Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Europe

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 88.136.209.235 (talk) at 14:43, 27 March 2020 (→‎Why is Europe the most badly affected continent?: Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Incorrect Totals

Is there a way to pull in the totals from the country page to the European page? The total of infections for Ireland currently stands at 129 but listed as 90 on the European page. [1] Jaqian (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

As march 19 2020 13:07 UTC the total confirmed cases for Europe appear as 77,487, but the numbers in the table add up to 96,021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.134.220.78 (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Spain

Is there not a way to find another type of map for Spain or the Canary Islands Archipelago would be relatively close to the peninsula to facilitate the reading of the map, the vast majority currently represent a vacuum. This kind of map is currently used for the French one for exemple.

Estonia: Lääne-Tallinn

Just a note, that since Lääne-Tallinn is a proper name, it should not be translated to "West Tallinn", just like Ida-Viru County is not translated to "East Viru". -Mardus /talk 00:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading charts

I believe the type of maps used in this article is not well suited for the purpose. Look at Finland, for instance. There have been only two cases, but to an unaware reader it may appear as if half of the country has been overtaken by the virus. 213.55.225.63 (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment on table of coronavirus cases

Please participate in the RfC on a change to the table of coronavirus cases + deaths per country. Xenagoras (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chart mismatch

In the confirmed cases graph, Greece and Iceland are reversed in the column headings at the top, and do not match the bottom. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReinerNY (talk • contribs) 13:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC) ReinerNY (talk) 13:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The map of San Marino

Is there a point adding the map of San Marino? It's a microstate.--Adûnâi (talk) 18:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Table of confirmed cases and deaths

Beginning or end of 'Confirmed cases' section?

For consistency with other articles from this family:

I've restored Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Europe medical cases in the style of the France article - as a separate section near the end. This seems a matter of style without strong arguments any way, so I don't expect it to be controversial. Please add arguments/counterarguments for/against: beginning of section, end of section, before prose, after prose. To me it seems that either: after prose at the end of a section; or in a section on its own, though even in that case, preferably preceded by some prose, would be the most consistent with WP:MOS. Boud (talk) 21:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horizontal size

There was a temporary hiding of the table with a comment about the great width of the table. I don't think hiding it is justified. My browser has a horizontal slider which works fine. For wider usability issues, tech help can be requested on various help pages. The EU alone has 27 members (one big EU member state is still officially SARS-CoV-2-free), and other countries classified in Europe in the wider sense make it inevitable that this table is going to be wide. Boud (talk) 21:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical size

British English?? (Article)

I get the point that its typical European thing but tbh, who wrote it in British English? AustroHungarian1867 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 06:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As this is democracy, there isn't much power over those who changes the nouns to British. Editoneer (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UK English is the standard in the EU, for obvious geographical and historical reasons, independently of Brexit. Boud (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Might be EU institutions have chosen British English but there is no EU directive to specify the kind of English people have to use, so each EU member state has its own sovereignty to choose the English for its communication, and so the people do. This makes people free to use the English they prefer. I am in the EU and my spell checker is in United-States English, even is the US syntax is far from the European languages. To write a correct English, I use the spell checker. Dot.

Errr yooo saiyin' yoo'd rahthah a Scot's Aynglish then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.117.131 (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: map with sub-national ratio of cases

As cases are not spread throughout the whole country and as every region has a different total population, sub-national data of this the number of cases divided by total population (in the considered sub-national political units) should give a better picture of risk, which is ideally presented by a map.

Inclusion of Russia in european-focused article

I'm no geographer, but this may have been an oversight?

Russia is both in Europe and Asia, Note that Russia is the only country standing in two continents. Editoneer (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editoneer, I do happen to be a geographer. Russia is in Europe and specifically in Eastern Europe both by UN and WP conventions. Yes, it does have a large region in Asia, however, countries are generalized to continents by where the majority of their population lives. Especially when the geography is a human geography. Pandemics affecting humans definitely are. Specifically in health or medical geography and from the process angle a spatial diffusion. gidonb (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So... it has nothing to do with the position? Editoneer (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While Russia's area in Asia is larger than that in Europe, the area in Asia is sparsely populated. This puts Russia's center of population firmly in Europe and with it most of its trade (53% of exports, 51% of imports, the rest ALL other continents combined!), cultural and historical ties, social interaction, etc. The center of population is not important by itself but mathematically or geostatistically represents all populated places in Russia, weighed by their populations. gidonb (talk) 01:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be logical and easier if it was about being both in Asia and in Europe, not depending on geostatics and other other. Anyways thanks. Editoneer (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Countries should never be in two lists because you get double counting, asynchronous updates, etc. In all cases there is a main part and a secondary part and the countries are generalized to continents according to such WP conventions that build on the widely accepted UN, US and EU conventions. The only place we allow double listing right now is in 100% separated continental templates. gidonb (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is false to say it is a "widely accepted UN, US and EU conventions".
  • It is an UN convention, while UN makes clear: "The assignment of countries or areas to specific groupings is for statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations." [1]
  • It might be an US convention (who knows?).
  • It is not clear how far it is an "accepted EU convention". For instance, a title such as "Russia's strategic partnership with Europe" [2] could make this notion of accepted in doubt. By Europe and european words are (by other convention) usually used for EU related things not Russian ones.
The facts are various (geographical, political, historical, ciultural...) definitions of Europe exist and Russia is a key member of the Eurasian Economic Union located in Eurasia.
Wikipedia should rely into source, and make clear for the reader there is no permanent definition of Europe, and this page deals with WHO Europe and that that one includes Russia, while Russia is not fully in Europe,[1] for instance by adding WHO before Europe in introduction and dealing with Europe and Asia in the Russian section, if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.254.81 (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.euro.who.int/en/countries/russian-federation/who-country-office
Hi Anon, your text wasn't the clearest but I'll do my best.
  • The line you quote is a disclaimer. For sure, no political rights can be derived from WP conventions either. I'll get back to that.
  • Eurasia is a double continent, i.e. an entirely different topic. Just like The Americas. Another common sidetrack to such discussions is the Middle East. Novices keep inserting it between the continents or subcontinents. The Middle East, however, is an intercontinental region that does comply with the continental taxonomy. It messes up the continents and subcontinents. Compare to Latin America.
  • The confusion between geographic typologies and international organizations also occasionally pops up. Usually regarding Europe vs EU, Central America vs SICA, and Northern America vs NAFTA/USMCA. Here, it was a contradiction because you do quote the disclaimer yourself.
Best, gidonb (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed move

I have reverted the undiscussed move to 2020 COVID-19 outbreak in Europe. It raises a valid point though, which should be discussed for the whole set of articles. But I am afraid we are more into COMMONNAME territory than at the last RM. Agathoclea (talk) 07:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, we wouldn't like every epidemic to be called after it's fancy name. Editoneer (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of being fancy, it's a question of how to deal with common (folk) language which has only a fuzzy relation to reality. Probably 99% of Wikipedians have already caught coronavirus several times in our lives. But now if a doctor says "It's just an ordinary rhinovirus or coronavirus, keep warm, sleep well, drink plenty of warm liquids", then there's a fair chance that the patient will panic and expect to be quarantined, thanks to the sloppy language.
Back to the topic: I think it's MEDRS vs COMMONNAME, and COMMONNAME is likely to win, at least on a few-year time scale until information about coronaviruses catches up with the ignorance and books and schoolbooks get written. There's also the problem of virus vs disease: symptomless lab-confirmed carriers only have SARS-CoV-2, not COVID-19. WHO says that it's the ill people who seem to be the drivers, so that would tend to be in favour of the disease rather than the virus. Anyway, my proposal on the main page was a 6-month de facto moratorium on changing the name - although switching from outbreak to pandemic is already starting to look like it may satisfy COMMONNAME fairly soon. Boud (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add first two cases in Kosovo to map

[1]69.117.53.217 (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Kosovo

daily cases plots on a log-linear scale?

Now that we seem to be beyond the point where there are 0 new daily cases in any of the territories shown, and indeed beyond the range of small-number statistics, would it be useful to have a plot showing the number of new daily cases plots with a logarithmic y-scale, to make it easier to get some kind of idea whether different countries' strategies are having an impact on the exponential growth rate? Jheald (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It could be good, but does Template:Graph:Chart provide logarithmic scale? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.254.81 (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject COVID-19

I've created WikiProject COVID-19 as a temporary or permanent WikiProject and invite editors to use this space for discussing ways to improve coverage of the ongoing 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Please bring your ideas to the project/talk page. Stay safe, ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia is not geographically in europe

Armenia is not transcontinental country like Russia or Turkey. Its area lies entirely in Asia.--Abutalub (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While it is not obvious, this article deals with WHO Europe. Armenia is in Asia, but Armenia is part of WHO Europe. http://www.euro.who.int/en/countries (Armenia is also part of European Court of Human Rights)
EU/EEA has a more restrictive concept of Europe, but EU/EEA, including UK, are part of WHO Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.254.81 (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But the cases happen in Asia.--Abutalub (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abutalub, you stand correct! Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Cyprus are considered Asia at Wikipedia. For discusions that aren't related to physical geography, it doesn't matter whether a country has a subsection on another continent. gidonb (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is WHO Europe, even if you disagree with WHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.208.101 (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of agreement or not. The regions of WHO are just service areas. There is no relationship whatsoever with continents and subcontinents. gidonb (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So now I suppose the question is, do we categorise countries by where they are geographically or where they fall to WHO classification? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 00:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By their WP classifcation. gidonb (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

coronavirus in relation to population map

Anybody an interest in this kind of map. It shows the number of infected persons in relation to the population of the country. The data are taken from the WHO statistics and are valid for March 14.

Coronavirus infected people in relation to the population of the country. Status March 14

. Changed the colors to keep it separate from the existing cases map.

--Pechristener (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pechristener, yes, this is very helpful! gidonb (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2020

Levifan (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


totals should be completed more accurate, if not statistics have no sense, there are 56342 cases if you take all countries together and not 46000 like is mentioned

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2020

The number of ill people rised in the Czech Republic to 344 and we have the very first cured patients - 3 persons. Source: https://onemocneni-aktualne.mzcr.cz/covid-19 Benesovicmichal (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Fixed source in table which was out of date. The numbers were being updated correctly though. Fixed the section under confirmed cases as it was seriously out of date. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 07:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update EU/EEA and the UK, as of 16 March 2020 08:00: 2316 deaths

As of 16 March 2020, 2316 deaths have been reported in the EU/EEA and the UK. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/cases-2019-ncov-eueea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.208.101 (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That makes a 54% increase in two days equivalent to a 92% increase in three days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.208.101 (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EU/Schengen travel ban

To add:

A 30-day travel ban proposed on all non-essential trips into the Schengen zone (related to European Union) over coronavirus.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/europe-coronavirus-travel-ban-30-days-coronavirus-a4388631.html https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/eu-affairs/100760/eu-proposes-temporary-ban-on-non-essential-travel-to-schengen-zone/

UK citizens while considered as European citizen (from the point of view of Ursula von der Leyen) would also benefit of it. https://www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/1255946/coronavirus-EU-travel-ban-can-british-tourists-travel-to-EU

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.208.101 (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/health/coronavirus-response/mobility_en — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.208.101 (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ursula von der Leyen statement

https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/video/I-186565 (English) https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/video/I-186566 (French)

How do coronavirus containment measures vary across Europe?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/12/how-do-coronavirus-containment-measures-vary-across-europe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.208.101 (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2020

Please change: "Montenegro Main article: 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Montenegro The first case was reported in the country on 17 March 2020." to "Montenegro Main article: 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Montenegro The first case was reported in the country on 17 March 2020. They are two females (born on 1948 and 1973), one in Podgorica, the other in Ulcinj. One arrived 12 days ago from United States. Other arrived from Spain and were under medical surveillance." Vlado.ME (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: I'm going to decline this for now because that would be duplicating the entire contents of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Montenegro into this article essentially rendering the standalone article for Montenegro unnecessary. After the situation develops we can revisit this and expand the section. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 07:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of these measures

It would be nice to add that these measures can be considered by many as almost a violation of human rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.214.62 (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that many countries have a legal ground to enact these measures, don't you? Almost any country has constitutional regulations that state what measures can be taken in emergency situations, which makes it constitutional, and thus no violation of human rights occur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.84.152 (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland and titles used in this article

One of the terms used in this article is "EU/EEA and UK". I understand why the UK is called out separately as it is a member of neither the EEA nor the EU. Switzerland is in the same position. It is a member of neither the EU nor the EEA. Should Switzerland not be included in the title viz. EU/EEA, Switzerland and the UK? Eggered (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That section is based on the ECDC source. The ECDC is an EU agency https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en which also involves the EEA and the UK, but not Switzerland.
Anyway, Switzerland remains a member of the WHO European region. http://www.euro.who.int/en/home
ECDC and WHO collaborated with each other, but I do not think it is relevant to mix both: indeed, each can have its own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.209.235 (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2020

Table: Summary table of confirmed cases in Europe (as of 21 March 2020) Table row edit needed. Country: Estonia Confirmed: 306 Deaths: 0 Recovered: 2


Source: https://www.terviseamet.ee/et/koroonaviirus/koroonakaart Aq64 (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misconception of Dutch policy

In the Netherland section 16 March it is stated, as the reason for not completely locking down the country, that The Netherlands allows the virus to spread slowly, to reach herd immunity. That is a misunderstanding.

Reaching herd immunity is what must be achieved in the long run, for each country, through innoculation and/or getting and overcoming the disease. The current goal is to keep the number of serious illnesses low enough for the health system to handle. The means is social distancing, instead of total lockdown, because locking down completely might collapse the economy, which would result in far more deaths.

The Dutch government is not choosing to sacrifice vulnerable citizens to reach herd immunity. It is balancing between viral mortality and economic mortality, while protecting the most vulnerable, the elderly. The Netherlands tries to minimize deaths while keeping the country - all sectors, and in particular the health system - to function for maximum effect, during the period that innoculation is not available. That a part of the population is getting immunity in the mean time helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orbilin (talk • contribs) 21:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to contest reliably sourced content, you need to provide other sources that support your view. You cannot argue with the sources based on your own original research. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current interpretation of the linked Dutch article _and_ speech is wrong just as Orbilin states. Here's the speech in English: [1] I would like to draw your attention to the following passage: "If we consider the big picture, there are three possible approaches. The first is: control the virus as much as possible. That should lead to a controlled spread among the groups least at risk. That is the approach we have chosen. Maximum control means taking measures aimed at reducing the peak in infections and staggering those infections over a longer period. By taking this approach, one in which most people will experience only minor symptoms, we can both build immunity and ensure that our healthcare system is able to cope." What he's describing constitutes delaying the spread of the virus as much as possible with many of the same measures that other countries have taken. Herd immunity is an expected side benefit, but not it's own purpose. The government is not intend on allowing people to become infected, but it's a fact on the ground that many people will become infected. At this page, the strategy is explained in short: [2] 84.87.99.58 (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC) Edit: attempting to engineer proper indentation.. 84.87.99.58 (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2020

The last paragraph describing the strategy laid out by the PM of the Netherlands is inaccurate. While the speech itself has led to misinterpretations as well, it, and the source linked to, do refer to the measures taken earlier by the government as a strategy to delay the spread of the virus. Therefore I suggest to change the following:

"Instead the situation would be controlled as much as possible by allowing the virus to spread slowly but widely, relying on herd immunity until a vaccine is made available." to "Instead the situation would be controlled as much as possible by delaying the spread of the virus, relying on measures taken earlier by the government, such as social distancing and prohibiting gatherings of 100 people and over."

Also it would be inaccurate to say that the strategy relies on herd immunity, thus relying on people to get infected. It is a long term expected consequence of moving on from trying to contain the virus, which wasn't succesful, to the delaying strategy, until vaccins are developed. Also his reasoning for opting not to lockdown yet, which is described in the source, is very relevant here. Therefore I suggest to change the last part in this way:

"This strategy would result in (and rely on) a large proportion of the country's citizens becoming infected in the following months." to "It's expected the coronavirus will keep spreading and large part of the population will become infected. Instead of opting to lock down the Netherlands for the time required, which would have a lot of (negative) consequences and would have to stay in place because there is no immunity, it will be attempted to build herd immunity in a controlled manner. Depending on how the virus behaves, the government will decide if additional measures are required." 84.87.99.58 (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the comment section above for English sources. Please feel free to make the changes in your own words. 84.87.99.58 (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Europe the most badly affected continent?

Europe is the worst affected continent, both in proportion to its size & its population - despite the pandemic originating thousands of miles away. The article should explain why that has happened. Jim Michael (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can find reliable sources explaining and proving why this is the case, then it can be added to the article. As far as I know at the moment it is too soon to have full and clear explanations for why it is hitting Europe. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even if Europe is thousands of miles away from China, that's only few hours by plane (as suggested by the 12 Monkeys movie)
The three main European countries contributing to this European score are Italy, Spain and France.
Spain and Italy are used to kissing greetings, have terraces and Spaniards and Italians are older than US inhabitants and Spaniards and Italians smoke more than US inhabitants do https://dailytimes.com.pk/580411/why-did-coronavirus-hit-hard-in-italy-and-spain/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.209.235 (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kissing on cheeks greetings is also the normal standard of friendliness in France, or at least handshakes (between men). Giving this up is unlikely to have been/be easy. Boud (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair we could add that — out of Asia — the two first countries where the covid19 epidemic spreads were Iran and Italy, the two countries involved in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Lombardy and Tuscany are the two regions that saw the most Chinese investment. https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2020/03/19/its-no-coincidence-that-italy-and-iran-have-been-so-hard-hit-by-the-wuhan-virus/

Two useful articles about COVID-19 in Italy

Some of the content from these articles might be useful, but I am personally more interested in the pandemic articles about Canada.

1. https://www.thelocal.it/20200318/learn-from-our-mistakes-italians-plead-with-people-abroad-to-take-coronavirus-risks-seriously 'Learn from our mistakes': Italians plead 

  "While Italy imposed a localised lockdown immediately after its first deaths, people outside of the "red zone" carried on going to bars and discos, eating meals at crowded restaurants, and hugging and kissing each other despite government advice telling them to limit social contact.

  As reality hit home, Italians watched in horror as some in other countries shrugged it off as "just a case of the flu" – as some in Italy had done weeks earlier."


2. Hospitals might be “the main” source of Covid-19 transmission, the Bergamo doctors warned.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/21/coronavirus-plea-from-italy-treat-patients-at-home/?fbclid=IwAR0AM7hvtlnaANE_TtRz0Nhx_gvLQWpTlcn_xuzhIDH9Ywu0kcphsBzm3eU A plea from doctors in Italy: To avoid Covid-19 disaster, treat more patients at home 

... “[Covid-19] patients started arriving and the rate of infection in other patients soared. That is one thing that probably led to the current disaster.”

“Managing patients at home is a brilliant thing,” “Bring them nutrition, measure their oxygen levels, even bring them oxygen, and you can probably keep many of them at home.

Peter K Burian (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2020

Malta has 90 cases 213.217.240.27 (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 06:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Balkans

  • Strong support. Totally unnecessary information rehash. It would be good if we can speedy. gidonb (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per above. Esslet (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Someone redirected the article as a WP:FORK so no need to !vote unless it pops up again. I'm removing the "merge from" template as it now links nowhere. Can someone officially close and summarize this discussion? It shouldn't be Esslet or me. gidonb (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting that I was the one who did the redirecting and I obviously also strongly support this. Can't see any practical reason for having that fork article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for redirecting and adding your strong support! gidonb (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Political note on Kosovo/Serbia

We should probably be discussing more important things here, but let's get this out of the way for now. Some people have been edit-warring a political disclaimer about the disputed status of Kosovo into the countries list in this article [3][4][5][6][7][8]. Can we agree here that this is not wanted? Per Making necessary assumptions, is not appropriate to export POV disputes about a central topic to each and every article where that topic happens to be referred to. The political status of this country is entirely extraneous to this article and irrelevant to its topic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, it might actually be not quite as irrelevant as I thought: If I read the sources correctly, the figures reported for Serbia (by the Serbian authorities and the WHO) actually include those for Kosovo, so currently, those of Kosovo are included twice in our data table. That should of course be changed in one way or another. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, now we have one set of political edit-warriors pushing the separate row for Kosovo back in, and another set of political edit-warriors pushing that pedantic disclaimer note back in. All of that without fixing the actual figures. People: go away with your petty national squabbles. Nobody here cares about what the political status of that wretched little spot of land of yours is. The only thing people should care about, at this article, is to get the damned figures straight. We now again have a table where the same cases are contained twice. The figures reported for Serbia in all the official sources subsume those for Kosovo. Either keep the two rows merged in one, or make sure that the figures for Kosovo are properly subtracted from those in the Serbia row (and take responsibility for the same being done for all future updates). I honestly don't care which of these options it's going to be, but whatever you do, do it properly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kosovo is not a state and it is a reality! Kosovo is represented here as a state, this note gives an article neutrality. Take a look at the note documentation and you'll see I'm right. --Serbian Nickmen (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And now there's an equally stupid national edit-war about whether or not to include Turkey on this page. Sigh. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And the mindless drive-by revert warring continues [9][10]. And none of them has bothered to fix those broken numbers. @Ardenisi:, @Isaidnoway: you need to get here and discuss. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: – Article was listed at pages with incorrect ref formatting, which is how I ran across it. I don't give a shit if the note stays or note, but when it is removed, then the notes section needs to be removed as well, otherwise it throws a cite error, as clearly seen here, which then causes the article to be listed at pages with incorrect ref formatting. I see this issue and articles about Kosovo listed constantly in CAT:REF, because editor's are too lazy to use the show preview button and check their edits to see if they created big red cite errors in the references section. So I wasn't engaged in mindless drive-by revert warring, I was fixing a cite error created by someone else. If the note is removed, then remove the Notes section as well. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, thanks for explaining, and sorry for including you in that description then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: As of yesterday, the WHO reports at [11] report Serbia and Kosovo figures separately, so it may now be more easily feasible to maintain the two separate rows here too, if people can make it a habit to always use the exclusive figures as reported by WHO for Serbia, rather than the inclusive figures as reported by the Serbian authorities. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried to implement the two separate rows with exclusive figures, but that clearly didn't last long: Here [12] we're back at having an inclusive-of-Kosovo figure in the Serbia row, and again no correction to the double listing. Sigh. So, next try, we're back at a single merged row. Let's see how long it takes until somebody breaks that again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone! We need one figure for Serbia and one for Kosovo without double counting of cases. gidonb (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, then why didn't you do that? You reverted to the falsified figures including the double listing. Trouble is, even if you manage to subtract them correctly now, the next editor updating them will probably get it wrong again and re-include the inclusive figures as given in the Serbian sources. Just as some well-meaning person did just a few hours ago, despite the code comment asking them not to. Whoever takes the decision to separate the rows should really assume the responsibility for keeping the data intact not just now but also in the future. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb: so, are you going to fix the numbers now? You left them broken. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: I may have missed something. Sorry about that. Can you provide me a link to the source data and I'll come up with the best solution for WP! gidonb (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I too have to apologize for missing something: apparently, it wasn't the WHO alone that changed its reporting from inclusive to exclusive figures recently, but the Serbian authorities did the same. Here's the daily situation reports from the Serbian government: [13]. You'll find the following recent figures:
  • 21 Mar: 171 cases [14]
  • 22 Mar: 188 cases [15]
  • 23 Mar: 249 cases [16]
  • 24 Mar: 303 cases [17]
Here's the daily situation reports from the WHO, with a lag of one day: [18]
  • 22 Mar: 173 cases for Serbia, with a note saying these include 33 for Kosovo [19]
  • 23 Mar: 188 cases for Serbia, plus 31 for Kosovo listed separately [20]
  • 24 Mar: 249 cases for Serbia, plus 61 for Kosovo listed separately [21]
So up and including the figure of 171 (or 173), those were figures for Serbia inclusive of Kosovo; from the figure of 188 onwards it must be exclusive of Kosovo. So, contrary to what I thought earlier, the present figure in the article (249 for Serbia alone) would seem to be in fact correct. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Glad to hear the problem is resolved! If two COUNTRIES are being disseminated TOGETHER, it would, of course, be ok to combine in a particular table. Just make sure that it is clear that you make clear these are two countries. You could do this by writing "Serbia and Kosovo" while linking to their corona articles. There was no need after all. Definitely much better! Thanks for keeping track and caring! gidonb (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo is not a state. This note gives an article neutrality. User Future Perfect at Sunrise, forcing Albanian agenda, and that is against regular UN resolution 1244.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense. WP has identified Kosovo as a partially recognized country so definitely a state. If you want to discuss this, this page is not the place. I could go one step further: Wikipedia is not the place. gidonb (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is nonsense what are you doing now. If Kosovo* is a partially recognized country, we need note for neutrality. WP is not here to forcing Albanian political agenda. Best regards. BTW, please, do not replace my comment, thank you.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well well, the response comes with a conspiracy theory. We are not interested in all these local discussions. They do not belong at this page. We have a clear standard for Kosovo and that is a partially recognized country. We do not need any note for neutrality as no rights can be obtained from Wikipedia listings. gidonb (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where is neutrality? Now we can say, you have only one side, you defend only Albanian side and political agenda. This is sad what are you doing. You don’t want to hear other side, Kosovo* is not state, we clearly have UN resolution 1244.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you just put your tedious POV anxieties aside for a moment and start addressing the one and only actual problem here, namely how to make sure to get the correct figures into that damned table? Seriously, people. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. gidonb (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: You, as the administrator, should be aware that Wikipedia must be neutral. The purpose of the note is for both parties to be represented. So in every article where Kosovo is presented as a state, this note is required. Kosovo has long been debated on Wikipedia and a consensus has been reached, so that is not the point of this debate. It was agreed that this note was added to Kosovo and there was nothing to discuss. Also, first look at the note documentation and then return. --Serbian Nickmen (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know what the documentation says. It has no weight whatsoever. No, use of that template is not required on every article. It is only useful where the political status is relevant to the article topic. Here, it isn't. Serbia and Kosovo are treated separately because they are simply two territories where Corona cases occur, for which we have separate data and reporting lines. Per WP:NPOV, it is not appropriate to export POV disputes to unrelated articles; they should be treated centrally in one place. Here, we make "necessary assumptions", going simply by the principle of "least astonishment". The large majority of our English-speaking readers live in countries that politically recognize Kosovo, hence they'll be accustomed to having it treated as a state; hence, a list that treats Kosovo separately will be less astonishing and easier to understand for them. That's all that matters. Conflicting "POV"s about that situation are of no interest here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well said! gidonb (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Developing a per capita map

Following the prevailing lead of the RfC at the main pandemic article, we ought to create a map that reflects cases per capita rather than per country total. Is anyone interested in taking this on? Sdkb (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely missing. User:Pechristener suggested creating such a map above. Is this offer still on? gidonb (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The per capita map is already integrated in the section Confirmed_cases.--Pechristener (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pechristener: Ah oops, missed that. In that case, what's needed is for that map to be updated to the more standardized formatting (red coloring, transparency for oceans, legend/date removed from the image itself, etc.), and to then replace the totals map in the infobox. Even as is, it's superior enough to the totals map that I'm going to use it as the map for Europe at the main pandemic article. Sdkb (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect heading

Please could someone change "Daily confirmed cases and deaths in mayor EU vs South Korea and mainland China development" to "Development of daily confirmed cases and deaths in major European states, South Korea and mainland China".

As well as the spelling mistake it's difficult to parse as it stands, and the UK's no longer in the EU.

Thanks.2A01:CB15:336:CF00:9C32:1AAA:833D:BED8 (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://www.government.nl/documents/speeches/2020/03/16/television-address-by-prime-minister-mark-rutte-of-the-netherlands
  2. ^ https://www.government.nl/topics/coronavirus-covid-19/tackling-new-coronavirus-in-the-netherlands.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic_in_Europe&oldid=947632021"