This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Shouldn't it be "sex" in the table? Gender is self-identification, and I'm quite sure, this article is about the biological sex.--Adûnâi (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ISCIII.es (summarized charts of cases and deaths based on a range of variables)
Notes:
^Until 2020-04-15, active cases include PCR-confirmed cases for all regions, and serological tests for some regions. Starting on 2020-04-15, a change of methodology led to a split in both figures for some regions. By 2020-04-18 most regions had switched to the new methodology except for Galicia, which made the switch on 2020-04-28; from that date onwards, active cases refer to PCR-confirmed cases. Negative numbers denote corrections due to cases that were subsequently declared negative.
^Figures for recoveries have not been updated since 2020-05-17.
^Figures for 2020-05-20 do not include data from Catalonia over issues on their validation.
^Figures for 2020-05-21 include corrections from several autonomous communities after a process of data debugging and updating of their historical series.
^From 2020-05-23, data is consolidated at 14:00/15:00 rather than at 0:00. This means the register for 2020-05-22 is included within the data of 2020-05-23.
^Figures for 2020-05-24 to 2020-06-17 include corrections in the validation of past data from several autonomous communities as a result of the transition to a new surveillance methodology implemented from 2020-05-11.
^From 2020-07-06, data for weekends is communicated on the next Monday, unless the country's epidemiological situation requires for this communication to be advanced.
^From 2021-01-04 until 2021-08-26, data has been submitted in bulk from cnecovid.isciii.es/covid19/#documentación-y-datos due to a lack of daily updates
In the article's paragraph about March 6, on the Canary Islands it is said: "In Canary Islands a new case is reported, male in San Cristobal de la Laguna, Gran Canaria,[105] Another three italian female tourist and another person in Tenerife tested positive, raising the total to 13 active cases and 3 recoverys, 9 of them in Tenerife and 4 in Gran Canaria.[106][107]"
But San Cristobal de la Laguna is not on Gran Canaria but on Tenerife.
Please change "Gran Canaria to Tenerife.
(On Gran Canaria there is a place named San Cristobal, but without La Laguna. The local authorities' bulletins also mentions that the case is on Tenerife.) Detlefx (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On 2 March two cases were confirmed in Portugal, both in the city of Porto. One was a doctor that had returned from holiday in northern Italy and the other a worker from Spain.[1][2][3]
Not only Portugal: The first case in Equatorial Guinea was announced on 14 March, a 42 year old woman who returned to Equatorial Guinea from Madrid.[4]
We have confirmed cases of covid-19 spread in Portugal whose origin was Spain, therefore needing some update on that front. 2001:818:E810:8C00:9C6D:665C:1EA7:4A39 (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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) 17:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Positive for coronavirus
Can I ask editors to note that "positivo en coronavirus" translates to English as "(tested) positive for coronavirus." Prepositions are used differently in English and Spanish. It will save other editors having to constantly copyedit this. @JulenBengoitia @Alsoriano97 Thanks a lot! Valenciano (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thanks a lot to you both for good work on this article. Valenciano (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources really go into the case numbers?
I’ve seen various different numbers being used, even across this one page.
Can we make sure we at least reference to source when we update them? Otherwise the page is giving conflicting information (supposedly because it used data from different times that day) and it’s hard to make sense of it.
The central government’s numbers come out at 11:30. If there are other sources they should be listed. Kroepke (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
About the graphics on Stadistics section.
I absolutely disagree with this edit because a graph has to show all the cases and deaths, not only the last ones. Therefore, I propose to revert that change and maintain the style and data of the graph we had before. Thanks --Mcsmp (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the disputed charts. They are redundant and low resolution. It is also quite impractical to keep all charts up-to-date and referenced properly. --MarioGom (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that the graphs were bad quality and should be updated (See other section below), but I strongly disagree with "referenced properly" on the graph at the top of the page. Quite the contrary, it's very difficult to see which numbers are from where. I think it's worth having the RTVE/worldometer data at the top as that is updated more frequently, but I also think it's worth listing the official numbers including some graphs. The statistics section repeated itself quite a bit, so I want to consolidate it. Kroepke (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Origin: Germany"
The top-right-corner box says "Origin: Germany". That gives the misleading impression as if the virus had been introduced to Spain from a single country, whereas the day-by-day history makes it clear that there have been several first cases in Spain independent from each other (without direct contact) and originating from various sources (Spanish people having travelled to Italy, British tourists staying in Spain etc.). I'd recommend deleting or correcting it. --2001:A61:35B5:9801:896A:B179:E35F:7C53 (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can I please ask why Mg27127 has unilaterally decided that figures should not be sourced, by keeping adding data without reporting the source from where they are extracted or keeping removing actual sources? WP:VERIFY must still apply. Thanks. Impru20talk 13:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Worldometers is not an accurate source, I keep putting the RTVE source in and it is not being kept and is changed almost daily to Worldometers, the main page says use RTVE.Mg27127 (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Worldometers is just reporting on the data reported by RTVE, but keeps it complete by preserving data for previous days rather than merely replacing previous reports with new ones. You will notice that it keeps reporting the exact same figures than RTVE but with a slight delay. Can you explain why it is not accurate? You are not sourcing any edits and I've had to find the sources myself because the whole chart was a mess full of unsourced/invented/incomplete/wrong figures up until yesterday. Impru20talk 13:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it, those graphs should come out of the same data as the statistics table, right? If so, I can take a look at that and use a nicer format for them instead of the images they are now. -- Kroepke (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you and will thank you if you correct the data. The current format of the graphics is more than ok for me, but I'm looking forward to seeing that nicer format. @Kroepke: --Mcsmp (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The chart numbers are now absurdly wrong. Seems this scripted bulk date edit by @John B123 completely destroyed the x-axis by eating a comma at every other date. 186.90.166.18 (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once I have a bit of free time, tonight, hopefully, I will look at all the data from the official updates and repair both the table as well as look at getting the graphs back in shape. I think this section should mostly reflect the official data where available. Other sections can use more frequently updated sources, but I believe it's worth reflecting the official numbers somewhere, too. Kroepke (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have already downloaded all the "Actualizaciones" published by the Ministerio de Sanidad. Have initially updated from the 5th of March onwards. @Kroepke:Bendiwiof (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, perfect thanks! Then I'll just look at the graphs later :) Kroepke (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to fix a mistake I did with the calculation of Active Cases (I had not substracted the dead) and I have seen that @Impru20 has reverted my changes stating "Health Ministry official reports are not accurate for each day, since in most cases they relate to a specific time of the PREVIOUS day. Data reported here is also official, but updated". @Impru20, what official source more accurate and verifiable are being used then? I cannot see these numbers on the mentioned sources. The fact that they are off by one day can be fixed easily. One of the good points of these reports is that they are available to download so are easily verifiable. @Kroepke:Bendiwiof (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RTVE (Spain's public broadcaster) keeps updating the numbers at every hour in this source, with data from the Health Ministry itself. The issue is that the data you added to the chart corresponds to the ministry's daily report, published only once a day, and which does not correspond to that day's total figures because it is published throughout the morning (in fact, for some days the figures correspond to the previous day, but this is not always the case, so you can't do a valid comparison between them). It is also not the only figures released by the Ministry, just the ones given at the midday press conference. Then Worldometer keeps track of the figures reported by RTVE (which comes in handily because RTVE only updates it without preserving old data). The sources are very visible in the chart so I wonder how is it that you say that you can't find them. Impru20talk 14:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ministry of Health reports should be used for past days. It represents latest consolidated data for previous day at 21:00. RTVE can be used for the very latest data for present day in the lede and infobox. --MarioGom (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not always, some reports collected data from the same day's early morning as well. Further, initial reports from the Ministry of Health are incomplete, so you may end up not having any data for several days in February and early March. In fact, this was exactly what was done until a couple days ago: a chart made of a mixture of various and different sources, just being a bunch of WP:SYNTH. We must be consistent on the data that is given or this will be an absolute mess, and currently we can gather the data from a single source (Worldometer) collecting the data from RTVE. Impru20talk 14:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, @Impru20 sorry about the confusion with the sources and my respect for your work on Wikipedia. I saw the sources, but not where the numbers came from. It has taken me some time to see exactly what was being extracted from wordometers.info. I fully agree that the data has to be consistent, and now I understand that it is. What misdirected me was the sources stating "From 2020-03-06: Ministerio de SanidadActualización Nº 48, 2020-03-18". That source is not being used and as a consequence, I got the impression that the data was a mess. My bad. I would take out the reference to the Ministry if it is not being used. But then, I agree with @MarioGom in the fact that for historical data it would be better to use the Ministry data. Even if its not strictly given every 24 hours, it is an official source and more verifiable. HTH. @Kroepke:Bendiwiof (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But again, the Ministry data is missing for several days from 6 March, because it was not until later than it was turned into a daily report. And if we are going to resort to mixing up data from different sources to make up for the ministry's gaps, we should just use a source that keeps track of all data for consistency. Also, the data given by RTVE is not less official; as said, it is also Ministry data, the only difference being that it is simpler (i.e. not disclosed by autonomous community and such) and not contained in an official report. But one that is being updated at a constant rate. Impru20talk 16:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ChaTo, I have undone your changes on the medical cases chart. Please discuss here if you want to change the sources of the data. Also, if we want to use data from the Ministry, it is better to link to the place were the data is published instead of an intermediate github account. @Impru20:Bendiwiof (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This has been already explained previously in this discussion: the "official daily reports" are by themselves inconsistent because these do not report the full figures of the day (Catalonia and some other areas update their daily count after 21:00) and misses numbers for some days. The alternative for it was suggested to use numbers from different sources to account for the absence of data from the Ministry, a combination of data from different sources which is outrightly synthesis. Figures currently used are those reported at the end of each day, coming from reliable sources as noted in Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Case Count Task Force (mainly RTVE). These are perfectly consistent and comparable with each other because are each day's latest results. Cheers. Impru20talk 13:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Impru20 if you are synthesizing from different sources, that synthesis should be verifiable. So, everyone should be able to check if, e.g., the number of cases for March Xth is correct or there was some mistake when transcribing it. Do you agree? If that is the case, we need somewhere a table with the synthesized data, in which each row references the appropriate sources from which a figure was synthesized. Do you agree with that? If yes, where can we find such table? -- ChaTo (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you also have Worldometer giving the daily numbers worldwide (with the sources from which these are extracted), and for the case of Spain it uses the data given by RTVE, Spain's official broadcaster. The currently used numbers have not been extracted from "different sources": they are all extracted from RTVE, being kept updated daily. This has been already stated in this very same discussion previously and we do not need to keep going around in circles on it, but using the Ministry's "official daily reports" and using other sources to make up for the missing data (which was what was being done earlier on) is pure synthesis, and you would agree with me that such a situation is entirely undesirable and that we can't use incomplete data. Impru20talk 14:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case (RTVE as source, with updates throughout the day) then the last percentage shown in the chart is misleading. It may seem, e.g., in the morning, that the number of new cases is de-accelerating, while indeed, it is just because we are comparing different time periods (between day-1 and day-2 it is 24 hours, but between day and day-1 is less. Shouldn't we perhaps omit that last percentage, indicating that it cannot be computed until the end of the day (e.g., in a comment)? -- ChaTo (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The last percentage corresponds to the last data available. We keep updating it every time it gets updated in the source. It will be fully accurate by the end of the day, but I understand that we can't just anticipate as of yet unreleased data. I thought there was a footnote indicating this situation, but it was removed? Impru20talk 14:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Region statistics update
I have updated the region summary table with latest figures from RTVE. I also removed columns for recoveries and active cases. We have no reliable and up-to-date sources for this. If we kept them, we would have incorrect/misleading figures for most regions and obsolete figures for others. It's a pity we don't have better sources, but we cannot just make things up. --MarioGom (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Map in infobox
The caption of the map in the infobox is "Map of provinces with confirmed coronavirus cases (as of 18 March)". So, is a map of provinces, but the data of the 4 provinces of Catalonia is not the data of the provinces themselves, it is the data of the whole region of Catalonia. Therefore, it has to be changed, I propose use the CCAA instead of the provinces. --Mcsmp (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the thread below, we really need to use a CCAA map. We do not have reliable sources at province level. --MarioGom (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I removed the map. --Mcsmp (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Today the map has not been updated, Castilla y León, Castilla La Mancha and Comunidad Valenciana are now over 1000, Galicia and Navarra are over 500, and Cantabria is over 100. Almost a half of the map is outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.33.244 (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mistake in the map for the provinces of Catalonia
Today on march 19th 2020, the map of provinces of Catalonia is still clearly wrong. The four provinces are coloured as if they were more that 1000 cases on each province. This is false. The error might be due to political interests in order to hide the enormous numbers in Madrid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EduardVivesSE (talk • contribs) 10:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The map is wrongly colored for the provinces of Catalonia. no-one of the 4 them reach 500 cases still.
Another mistake in the total sum of the table for Madrid, that is over 3000 cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.33.161 (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To keep the mistake with figures that would imply 2000+ cases in Catalonia only means this map is anti-Catalan propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.33.52 (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JulenBengoitia: As far as I know, we don't have reliable and up-to-date data at province level. We should change the map to be at Comunidad Autónoma level. --MarioGom (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First of all: YES there is an updated map with cases at the province level (https://www.rtve.es/noticias/20200319/mapa-del-coronavirus-espana/2004681.shtml). There are only two autonomous communities (Catalonia and the Balearic Islands) whose governments do NOT facilitate distribution by province. In any case, it is for this reason that the map specified that the color in the case of Catalonia indicated that it was the data at the level of the Autonomous Community and not the provinces. I believe that conspiracy theories on political ideologies should be left out on these issues, and about those who put them out... A map at the level of Autonomous Communities is scarce given the few territorial divisions that exist in Spain, unlike France or Germany, and therefore these data do not give an idea of the real scope of the pandemic, something that at the level of provinces can be seen. That is the reason why all of Catalonia appears in the same color, and not another. I have been thinking for days about how to solve it better, but since from here I am accused - falsely - of having a certain political tendency, I will leave the experts to go ahead with the map. --JulenBengoitia (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JulenBengoitia: Thank you! That makes sense. Please, just ignore any trolling and in particular personal attacks. --MarioGom (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of the Balearic Islands, the autonomous community only contains one province, so we do have per-province data; It's the same as at the regional level. Pablodiazgutierrez (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess it is reasonable to limit the disclaimer to Catalonia. --MarioGom (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
De vergüenza. Poner a Cataluña como es, con sus cuatro provincias Coldd12 (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Causes of rapid progression in Spain
It would be interesting and informative to understand why/how Spain has become 4th country in the international table for tested cases.
Is this due to population/cultural behaviour, international travel/influx or is there a climatic factor?
Noting that Madrid is has the highest number of cases but how do these numbers compare in terms of percentage of population?
If Madrid is the hotbed then like London and Paris then is population density and public transport key factors in the contagion?
Would it be useful incorporating a section specific to this perspective?
I am looking into the angle and welcome collaboration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Millsom (talk • contribs) 07:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Millsom: To the best of my knowledge, there are still no reliable sources necessary to discuss that in a Wikipedia article. There are a few reasons being discussed, such as the lack of measures during +1 month of epidemic (e.g. lack of extensive case tracing in early stages, lack of restrictive measures later stages), but it's quite early to have some serious comparative study to say anything conclusive. --MarioGom (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the full picture is not available yet, there are some known facts:
for locations, 2757 out of 5690 fatalities (48%) are in Madrid region (#Statistics) and 1070 out of 5690 (19%) in Cataunya while few part of Spaniards leave in Madrid and Catalunya.
for dates, it appears the big steps where on 2020-02-29/03-01 and 2020-03-07/08 when occurred various events such as:
In the same time, on 28 February, the Swiss government banned all public and private gatherings of more than 1000 people until 15 March, including cancellation of the Geneva International Motor Show and French government the more than 5000 people since 29 February [3]
Also, the last day with information of news cases and deaths per days is the 18th (at 15:24 GMT+1) Chavi (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: Live update page now linked Goldsztajn (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Age Table
Hello, I suggest to edit and show a table with mortality rate by age.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.214.62 (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed claim in introductory section: 350,000 tests?
The claim "and more than 350,000 tests for COVID-19 have been conducted" in the introductory section, backed by reference 9, is highly contested and has very low credibility:
It should be removed or moved to a later section of the page with an indication that it is doubtful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.99.13.159 (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese covid tests are not working well
Hello, I would suggest if anyone could write (in the corresponding section) about these news:
Tests bought to China have a reliability of just 30%
.svg){kind=small}
Done QueerFilmNerdtalk 19:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. QueerFilmNerdtalk 04:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
