Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iswearius (talk | contribs) at 14:59, 4 April 2020 (→RfC: Formatting of sentence about xenophobia: American English). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to top
Skip to bottom

    Template:Vital article Template:COVID19 sanctions

    New to contributing?

    Welcome to Wikipedia; we're glad you're here! Please feel free to join discussions on this talk page, but be aware that, due to the volume of edits at this page, it is one of the more difficult places to jump in for newcomers. You may find it easier to edit a different COVID-19-related article (such as the one for your home country) or to help out with other tasks on Wikipedia.

    Highlighted open discussions

    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 purge this page.

    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 Superseded by #9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.[1][2] Respiratory droplets may be produced during breathing but the virus is not considered airborne.[1] It may also spread when one touches a contaminated surface and then their face.[1][2] It is most contagious when people are symptomatic, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear.[2] (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 Superseded by #7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[a] and by small droplets produced when those infected cough,[b] sneeze or talk.[1][2][4] 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.[1][5][6] People may also become infected by touching a contaminated surface and then their face.[1][2] The virus can survive on surfaces for up to 72 hours.[7] 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

    1. ^ Close contact is defined as 1 metres (3 feet) by the WHO[1] and 2 metres (6 feet) by the CDC.[2]
    2. ^ An uncovered cough can travel up to 8.2 metres (27 feet).[3]
    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] (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)

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @Magna19: Good question. I've added polls for specific countries below to better gauge that. Sdkb (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    Yes, it would, thank you. I've refactored. Sdkb (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Magna19: This edit has created a poorly-formed RfC. Whilst the statement (courtesy of Sdkb) is certainly neutral and brief, it completely lacks context in the RfC listings. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Redrose64: feel free to refactor my statement if you want to give it better context. Thanks for your efforts to tidy things up; hopefully it'll make it easier to discuss the issues at hand. Sdkb (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Redrose64: Not my statement unfortunately. Magna19 (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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) [reply]

    Italy - include
    Italy
    Iran - include
    Iran
    Spain
    France
    United States - include
    United States
    UK - include
    United Kingdom
    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)[reply]
    Germany
    South Korea - include
    South Korea
    Japan
    Singapore
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    European Union
    It is better to use Europe because a number of European countries aren't in the EU, like the UK, Norway and Switzerland. Hzh (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Includebut title "EUROPE" so we can cover the rest of Europe without having to give them their own headers. QueerFilmNerdtalk 20:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exclude. There's no coordinated European response, no coherence in how the epidemic is handled (compare Italy and Sweden, for example, with drastically different measures), there's a plethora of health care systems, no coherent philosophy around testing. /Julle (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary

    Include: China, Iran, Italy, South Korea, US, UK

    Exclude: Australia, Netherlands

    2 quick final votes if possible before we make the edits?

    @QueerFilmNerd: , @Hzh: , @RealFakeKim: , @Sdkb: , @Gtoffoletto: , @Bondegezou: , @MarioGom: , @Calthinus:

    Europe section to be called Europe or European Union?

    • European Union - Vast majority of European countries not in the EU don't seem too noteworthy anyway. Magna19 (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Europe. The individual governments seem to be the ones mainly coordinating the response rather than the EU, so it makes sense to use the geographic grouping of "Europe" rather than the arbitrary political grouping of the EU that excludes Switzerland for no good reason. Sdkb (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Europe - per Sdkb (the UK and Switzerland btw) — RealFakeKimT 08:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • European Union - as in the "political and economic union of 27 states" which is coordinating several countries in a similar way to the US and individual states. It would be crazy to include individually each US state (although they each have their own individual response). Monetary policy is an example of how the response is being coordinated at the EU level. Switzerland is not included and not relevant IMHO as well as other small countries not included. The only relevant individual country within the EU is Italy that could have a sub section within the EU section as it was the first with major cases (this might change). Germany France etc. just treated within the general section.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Switzerland has one of the highest per capita rate of infection outside of tiny countries. Hzh (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Outside of Hubei, Italy and Spain I think. I don't think number of cases is relevant in this as they are subject to change and soon many countries will have a lot of cases.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Europe - We don't really know which other European countries will become notable enough to be mentioned in the future, and this will cover any potential ones worth mentioning. Italy should have its own section under Europe, Spain possibly, but not Germany or France which merit a paragraph each under the Europe section. Hzh (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If Europe, is the UK noteworthy enough for its own sub?

    The situation may develop in such a way that that is no longer the case.--Calthinus (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • UK -- yes, European Union not "Europe" if we have to use it. Hundreds of millions of people live in non-EU European countries. We cannot simply lump them in... if we are "lumping at all" (eventually I foresee us being at a point where it is "Other countries" and not "Europe" that is the "leftovers basket" section). --Calthinus (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Other Eurpoen countries have in some cases 10 times the cases of the UK. — RealFakeKimT 08:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral: their "herd immunity" response was unique. They have given it up now though apparently so No is acceptable too. I guess I'm abstaining here! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No but may be mentioned in a paragraph under Europe on account of its early approach (which has since been abandoned, therefore not worth looking at in details). It can change if cases escalate there. Hzh (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Can always re-visit at a later date and adjust where necessary but most are pretty unanimous for now, would normally wait longer but given the fast moving picture and significance of article, should be at its best soon as practical IMO. Magna19 (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with Hzh. The polls so far align pretty well with what's in the article currently, so the page will be fine. We don't yet have a clear consensus on the more borderline cases. It's fine to start fleshing out what a Europe section might look like, though. Sdkb (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The problems now is that with the summary added, people think it has concluded and stopped adding their votes. Perhaps remove the countries listed in "include" and "exclude" in the Summary section, and wait for a day or so first and see if anything changes. True, it can be revisited later, but there is really no need to hurry here. And yes, keep the discussion on Europe/EU going in the meantime. Hzh (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus seems strong for several. Some are contentious (Singapore and Spain). However Spain is included in the EU discussion. Can we "Close" the non contentious ones and only keep Singapore open and continue with the EU discussion only? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've collapsed the ones with clear consensus (unanimous or near-unanimous with sufficient votes and is unlikely to change). A few others like European Union could be collapsed as well, but we'll see. Hzh (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Agree --Gtoffoletto (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It’s poorly worded because doc james wants it clear that it isn’t known to be airborne, but we agree to want to make it clear that it can be transmitted via exhalation in the lead . An alternative would be “primarily small droplets produced during coughing, sneezing, and talking. These droplets can be transmitted through breathing, but only during close contact, and not over large distances “ Almaty (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Which maps to include

    Okay, so as we start to figure out consensus on which countries to include, the next step is to determine how long each section should be. One big part of that is whether to include a map of the country with cases per capita in different regions. I see several possible ways to go about this — we could include maps for all or none of the countries we list, we could include only for the most severely hit and/or largest countries, or we could take into account how much regional variation there is in the virus's prevalence throughout a country. What's the right strategy here? Sdkb (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think there could be a fixed length for any section. China and US can be trimmed somewhat, but otherwise the other section are fine for now and should not get too big. I don't feel that any map is necessary since that should be in the individual articles, and you'd need to remove other images or tables otherwise it gets too crowded. Hzh (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to add a map for Europe since it seems to merit one and replace the U.S. map with the better per capita one, since that section has room for it and the U.S. is big enough for there to be regional variation. I wouldn't be opposed to adding a map for China, since it's also a geographically big country with a roomier section here, but as it's not there currently I won't add it. Sdkb (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Add Section on Latin America?

    I do not think any countries in Latin America currently deserve a section on their own, but Latin America as a whole deserves a section. In particular, Brazil is notable for Bolsonaro's relative downplaying of the threat [1] (I haven't seen this in any large country other than Brazil). Ecuador seems especially ravaged on a per-capita basis. [2]. The only issue is that if we add a section on Latin America, we might as well add a section on Africa as well. Alternatively, we could split the section by continent as a whole, which could clean up the "Domestic responses" section. Nmurali02 (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's really a global pandemic at this point, so I agree it might make sense toward having "Domestic responses" split into continents and then, if needed, countries, like we do for Europe currently. Questions that come up there is how we want to handle the Middle East and Australia.
    Overall, this section is a mess, since the prevailing !votes on yes Singapore and no France aren't being enforced in the actual article, and there's some conflicts between different parts of this discussion e.g. on the UK. The article itself is looking okay, but the disconnect between that and the talk page here needs to be remedied. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Should we switch the lead infobox map from cases per capita to deaths per capita?

    Per Metropolitan's arguments here, the death count is a better metric at this point of the severity of a pandemic in a given region than the case count, since the latter is highly dependent on the region's testing capacity. Accordingly, I propose that we switch to using the deaths per capita map as the top map in the infobox, with the others collapsed beneath. Sdkb (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose. For months, we have focused on case counts. I see no compelling argument to change this right now. I understand that testing is not being evenly applied across regions but the case count (and cases per million) is the best number we have right now to measure the extent to which the pandemic has impacted each region. And testing volumes are increasing dramatically everywhere. Death rates are greatly influenced by each region's healthcare system quality and capacity. I'd oppose changing for now. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    One way to look at it might be that we want the map to reflect the fact that some countries' weaker healthcare systems are leading to higher death counts there. Sdkb (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. The current stage of the crisis is of a different nature than what it was in january, requiring us to change our perception on this. Some countries such as South Korea or Germany have tested at a very large scale, even people with very mild symptoms or no at all [1]. However, in many other countries such as Italy, Spain, France or the UK, healthcare systems are totally overwhelmed and the testing capacity is saturated. Testing is limited only to the most serious cases and healthcare workers [2]. As a result, the number of confirmed cases reported daily remains steady, not because we're nearing its peak but simply because there's no testing capacity to report more. Using this metric as the main one can easily lead to very fallacious conclusions about the maturity and intensity of the epidemics from a country to another. Obviously deaths count has its own bias as well [3], yet, very sadly, the number of deaths will never reach any saturation point like testing does. As such, reported deaths remain, despite its flaws, a much better metric to get an idea about the intensity of the epidemic in each country. Therefore, it would seem wiser to use the deaths metric as the ranking by default on Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data table. Metropolitan (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think these concerns can be fairly addressed with a footnote. We're already seeing death-to-case ratios vary by an order of magnitude from one country to the next so I really don't think counting deaths is a fair indicator of anything. Testing capacity limits are rapidly being resolved and cheaper and faster tests will come to market over the next few weeks. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The first map is based off a recent consensus formed here. It's to early from that to change it in my opinion. — RealFakeKimT 14:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @RealFakeKim: When I formulated the question for that RfC, you'll notice that I referred only to "per capita" vs. "total", and left out the word "cases". That was a deliberate choice, since I anticipated we might at some point want to switch to using death counts instead. I'll leave it to others with more medical/statistical experience to decide what the best approach is at this point (I haven't been persuaded to wed myself to one or the other yet), but I don't think that that RfC should be used as an argument against switching. The other maps RfC might serve as a slightly better precedent, but it was a little muddled since it was asking about per capita vs. totals/cases vs. deaths/collapsed vs. uncollapsed all at the same time. Plus it was started over a week ago, which is meaningful given how rapidly the situation is evolving. Sdkb (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: Death is not the only consequence of the disease, and the constant fixation on the fatality rate in the media can likely be of partial blame for the complacency seen among the general public (e.g. "It's no big deal, only 3.5% die!" or "Don't worry, only boomers and retirees die!"). There are plenty of infected patients that do not die, but end up in ICU and require emergency intervention, not to mention we don't fully understand the long-term chronic implications of the disease yet (e.g. lung tissue scarring, and whether or not patients are able to eventually regain most of their pre-infection lung capacity). The spotlight needs to be on infection, and not excessively on cases of death. --benlisquareT•C•E 17:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an incredibly important point. I'd also add that as treatment improves in coming weeks and months, the death rate will become a weaker and weaker indicator of the pandemic's reach. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Per capita confirmed cases were always dependant on testing capacity, and as the pandemic continues and countries like the US fail to increase testing capacity, the numbers quickly become misleading. Unfortunately, deaths are not subject to the same issues of testing capacity; we could test no one and the rate of reported deaths would remain the same. Given the known issues with testing capacity in many countries and the growing death toll, per capita deaths are a better representation of the extent of the pandemic. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't this depend on the country's (or local provincial) specific procedures? If there is little to no testing capability for cadavers, then if an untested patient dies, wouldn't the cause of death be recorded as unrelated pneumonia? If the local provincial/national policy was to cremate all pneumonia-case bodies, tested or untested, would they record all bodies as coronavirus cases? --benlisquareT•C•E 02:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily. The testing capacity required to have an accurate count of deaths is much lower than the testing capacity required to have an accurate count of infections. If we ballpark the death rate at 3%, you'd need 30 times more testing to identify 90% of confirmed case than you would need to identify every death (and that's assuming we never test someone without the disease). It also is more likely that in regions with limited testing capacity, tests will be limited to severe cases which are also the ones most likely to die, so cases that lead to death are more likely to be identified well before actual death. I find it unlikely that covid19 deaths will go misreported as pneumonia-related deaths since every doctor in the world is on the lookout for patients with pneumonia-like symptoms. Even if there are the occasional errors, the much greater error is using data we know represents testing capacity and not infection rates and then tell readers that it represents infection rates. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In some countries, the number of deaths counted depends on testing, so the whole point is moot. For example, in Iran, it is said that they classed the deaths as pneumonia or other causes if they had not been tested for the virus. Hzh (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support As @Wugapodes: stated. The readers want to make sure these details are there for them to see. We cant have anymore misinfomation or missing detail on such heavily worked topic. Regice2020 (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Death is only one of the possible symptoms of COVID-19. People who spend days in ICU and place a significant stain on the healthcare system are also to be accounted for. The main map should reflect the spread of COVID-19, not the number of respirators available to save people. Moreover, countries that under-report the number of cases often also under-report the number of death. Of course if the global consensus goes towards death per capita map, then we should follow it!Raphaël Dunant (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Is the most object quantity (with least amount of uncertainty) Voorlandt (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose per Raphael Dunant--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as is Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Death numbers are much more comparable between countries. Also: We should always prioritize numbers per capita over absolute numbers.Tomastvivlaren (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose No good reason to change it, especially as the death rates appear to vary considerably between countries, over ten times the difference in some cases (e.g. very low in Germany but very high in Italy). Hzh (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above is likely explained by Germans testing much more than Italians by now. The above is a reason to prioritize the death map, not because deaths are the only important thing, but because deaths are probably a better basis for an estimate of the real cases than the confirmed cases are; both confirmed deaths and confirmed cases are subject to incomplete testing, but deaths would seem less so. Ideally, show both per capita maps and drop the map with absolute numbers, and then it will be no longer so important which of the two maps is prioritized. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, since some countries don't count deaths they haven't tested, they simply attribute deaths to other causes like pneumonia, therefore death number would also be unreliable. Hzh (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Too soon. There will come a time. But right now for a current event what is more of interest is the infections/infection rate. --Calthinus (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The per capita map just needs its ranges tweaked or added to. It's far too homogeneous in colour to be helpful at conveying the data. Worse, it might be misleading, implying some countries have similar rates when it's anything but. If you're going to lead with that map you at least need to include the specific numbers in the following chart because, as it stands, it requires users to look all of the information up themselves and do the math.135.23.106.211 (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The article should switch to using a harmonic mean of infection rates, hospitalization rates, intubation rates, and fatality rates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.111.74 (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The deaths per capita, although comes with its own biases, is a better indicator of the effect on the region and is less affected by the saturated testing capacity in many regions.--17jiangz1 (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, as per 17jiangz1 and others. The cases figure is known to be all over the place because of different approaches to testing from country to country. It could be off by more than an order of magnitude. Deaths, while still having some differences in recording, are much more comparable. Bondegezou (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The reasons given above are strong and convincing. Cases are nowhere near as reliable a statistic as deaths. The only valid argument I see in opposition is that a pandemic is not characterised by deaths but by cases. While this is true, one could argue that the impact of a pandemic is indeed better characterised by deaths. I feel that argument ends up being a 50/50 about what is considered important, with equal validity to those who say deaths are more important and those who say cases are more important. With equality on that argument, and the reliability argument favouring heavily the use of deaths as a metric, I definitely support this change.Wikiditm (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as per others' comments. I don't see how "for months, we have focused on case counts, why should we switch now" is a good argument. If you have focused on the wrong thing for months, shouldn't that be an incentive to focus on the better measure immediately? Once cases become the better measure again, you can always switch back. Only tangentially related: in the "Deaths" section, can someone explain to me the difference between "death-to-case ratio" and case fatality rate? The section makes it seem like those are two distinct measures, but (and I am not an expert), to me they seem to be the same thing...? Felix.winter2010 (talk) 8:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Support - The cases map is certainly misleading, as it makes the most efficient countries like Germany and South Korea look like problem cases. Quite the opposite. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Case count is largely meaningless as a means of comparing the epidemic in two countries, due to the huge discrepancy in testing regimes. It's comparing apples to oranges. The death count, although not completely consistent (some countries may be less likely to test for COVID in a postmortem than others, for example), is certainly much better than case count, because most deaths will be recorded unlike many stay-at-home-and-isolate cases which are not.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The argument simply doesn't make sense. Countries that don't test much, whether on the living or the dead, won't register deaths as being due to Covid-19. I'm not sure why people would also assume that post-mortem test is something even done in most countries (I would think most countries don't do it when even rich countries like Germany don't). This is in addition to countries that have been accused of deliberately downplaying the number of deaths. Hzh (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The countries that test less focus their small number of tests, and they focus them on people who are more likely to carry the disease; that's the idea. In such countries, covid-infected people are more likely to escape testing than covid-infected dying people (dying of covid or with covid.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both – because deaths lag cases by several weeks, but also they are arguably the more reliable statistic. Countries like S Korea and Germany have kept things under control by much more extensive testing which gives comparatively high case figures. I maintain the graphs of new cases and daily deaths on this page and lacking any better measure I use the weighted average of the two figures to pick the top 5 countries. If a statistician can suggest a better combination I'm open to it. Chris55 (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Having thought about it for a few minutes, it's probably better to use the geometric mean. Chris55 (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Transmission

    Proposed revision of the Transmission section

    Although the content of the Transmission section is good, the structure is poor. Paras 1,2, and 4 deal with droplets, para 3 mentions feces and severity of symptoms.

    I propose revision as follows:

    Para 1 - Brief introduction; severity of symptoms, droplets (main), feces (possible)
    Para 2 - Airborne droplets
    Para 3 - Droplets on surfaces (fomites)

    How does that sound? Robertpedley (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    also asymptomatic needs a section. Do u know what this ample research is from prof Macintyre?—Almaty (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I support a reorganisation and also removing the technical terms respiratory droplets and airborne, whilst including de-emphasised exhalation (as part of the main method). Although you, doc james, and I know what we’re talking about, the a world sure doesn’t. 

    It is primarily spread via small droplets produced during coughing, sneezing, and talking. The virus can also be transmitted via breathing, but only during close contact, and not over large distances.

    please see this WHO tweet and also the twitter replies as to how confused the world is by our current wording. —Almaty (talk) 09:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Drbogdan your opinion will be welcome.Robertpedley (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robertpedley: yes - agree - a better wording and related may be indicated - your own suggestions above seem *entirely* ok with me at the moment - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! Drbogdan (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    OK - here's my first draft.

    Notes:

    1) I have only used existing cited sources - CDC reviewed 4 March, WHO revised 28 March, ECDC updated 31 March. Some of these are more recently updated versions than currently appear in the page. I've left the citations out of the text below.

    2) None of the sources give talkng or breathing as a source of droplets.

    3) There's currently a detailed paragraph on disinfecting surfaces - I propose to move this into the "Prevention & Control" section.

    Research is ongoing into the transmission of COVID-19. There is consensus that COVID-19 is mainly transmitted from one person to another through respiratory droplets produced by a person with symptoms, for example by coughing or sneezing. There may be a risk of transmission in this way from people who are infected but do not yet display COVID-19 symptoms. These droplets then come into contact, either directly or indirectly, with another person’s mouth, nose, or eyes.

    Respiratory droplets may remain in the air between 1 and 2 metres (3.3 to 6.6 feet) under normal circumstances and directly cause infection if they come into contact with another person. In order to avoid infection, minimum physical distancing of 1 metre is recommended by WHO and ECDC, while CDC recommends 2 metres.

    Respiratory droplets may also cause infection if they land on objects which are subsequently touched by an uninfected person, and then transferred to that person’s mouth, nose or eyes. The virus can survive in this way for hours or possibly days.

    While there are concerns it may spread by feces, this risk is believed to be low. Some medical procedures such as intubation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) may increase the likelihood of airborne spread.

    Robertpedley (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      • 1) We had a massive RfC about this.
      • 2) The claim that "None of the sources give talkng or breathing as a source of droplets." Breathing is mentioned in "when a person with COVID-19 coughs or exhales" exhaled means breathing out...
      • 3) User:Robertpedley unclear were this text is coming from? For example "Respiratory droplets may remain in the air between 1 and 2 metres (3.3 to 6.6 feet) under normal circumstances" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to Doc James
    Point 1 - sorry, I missed that. I know there has been extensive discussion about the wording of the lead section, but I'm not editing the lead; this section has room for more detail. My proposed edit has been here for about 4 days, no-one pointed that out before.
    Point 2 - OK I was wrong again.
    Point 3 - It's my attempt at a synthesis of the 3 main sources - CDC, ECDC, and WHO. So far as I know the edit doesn't violate WP:MEDRS, WP:CITE, WP:PLAG, or WP:SYN
    I'd be very happy to accept constructive suggestions, or if someone else would like to edit the proposed revision so that it incorporates the extra details I have missed.
    Robertpedley (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Robertpedley this stuff is critical important. I am wanting to see what reference and what text supports each sentence as it was before. This bit belongs under prevention not cause "In order to avoid infection, minimum physical distancing of 1 metre is recommended by WHO and ECDC, while CDC recommends 2 metres."
    Close contact is also listed as a primary method of spread. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    In the latest World Health Organization recommendations for COVID-19, health care personnel and other staff are advised to maintain a 3-foot distance away from a person showing symptoms of disease, such as coughing and sneezing. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a 6-foot separation. However, these distances are based on estimates of range that have not considered the possible presence of a high-momentum cloud carrying the droplets long distances. Given the turbulent puff cloud dynamic model, recommendations for separations of 3 to 6 feet may underestimate the distance, timescale, and persistence over which the cloud and its pathogenic payload travel, thus generating an underappreciated potential exposure range for a health care worker. Peak exhalation speeds can reach up to 33 to 100 feet per second, creating a cloud that can span approximately 23 to 27 feet. [3] Givingbacktosociety (talk) 04:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Givingbacktosociety Yes but it also says that further research is needed to find out if this affects infectivity of SARS-COV-2, so it's currently speculative. There's a lot of "blue skies" research like this which is valuable but may not make it into the mainstream. Organisations like CDC and WHO will (hopefully) evaluate it and modify guidelines if appropriate.Robertpedley (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/world/americas/brazil-bolsonaro-coronavirus.html
    2. ^ https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/03/826675439/corpses-lie-for-days-as-ecuador-struggles-to-keep-up-with-covid-19-deaths
    3. ^ Turbulent Gas Clouds and Respiratory Pathogen Emissions Potential Implications for Reducing Transmission of COVID-19
    We should follow WP:MEDRS and use high quality secondary sources. Once the CDC, ECDC, or WHO switch their recommendation than so should we.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC on the lead transmission first two sentences

    is it reasonable to summarise the sources of the WHO ECDC and CDC as they stand today with the following two sentences:

    The virus is primarily spread via small droplets produced during coughing, sneezing, and talking. It can also be transmitted via breathing, but only during close contact, and not over large distances. —Almaty (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ps done, as I believe that being a major contributor to the previous rfc, this still is consensus. Also we need to avoid technical language. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to reply to this new rfc. —Almaty (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have restored the prior consensus as noted at the top of this page. The sources support primarily coughing and sneezing and less so simple talking. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    yes but we can get rid of the technical words . —Almaty (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am happy to go with "small droplets" rather than "respiratory droplets". Addressing airborne if we are talking about simple breathing was the balance we agreed to. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I bunch of people agreed on the prior consensus including you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But no numbers ? !
    We can be timid, I guess, if we want to. But this is just too important a topic to be anything other than very straightforward. We have numbers from WHO, CDC, and medical journals regarding what is “close contact,” and we should use those numbers.
    WHO says at least 3 feet social distance. U.S. CDC says at least 6 feet. Yes, this is awkward, perhaps even embarrassing. But I’ve come around to embracing it. With a new disease, it’s to be expected that authorities will have differing views. Even if views later converge, we should still probably include this as an example of the initial uncertainly surrounding COVID-19. We shouldn’t be embarrassed about it, or try to paper it over.
    And regarding coughs, we have at least two medical articles saying, quite a bit further than 6 feet. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:FriendlyRiverOtter no numbers in the lead or in the body? We could have them as a hatnote in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I want distance recommendations matter-of-factly in the lead itself, just like we include dates of emergency and then pandemic. Is a hatnote a parenthetic comment? I’d rather just mention a few numbers in the sentence itself. I prefer going light on use of parentheses. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay so what do you propose? The sentence is currently "The virus is mainly spread during close contact and by small droplets produced when people cough or sneeze."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay added the numbers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doc James: When I closed the last discussion, I made sure to mention that if someone wanted to discuss further changes they could start a new discussion (that one had grown very large and any hope of getting new participants to read it all was going to be small). I see nothing wrong with addressing the changing landscape our sources are providing too: I know a number of media outlets (including CNN on their front page today) has said officials are starting to think it was a mistake to advise people not to wear masks. That goes hand-in-hand with noting what the WHO has noted since our last discussion: you can spread this by simply talking. Consensus can change. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I have no problem discussing consensus changing. But do not think it is fair to everyone involved in the discussion to change everything without discussion and a new consensus.
    The recommendations around people wearing masks is somewhat separate from the discussion on how it spreads. IMO wearing a simple cloth mask should be recommended for everyone. Keeps people from beathing out / coughing and contaminating their environment. Expecially with the 72 hours on surfaces. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Locke Cole: and simply by talking . . . certainly sounds airborne to me! (over short distances and brief time periods) And yet, WHO are other public health authorities, like a band of 1st century Christians, seemed to have gone the route of dogma. The public health “establishment,” as it were, seems to be insisting that COVID-19 is not generally airborne. And this seems to turn on a purely linguistic issue that in public health circles “airborne” is taken to mean highly airborne. Wow. And that is just really confusing. I mean, it’s bad to take a common word and use it in a restrictive, technical sense. That’s a lot worse than just introducing and using a pure technical term. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The WHO has emphatically said it is NOT airborne. The part where they mention talking is that those who are contagious can inadvertently contaminate surfaces by normal talking. NOT that it lingers in the air. That's where the use of masks earlier, as in a number of Asian countries, could have helped significantly slow the spread. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Locke Cole: when WHO says it’s not airborne, they are not speaking English. When they say not airborne, they mean not highly airborne in the fashion of measles. Don’t know how they’ve made such a muddled mess of the whole thing.
    I’m going to post a link to Wired magazine which nails it. And sometimes you need someone outside a field to nail a problem or issue. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They Say Coronavirus Isn't Airborne—but It's Definitely Borne By Air, Wired, Roxanne Khamsi, 14 March 2020.
    ’ . . When health officials say the pathogen isn’t “airborne,” they’re relying on a narrow definition of the term, and one that’s been disputed by some leading scholars of viral transmission through the air. . ‘
    I believe that this "Respiratory droplets may be produced during breathing but the virus is not generally airborne." balances the fact that it can spread via simple breathing but is not technically airborne.
    Anyone object to changing respiratory droplets to "small droplets"?
    What about changing "not generally airborne" to "not generally highly airborne"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We’re better off telling what COVID-19 is, rather than what it isn’t, especially in the lead. And @Doc James: I thought you ER Docs were a very plain-spoken bunch, for example, “the patient injured his penis because he stuck it into a vacuum cleaner,” although I suspect rather in less genteel terms.
    And yet curiously here, we’re going to parse “airborne” to the 10th degree, become English scholars, in fact, attempt to re-define English. I just don’t get the upside. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Advice from public helath bodies is based on risk. For 2 people separated by 1 foot, a cough would almost certainly cause transmission. Increase the distance to a yard, it's less likely. 2 yards, you would need a really projectile cough so risk is further reduced, but it's not 0.000%. I'm sure that if you coughed in a hurricane, droplets would carry downwind for quite a distance further. The guys who write guidelines for CDC and WHO have to draw a line somewhere. Robertpedley (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It may not need that much of a projectile cough.
    Loh, Ne-Hooi Will; Tan, Yanni; Taculod, Juvel H.; et al. (18 March 2020). "The Impact of High-Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) on Coughing Distance: Implications on Its Use During the Novel Coronavirus Disease Outbreak". Canadian Journal of Anesthesia. doi:10.1007/s12630-020-01634-3. PMC 7090637. PMID 32189218.
    —>This study found up to 4.5 meters (15 feet).
    Bourouiba, Lydia (26 March 2020). "Turbulent Gas Clouds and Respiratory Pathogen Emissions: Potential Implications for Reducing Transmission of COVID-19". JAMA. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.4756. PMID 32215590.
    —>This study, which took a fluid dynamic approach, found up to 8.2 meters (27 feet). FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We should really be sticking with sources per MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ECDC states "The virus seems to be transmitted mainly via small respiratory droplets through sneezing, coughing, or when people interact with each other for some time in close proximity (usually less than one metre)."

    The CDC states "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, sneezes or talks."

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

    So have added "talk" to the first sentence since that is now supported as one of the main methods. Happy to restore the prior version if anyone disagrees. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I’d rather say, “On April 2, the U.S. CDC recommends . . . ” And the CDC now gives this reference a “last reviewed” date of April 2. Unfortunately, many of our references are buried in a huge list in the “References” section itself, making them very difficult to update. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Studies of how far a cough travels.

    Loh, Ne-Hooi Will; Tan, Yanni; Taculod, Juvel H.; et al. (18 March 2020). "The Impact of High-Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) on Coughing Distance: Implications on Its Use During the Novel Coronavirus Disease Outbreak". Canadian Journal of Anesthesia. doi:10.1007/s12630-020-01634-3. PMC 7090637. PMID 32189218.

    —> This study found up to 4.5 meters (15 feet).

    Bourouiba, Lydia (26 March 2020). "Turbulent Gas Clouds and Respiratory Pathogen Emissions: Potential Implications for Reducing Transmission of COVID-19". JAMA. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.4756. PMID 32215590.

    —>This study took a fluid dynamic approach and found up to 8.2 meters (27 feet).

    And both studies specifically reference Coronavirus making this pertinent to our article. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    We should stick with high quality secondary sources rather than primary sources. And please can we keep this stuff together. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But didn’t our norms and practices evolve for relatively static situations, and not a dynamic, fast-moving situation? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The CDC, WHO, and ECDC are adjusting their recommendations as they feel the evidence supports it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Changes 1

    What do people think of

    Versus

    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference WHO2020QA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference CDCTrans was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    3. ^ Cite error: The named reference ECDCQA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

    Notes

    1. ^ Close contact is defined as 1 meter (3 feet) by WHO[1] and 2 meter (6 feet) by the CDC[2]

    Changes 2

    Wondering what people think of

    Rather than

    • "These small droplets may be produced during breathing but the virus is not generally airborne."

    In the lead? Would this address the concerns about using the technical term "airborne"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Cite error: The named reference WHO2020QA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    2. ^ "Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: implications for IPC precaution recommendations". World Health Organization. 29 March 2020. Retrieved 3 April 2020. According to current evidence, COVID-19 virus is primarily transmitted between people through respiratory droplets and contact routes.
    3. ^ Organization (WHO), World Health (28 March 2020). "FACT: #COVID19 is NOT airborne. The #coronavirus is mainly transmitted through droplets generated when an infected person coughs, sneezes or speaks.To protect yourself:-keep 1m distance from others-disinfect surfaces frequently-wash/rub your -avoid touching your pic.twitter.com/fpkcpHAJx7". @WHO. Retrieved 3 April 2020. These droplets are too heavy to hang in the air. They quickly fall on floors or sufaces.
    I think it’ll be a definite improvement, and I go ahead and make that change. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay will give it a couple of days and than update the "current consensus" if no one raises concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Formatting of sentence about xenophobia

    The sentence about xenophobia and racism related to the pandemic keeps getting edited back and forth by me and other users, so I believe it's appropriate to create an RfC about it. The current formatting of the sentence is "Misinformation and conspiracy theories about the virus have spread online as well as xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people, people of Asian descent, and others from hotspots.", added by me.

    Three versions of the sentence have been included lately:

    1. ...as well as xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people and people of Asian descent. (Sentence mentioning discrimination against people of Asian descent only.)
    2. ...as well as xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people, people of Asian descent, and others from hotspots. (Sentence mentioning discrimination against people from other hotspots, but highlighting Asians.)
    3. ...while xenophobia and discrimination against various ethnic groups has increased internationally. (More ambiguous formatting not mentioning specific groups.)

    So I am asking, which the three versions is the most appropriate and neutral. It's also worth asking, if the word "Asians" should specify "East Asians", considering Asian is quite a wide term, at least in most usages. --Tiiliskivi (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, the sentences about misinformation/conspiracy and xenophobia/racism should probably be split in two separate sentences, since the current "as well as" formatting implies that the discrimination is happening exclusively online. --Tiiliskivi (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what's been happening in the past 24hr or so, but there have been plenty of other versions beyond those recently. When I last checked in, it was Misinformation and conspiracy theories about the virus have spread online and there have been incidents of xenophobia and racism against Chinese and other East and Southeast Asian people. I think the "and there have been incidents of" was better, for the reason you mentioned that xenophobia hasn't just been online. The "others from hotspots" was language I added to consolidate after someone else added a full sentence about discrimination against Europeans, which was way too much in my view. At that point, I used "against Chinese people, other Asians, and others" but it was subsequently changed by someone who reasonably objected that "Asians" was too broad a category, given that there hasn't been significant discrimination against e.g. Indians (it had also been that way at some prior point, so yeah, lots of back and forth, and thanks for opening a forum for discussion about this). There is also room for discussion about "Asian" vs. "Asian descent" vs. "Asian descent or appearance". It gets tricky. I support option 2 since most of the incidents have been against Asian people, so that should be noted, but not to the total exclusion of incidents against others. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 11:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 I am not sure why did you start a RfC before even discussing this. I wouldn't mention Xenophobia against people from "hotspots" in the lead. The Xenophobia is mainly against Asians.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence originally included the words "East Asian and Southeast Asian" not "Asian". I don't know why "Asian" has been suggested when the term "Asian" refers to so many different groups. More than 1 billion Asians (most South Asians, Southeast Asians and Central Asians) aren't even experiencing any racism so to use "Asian" provides an incorrect image that suggests all Asians are facing discrimination. In Asia, itself, it is only those with Chinese (East Asian) features that have faced xenophobia and racism. It makes no sense to change it to "Asian" when only part of the Asian population has been directly affected by this. Additionally, xenophobia and racism have increased towards Westerners so this needs to be pointed out as well. (Sapah3 (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    • Note: Contributors to this RfC may also be interested in the one at Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States#RfC about whether or not to include a sentence on xenophobia in the lead of that article. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support the implementation of option 2 into the lede. I however object to the use of "Asian". "Asian" should be changed to "East Asian and Southeast Asian". So far only Asians that have East Asian features are facing discrimination (that includes many Southeast Asians). Some Indians (South Asians), like the incident in Israel, have faced discrimination but that's only because of their East Asian features. Most Indians with typical South Asian features aren't facing discrimination, neither are Central Asians or Southeast Asians like Malays, Indonesians or East Timorese who mostly have typical Southeast Asian features. (Sapah3 (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    Sapah3 - You provided citations. I agree that we use "East Asian and Southeast Asian" as per: "and there have been numerous incidents of xenophobia and discrimination initially against Chinese people and people of East Asian and Southeast Asian descent, and increasingly against people from hotspots in Europe, the United States and other countries as the pandemic spreads around the globe."Iswearius (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iswearius: Thank you for your cooperation in resolving this, I appreciate it. (Sapah3 (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    @Iswearius and Sapah3: I'm glad you two have found agreement on using "East and Southeast Asian". I'm fine letting that stand as the prevailing consensus unless anyone comes along arguing for just using "Asian", in which case we'll need to discuss further. Iswearius, your edit reintroducing the language also made a few other changes, some of which seem to go against best practice and/or consensus. Namely, I don't see consensus for listing out the countries after "hotspots", so I'd ask you to please (regardless of your personal view) go back to the wording that ends with "hotspots" so as to abide by WP:STATUSQUO. (I'm not comfortable reverting you myself since I've made some other reversions recently and don't want to violate WP:3RR.) You also added back the two additional references Sapah3 added, which means that there are now six citations for that sentence. Per MOS:LEADCITE, the general best practice is to have as few citations in the lead as necessary, and my understanding is that six is way too many. The Atlantic one is alright, but the Guardian one is an opinion piece and thus a pretty weak reference, so I'd ask that you or Sapah3 remove it (or at least move it to the body). Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. As long as the international character of the emergent hotspots, as in the sources, is reflected.Iswearius (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with your edit since the use of "increasingly" is WP:OR and the word international is redundant since hotspots can already be/already are international. Some1 (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with Some1. "as the pandemic spreads across the globe" also feels redundant and wordy to me. It wasn't in there originally, and since Wikipedia isn't a thesis paper we don't need to wrap up the intro with a tidy bow at the end. Iswearius or anyone else under the 3RR, would you be open to removing it for now to revert to the status quo of just ", and others from hotspot"? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sdkb: You're free to revert to Status Quo since no consensus has been reached yet and this RfC is still ongoing. Some1 (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iswearius: You've edited the sentence again, going against the prevailing consensus from Some1's and my comments, and moving away from the status quo while an active discussion is taking place here. You need to stop acting unilaterally and respect the BRD process, and if you do not do so you may face sanctions. (I'm personally ambivalent about the way you rephrased — it's better than the previous attempt — but that's beside the point about adhering to process.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sdkb - I returned to the article and found the sentence worded in a clumsy way. I simply clarified spontaneously, no offense intended. I feel, as you mentioned, this rendition is a good compromise. Otherwise, it is not clear that the emergent hotspots are not in Asia which, in accordance with the sources, they aren't. As for the incidents pointed out below by Some1, they unfortunately concerned a now indeffed sock notorious for warring.Iswearius (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Iswearius The edit you made, as pointed out by Sdkb above, still has issues with WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Please stop editing the sentence until consensus is achieved. This is what this RfC/ discussion is for and if you have any suggestions, add it here and not the main text while discussion is still in progress. Sdkb, could you return it back to Status Quo? 11:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at Iswearius's recent contributions; it's full of edit warring about the xenophobia sentence in the lead of this and the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic article. I'm surprised they haven't been blocked yet for their disruptive editing. Some1 (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you be more specific? What part is WP:UNDUE exactly? Considering the majority of List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic are incidents against Asians, more weight should be given to that in the lead per WP:DUE. SharabSalam makes a good point about xenophobia being mainly against Asians and that xenophobia against people from hotspots shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. If others want to include hotspots though, then Option 2 works best since it balances out what's due and undue. Some1 (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's UNDUE with regard to the significance of the issue within the article, rather than about any specific groups of people being the victim. The section devoted to it is simply too big, and any mention in the lead should also be broad and minimal. (I also don't see why panic buying should be mentioned in the lead at all). Hzh (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support option 2 and agree with Sdkb and MelanieN that adding "incidents of..." is useful for clarity. My reason for supporting option #2 is that a plurality or majority of these incidents have been directed against Asians, but there are also examples of others being targeted. -Darouet (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Option 1 is closest to the truth, but as I have elaborated on in the section below, this xenophobia isn't rational or deeply thought about. China is the bogeyman and whipping boy here, so what we have is an irrational fear of people who LOOK Chinese to the people doing the discriminating. It's no more complex than that, and we must not pretend it is. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    How to describe subset of Asians that have faced the brunt of discrimination?

    I'm separating out this question since it's distinct from the main one asked in the RfC above. We have a whole bunch of possible alternatives:

    1. ...against Chinese people, other Asians, and...
    2. ...against Chinese people, other people of Asian descent, and...
    3. ...against Chinese people, other East and Southeast Asians, and...
    4. ...against Chinese people, other people of East and Southeast Asian descent, and...
    5. ...against Chinese people, other people of East and Southeast Asian descent and appearance, and... (the loose status quo)

    Any of these alternatives could also be used without the clause specifically about Chinese people. What do you all think is the proper balance between precision and conciseness here? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Copying Sapah3's comment from above to start this off:

      "Asian" should be changed to "East Asian and Southeast Asian". So far only Asians that have East Asian features are facing discrimination (that includes many Southeast Asians). Some Indians (South Asians), like the incident in Israel, have faced discrimination but that's only because of their East Asian features. Most Indians with typical South Asian features aren't facing discrimination, neither are Central Asians or Southeast Asians like Malays, Indonesians or East Timorese who mostly have typical Southeast Asian features.
      — User:Sapah3

      {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I say that it doesn't make sense? Why include Southeast Asians when we are not talking about Malays, Indonesians and the likes? If you just say East Asians, that would include most people who look vaguely Chinese, including some of those from Southeast Asia like the Vietnamese. Hzh (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The nuances of ethnic group relations get really complex, and I don't feel qualified to judge in this case. I've put out some invites to pertinent WikiProjects, so hopefully we'll get some editors here with better expertise. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't about nuances of ethnic group relations. This is about irrational fear of people with slanty eyes. I know that term became politically incorrect back in the 1970s, and we invented inaccurate terms like "Asian" and its variations to replace it, but in these frightened times those applying this discrimination aren't thinking carefully about the ancestral and ethnic background of the people they discriminate against. China is the bogeyman here, so they discriminate against people who LOOK Chinese to THEM. Nothing more sophisticated than that. Anything more complex on our part is synthesis and original research. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I think, too. Most of the incidents occur against the Chinese or those who look Chinese. As you said, those doing the discriminating aren't thinking of the ancestral or ethnic background of the people they're discriminating against. I would suggest wording it to "...against Chinese people and people of East Asian descent and appearance..." or "...against Chinese people and people of East Asian appearance..." Some1 (talk)
    Part of my point is that East Asian tends to have no meaning to the haters. It's simply China and people who look Chinese to the them who are the target. Not East Asia, which is a vague term at the best of times anyway. Some of them probably don't even know that China is in eastern Asia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How would you personally word it? "...against Chinese people and people who look Chinese...", "...against Chinese people and people of Chinese appearance...", "...against Chinese people and people of Chinese features..." or something else? Some1 (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how I'd word it, but I think the words "to them" or similar need to be there. Maybe something along the lines of "...xenophobia and discrimination against people who look Chinese to those doing the discriminating". Feel free to massage those words. HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually agree with what Hzh (talk · contribs), HiLo48 (talk · contribs) and Some1 (talk · contribs) are saying. I noticed a similar incident at the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic where there was disagreement over the use of "Southeast Asian" because the Asians that have been facing discrimination are those who look Chinese and that's why other East Asians (Japanese, Koreans etc.), many Southeast Asians (Vietnamese, some Thais, some Filipinos) and a few South Asians (Indians with East Asian features) have faced discrimination because they look "Chinese". The original statement on this page and the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic page was "...against Chinese people and people of East Asian appearance..." but other users came in and added "Southeast Asian". The only reason why I included "Southeast Asian" in my suggestion above was because I didn't want what happened at the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic page to happen here and that included all this edit warring between different users. (Sapah3 (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    I would say it's mainly against Chinese people. Some people mistakenly think some other Asians are Chinese, like Japanese etc. However, their only phobia is against Chinese. How about saying there has been increase in Sinophobia because of the coronavirus. This term is used in some sources and I think it is more suitable here. It includes Chinese culture, food etc. People have stopped editing in Chinese restaurants because of this coronavirus. Otherwise, I think discrimination against Chinese people is enough.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Using Sinophobia could be a good solution if we can figure out a good way to phrase it. The obvious downside is that "sinophobia" is a fancy word that not everyone will know without having to click on the link. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a good solution to me; it avoids the Asian descent/appearance distinction problem above. Just curious how this would be added on. Is it to replace the xenophobia sentence above (which will replace the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic link with the sinophobia link)? Some1 (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) See [4], [5], [6] and many other sources in a similar vein which I have not listed. This is wider than anti-Chinese, and Sinophobia is just a handy term which doesn't quite fit the actual situation. IMO, there are at least two factors here, (1) denigration of asianish persons for anything disagreeable which can be tied to asia and (2) denigration of anyone who can be seen as different from the denigrator. (1) is a subset of (2), and WP isn't going to be able to solve that problem. Classing it as a problem without citing a supporting source could be said to be both WP:OR and WP:POV (and I'm not arguing either way here on the POV question except to observe that, if there is such a question, WP:DUE deals with that), but it could also be said that it is beyond the proper scope of this article to get into the weeds about that; WP:SS pushes that down into that article wikilinked from here, along with the question of whether that article title is POV. All of that is just my own not thoroughly thought out and not-quite-mainstream opinion. On the question posed by the header of this section, I think the current wording in the article does a pretty good job of walking that tightrope. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sdkb: - May I suggest "...and there have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against the Chinese and those perceived as being Chinese, as well as against people from emergent hotspots around the globe."Iswearius (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    "as well as against people from emergent hotspots around the globe." is unnecessarily wordy and gives WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and prominence to hotspots. The "incidents of xenophobia and discrimination" against Chinese people/people of East and Southeast Asian descent and appearance/etc. are far greater and widespread (per the news sources) than "incidents of xenophobia and discrimination" "against people from emergent hotspots." That's what the top RfC is for and so far, there's more voting for "and others from hotspots" to include hotspots, but also keep it short and concise to avoid WP:UNDUEWEIGHT issues; but there's also quite a few voting to remove hotspots entirely from the lead. Some1 (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Some1 - I beg to differ. As MelanieN, Darouet and others have pointed out, the discrimination is not Asian specific; it has occurred, and is occurring against people from major global hotspots, such as New York and Italy, as per the article "List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic".Iswearius (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it's occurring, I never said it wasn't. As I stated above, "incidents of xenophobia and discrimination" against Chinese people/people of East and Southeast Asian descent and appearance/etc. are far greater [in numbers] and widespread (per the news sources) than "incidents of xenophobia and discrimination" "against people from emergent hotspots." That's why if we're including hotspots in the lead, then Option 2 with "and others from hotspots" works since it avoids WP:UNDUE WEIGHT issues (and Option 2 is what MelanieN and Darouet voted for, with Darouet stating in their vote: "plurality or majority of these incidents have been directed against Asians, but there are also examples of others being targeted."). Some1 (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In the proposed rendition of the sentence, there are already twice as many words supporting the Asian component (the Chinese and those perceived as being Chinese) as there are supporting the hotspots (emergent hotspots around the globe). I feel that is sufficient. Let us not belittle the suffering of thousands.Iswearius (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, in your proposed rendition, it's "against the Chinese and those perceived as being Chinese" versus "as well as against people from emergent hotspots around the globe". That's giving WP:UNDUE weight/prominence to hotspots in that sentence. That's why Option 2: "and others from hotspots" works if we want to mention hotspots and to avoid UNDUEWEIGHT. Some1 (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry. To me, "...and others from hotspots" comes across as scant and a tad disrespectful. Let's see how the others feel.Iswearius (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, others should chime in. Also, please read Wikipedia:Civility while you're at it. Some1 (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense intended. We are working together.Iswearius (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Balancing out the per capita and totals map colors

    The totals map is currently much darker than the per capita map, since it uses a different scale and just seems to have more countries in its top tier than the per capita map in its. Could we balance them out a bit? I do like keeping all the case count maps red and the death count maps purple, though, per WP:CONSISTENCY. The only place in the article where that needs fixing is the Europe map. (Plus I'd still like to see us add a per capita China map for the China domestic response section, but it looks like the editors at the China page haven't responded to the request to create one.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sdkb, not sure, what I should do. Till now, I did not see any purple death count maps in the article, maybe in another article? The case per capita map is held with intention in blue to avoid a mix up with the total case map. China: I may do if that request is still unfulfilled.--Pechristener (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pechristener: The purple death count map can be found as the third map in the infobox; it's collapsed by default, so you just click to see it. And yes, the China request is so far unaddressed. The world per capita map does include data for Chinese provinces, though, so it may be possible to save some work by going off of that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sdkb: Ok, found the purple death map. In my opinion it is a very bad idea to have this map collapsed. Nobody will find that especially people not familiar with Wikipedia. China: you are maybe looking for this:
    attack rate in Mainland China
    --Pechristener (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pechristener: Thanks for the link; glad to see that that map exists! Regarding the collapsing, with four maps (none of which I think we could get consensus to remove), collapsing is a necessity to keep the infobox a reasonable length and the very nice photo collage not too buried. The consensus for it was originally achieved here. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sdkb: ... and here is the red map. Ok consensus may have been achieved regarding the infobox. In my POV the maps would have more information content than the pic collage and about the length of the IB: I may never understand the discussion, why it can not be long enough to contain all the required information. Currently the maps are burried. --Pechristener (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Red Europe map cases per capita
    @Pechristener: Thanks for the red version! It's now in action here: 2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Europe. Nice to have the consistency. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Length

    As some of you may have noticed I removed a rather significant chunk of text a little while ago. This is because the page was hitting the transclusion limit and the navboxes were not appearing at the bottom of the article. I did the bare minimum to get under that threshold (having not really paid a lot of attention to this group of articles I didn't want to remove too much), and I believe there is probably a lot more redundant text found on other pages that could be removed, but I just wanted to give a notice that the page is very long. Please consider what is the most important information, especially when there is a split/fork linked via {{main}}. Primefac (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    unfortunately as the pandemic goes on, so does the information, however you do have a point the length of the article has to be manages--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Changes in the statement of "xenophobia"

    @The Supermind:, please see this discussion above. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    The statement that is said "incidence of xenophobia trends to Asian or East Asian people and European people" is changes periodically. Once it says East Asian and European hotspots, and otherwise East Asian and international hotspots. I am confused about the statement is reliable to what trend? The Supermind (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    COVID-19 Fecal-Oral Transmission

    Risks in public bathrooms, etc. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2020.02.055 https://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(20)30282-1/pdf?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.medpagetoday.com%2Finfectiousdisease%2Fcovid19%2F85315 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4692156/ Rick (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Easybreath

    Hello. This is a short message to let you know that there is probably a nice coronavirus-related article to be written about Easybreath, a brand of widespread snorkeling masks that have been heavily retrofitted in many European hospitals. See my French stub, fr:Easybreath, for a possible starting point. Also, that New York Times article may be helpful. Thierry Caro (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Great just bought one... User:Thierry Caro we need to get the 3D printed parts you need to retrofit it to be CPAP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    History section

    There's a gap between late January and late March. 99% of the content details the pandemic History until 20 January only. Then there's a small note about US and then the global numbers. Just pointing that out as I'm far from qualified for writing this History.

    I noticed this is something that happens often throughout wikipedia: content from early stages are kept, fewer up-to-date content is added and people (myself included) are fearful (or lazy) of condensing the early content. Maybe this phenomenon has a name (as everything in here has a label and a wikipedia page), but I'm unaware of it.

    Feelthhis (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Numbers getting too big

    With the number of cases rising over a million and expected to increase further, can i propose that we use '1.xx million' instead of '1,xxx,xxx' (rounded to 3s.f.) when it is mentioned in prose? This should be better as the exact number of cases is reflected in the table of cases and deaths. Thanks 1.02 editor (T/C) 05:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    interesting suggestion, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Pets

    Various sources reports that cats can be infected with the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. I think there should be a section about this as virus spreads between species! – Vilnisr T | C 06:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is a source [7]--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The direct source is this. Rather belongs to the virus itself, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The cats appear to be asymtpomatic. Brandmeistertalk 08:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Putting per capita figures into the article

    We now have per capita maps, which is good. I think we also need per capita figures: cumulative confirmed cases per capita and cumulative confirmed covid-associated deaths per capita. The per capita figures are calculated by my script (Commons:File talk:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map Total Deaths per Capita.svg) and published on my page at Wikibooks (B:User:Dan Polansky/COVID-19#Deaths per capita), but they need to be in the article along the "uninterpreted" raw figures, I think. If someone could source per capita figures from a "reliable" source (WP:MEDRS), that would be perfect since we would no longer need to argue about whether calculation of per capita figures is in accord with WP:CALC; I think doing the calculation ourselves is fine, but preventing discussion about this by picking the ratios from an undisputed source would be even better.

    One can argue that publishing raw figures without their per capita counterparts is misleading the public; the raw figures mean almost nothing without being related to capita. I find that argument rather convincing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Guantanamo Bay

    I don't know how to do this, but I want to suggest that someone remove the American flag from the listing for Guantanamo Bay in the list of countries and the flag simply be left blank or put a symbol on it that is neutral. Both the US and Cuban government recognize Guantanamo bay to be sovereign territory of Cuba, but the US insists that it has a right to lease this land from a 1903 agreement and Cuba insists that the lease is illegal. There is no dispute about the fact that the land belongs to Cuba, however. Although if a US flag is put on it, it may seem to suggest that Wikipedia judges the US side in the dispute over the legality of the lease to be the correct one. Reesorville (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    per[8]US flag can be placed...IMO(additionally we don't do politics, this is a pandemic/health related article)User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    China number of cases and deaths

    China's number of cases hasn't increased in over 3 days now. I'd say this is highly unlikely. According to a lot of news outlets, the Chinese government seems to be lying about the numbers. https://www.tweaktown.com/news/71531/scientists-claim-china-is-lying-about-total-coronavirus-covid-19-cases/index.html https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1250786/coronavirus-proof-china-government-cover-up-wechat-censor-keywords-xi-jinping-spt

    Shouldn't China's number at least have this added: [dubious – discuss] ? Or an extra section could be devoted to elaborate. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    No. And express.co.uk is a tabloid and unreliable (see WP:RSP). Also, tweaktown looks like a random website. There is no confirmation of what you said in reliable sources.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic&oldid=949070717"