordering

Another question we need to answer that seems to be somewhat arbitrary in the article currently: how do we order the countries we do include? I think it definitely makes sense to list China first, given that chronologically it was facing this before anywhere else. After that, we could go either by first reported case to try to keep some semblance of chronology, or by highest case/death count to list the most prominent examples first. What's your preference? Sdkb (talk) 05:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I think by first reported case is probably best. Saves changing the order if one of the countries overtakes another in case numbers. Magna19 (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding current impact based on data from WHO

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Givingbacktosociety (talk • contribs)

• 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)

Sdkb — I think I see what you're getting at showing these graphs, but would you mind clarifying the legend and providing suitable captions? Does the graph auto-update? If not, I'm uncertain if we will want to include 2 day old data. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The graphs will not autoupdate. And WHO report is updated once a day.Givingbacktosociety (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

CFCF: Oops, the edit request was made by Givingbacktosociety, not me. I think my note may have confused sinebot into not adding their signature; I've added one manually. Givingbacktosociety, please remember to sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~). Sdkb (talk) 16:31, 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)

not a review[18]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:42, 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)
11. Support — I thought we had a moratorium already. Carl Fredrik ^talk 13:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
12. Support Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:58, 21 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)
3. Oppose: Reflecting accuracy in titles is as important, if not more so, then the content. Sun Creator^(talk) 14:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
4. Oppose: we can handle move requests OK. There is no need for a moratorium. Bondegezou (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
5. Oppose this is a current event so there's a reasonable chance of things changing and thus a different title could easily be desirable however maybe we should consider not adding the move notice template added by RMCD bot? Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:04, 21 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)
• Allowing users follow the "leave it open 7 days rule" no matter what is the best optionRegice2020 (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  Even with that rule, we have chaos. That rule alone still allows, for example, three concurrent (and mutually exclusive) move discussions. Furthermore, WP:SNOW closing has proven effective in controlling the discussions. I wanted to propose, in addition to what I have in my oppose !vote, that only admins close move discussions for the next month or so, as RfA usually selects those who have good understanding of policy. Problem is that we'd have to have a few admins watch this page like a hawk, close any new move discussions as they happen, and redirect the existing one...we're already strapped for admins as it is. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Sex death figures

Hello everyone, it would be nice to show the figures between sexes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.214.62 (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

thank you for suggestion--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I oppose this, unless there's evidence of a major difference in mortality rates. There's no need to split everything in life by gender just since it's the most obvious category. Sdkb (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

There is evidence of a major difference in mortality rates (although it might be explainable by other factors). doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30117-X summarises various findings. Bondegezou (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC on first sentence on spread of the disease

What should the first sentence on spread of the disease in the lead of our article be? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Option 1

"The virus is believed to spread between people primarily via respiratory droplets produced during coughing."

Based on two sources:

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."

Vote

• Support as we have two excellent sources that support coughing as being important. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• support sources indicate coughing--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support for option #1, given the sources. Unless there are high quality sources to support the uncertainity expressed in the comment below, I feel that option 2 is confusing for readers, especially given both sources highlight coughing as the "main" and "mainly" route of spread. JenOttawa (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose very misleading, you can't positively assert something which, evidenced by this dispute and listed sources, clearly has a large enough degree of doubt. Magna19 (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  It says "is believed to", so where do you see "positively assert"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose passive voice. This type of sentence should not be used on Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 16:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• we have to use the passive voice if the sources do. Thought to and seems to are both accurate as per the CDC and the ECDC. —Almaty (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Note: The WHO says "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." SarahSV ^(talk) 21:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• note that the CDC now emphasises close contact over coughing. Based on what is currently known about COVID-19 and what is known about other coronaviruses, spread is thought to occur mostly from person-to-person via respiratory droplets among close contacts. Close contact can occur while caring for a patient, including: being within approximately 6 feet (2 meters) of a patient with COVID-19 for a prolonged period of time. That should virtually settle the discussion. —Almaty (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Option 2

"The virus seems to spread between people mostly via respiratory droplets."

based on the same source above from the WHO stating “cough and exhale” in the appropriate section, the CDC stating cough or sneeze and also ECDC stating “cough sneeze or exhale”.

Vote

• Support There is uncertainty here that is not conveyed in the first option. The WHO quote that is quoted above is not in the bulk of their sources, they say cough and exhale, in virtually all of their sources, including in the one selectively quoted above. The CDC very carefully say “Is thought to”, and the ECDC say “seems to”. All three agree respiratory droplets, but not “primarily”, that is WP:SYNTH —-Almaty (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support In the WHO's Q&A on coroanvirus (COVID-19) it clearly says "coughs or exhales" (my italics), so it would appear that WHO and CDC have a slight disagreement. Saying "respiratory droplets" without further qualification covers both bases. The Parson's Cat (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The WHO source says "The main way the disease spreads is through respiratory droplets expelled by someone who is coughing." Sure it can spread a lot of ways but the first sentence should talk about what is believed to be the main way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support Should not word as if respiratory droplets are exclusive to coughing when there are top sources that also state sneezing, as well as simple exhalation (verbal communication). Better to include all bases and stick to the facts than positively assert something which has a big shadow of doubt attached to it. Magna19 (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Option 3 does the job (typically) for the lead, and doesn't pretend that we know more than we do. There are many ways the virus can spread, and they can't all be explored in the lead. The full extent of methods of transmission should be covered in the body of the article; the lead is a brief summary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose use of weasel words "seems to". Seems to whom? Jehochman ^Talk 16:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • seems to the ECDC and the CDC because they don’t know, and therefore we don’t know. Only the WHO asserts to know which I think is a bit inappropriate... but if the two reliable sources vs the one, we have to include the massive qualifier. —Almaty (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "seems to" is a language tool to indicate uncertainty, an English idiom. Similar phrases include "is thought to" and "is believed to". The same can be phrased using more pompous language like "The best scientific evidence suggests", to little or no benefit. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Option 3

The virus is typically spread from one person to another via respiratory droplets produced during coughing.

Based on two sources:

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... Between people who are in close contact with one another, ...through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes."

Vote

• Support, don't pretend we know more than we do ... typically does the job. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Happy with this aswell. In fact I think User:SandyGeorgia wording is better than what I proposed above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• It's not mine ... I took it from COVID-19, which I was just reading because there is so much content there that needs to come here, and because this article is rife with non-MEDRS sources in the medical content. I don't know why this is happening here when COVID-19 is already worded better in many cases and hope someone (hint, hint) will start importing content from there and removing non-MEDRS sources in medical content from here. We are re-inventing the wheel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• support I like this option, an improvement in clarity over option #2. JenOttawa (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• JenOttawa, typo? This is option #3 :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• strong oppose as this doesn’t even convey the CDCs uncertainty, they very clearly say thought to. And with Dan polanskis expert analysis below of the words, we cannot use this option.—Almaty (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose still links droplets to coughing in an exclusive way which would be misleading and inaccurate. Multiple sources including exhalation and sneezing, for the sake of a few more words, why not just include them? Magna19 (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support this correct summary of what the sources say. Jehochman ^Talk 16:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Except that one sources indicates uncertainty and this option does not. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
    • "typically" indicates uncertainty. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Not really. "typically" indicates distribution or frequency. "It seems X" really is not synonymous with "Typically X". Like, "it seems it's going to rain tomorrow" is not synonymous with "typically it's going to rain tomorrow"; the latter does not even make sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Let's suppose I have a very good knowledge of the means of spread, and I know that in 80% of cases, the spread is of type A, and in 20% cases, the spread is of type B. Then I can say, "typically, the spread is of type A". But if I am uncertain about the distribution, I cannot say "typically" and be positive about it. This is why one source says "The virus is thought to spread mainly ..."; "typically" is actually near-synonymous to "mainly", and the uncertainty expressed in "thought to" is missing in option 3. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
        • I think it is good enough. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
          • why is near enough good enough? You have said this quite a bit in your edit summaries on the issue. “Fine” isn’t “fine” when it isn’t a replication of the source, especially when an inappropriate overemphasis on coughing, solely, could lead to people maintaining distance only when people are coughing. The emphasis has changed, the ECDC says it clearest, the WHO has said the whole time, and you surely can respect that. They are equally reliable sources, so we have to include all their thoughts about the most important thing in the lead for readers without healthcare access all across the world. —Almaty (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
            • Typically is good because we know coughed droplets are the main source of spreading. What's uncertain is if there are other, but lesser means. Jehochman ^Talk 18:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
              • CDC says "thought to [...] mainly [...]" where above I read "we know coughed droplets are the main source", emphasis mine; CDC does not indicate they are positive. I recommend reading carefully the CDC sentence. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
              • you’re right User:Dan Polansky the CDC does not know whether the coughed droplets are the main source. The WHO asserts that it does, for arugably political reasons so the message gets through clearer. Unfortunately, they appear to be backtracking one this. However, they have “bet both ways” I guess by repetitively including “exhale”. Which is unusual —Almaty (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
              • Many will feel I am arguing semantics, and it may seem so, but the difference is quite important in practical terms. Since, if we think that mode A is the main means of spread but are pretty uncertain, that means that B can be the main means of spread, and that has impact on risk management; in that case, we should heavily mitigate against A but probably also against B since we think it quite possible and not entirely improbable that B is the main means of spread. (Whatever A and B are.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• support per Jehochman --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support - This option seems to best paraphrase the authoritative sources. - MrX 🖋 19:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Please consider the full CDC, WHO, and ECDC statements on transmission copied in the discussion section at the end of this thread. - Wikmoz (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support - We aim to write clear, correct, concise, comprehensible, and consistent prose. Option #3 accomplishes this goal better than any other option.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 04:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support As a normal person, if I was to read the options 1-6, I think I would like reading 3 the best, just because the other options sounds "iffy" at best, or we are guessing without actually knowing. 16:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorcyho (talk • contribs)

option 4

The virus seems to spread via respiratory droplets, produced during coughing, sneezing or exhaling.

• Support as this is the most inclusive way of including all three sources. And there is no clear evidence any way, we have to put all the uncertainty together and defer to all three of the equally authoritative sources —Almaty (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose We should mention the primary way first. Lots of secondary ways. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • doc james, I hate to say it, but we simply do not know the primary way. This is why we have to use the exact wording. —Almaty (talk)
    • I do not care what we as Wikipedians know. I just care that we accurately reflect the sources. And both the CDC and WHO comment on the main / primary way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
      • • yes by I don’t know I mean the sources don’t know. So we don’t know and the encyclopaedia can’t assert. —Almaty (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose "seems". To whom does it seem? Option 3 is better. Alternative words that convey a degree of doubt might be "leading hypothesis" or "current scientific understanding" which convey that this is what the evidence says, but with science there's no final word. The evidence might change. "Typically" is good because it allows that the disease might spread by other means too. Jehochman ^Talk 16:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  it seems to and is thought to by the ECDC and the CDC. We can’t assert more than that, based on one line the WHO has said. We have to accurately convey the uncertainty of all three equally reliable sources. —Almaty (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support based on WHO COVID-19 FAQ (Section "How does COVID-19 spread?"):
        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.
        People can also catch COVID-19 if they breathe in droplets from a person with COVID-19 who coughs out or exhales droplets.
  – but I would remove "seems". --Amakuha (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

option 4b

The virus spreads between people most often via respiratory droplets, produced during coughing, sneezing or exhaling. —Almaty (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Can consider without seems to. —Almaty (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Option 5

"The virus is typically spread between people via respiratory droplets, primarily produced during coughing."

Hi guys. I would argue this is the best compromise based on other options. Links droplets to coughing as a primary method of spread but doesn't close off respiratory droplets to coughing in an exclusive way. Allows for reader to think about the other ways in which droplets are produced (simple exhalation, sneezing) as per sources. Magna19 (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC) this is pretty good but not quite there IMO. Why do the WHO and ECDC emphasise exhale so much? They haven’t told us. But they do, we have to include that. —-Almaty (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree but we have to reach consensus somewhere and this seems to be the best bet. Magna19 (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose One "typical / primary" is enough. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Typical does the job; and is typical medical writing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

There is too much ambiguity to only include one "typical/primarily". I would say editors need to compromise to reach consensus, this is how the site works. Magna19 (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Far too much ambiguity for just one typical or primary that’s not what the sources say. If you’re going to exclude sneezing and exhaling.... —Almaty (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Option 6

"Current scientific understanding is that the virus spreads between people via respiratory droplets, primarily produced during coughing, but also during sneezing or exhaling."

• Support as a consensusable option until the agencies align. —Almaty (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support - I'm happy with that, others will think it's too long no doubt. Magna19 (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Might be better to change 'exhaling' to 'simple exhalation' given coughing and sneezing are both exhalation. Magna19 (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

re the length it is best to give the seemingly primary method it’s due weight compared to surfaces and asymptomatic which are currently overemphasised in the lead. —Almaty (talk)

• Oppose #3 is better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• It might be well to make this a sub proposal under Option 3. What about talking? As I navigated through a crowded grocery store this morning I avoided talking and didn't get in between two people who were having a lively chat. Jehochman ^Talk 18:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

that is precisely my point User:Jehochman, you’ve become a perfect example how this sentence in the lead will modify peoples behaviour with real world consequences. The overwhelming majority of the WHO sources include exhale, as well as the ECDC. Talking is also exhaling. —-Almaty (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support based on WHO COVID-19 FAQ (Section "How does COVID-19 spread?"):
        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.
        People can also catch COVID-19 if they breathe in droplets from a person with COVID-19 who coughs out or exhales droplets.
  --Amakuha (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

===option 7=== “The virus often spreads between people via respiratory droplets, usually produced during coughing.”

We had this a few weeks ago, but the double qualifier was removed. The double qualifier is necessary because 1. The droplets is the likely most common mode, it’s possibly airborne and possibly fecal oral and others 2. The droplets are most often coughing, but very commonly they are via sneezing or exhaling. —Almaty (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

You have now proposed 5 options User:Almaty. This is not really appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Almaty is compromising and trying to reach consensus, unlike others. Magna19 (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Almaty could think things through more carefully before making proposals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for the readers, not the egos of editors. Magna19 (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I have thought them through carefully, I’ve been working on this sentence the whole time. And I note that the first option changed mid RfC. Each one I’ve tried and would have a few days until it was changed again, because it’s so difficult. —Almaty (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is willing to compromise anymore, that's part of the problem. If option 3 goes ahead it will undermine everything that wikipedia is about and mislead thousands of readers on how this thing spreads, which is potentially quite dangerous. Magna19 (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Such issues aside, I think it's clearly not helpful to have 8 different options under discussion, in a page as active as this, and where 5 of those came from the same editor, 4 of them in less than 2 hours. This has nothing to do with the "egos of editors" or "nobody is willing to compromise" but that when you have such a confusing discussion when there is so much else to do, most editors are likely to not bother to get involved. I can't comment on how much someone has "thought" about each option, but there should be a better way than coming up with 5 different options. Nil Einne (talk) 06:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

the better way to have the discussion would be to separately discuss 1. Whether to include “coughing sneezing and exhaling” vs “coughing” vs “respiratory droplets.” Then to separately discuss qualifiers. But what’s done is done, the RFC was made in this format, and there is somewhat an early consensus of including two sentences or a combination of options. —Almaty (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The point is there was no reason why you needed to make 6 different proposals. It was unnecessary and has likely harmed the discussion since it has reduced the willingness of people to participate. Part of the reason I haven't and won't offer any comment is because this whole thing is too confusing mostly due to your actions. Also I should clarify that it's not just the sheer number of options, or the that they were made by the same person, but the fact that many of them were very similar. A far better method is to make one proposal then take on board any feedback carefully than come up with the best consensus version. Not have to try 6 times. As I also said, maybe in a less active page this would be okay, but in a page as active as this, with so much else to do, it just makes editors think, I can't really be bothered to deal with this crap, and leave it for others. Remember since this is a discussion and not a vote, it's only really fair to consider each option and ideally each comment, before expressing an opinion. Nil Einne (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually I missed that option 2 was also from Almaty. So it's 6 of those came from the same editor, 5 of them in less than 3 hours. Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

the options have all been tried in the last 2-3 weeks in various combinations. So they need to be on the table. I didn’t just pick them off the back of my head. This is the most important sentence, and I can put my opinions on the table , most options are responding to suggestions about compromise and therefore valid —Almaty (talk) 07:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Note : I restored this option and discussion after Nil Einne removed it, as it is a breach of talk page guidelines to unilaterally remove other people's comments. As an outside observer though, it looks like this RFC has multiple issues including options being altered after people have already !voted for them... Participants should avoid doing that because maybe the voters would not approve of the new wording. But also avoid adding numerous extra options that just muddy the waters and threaten the ability of the RfC to produce a good result.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Again, a fair and reasonable compromise. Magna19 (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Gish gallop style of argument whereby lots of alternatives are proposed that are all essentially the same. Let the original 4 proposals be considered. Once a consensus is reached and the edit is made, there might be new information and then a new discussion might be appropriate. Until then, don't try to get your way by smothering us with alternatives. Jehochman ^Talk 18:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• the reasons for the options are because as stated in the discussion, doc james has tried to combine two separate questions that are both important about arguably the most important sentence in one, see discussion. He has been arguably edit warring with me on this for weeks as i attempt to reach consensus and compromise with him and he goes back to his preferred wording without compromise, despite many many editors bringing it up. It should be investigated. —Almaty (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Sensible resolution

I'm happy with option 3, so long as the next sentence can add clarification, "These droplets can also be produced from sneezing and normal exhalation" as per the current edit. The sources list sneezing and exhalation too much to do away with them entirely in this important part of the article. Surely this is a sensible resolution? Support/oppose below. Magna19 (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Magna19 (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Having two sentences is OK. As long as it mentions exhaling (in line with WHO's FAQ). --Amakuha (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Having two sentences is most certainly ok. —Almaty (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose That can go in the body of the text. Just like how it may also spread by stool. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

it can’t go in the body of the text, because exhalation is everywhere, apart from one line that you have selectedly quoted in the WHO source. The main method, of droplets involves sneezing and exhalation. And even that is very uncertain, per the agency sources. WHO aren’t conveying the uncertainty for political reasons and simple clear communication , but I disagree with that approach for the encyclopaedia. —Almaty (talk)

I support the removal of the disputed tag whilst the second sentence as worded in the lead remains in. I too read that this is the early consensus of resolving this dispute. —Almaty (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Doc James, those against the odd overemphasis on coughing have already compromised on the first sentence, now it is reasonable for you to do same re: second sentence. It's the only sensible way to resolve this. Magna19 (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

We can move onto the next RfC regarding the second sentence next. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Feel free to add further options to the RfC.

respiratory droplets include coughing sneezing and exhaling in general. I wasn’t keen to include it weeks ago because of the confusion with airborne transmission. But they do. We need to divide this RFC somehow to whether we include “coughing sneezing and exhaling” and then we can discuss seems to vs thought to vs other specific qualifiers as a separate thing. —Almaty (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The RfC above is fine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

yes if we need to use this RfC, we need options, as some may have missed this discussion primarily between ourselves Due to the volume of edits. --49.195.179.13 (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Ideally, we could just refer to respiratory droplets transmitted in close contact or list the common transmission routes in order of priority. I just think we should dial back the focus on coughing until more is known, especially given the growing focus on asymptomatic transmission. The CDC, WHO, ECDC, and UpToDate all do a good job of this. I've copied their text below. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

i support “respiratory droplets transmitted when people are in close contact” —Almaty (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Health Agency and Leading Publication Examples

CDC: "Based on what is currently known about COVID-19 and what is known about other coronaviruses, spread is thought to occur mostly from person-to-person via respiratory droplets among close contacts. Close contact can occur while caring for a patient, including: being within approximately 6 feet (2 meters) of a patient with COVID-19 for a prolonged period of time..."

CDC: "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."

WHO: "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."

ECDC: "The virus seems to be transmitted mainly via respiratory droplets that people sneeze, cough, or exhale."

UpToDate: "Person-to-person spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is thought to occur mainly via respiratory droplets, resembling the spread of influenza. With droplet transmission, virus released in the respiratory secretions when a person with infection coughs, sneezes, or talks can infect another person if it makes direct contact with the mucous membranes; infection can also occur if a person touches an infected surface and then touches his or her eyes, nose, or mouth. Droplets typically do not travel more than six feet (about two meters) and do not linger in the air; however, in one letter to the editor, SARS-CoV-2 remained viable in aerosols under experimental conditions for at least three hours."

• we need to focus on correct before clear and consistent, when there is so much ambiguity. We need to make who says the statements clear and where, and cite, and not synthesise, because they differ. This option is synthesis of a WHO’s assertion that they have only made once. The CDC and ECDC do not support that assertion without careful qualifiers, and the use of other words - sneeze and exhale, respectively. Therefore this sentence is not correct per the sources quoted. —Almaty (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• I now note that also the CDC has been selectively quoted in this RFC, not just the WHO. The CDC emphasise “ Between people who are in close contact with one another” above coughing. This is roughly equivalent to the WHO’s use of cough and exhale. This selective quoting, of both the CDC and WHO, whilst ignoring the ECDC, to confirm what I can only presume is a preexisting opinion of the editor opening the RFC, should have no place in our encyclopaedia. —Almaty (talk) 07:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Summary

• Option 3 has by far majority support. Next we can move on to what the summary of the second sentence should be. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2020

Please add this to the United States section, this photo is taken on a nearly empty Brooklyn Bridge and shows a commuter with mask a gloves. People in NYC are relying on bikes more than ever as concerns over spreading on subway and ride-shares increase.

AndrewHenkelman (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Good suggestion @AndrewHenkelman:. Do you have a source to support the information on people using bikes more? The US COVID article may be appropriate for this if there is a source that meets WP:RS (or WP:MEDRS if for medical-related claim). JenOttawa (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Here's a RS: Sdkb (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

References

• It's a good picture, but might be difficult to piece in on a top level article like this. It isn't immediately obvious that the bridge is normally full of people, and it could be cropped a little to remove the wall to the right. Carl Fredrik ^talk 19:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Great pic, but I'm not entirely sure it is all that encyclopedic… --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 19:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Per Capita meaning - per mille

Apparently no one here knows the meaning of per capita. Can someone revise the map and accompanying caption to indicate that the deaths are per mille.

For example: Japanese national debt is ~US$11.06 trillion in total, but per capita it is ~$102,000. 73.26.46.210 (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The caption is correct and clear. > 1 case per 1,000 inhabitants means greater than 0.001 per capita; 1–10 cases per 10,000 inhabitants means from 0.0001 to 0.001 per capita. Writing "> 0.001 per capita", "0.0001-0.001 per capita", ... would be technically correct, but more cognitively difficult for many readers, because the reader would have to try to understand "for a typical person, there's a 1/1000-th of a person infected" or "for a typical person, there's between a 1/10000-th and a 1/1000-th of a person infected". Boud (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Boud: more clarity from the OP, like linking or quoting what they are referring to would help. But I think the the OP is probably referring to File:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map Total Deaths per Capita.svg or Template:Interactive COVID-19 maps/Per capita confirmed cases but of which are already per million but per capita. That said, I'm not convinced it would be clearer to make them per mille. Nil Einne (talk) 11:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

My guess is that 73.26.46.210 was pointing out that national debt per capita is typically a value greater than one, while here we have numbers which are all less than one; and s/he thought that "per mille" applies to any per-person-normalised scales that give values that are typically less than one. In any case, we have the scales written out explicitly, and I agree that modifying everything by a factor of 1000 doesn't make sense. Writing "1–10 cases per mille", "1–10 cases per 10 mille" might be understandable by French (and some other latin-based language) speakers, but would be confusing to people knowing only English and non-latin languages - where "mille" sounds more like "million" than "thousand". Boud (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

List countries by deaths not by cases detected

The info box lists by cases detected which is ridiculous since it is dependent on the capacity and policy of each country and is in no way indicative of the gravity of the situation. It leads to perverse results such as Germany appearing above Iran when Germany has among the lowest number of deaths in Western Europe. Php2000 (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The table is sortable. Feel free to hit the sort by deaths button. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

That sort option doesn't appear to be available on the mobile version of the page. I don't have a strong opinion on which order is better (though I lean slightly towards sorting by deaths), but at least for mobile users the default display does make a difference. 68.7.103.137 (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

How do opinions about Trump's handling of the crisis fit in?

My other question was archived, and in fact it was about actions Trump failed to take before COVID-19 was even known to exist, based on a radio newscast, though I have yet to find a reliable source stating what the newscast said. Opinions of Trump's handling of the situation are certainly notable and I assume they're mentioned or should be, in the main article. They might also be in other articles.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The focus of this article should be mostly on the global, medical situation (which does include some politics); it already criticizes Trump with undue and unbalanced content. The US-specific article already does a more-than-adequate job of misrepresenting the US response, but feel free to add to the mess over there, and please leave this article to focus on the global medical situation. There are individual country articles, this article is large, and summary style to individual articles should be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree. This belongs in the USA article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of all the other articles but given how much this has to cover, I should have realized that.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The US response section of THIS PAGE has political opinion critical of our presidents response, and none regarding Nancy Pelosi's refusal to release money for that response. It IS politacal, it IS biased, and IT SHOULD BE GONE.

Recommendation for radical change to table of contents order: consensus sought

Our current structure is:

3. Cause
4. Diagnosis
5. Prevention
6. Management

I want to change it to (bold):

3. Cause
4. Prevention
5. Diagnosis
6. Management

Changing the order of the areas for Prevention and Diagnosis ("flipping them") will make this article flow better.

CHANGE I AM ASKING TO MAKE - Prevention before Diagnosis (Cause, Prevention, Diagnosis, Management):

3. "What is the Cause?"
4. "What kind of Prevention should there be now, based on those Cause(s)?"
5. "Prevention did not work, so now there is a Diagnosis".
6. "There has now been a Diagnosis, so what are the Management opportunities?"

CURRENT CONDITION - Diagnosis before Prevention (Cause, Diagnosis, Prevention, Management):

3. "What is the Cause?"
4. "Let's have a Diagnosis now based on those causes!"
5. "Oh! Well ... why not at least think about "Prevention" first? It might help!"
6. "Forget about Prevention! What good could that possibly do? What are the Management possibilities?"

The current flow of information is currently fighting itself. I suggest we change the current structure so the "current" of information will not so toss the reader about, like being in a boat upon the stormy sea. See?

Feel free to make the change, should there be a consensus. I am willing to do it myself. Transitions may need to be added or changed. You might consider also changing "Cause" to "Causes". "Causation" is what is accurate, but I'd rather keep it simple. Also, "Management" is divided into "Outbreak" and "Illness". "Illness" needs to be subdivided into "Treatment" and "Research". The "Illness" section is surprisingly underdeveloped, a mere one paragraph. God Bless. Al Leluia81 (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. When it comes to order of sections, every article is different, and flow of the narrative should be the paramount consideration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• No need I think it is fine the way it is. Diagnosis is part of case tracking. And is as important as prevention at a personal level. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter. I don't buy the arguments brought forth above, and since we know quite well that people don't read articles from top to bottom, it really doesn't matter. In face of that, it's just best to save time by not changing anything, hence I'm pro the status quo. Carl Fredrik ^talk 19:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• don't change anything keep as is--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep present order, but consider a possible rename of the "Prevention" section. The "diagnosis" and "prevention" sections here are about a pandemic, not about a single person and a disease. More detailed names might be "medical diagnostic tests" to check who is or is not infected or who might be infected; "prevention" is not strictly prevention, it's more like "individual and society-wide techniques for slowing the spreading of the pandemic and hopefully suppressing sufficiently long until a vaccine comes along", which is a bit too long for a section title. We have "Management" after that, which is about a broader, government-level management, and it has a subsection "illness". Maybe renaming "Prevention" to something like "Limitation techniques" or "Epidemic control measures" would help. It would then make sense to shift the "Management" h2 header earlier, to include what is now "Prevention" as an h3 header subsection, renamed to something like "Epidemic control measures". Boud (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Updates to SVG Files

More a Wikicommons question, but thought I'd post here given the traffic. Currently using a computer without Photoshop, anyone know how to update the SVG map(s) with another resource? Those on this page, and related ones — e.g., 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Asia — are terribly outdated. --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 19:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

You wouldn't use photoshop to update that anyhow as it is a vector image. I can recommend Inkscape, which is open source. However, that file might also be editable in a text editor. I would run this by WT:COVID. Carl Fredrik ^talk 19:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Carl. What is the standard, is it Inkscape? Been on Wiki a long time, but never edited and uploaded a new version of an SVG before. --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 19:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Inkscape is what is normally used here, however there is also Adobe Illustrator, but seeing as it's more for professional use and quite expensive, I'm not going to recommend it. Carl Fredrik ^talk 19:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Even better, emacs is excellent for editing svg files. That's at the heart of free-licensing, which is at the core of what Wikipedia is built on in terms of both software and content. Use C-c C-c to switch between the file itself and the file rendered as an image. Or create a shell/perl/python script to update only those parts of the file that need to be updated. Boud (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Boud — I'm not sure emacs is worth recommending as it is widely considered to be a very technical solution. Carl Fredrik ^talk 12:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Everyone has a choice along the range from users controlling software at one end to software controlling users at the other, though of course there's a learning curve at one end, and an obedience-training curve at the other. For those willing to and wanting to have (at least in principle via the free software community) control of software rather than vice-versa, emacs is an excellent solution; I assume that vim has equivalent possibilities. Boud (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Updated Germany's figures

Germany confirmed case figure is up slight to 22,213 hope that helps. BlackSun2104 (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Please, post further requests to Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data, not here. Anyway, requests to update Germany are not too helpful, it is one of the countries we update most often. --MarioGom (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Recoveries in Brazil

In Brazil we have 3 recovered cases,2 in São Paulo and 1 in Pernambuco! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:D47:404D:8C00:55B2:EEBC:F740:CC25 (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

N Not done: No source provided in furute please plase the requset to Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data for changes to the table. — RealFakeKimT 17:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to make it a Vital Article

See Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5#Add 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic for a proposal to add the pandemic or disease. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4#Add 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4#Add coronavirus for the level 4 proposal. — RealFakeKimT 17:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

United States Pence Coordination inaccurate

In the United States portion, there is an AP article cited to say that VP Mike Pence office coordinated with Health officials to control the message. This is biased as such an action is commonplace and not unique. Raj208 (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

impact on 2020 US presidential election

@Polskiwielbiciel: How do you know that, "The outbreak has had a negative impact on Donald Trump's chances of re-election"? An article in the New York Times may say that, but it doesn't make it so.

In fact, I don't see any amount of evidence that would establish that conclusively. If the NYT article you cite actually supports your claim, you could say that "The NYT" or the author of that article "clam that the outbreak has had ... ."

I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, but I feel a need to revert this. DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I hope this is the correct place to reply to the message you sent me. Before participating as an editor I wanted to do a little research about possible political bias at Wikipedia, so I posted small edits on the most controversial topic I could find, with some of my edits favoring a Democrat point of view and others the Republican. I am pleased that these edits have been removed, although there is a hint of bias remaining in the sentence that currently reads: "The outbreak may have a negative impact on Donald Trump's chances of re-election in the 2020 presidential election.[624]" since a version of this sentence that I tested, i.e.: "The outbreak may not have a negative impact...etc." was edited back to the current one.

Following Wikipedia's published editorial standards, I think either version is unacceptable, because either version is speculative and not in accordance with Wikipedia's admonishment to use past tense only. Sincerely, David LeightonPolskiwielbiciel (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Polskiwielbiciel: Please don't do that again. You could be banned for making unconstructive edits. Bondegezou (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I've deleted "may have a negative impact on Donald Trump's chances of re-election in the 2020 presidential election.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Haberman |first=Maggie |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/12/us/politics/trump-vs-biden.html |title=Trump's Re-election Chances Suddenly Look Shakier |date=12 March 2020 |work=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=15 March 2020 |last2=Martin |first2=Jonathan |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>"

I'm inclined also to delete the rest of that paragraph: "The outbreak has prompted calls for the US to adopt social policies common in other wealthy countries, including universal health care, universal child care, paid family leave, and higher levels of funding for public health.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/03/13/opinion/americas-botched-response-coronavirus-is-problem-bigger-than-donald-trump/ |title=America's botched response to the coronavirus is a problem bigger than Donald Trump |website=[[The Boston Globe]]}}</ref>

The problem I see with the part I left is that it's an old debate trying to opportunistically piggy back on this new concern. In addition, this article is already long, and this is one place it could easily be cut.

What do you think? DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

United states confirmed cases

There is 26,833 confirmed cases as of pacific time 8:40pm 3/20/2020. In the article, it was said that there is 27,111 cases. Source from https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en and it's the same source as in the article.

Please fix that.

Cyx080605 (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Compare to SARS outbreak?

It might be a good idea to compare this pandemic with the SARS outbreak - deaths, infections, reactions, etc. Even if it's not a in-depth analysis, there are definitely similarities (and differences) between SARS and this new COVID-19 pandemic. Mount2010 (talk) 06:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

We have to be careful of WP:SYNTH. We, as editors, should not be trying to make comparisons. If reliable sources have done that, great, let's cite them and use that information. Bondegezou (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Deaths in Russia

According to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Russia, the death toll is rises into 1. But in the Epidemology subsection, it is nil. Needs update. The Supermind (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

That death was subsequently removed from official count. According to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Russia: However, pulmonary embolism was identified as the direct cause of her death, she had no pathological changes in lungs, and her death was not officially counted as caused by coronavirus. Ellestar (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Corona Prevention Video

Here's a hand sanitization related video that is claiming to be in C.C license. Can it be used in any corona related articles ?

And secondly, can any wiki community create a prevention/ awareness related video in English language so that it can be used in corona related articles ?

And please put some thoughts about "wiki community & corona" in here . THANKS .--Masum The Great (talk) 09:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 22 March 2020

2019–20 coronavirus pandemic → Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic – I am aware that there may be fatigue over renaming suggestions, but because it is such an important issue, I believe we should get the name right. I shall keep my argument short, but I see two major issues with the current name:

1) There was no pandemic in 2019: the dating is erroneous;

2) By definition, a pandemic is about the spread of a disease, not of a virus, and the current title does not name the disease.

Wikipedia strives to disseminate good information, not common error and misapplication of terms. Let's keep that standard here. Personally, I would be slightly happier with COVID-19 pandemic, as it would avoid possible misunderstanding of the 2019 as the date of the pandemic, but I don't think the shorter name has reached COMMONNAME expectations. Kevin McE (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• procedural close - I agree there may be editor fatigue over renaming discussions. I would prefer we just accept the current title as "good enough for now" and focus in other directions. Right now, the world is overusing the term "coronavirus" to cover everything, but in the coming months and years will settle on a common name for this virus, the disease it causes, and the associated pandemic. Let's give them time to do that. -- Netoholic @ 10:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that the current title is wrong, but don't believe it should be improved until after interest in it has dropped. I really don't understand that logic. Kevin McE (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose the article is about the whole crisis, when it was just an outbreak and when the WHO classified it as a pandemic. However I would consider moving it to something like COVID-19 pandemic per WP:CONCISE since there isn't another one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

If you don't think the title should specify the pandemic stage, I don't understand why you would be defending the current title. The one that you state you would support does all the things I seek to do in this proposal, so I don't see why you oppose it. Kevin McE (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, I see that because the disease has "2019" in the name this might be OK. Possibly however it might confuse people in that the disease is often (probably usually so WP:COMMONAME might apply) know without the "2019" meaning people might think its only about it in 2019 therefore it might be better to not use "2019". Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close. Again. There is no reason to keep proposing changes to the name when nothing has changed. And the rationale is wrong anyway. The pandemic didn't start when the WHO declared it to officially be one, it started when the fist case occurred in China at some point in late 2019, after which it grew to what we see today.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Spread of the disease started when the second person caught it: that was not a pandemic. I understand that the WHO announcement was the acknowledgement of what it already was, not the event by which it became a pandemic, but at no point before 31 December was the extent of the outbreak remotely describable as a pandemic. If the current title is wrong, which it is, we don't need anything to change in order to change it. Kevin McE (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy close. The current naming scheme is used in dozens of articles and seems to be good enough at the moment. Renaming too often is disruptive. --MarioGom (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2020

IN DIAGNOSIS->IMAGING SUBSECTION CHANGE CURRENT CONTENT TO THE BELOW AND ADD REFERENCES Imaging

Characteristic imaging features on radiographs and computed tomography have been described in a limited case series including bilateral and peripheral ground-glass and consolidative pulmonary opacities.[288, REF A] The Italian Radiological Society [it] is compiling an international online database of imaging findings for confirmed cases.[289] Imaging has been proposed to be considered for the first-line diagnostic test in epidemic areas as it has shown higher sensitivity for diagnosis of COVID-19 as compared with initial reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from swab samples in the epidemic area of China. (REF B,c)

Distinguishing between COVID-19 and community acquired pneumonia on chest CT scans has now been demonstrated by both radiologists (ref d) and deep learning techniques (ref e).

REF A https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.2020200463 ref b https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.2020200432 REF c https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.2020200642 ref d https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.2020200823 ref e https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.2020200905 2A00:23C5:C000:5800:40C0:FB8E:F132:6CE7 (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Pies for ALL of you!!

RedSoxFan274 has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a fresh pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. I know it is highly unorthodox to post WikiLove on an article talk page. I’m not sure if it’s even permitted. But, I hope you will grant me this opportunity, in the spirit of #CoronaKindness, to post a MASS WikiLove message to acknowledge the tireless contributions of EVERYONE working on this most vital of Wikipedia articles in this most trying and historic of times. Stay safe, stay healthy, and stay happy, everyone. It is this sort of banding together and this sort of collaborative effort that truly makes Wikipedia great — and which we ALL, as humans, everywhere, everybody, need to emulate. #WeWillPrevail  :) —RedSoxFan274 (talk~contribs) 12:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)†

Ooh, tasty! But you left out a very important piece of information — what kind of pie is it? Is it banana cream, perhaps, in which case thank you, or is it pecan, in which case THANK YOU!!! Sdkb (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Tasted like an apple pie *ewwwwwww*. — RealFakeKimT 17:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Variation in death rates by country

Countries' death rates vary a great deal. For example, Germany has a large number of cases (well over 20,000), yet has a very low death rate of less than half a percent (fewer than 100). What are the reasons for that? Jim Michael (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

There's some discussion of this at Coronavirus disease 2019 and we could bring some of that text over. See Talk:Coronavirus_disease_2019#Case_Fatality_Rate_is_falling_dramatically_and_currently_0.7%_-_from_WHO for more discussion.

Two big problems with measuring the death rate are counting mild cases and time. If you're not doing enough testing, you can miss mild cases, underestimate the denominator and the death rate looks higher. The death rate can look lower if cases were recently infected. It takes time for people to die of the condition, so if numbers are going up rapidly, most of your cases haven't had the condition for long, and your death rate looks better than it should do. As well as those methodological problems, you then have different case mixes. Mortality is higher in older people. A country with an older population (e.g. Italy) will thus have a higher death rate than one with a younger population (e.g. China). There may also be differences in underlying conditions, e.g. because of historical differences in smoking behaviour. After those explanations, there may then be differences in the response of the health services. Bondegezou (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Also currently official reporting in Germany is not reliable/comparable. In Italy over 99% of deaths have preexisting conditions (average death has 2.7 preexisting conditions) so many deaths can be unidentified as covid-19 or a country may chose not to report them. Germany is an outlier compared to most other countries so the above is the most probable explanation. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

There can be variation in how deaths are reported and the accuracy in determining the cause of death, but generally death certification is pretty accurate compared to most things in epidemiology. I would doubt differences in death reporting are the main factor. Bondegezou (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2020

I wish to contribute. Thanks Santiagok87 (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer :-) MattSucci (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

You can start here: Wikipedia:Introduction, Help:Getting started. --MarioGom (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding more caveats that the actual number of cases are likely much higher than is being reported

There is a very important and useful note attached to the "cases" label on the main table - "Reported cumulative confirmed cases. The actual number of infections and cases are likely higher than reported, but impossible to ascertain." This caveat needs to be added to all the other instances where "cases" or "cumulative cases" are mentioned throughout the article. This is important, as a lot of people and governments are misunderstanding that the actual number of cases is probably much much higher than is being reported. This caveat also needs to be added to the Deaths section where talking about mortality/fatality rates because, given that the "actual number of infections and cases are likely higher than reported", this means that fatality rates (or mortality ratios) will likely be much lower than reported - as they are simply deaths divided by cases. If any justification is needed for this, consider the following: Italy is currently reporting 4,825 deaths (see main table). If the case fatality rate in Italy were anything like what is being reported from Germany (0.3%) this would mean that 1.6 million have been infected in Italy already (4,825 divided by 0.003 = 1.6 million). But there is no way that the Italian government can know or report this, as they have only done 233,222 tests. Ideally the term (as in the existing table note) "reported cumulative confirmed cases" should be used throughout, with a note to each instance adding "The actual number of infections and cases are likely higher than reported, but impossible to ascertain". Many thanks. Surfingdan (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we need to be much clearer about the limitations in the numbers, especially cases reported.

We should never be calculating mortality rates ourselves precisely because of problems like these. We should as much as possible only be reporting what WP:MEDRS-compliant sources say about mortality rates. Even then, we need to contextualise the numbers. Bondegezou (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Add a current event template on this article.

Information about this pandemic is still growing like wildfire to this day. I propose we add a

template on this article seeing as many edits are being made to this page each day, as well as new, rapidly changing information.

Explicit guidance in a top ambox?

While it is course exceedingly unusual to suggest that an article give advice to readers in the imperative voice, would it be worth typing up https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public into an ambox? At 1 million hits a day, this would be a non-trivial contribution to promoting social distancing and similar. (It is obvious that this would violate NPOV and a bunch of other policies - however I think it would be worthwhile regardless.) I suggest WHO rather than a national organisation to avoid being too region-specific. User:GKFX^talk 15:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding how this is likely to play out, given that, after extensive debate, even suicide doesn't have any public service-type announcement at the top other than a hatnote to suicide prevention, I doubt it'd be possible to achieve consensus for something like that here. Regarding my personal view, is there information at that link that's not adequately covered in the article? I'd need to think about this more. There's an obvious upside, but the policies that this would violate also exist for very good reason and it could set a precedent that could potentially become very troublesome, so there are downsides to consider too. Sdkb (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC on second sentence regarding spread

What do you think the second sentence regarding transmission/spread should be? Following the start of the second paragraph "The virus is typically spread from one person to another via respiratory droplets produced during coughing."

Option 1

"These droplets can also be produced from sneezing and normal exhalation."

Reasoning:

CDC: - "Through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes."

WHO: - "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."

ECDC: - "The virus seems to be transmitted mainly via respiratory droplets that people sneeze, cough, or exhale."

UpToDate: - "With droplet transmission, virus released in the respiratory secretions when a person with infection coughs, sneezes, or talks"

My opinion is that with all these sources saying these things, it is important to include sneezing and normal exhalation in the second sentence.

Support/Oppose below and please add other options if you deem necessary.

• Support. - Magna19 (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not the primary method. This belongs in the body of the article. Yes these can produce in smaller numbers via other methods but this is not the main method. IMO the second sentence should be "It may also be spread from touching contaminated surfaces and then touching one's face" The lead is a summary. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Worldometers vs Johns Hopkins University

Worldometers (WOM) data contradict Johns Hopkins University (JHU).

• Total Confirmed: 328,275 (JHU) / 338,259 (WOM)
• Total Deaths: 14,366 (JHU) / 14,457 (WOM)
• Total Recovered: 95,656 (JHU) / 96,958 (WOM)
• Countries/regions: 169 (JHU) / 189 (WOM)

John Hopkins University data are updated every 1-2 hours. Worldometers data are updated every few minutes. Aoito (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Both are fine What we need is a RfC about what sources we use. I have come around to the possition that WorldOmeter is fine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Just remember that we shouldn't be updating case numbers on Wikipedia articles every few minutes or even every hour. Readers can check either source if they want the most up-to-date numbers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • If people want to update every few minutes than they can... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC on the sources we can use to support numbers of cases

This discussion was already occuring at the more general level, WP:RSN; this RFC should be removed from here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Any source that gets more than 50% support can be used.

Worldometers

• Support Good enough. Provides sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

1point3acres

• Support Good enough. Provides sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Johns Hopkins

• Support High quality source but a little out of date sometimes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)