Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United States

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sailing californium (talk | contribs) at 19:47, 19 April 2020 (→‎International aid to the United States is too short). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WPUS50

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abarr256 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: LawrenceH2020, Marianneostos.

Diagram of Trump statements vs. number of cases should be deleted

A diagram of the President's statements during various phases of the epidemic is a) totally uninteresting as it has no relevance to the epidemic itself and b) political as it does not mention, e.g., Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders' remarks that stopping flights from China is xenophobic - these statements were made at the same time. Let's make this page neutral and informative and not political.Herr Foo (talk) 04:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think so. This is not WP:OR, but something directly taken from an RS. Is it "due on the page"? Yes, it certainly is. The pandemic has become a part of US politics, and therefore speaking about the politics (as it relates to the pandemic) is inevitable on this page. Personally, I think this is one of the most interesting images on the page. Biden and Sander? Do you suggest to include their statements as well? Which statements? I am not sure, but perhaps they should be included as well. My very best wishes (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with My very best wishes, it is interesting, as US President's non-action/actions are directly relevant, and could be expanded on. X1\ (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you, and I agree with Herr Foo. It seems politically motivated or at least slanted to include that diagram. It is from the Washington Post, but just because something is from a reliable source does not mean it needs to be included in the article. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TrynaMakeADollar, are you saying what the President of the United States does (or doesn't do) is not relevant in a national crisis? X1\ (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The diagram illustrates nicely why exactly the government (acting through CMS, the CDC and the FDA) not only "squandered a critical month during which aggressive and widespread testing might greatly have reduced the speed and scale of the pandemic", but enforced regulatory roadblocks that prevented non-government labs from assisting, as was described everywhere [1]. Why they did it? One of the most obvious and well sourced answers: the head of the state and his administration failed miserably with making right and timely decisions, because he believed (and publicly announced) that the problem will go away by itself. My very best wishes (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The statements of the head of any national government are an integral part of documenting that government's response to a pandemic, especially when there's significant coverage in reliable sources of the notability of their timing. The size of the diagram is also not WP:UNDUE for an article of this size. It should be kept, and similar diagrams should be added to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Belarus, and 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Brazil. Capewearer (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the graphic is informative and reflective of what a number of sources have reported. Biden and Sanders are not POTUS (yet), so their comments are far less noteworthy. - MrX 🖋 18:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should remain a source of neutral information for us all. I agree with Herr Foo's statement. Sierra Rider (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify why you think this chart is either not neutral or not "for us all"? VQuakr (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is neutral information. They are Trump's exact words. - MrX 🖋 18:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sun Creator that's not a NPOV issue. VQuakr (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The image is from a neutral point of view since they are words that Trump said on specific dates at critical times. The section the image is included in covers the statements in more detail and is also from a neutral point of view. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 06:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest WP:NPOV problem with the image is that it leaves out Trump's actions. Those are at least as important as words in dealing with the epidemic. By focusing on words only, it appears to be designed to give a poor impression. This is in fact X1\'s point precisely, though perhaps looked at from a different angle. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adoring nanny Excuse me, what "actions?" Blocking flights from Europe and China? Closing borders with Mexico and Canada? Those.. already mentioned in another sections. In that case, I think "actions" such as downplaying it, war of words with governors and withholding aid to the states, partying in Mar-a-Lago with Brazilian President also worth mentioning, right? This article is neutral as long as using Trump's own words and not our own opinion. —SquidHomme (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those actions, precisely. Note that the words are also covered elsewhere. The problem is that the diagram gives additional weight to the words, but not the actions. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every image on every WP page describes only one of many aspects of the subject. If anyone wants to include a diagram about his actions (or inactions), such diagram could be probably included too. Note that public statements by top officials can be as important as their deeds or lack of deeds. My very best wishes (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stating words are actions, Adoring nanny; you appear to be misconstruing my words. X1\ (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why jump to that conclusion? You were saying that a President's actions are important. I agree with you. You were referring only to speech actions. I was looking at it from a different angle and also including action actions. Those are actions too. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may agree with me, Adoring nanny, but I am not agreeing with you. Your comments are a tangent from the graph discussion; no need to muddy the waters. X1\ (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

President Trump section - POV

I don't have an interest in this page, other then a casual reader, but the diagram to the right doesn't remotely meet the NPOV requirement. Sun Creator(talk) 19:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Creator, see #Diagram of Trump statements vs. number of cases should be deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, similar concerns had been raise. One issue of an image is that it can't be edited by many and not in a timely manner. Perhaps the use of a quotebox or something would be appropriate. Sun Creator(talk) 19:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sun Creator: Based on the time period the image covers (January - March) I doubt the image will need to be edited. It's main purpose is to illustrate how his comments evolved over that three month period. If the image does need editing or adjusting there are a lot of experienced editors working on this article and in this field that can edit the image in a timely fashion. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 06:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Sun Creator. Note previous discussions like this one or this one about the same issue. --Light show (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree that the diagram is not consistent WP:NPOV and should be deleted. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please start proper RfC about it if you wish. But I am sure it should be kept as an illustration of one of the most important reasons for having so much trouble with this pandemic specifically in the US. Of course this is not the only reason (there are others), but this is possibly the most important. My very best wishes (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The image has been removed. It doesn't belong in this article without consensus. Per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. " Sun Creator(talk) 22:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was included on April 1 without any objections. Once again, please start an RfC. However, if you wish, I can start an RfC with the question: "Should this image be removed from the page?" Do we need it? My very best wishes (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually added on April 2, and objected to here on April 9, and on the image's own talk page was objected to and described as misleading on April 8. I doubt that ~6 days counts as "long standing version" - so yes, please start an RfC. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and just because no one objected for a week does not mean the proper consensus was reached to include it in the first place. I propose we will go ahead and delete it for now, until we get enough Rfc for proper consensus. My very best wishes your rfc should be “should this image be included?” The onus is to prove inclusion Bsubprime7 (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, diagram has been deleted pending rfc Bsubprime7 (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother posting an RFC, often used to bypass consensus for keeping bad edits in during the long RfC period of up to 30 days or more. There are a number of reasons this graphic is out of place:

  • The list of quotes were cherry picked, which goes against WP editorial consensus. That long standing opinion states, Do not cherrypick . . by selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says. This applies both to quotations and to paraphrasings.
  • The single newspaper source used had more than twice as many quotes, therefore whoever decided to list the ones there was effectively engaging in OR, which goes against guidelines.
  • The newspaper quote used in the chart states, "Trump's pronouncements 'evolved from casual dismissal to reluctant acknowledgment to bellicose mobilization'". On what criteria did the cherry picked quotes support that, besides the personal opinion of the chart-maker?
  • I found incorrect dates on some of the quotes.
  • Over 64% (9 of the 14) editors who have commented above want the chart removed. Therefore the consensus is to remove it, and with 14 editors there is no need for a time-delaying RfC. --Light show (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything you say here, but we should have a proper RfC, nonetheless. Please copy these well-articualted and policy based arguments to the RfC. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that with a strong majority already calling for the exclusion of this graph that rfc may not be needed and the burden may be tall to show it should be included. Nevertheless, if my very best wishes still would like to start an rfc they are welcome to with the understanding that it will be an uphill battle with a majority of editors already stating valid reasons for exclusionBsubprime7 (talk) 02:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I just wanted to start the RfC, but someone else already did. My very best wishes (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum. Another reason the chart does not belong is even more damning than the previous reasons listed: namely because it is a synthesis by whoever made it. The guideline states: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. By listing a cases death count in the U.S. with selected quotes by the President, the chart-maker has added their own dimension and opinion to the quotes, implying without any support that a statement he made might have somehow been responsible for cases deaths . The single source for the quotes made no such implication. --Light show (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - Image of Trump statements correlated with number of deaths cases

Does the image in the above section (Trump statements correlated with number of deaths cases) belong in this article?

Original caption: In the early stages of the pandemic, Trump's pronouncements "evolved from casual dismissal to reluctant acknowledgment to bellicose mobilization".[1]

JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 02:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ Stevens, Harry; Tan, Shelly (March 31, 2020). "From 'It's going to disappear' to 'WE WILL WIN THIS WAR' / How the president's response to the coronavirus has changed since January". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 1, 2020.
  • Delete - the chart from the Donald Trump section. More because it doesn’t provide any meaningful info on the article topic. The quotes seem not particularly noted and not those of the paragraph it is next to. As attached to a chart of US cases, it can be read as he started saying and doing serious measures in early March when the US cases were circa 100. That someone did this is fine - but unless multiple RS reposted it, the quotefarm just lacks WEIGHT. Remove the chart of random quotes. I’d also suggest remove the random quotes of the first para. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The graph reads eerily similar to an opposition campaign marketing piece that recently came out and is misleading as it does not take into account that when some of these comments were made U.S. cases were relatively low. The graph is just not scientific and more of a social commentary that has no place in an encyclopedic page.Bsubprime7 (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appropriate. Well-sourced with obvious relevance. Claims of POV concerns seem unfounded. Feoffer (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Correlating public statements with deaths is original with this figure and seems to me to be very apparently WP:OR at best. -- motorfingers : Talk 03:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the juxtaposition is present in the source. Feoffer (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The page at the source you cite here appears to be an opinion piece. -- motorfingers : Talk 09:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Motorfingers: not sure why you think that's relevant, but the source is the Washington Posts "analysis" column which describes itself as "interpretation of the news based on evidence, including data, as well as anticipating how events might unfold based on past events." VQuakr (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@VQuakr:Since "analysis" and "interpretation of the news based on evidence, including data, as well as anticipating how events might unfold based on past events." is a clear definition of an editorial or opinion piece as opposed to reporting on facts or events, we'll go from there. Wikipedia does not report opinions as fact; Wikipedia is not a vehicle to map partisan editorials to encyclopedia entires presented as fact. Agreed, here, this is not as simple as it might appear because some people view some editoral opinions as fact, very often quite sincerely. So, we have the Talk pages, where we work these things out. -- motorfingers : Talk 01:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Um... exactly which facts are in dispute, then? Are you trying to say that Trump did not say those things, or that the number of cases at the time is not accurate? VQuakr (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@VQuakr:You're an intelligent Wiki editor; it's apparent that directly correlating statments that someone made with death count is a huge non sequiter and was advanced to promote a contrived partisan narrative by the author of the source. I didn't vote accept or keep, but this subthread is a clear example of why we need multiple people to post so that we can arrive at an informed consensus. -- motorfingers : Talk 01:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since they were statements by the POTUS about the pandemic, no they are not non sequitur. I'm still waiting for your explanation of what you believe the source is inaccurately presenting as facts. Informed consensus here is pretty clearly a complete lack of policy-based reasoning against inclusion - instead we're getting your increasingly bizarre thrashing ie calling easily verified quantitative data a "contrived partisan narrative". VQuakr (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of this section, the graphic tying together public statements with death count as a timeine is presenting public statements as causative of COVID-19 deaths, a non sequiter. You can take public statements from anyone and put them on the same timeline and graphic. Try it, using JLo, Kim Kardishan, Whoopy Goldberg, or whoever; that brings what I'm saying into very clear focus, and its a great source of humor. -- motorfingers : Talk 02:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the source nor the graphic imply that Trump's words "caused" deaths. Also, the chart shows cases, not deaths, and the section title is now corrected. The chart merely correlates what Trump said about the pandemic as a function of time and case-count. Comment from chart uploader RCraig09 (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appropriate There is more to the impact of the pandemic on America than mere numbers, and the comments of the regime head have considerable significance. Numerous RS have linked Trump's comments with the reality as per the numbers. It is hard to escape the contrast of his predictions with the actuality, and again, that is a point made numerous times by RS. The reality that his supposedly well-informed predictions have often been at odds with the facts as they eventuated is not on Wikipedia, nor on the Sources we use. It is on Trump, and as pointed out above, there is a political dimension to the pandemic that is at least as important to our article as the raw numbers. --Pete (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    At least 10 editors have already objected to inclusion with thorough reasoning above prior, so if someone could begin a tabulation of these “Delete” votes it would be appreciated. Problem with your argument Pete is although there is a political dimension and it’s not just numbers, playing along with your logic, some of these comments are covered and if they aren’t they should be covered in the text of the article that’s where they would belong. Not side by side within a scientific graph, it looks clunky to begin with and adds no real value. Bsubprime7 (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't count heads in these things. There's more to a good article than slabs of text. Graphics, images, and graphs can convey information more efficiently than a paragraph full of words. --Pete (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not appropriate: Per my rationales in previous section. --Light show (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That it is synthesis implying that Trump is responsible for the number of cases? That is way beyond what the graphic could possibly imply. How do you make that particular leap? --Pete (talk) 06:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Simply because the source did not create a chart which had graphic links going from a quote directly to a figure of cases. The two graphic artists who listed the quotes also included the cases and deaths as an incidental detail at the time the statements were made, but without implying any connection. There were actually over twice as many quotes listed in the source article, with most of them including other incidental facts about things that took place on those dates: ie. stock market prices, declarations of state of emergency by states, declarations by WHO, advisories by CDC for social distancing, CDC notice about demographics, Federal Reserve announcements, etc. They were all things that happened on a given date, but there was no implied connection with a quote for any of those events. Nor should the case count be considered anything but incidental unless a RS makes that connection clear with a cause and effect linkage.
      However this graph does attempt to make those connections, using "circles and arrows," like the sheriff in Alice's Restaurant, as if it was trying to create evidence via forensics to prove something. Some might consider creating the graph that way using cherry-picked material as gaming the system, ie. "to make a point ... or to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view." --Light show (talk) 07:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know about circles and arrows, but this all sonds like smoke and mirrors. How, precisely, do you make the argument that the graphic implies that Trump is responsible for the number of cases? --Pete (talk) 07:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I just explained how. And in case someone should also ask how the chart "enforces a specific non-neutral point of view," which is against guidelines, note that an editor who is strongly arguing to keep it in, had written earlier, "Whatever they say, the current US administration is guilty as sin, and it will be held responsible." Does anyone believe that a comment like that is a neutral POV? --Light show (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Reliable sources have presented the quotes alongside the contemporary case-count. Feoffer (talk) 08:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Beg pardon, Light show, but you haven't shown anything of the sort. Could you connect the dots for me? Instead of your assertion, I see instead the Trumpian narrative of being wildly out of touch with the developing crisis, rather than being responsible for the case count. That looks to be a leap only you are making, and I can't follow your argument at all. --Pete (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to connect the dots might be to change your camera lens from zoom to wide angle. For example, you write, "I see instead the Trumpian narrative of being wildly out of touch with the developing crisis," when with a wider perspective you might conclude the exact opposite. Back in January, recall, the U.S. was the first country to impose travel restrictions on China's hotspots. That was a month before anyone in the U.S. had died, and with only one person outside of China dying. China accused the U.S. of "inappropriately overreacting." WHO joined in, claiming that "Travel Bans Not Needed To Beat China Virus." Nonetheless Australia and Japan imposed their own travel restrictions two weeks later. And most politicians, including Pelosi and Joe Biden, say that Trump was right.
By early March the U.S. began closing schools and declaring states of emergencies, and only two weeks later did WHO declare it a pandemic. A wider perspective therefore would imply that Trump was not "wildly out of touch," but instead highly "proactive." While other highly developed countries were still enjoying bread and circuses and worried mostly about going against people's right to go to a pub, a week earlier Trump had already boldly announced, "We will win this war." So I'm not sure why you still think Trump was out of touch.--Light show (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You said that the graphic implies that Trump is responsible for the number of cases. You haven't come close to showing this. Could you focus on that point, please? If you are now claiming something else, then fine, say so. --Pete (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote, "Instead of your assertion, I see instead...." You made your vision very clear and I was replying to it. As for the implications created by the chart, already explained, you called the explanations "smoke and mirrors." So as Harry Nilsson sang in The Point!, "You see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear." --Light show (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to get to the bottom of your claim above that the graphic is implying without any support that a statement he made might have somehow been responsible for cases. How, precisely, is it implying this? --Pete (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A precise implication is an oxymoron, so I'll have to pass. --Light show (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't appear to be an oxymoron, per accuracy and precision. X1\ (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not appropriate: Per my short rationale in the earlier section. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not appropriate - It violates numerous core pillars of Wikipedia, including WP:NPOV (the creator of the image selectively cherry picked some quotes out of an already biased selection of quotes, from an opinion piece on a blog, all of them intended to draw a one-sided picture of Trump) and WP:OR (the death figures are not juxtaposed with the quotes in the sources, but rather collected into the image by the image designer). In addition, on pure data visualization grounds, it is a horrendous piece of work- with a timeline that has the time decreasing on the Y-axis. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JungerMan Chips Ahoy!: the source is not an opinion piece or a blog. The juxtaposition of quotes is done by the source and not a WP editor. VQuakr (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's a blog, teh WaPo itself describes it as one: "The Washington Post's political analysis blog". The juxtaposition of quotes with case numbers in not in the original. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NEWSBLOG. You are mistaken, the case numbers are listed in the source, to the right of each quote. I think the web page uses some sort of script to animate the numbers, so it's possible you aren't seeing it depending on your browser/settings. VQuakr (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A News blog is still a blog, and WP:NEWSBLOG says "use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process". This particular blog post was created by a graphic editor and a graphic journalist - hardly the kind of qualifications for a news reporter. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments by others and me above in this section [2]. This image is clearly due on the page. Why it is due? Because, unfortunately, it appears that words and decisions by a single man are enormously important for development of the pandemics in US, exactly as he tells himself [3]. The lack of competence here is astonishing. And no, he did not listen to experts at the time when action was so crucial, as one can easily conclude by looking at the image with his statements under discussion. That's why this image is so important for the page. These are just his own words against the development of the pandemic, nothing else. No problems with WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is very easy to violate WP:NPOV, even when using "just his own words", by cherry picking the quotes you select. For every quote above that seems to downplay the seriousness of the pandemic one can find a quote that implies the opposite. For every quote that implies he wants to end the shutdown too quickly (I'd love to have the country opened up by Easter"), you can find the opposite ('“It seems to me if we do a really good job, we’ll not only hold the death down to a level that’s much lower than the other way had we not done a good job, but people are talking about July, August,") JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The WP contributor did no cherry pick the quotes. The quotes have been selected by the cited RS and taken directly from the source. My very best wishes (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's both false (The WP editor selected a subset of the quotes from the article) as well as irrelevant, as the source itself cherry picked quotes. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Appropriate: The reasons for deletion seem to have been extensively covered by a plurality of editors. WP:NPOV, cherry picked information, lack of context, you could honestly make a long list of why this isn't appropriate for inclusion. This rfc should be shelved. Amorals (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - The problem with it is that it's pure soundbites. It may very well be validly criticized as quote-mining. The context surrounding the short statements are missing. These critiques should certainly be included in the article in a much broader way, but the image just isn't the way to do it. -- Veggies (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now at least. With some time perspective, we may or may not find that the historical perspective leaves the timeline in need of update or removal. Until then, the only stated reason I'm seeing for the removal seems to be "NPOV" with no further justification on how this timeline, which is both based on a reliable source and reflects a mainstream viewpoint, violates NPOV. Without that, the claim of NPOV is just an empty proxy for WP:IJDLI. VQuakr (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Concur that we're seeing a lot of WP:IJDLI. The federal response is a valid part of an article written from a Neutral Point of View. Feoffer (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

It is both WP:OR, as several have written, and violates WP:NPOV. Read my response above to My Very Best Wishes for an explanation of how it violates NOV. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk)
What you describe above isn't a NPOV violation. The quote selection is by WaPo not by a WP editor. You are basing your conclusion that the quote selection must be biased because you can find other quotes that say different things? That's you injecting your own analysis into the conclusion rather than looking at the secondary sources. VQuakr (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it was just tha WaPo bloggers selecting those quotes, it would still be a one-sided selection intended to convey a specific view, and as such, a violation of WP:NPOV as explained above (read [{WP:NPOV]]: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery. "). But as it so happens, the WP editor further selected a subset of the quotes used by WaPo bloggers, making it even more one-sided. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk)
JungerMan Chips Ahoy! I reckon you left a comment only on those who disagree with your point, but you don't have to defend Trump to that extent, dude. Let's be neutral, we're not crafting opinions here, the fact that he said those words is backed by recorded evidence and proof. As per the discussions above, these words is not cherrypicked in any way as they are the majority of his well-known response to the pandemic, our job here is just summarize them. Also, Wikipedia has long history with it WP:CLOP.—SquidHomme (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a casebook example of a fallacy: "The soundness of legal arguments depends on the context in which the arguments are made." The chart is quoting out of context by improperly linking quotes with cases, which distorts its meaning. And whether the distortion was intentional or accidental, it doesn't belong. --Light show (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Saying something is improper or distorted does not make it so. You need to take one or two more steps to show what underlies your statement. The context is the increasing number of Covid-19 cases, and Trump's statements are placed directly in that context, placed at the appropriate times. This is not Wikipedia making the connection. Every one of those statements of Trumps has been used in exactly the same context by multiple reliable sources. --Pete (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn’t just been said, its distortion has been demonstrated. No RS have made any similar linkage between specific out of context quotes and Covid-19 cases. Actually, the closest thing in the media that makes this connection is ironically an opposition campaign promo, whose super PAC Trump is suing. For obvious reasons, this should underscore the WP:NPOV. Any further comments are beating a dead horse. Should be closed with a clear consensus of leaving this diagram out. Amorals (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To say clear consensus of leaving this diagram out is to not have read all the editors comments, Amorals. By my count, you are missing Ten editors. By your reasoning, I can state with confidence; Should be closed with a clear consensus of include this diagram. X1\ (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can’t state with confidence because as many veteran editors have noted, some of whom are your friends, it’s not just the sheer numbers of yay or nay, but a preponderance of how compelling the reasoning is on each side too. And to be clear there have been an equal number of votes to exclude. And the burden lies on those to provide a just case to reach a consensus to include this new content Amorals (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amorals: are you not reading your own words? The preponderance of how compelling does not show clear consensus of leaving this diagram out. The other editors aren't friends, they are people who also see the preponderance as compelling to keep. This isn't personal, so why are you attempting to spin things? X1\ (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Typos happen my man so my apologies for that. And it’s nothing personal and when I say your friends, I’m not talking about the editors on this thread specifically. And to be clear this rfc was whether to “include” the diagram not to “keep.” It already was established that the diagram was added without proper consensus in the first place. The burden remains on those who wish to include to show just rationale. Amorals (talk) 03:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again please continue to state case for inclusion here as we try to reach a consensus. Do not add new diagram until consensus is reached. Amorals (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No, what had happen is this. The image was on the page for a long time (since April 1), and there was no objections until April 11, when someone removed it [4], without appropriate consensus and discussion. On April 12, 2:19, a red-linked account removed it again without consensus: [5]. Six minutes later, another red-linked account started this RfC [6]. Therefore, I believe the image should remain on the page by default if this discussion produces "no consensus". It also should stay during the RfC. So, unless there are really convincing arguments to the opposite, I am going to restore this image. My very best wishes (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is wrong. It was added on April 2 (not 1), and objected to as early as April 8. 6 days is not "on the page for a long time", and it certainly does not establish there was consensus for this to begin with. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There had been a discussion with a number of editors about this graph going on at least since April 8. The entire section had already been tagged as NPOV thanks to whomever added it to the already bloated anti-Trump hatchet job that the section was turned into.--Light show (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My very best wishes it doesn’t matter if it was up for 8-10 days, proper consensus wasn’t reached before someone added it. Think in terms of if there is an autonomous addition of something significant to a contentious article without discussing on talk page for consensus, and editors just don’t see it for a week or so and then a number of editors vocally object. We don’t just say, “well it took them too long to object” there is no statute of limitations. A core policy of Wikipedia relies on consensus to be reached for something like this to be included in the article in the first place. Until that consensus is reached it remains out. Amorals (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will check and will not restore if that's the case. But speaking about the "hatchet job", I do not think so. This is not about anyone being pro- or "anti-Trump". It is about being alive or dead. It so happened that the US elections and the decisions by US politicians have become a matter of life or death, very literally. My very best wishes (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amorals, I only see a Template:Ds/talk notice|ap in the Talk header. For {American politics AE|Consensus required=no|BRD=yes}, notice the "Consensus required=no". You saying something like this is basically an admission by you of subjectivity, not conclusiveness. X1\ (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • You (Amorals} say "No RS have made any similar linkage between specific out of context quotes and Covid-19 cases." That is simply not true, and is easily disproven. Google any of those quotes and RS after RS pops up. eg. The GuardianThe Atlantic CNBCAl JazeeraNYTFinancial Times

        And on and on. It's a slam dunk for any journalist. Correlate some statement made by Trump trying to play the thing down with the reality of an increasingly stricken America. One might quibble over whether he got a few things right - he did - but the story is that he was telling Americans the virus was under control and going away when the reality was the exact opposite. Every one of these quotes from Trump will be pulled out again and again over the months to come as a demonstration of how woefully out of touch he was. And the kicker is that these weren't statements that Trump said in private or when he thought the cameras weren't rolling. Hell, no. He wanted his exact words on every front page. And they were. --Pete (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, you seem to be inserting many of your own views and speculation. No RS has claimed his comments in any way increased the potency of the virus or caused cases to increase, when we say “no linkage” in RS that’s what we mean. To give you a partisan analogy on the other side, it’s like showing a graph of people saying Donald Trump couldn’t win in 2015 alongside his numbers rising in the polls. There’s no direct link other than showing that the person who made the comments were out of touch with what was happening. Additionally, it’s quote farming, taking phrases here and there while omitting complete statements in context. That is a big no no on wiki. Amorals (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not an appropriate comparison, Amorals, as one is a prediction of the future and the graph at hand is coinciding events of the past. X1\ (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From uploader of graphic: Keep: The quotes and the case counts are explicitly listed and juxtaposed/correlated in the source itself and does not involve my "cherry picking". I merely graphed data that was correlated in the source, so there is zero WP:OR. If you accept The Washington Post as a reliable reference, then there are no genuine WP:NPOV issues. The graphic merely encapsulates Trump's early-pandemic quotations in the "Communication" section as it should. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is false. You selected a subset of the quotes in the source. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did select a subset, for (obvious) space reasons, and to avoid repetitiveness, and to avoid comments re Democrats and re Fake News and re self-praise since this article is about the pandemic. (Which graphic—ever—includes everything that's recited in a source?) I reaffirm: zero OR, no NPOV violation, and I did not "cherry pick". —RCraig09 (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The graph does not attempt to show that Trump's words "caused" a given number of cases (as some editors suggest above); it merely presents Trump's communications. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rcraig09, Do you not understand how X Y graphs work? They imply a direct linkage and correlation between the 2 variables (i.e. Trump’s words having a direct effect on the increase of Coronavirus cases) This is stuff you learn in your basic math class as a kid. Yet another reason a graph like this is flawed. And yes when you leave out other parts of the quote, “Democrats, fake news, etc.” for better or worse that’s cherry picking and quote farming. Amorals (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You User:Amorals are thinking of graphs of mathematical functions—which this graphic is not; it merely shows a correlation that is specifically disclosed in the cited reference. Second, the term "cherry picking" denotes selecting specific items to deceptively present a position that is contrary to a position that all items would imply—which I have not done. 17:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC) . . . and WP:Quote farm relates to lengths and overuse of quotes without pointing out relevance; here, the caption's quote from the Wash Post source specifically points out and summarizes the quotes' relevance. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but User:RCraig09 you are showing this correlation in a math style graph! If you really want to show a correlation (evidence suggests there may be none) and you want to do it graphically, you should start by finding a graph whose structure is not primarily used in mathematics and statistics. Bsubprime7 (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bsubprime7: It is a timeline and not predominantly a "math style graph" (though it does show case count vs. time). The original reference is "trying to show correlation" (not causation) between what Trump said versus case count. If you know of a better "graph structure", please describe, as I'm very interested in data visualization. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered swapping the axes and having later dates farther along the horizontal axis? SPECIFICO talk 19:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, User:SPECIFICO, I did consider that. But to orient the time axis horizontally, while keeping the text oriented horizontally so we don't have to turn our heads 90°, would have increased the graph size with many long connecting lines (see another example here which I just today discovered while Googling 'timelines'). My graphic is the most compact-yet-readable-thumbnail that I could conceive. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also have an issue with the orientation because it seems deceiving (rapid decline) compared with every other chart used, be them linear or semi-log. StrayBolt (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
StrayBolt, do you still have an issue, after reading the legends (date on the vertical axis, and number-of-cases on the horizontal axis)? It is different from other charts because the text should be kept horizontal for easy reading. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Supplemental from uploader: Opposing arguments seem to focus on what are actually the presumed negative political effects of these timed facts becoming published (the effect of facts is beyond our control as Wikipedians) and on the source's inferred "intent" (source presented relevant, timed facts), on a wrong perception that the chart is trying to imply comments caused deaths (it does not imply that), that my Original Research uncovered and timewise-correlated the quotes (no, the reliable source did that), that the chosen quotes were "cherry picked" for partisan purpose (they were not)... —RCraig09 (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not appropriate If we're using this graph we may as well grow some balls and publicly declare Trump is allowing a holocaust to happen, cause we're not gaining any respect from tiptoeing around what some editors would rather we say about the administration. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove While the actions by Trump have been well less than perfect, this graphic is based on only a portion of his words so I can see no reason to provide space in this already oversized article to this.--MONGO (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • remove - This is mirroring a political campaign ad and synthesized from selected quotes. This is a pandemic with largely similar results in all western countries and states. Tieing it to Trump is overtly political and not neutral and incomplete. ConstantPlancks (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of the "Communication" section of this article, a reliable source's listing of Trump's pandemic quotes does not mirror "a political campaign ad" (though campaign ads may also present facts, believe it or not!). The reliable source "ties it to Trump". Also, the graphic is only "incomplete" because it purposely omits sourced quotes that are only tangentially related to the pandemic (to avoid repetitiveness, and to avoid comments re Democrats and re Fake News and re self-praise). —RCraig09 (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove The source is a partisan editorial piece. I'll defer to the many good arguments for deletion given above. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for mapping opinion pieces to articles presented as fact. Including this type of thing in a Wikipedia article corrupts and degrades Wikpedia. Subthreads here show that a few people view the partisan editorial as fact and tirelessly argue that it is fact, and we must respect these people and their opinion. But the longer we leave this kind of thing up, the more we weaken the article, and debase Wikipedia. -- motorfingers : Talk 16:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - I think there's plenty that can be said in prose about the response (even including these very quotes), but this graphic seems pretty undue. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - I cannot see any possibility of the creation of infographics like this in highly contentious edit areas ending well. OR, DUE, maybe even IAR. The information can be adequately communicated in prose. --RaiderAspect (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chart Timeline of number of tests per million people in different countries

Please add countries performing worse than the US such as UK, France, and Sweden. 70.181.191.109 (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong article. See 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. VQuakr (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Full-list-cumulative-total-tests-per-million.svg is used under heading "COVID-19 testing" on article "2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States"70.181.191.109 (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you for clarifying. The source for that graph, [7], does appear to have some info for France, UK, and Sweden. The units are inconsistent: most of the reporting from the US has been samples tested while many countries (including UK and Sweden) have been people tested (there are often but not always two or more tests per person). So in terms of equal units France is unclear, Sweden is ahead of the US, and the UK is behind the US but not by as much as that site's data would indicate. The reported data frequency for Sweden and France is weekly rather than daily, so they may not be the best choices for comparison.
Now, per WP:SYNTH the conclusion "X country is testing more people per capita than Y" needs to be sourced to a WP:SECONDARY source, not to a raw data site like the one used for the graph. We already have some of that analysis in the article, sourced to secondary sources including The Guardian and The Atlantic. VQuakr (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sweden has tested 74,600 "samples". The United States has tested 3,401,064 samples. Not to pick on Sweden. I feel bad this chart makes the US look like the worst when it is processing almost the most samples per capita. 70.181.191.109 (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's like 40% more per capita; not a massively dramatic difference. The US is middling in terms of tests per capita, not almost the most. VQuakr (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excluding island/nations with less than 100k people, there are 18 nations that have tested more per capita than the US and the US is out performing the remaining 100+. The US rate of testing at 150k-250k samples per day, is the highest in the world, and among the highest per capita. Sailing californium (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are deaths not showing anymore in the table that shows last 15 days cumulative cases?

Why are deaths not showing anymore in the table that shows last 15 days cumulative cases? The underlying table/data still has the deaths, but they're not showing up on the chart near the top of the article. Can someone fix that? I thought they were showing on that chart yesterday. Sorry if my question is dumb or naive. I'm fairly new at the backend of wikipedia. Benjaminady (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a problem. Not going to mess with it because this page is semi-protected and I haven't been involved in any of the editing here up to now, but I think losing this is unfortunate. I can see a case being made that the death numbers aren't reliable, especially with NY moving to reporting probable deaths from COVID-19 in the last couple days---but the case numbers are no more reliable than the death numbers, since they're heavily limited by availability of testing. None of these numbers are perfect, but all of them are useful for comparison over time. Yakaji (talk) 07:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Panthera Worldwide LLC, add?

The Trump administration awarded a $55 million contract for N95 masks to a bankrupt company with no employees or experience producing medical supplies: Panthera Worldwide LLC.

07:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Becoming leading cause of death in U.S., add?

COVID-19 is becoming one of America’s leading causes of death. COVID-19 killed more people from April 6 to April 12 than any other cause of death except heart disease typically does in a normal April week.

X1\ (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The CDC reports 3 million deaths in 2017. 650k (heart disease), 600k (cancer), 150k (accidents), 160k (respiratory disease), etc. If coronavirus kills 60k it would be 8th on the 2017-CDC list between diabetes (83k) and influenza (55k). Sailing californium (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the CDC stats, Sailing californium. Are you saying add, but only if meets a certain threshold? X1\ (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not add until the pandemic is over, otherwise it will just have to be changed. Sailing californium (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wording can be done in such a way that time's passage isn't a concern. X1\ (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Admin. discouraged public mask use while securing thousands for themselves, add?

As the Trump administration discouraged mask use for the public, the National Security Council (NSC) secured a personal stash of 3,600 masks for White House staff. A senior NSC appealed to Taiwan on March 14 for a donation of hundreds of thousands of surgical masks. At the time, the Trump administration was discouraging Americans from wearing masks, saying that healthy people didn’t need them and that the gear should be saved for medical workers.

X1\ (talk) 08:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Sweeney scandal, add?

A high-ranking Interior Department official is under fire over her role in securing access to billions of dollars in coronavirus aid for a handful of wealthy Alaska corporations, including one that previously employed her as a lobbyist and top executive.

X1\ (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Article is already long. We should not try to make Trump look bad. Sailing californium (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not try, Sailing californium, it is what RSs say. High-ranking corruption related to SARS-2 relief funding is significant. Suggest elsewhere to add? X1\ (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you enjoy making the Trump administration look bad. Sailing californium (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With trillions of dollars being moved around, there's almost nothing easier than picking some news story like this one to add to the cherry pie. The article really needs to be tightened at this point, and any new facts added should have significant relevance to the pandemic. --Light show (talk) 05:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion of me is irrelevant, Sailing californium. AGF, and follow the RSs. X1\ (talk) 05:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The item would fit in some, more generic, Presidency of Donald Trump related article, Light show. X1\ (talk) 05:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First family violating stay-at-home orders, add?

Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner defied federal social distancing guidelines and traveled to New Jersey with their children to celebrate the first night of Passover. Jared and Ivanka flew with their three children to Trump National Golf Club (Bedminster, New Jersey) despite federal guidelines and a stay-at-home order issued on April 1 for the city of Washington.

X1\ (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add Kellyanne's "This is COVID-19, not COVID-1, folks." ?

Kellyanne Conway stated on April 15, 2020 in an interview on "Fox & Friends": "This is COVID-19, not COVID-1, folks. And so you would think the people charged with the World Health Organization facts and figures would be on top of that."

X1\ (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Halting of WHO support may be illegal, add here or ... ?

House Democrats: Trump’s halt on funding to the WHO is illegal and violates the same federal spending laws as the Ukraine aid freeze that prompted his impeachment.

X1\ (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump is the only leader confronting the global coronavirus failure; add?
According to The Telegraph (UK), "Yet Donald Trump is the only world leader who has been prepared to point the finger at the WHO’s failings – and has withdrawn America’s $400 million funding pending a review of its role in the disaster. It says much about the anti-Trump obsession of his detractors that even as thousands die and economies crash, they should choose to turn on the American president rather than recognise where true culpability resides." --Light show (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made your post as a subsection, as it appears that is what you intended, Light show. Apparently, I'm guessing, you are attempting a partisan-driven quasi-"rebuttal"? X1\ (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph is GREL, but you picked an opinion piece; of limited use, Light show. X1\ (talk) 05:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I bolded the title of the article where it came from, X1\, but I don't care if it's a subsection or not. My rationale for the edit was "balancing point," which that article attempted to present. There are other balancing articles to keep the issue neutral. --Light show (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is thedispatch.com? X1\ (talk) 05:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's apparently a relatively new online commentary magazine. --Light show (talk) 05:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
apparently? You don't even know what your posting? So you are just disruptively trolling here, Light show? X1\ (talk) 06:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know that the writer is a RS from the credit: "Lyman Stone is the chief information officer of the consulting firm Demographic Intelligence, a research fellow at the Institute for Family Studies, and an adjunct fellow at the American Enterprise Institute". While the reporter of the story you posted is, well, just a reporter. Was it really easier to be so hostile than just seeing for yourself who wrote the article? --Light show (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are not describing a RS that can be used without attribution. In otherwords, just some CIO's opinion, who is a pundit. Not helpful. A reporter's job is to not insert themselves into the story. If you don't know that by now, you are disruptively trolling. X1\ (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just read their description yourself, here? --Light show (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TheDispatch.com appears to be non-RS, Light show. X1\ (talk) 07:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis? --Light show (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That Telegraph piece was presented like an editorial, not just someone's opinion, and seemingly better than a reporter's story. --Light show (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, they've written about this issue before.--Light show (talk) 06:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: It's interesting that two days after Trump said he would withhold funds from the WHO, it just gave Taiwan "rare praise" and would henceforth include Taiwan as a member of the WHO's technical networks. The Telegraph article mentioned above noted that Taiwan's early human-to-human transmission warnings from December were ignored by the WHO. --Light show (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A political 'he said / she said' argument between Democrats and Republicans, sourced to Politico? No, this is an encyclopedia, not the beltway gossip column. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Testing has slowed, add?

The number of coronavirus tests analyzed each day in the U.S. has slowed by more than 30% over the past week. Commercial labs say they are sitting with unused testing capacity waiting for samples to arrive.

X1\ (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Testing does not appear to have slowed. Dr. Birx said people would be using in-house equipment instead of sending to the CDC. Sailing californium (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sailing californium: Check this The supply chain fiasco that has derailed COVID-19 testing in the U.S. on YouTube published April 17, 2020 PBS NewsHour, and previously
The Health 202: Coronavirus testing is stalling. The Health 202: Coronavirus testing is stalling. That's not a good sign for re-opening the U.S. economy. April 14, 2020 WaPo
X1\ (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The US is processing ~150k samples per day. Every 7 days it has processed more samples than the previous 7 days. You cannot speculate. Sailing californium (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These are RSs, not "speculation", Sailing californium. X1\ (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot say "US testing has slowed" unless the US processes less samples for a comparative time period (such as "this week, vs last week"). The US processes more, month over month, week over week. Sailing californium (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not me saying it, it is the RSs, Sailing californium. X1\ (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand them. The CDC is testing less. The US, in total, is testing more. Update the main article if you feel comfortable. The US is testing more than ever. Sailing californium (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please bring RSs from news sources (i.e. not covidtracking.com) and post here, Sailing californium X1\ (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your WaPo article cites CovidTracker. If you feel it's unreliable, update the main article. Sailing californium (talk) 05:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Post RSs backing what you are saying about covidtracking.com. No wp:OR. X1\ (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe you are correct, just update the article. Sailing californium (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you can't supply RSs? 06:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not your slave, and you posted half the links on the talk page, you are clearly a competent researcher. If you believe you are correct, update the article. Sailing californium (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since the onus is on you to back what you say with RSs, you have no argument against the RSs I have posted. X1\ (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then you have no reason not to update the article. Sailing californium (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

80% of relief going to millionaires, add?

More than 80% of the benefits of a tax change in the coronavirus relief package Congress passed last month will go to those who earn more than $1 million annually. The provision temporarily suspends a limitation on how much owners of businesses formed as “pass-through” entities can deduct against their nonbusiness income, such as capital gains, to reduce their tax liability. The provision was inserted into the legislation by Senate Republicans and will cost taxpayers about $90 billion in 2020.

X1\ (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add. WikiUser70176 (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No Add. Percentages are misleading. What dollar amount went to the middle class? Are millionaires not US citizens entitled to relief if their businesses collapse? $90 billion was one component of the $6,000 billion stimulus package. Let's not pretend as though Wapo paints the current administration in friendly terms. Sailing californium (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Sailing californium more detail would be helpful, but we can avoid your concern with percentages by saying "... (vast) major of ..." thus matching the ballpark of "80%". X1\ (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More than $6,000bn was handed out in direct payments, unemployment benefits, or SBA grants. It is unreasonable to focus on 1.5% of $6,000bn, and call that "80% of benefits going to only millionaires." Sailing californium (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting your numbers, Sailing californium? X1\ (talk) 05:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what phrasing is proposed to be added? The WaPo article notes that 80% of the benefit of this specific provision of the relief package goes to people with more than $1M in income. That is dramatically different than what is stated in the header of this talk section. VQuakr (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CIA warning on hydroxychloroquine, add?

See previous Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States/Archive 7 § add to or update Trump's promotion of unproven drugs ? and Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States/Archive 5 § example of effects of Trump's promotion of unproven drugs, add here?

The Central Intelligence Agency has advised its workforce that taking an anti-malarial drug touted by Trump for the coronavirus has potentially dangerous side effects, including sudden death.

A CIA website for employees about the coronavirus addressed the topic on March 27, noting “At this point, the drug is not recommended to be used by patients except by medical professionals prescribing it as part of ongoing investigational studies. There are potentially significant side effects, including sudden cardiac death, associated with hydroxychloroquine and its individual use in patients need to be carefully selected and monitored by a health care professional,” adding in bold type: “Please do not obtain this medication on your own.”

X1\ (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

X1\, we can read the news too. If you think items are relevant, then add them. Simply posting news articles links and summaries isn't helpful. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's helpful. It's better than immediately changing article content and launching a pointless revert war. SPECIFICO talk 13:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am posting them to Talk since I think items are relevant; but not adding them as there may be some controversy in them being added and thus somewhat disruptive, so by posting them here first I can see if that is so. X1\ (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They advise that the medication must only be taken in amounts prescribed by a doctor because it is lethal. That's true for all(?) controlled substances. Sailing californium (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree things must be kept in perspective, Sailing californium, let us not get too general. Even something as necessary as water can kill: Drinking Too Much Water Can Kill June 21, 2007 Scientific American. X1\ (talk) 02:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They did not even advise against seeking a doctors recommendation for a hydroxychloroquine prescription. They said take it if you want, just consult a doctor. Sailing californium (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The point is: it is contraindicated. X1\ (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All(?) prescription medications are contraindicated. Sailing californium (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What? No, hydroxychloroquine is contraindicated for coronavirus disease. X1\ (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
what's the source of this claim ("hydroxychloroquine is contraindicated for coronavirus disease") ? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Four different numbers of deaths?

There are currently four different numbers of deaths on this page and elsewhere: one in the infobox, one in the medical cases chart, one in the cases by state/territory, and one in the table here. What is going on? What can be done to remove the inconsistent reporting of numbers? --Spaastm (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about that too. WikiUser70176 (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want probable deaths or confirmed? The CDC makes a distinction, JHU doesn't. For example, the CDC site reads "Total deaths: 31,071 (26,930 confirmed; 4,141 probable)" Sailing californium (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I want is consistency. We should have one and only one source of information for all tables; and two sources (JHU and CDC) in the infobox. --Spaastm (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spaastm The numbers in the cases by state table are manually tallied from each state government source since for some stupid reason wiki tables can't autosum, so the totals are always going to be behind, especially when people update a particular state but forget to add it to the US total. If I had to guess, JHU et al. are aggregating official county data releases, which are often ahead of the official state reports we use for the table. So JHU is closer to being "real-time" whereas the tables and charts are typically a day behind. JoelleJay (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay Thank you for your kind explanation! --Spaastm (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bar chart legend

The legend of the bar chart showing active cases lists the orange as being "active cases". I believe this is total cases, including those that have resulted in recoveries or deaths. Per Johns Hopkins, the number of active cases is close to 100,000 fewer than the number listed. Corndog234 (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National comparisons likely off topic

Per a recent edit, "SK [S. Korea] is a common comparison on testing programs done efficently,...". The rationale used was some editor's personal opinion, which obviously shouldn't be anywhere in the article. Do we start comparing the U.S. testing efforts not to Asia, but to Western nations, some of which likewise made unfulfilled promises, forcing people to buying their tests by mail order, for instance? Or about "Tension over shortage of coronavirus tests across Europe." --Light show (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. US testing will exceed South Korea, cumulative and per capita, in the next few days anyway. Sailing californium (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced comparisons should be removed regardless of whether they are to European or Asian countries. We can't exclude a viewpoint made in secondary sources, though, just because we think the US is more like Europe. The comparison to South Korea was made by Trump and extensively analyzed by secondary sources, so there pretty clearly needs to be a mention (example: [8]). VQuakr (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrations against governor-ordered lockdowns

Where in this article should we include the recent outbreak of demonstrations against governor-ordered lockdowns? They broke out as soon as Trump said "it's up to the governors", and the demonstrations were openly encouraged by Trump.

Coronavirus Live Updates: As Governors Look to Reopen, Trump Foments Anti-Restriction Protests "In a series of all-caps tweets, Mr. Trump declared “LIBERATE MICHIGAN!” and “LIBERATE MINNESOTA!” — two states whose Democratic governors have imposed social distancing restrictions that have shut down businesses and schools and forced people to remain at home. He also tweeted “LIBERATE VIRGINIA, and save your great 2nd Amendment. It is under siege!” ... "Mr. Trump’s tweets began just moments after a Fox News report by Mike Tobin, a reporter for the network, about protests in Minnesota and elsewhere."

For that matter, where have we included Trump's recent claim that he is in total charge of reopening, followed by telling governors that “you’re going to call your own shots,” followed by cautions that “We are not opening all at once, but one careful step at a time.” ? Do we have a section about his daily press briefings? This is a long article and I assume I have just missed this somewhere. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC) Ah, I found it; it's under Communication:President Trump. But where should we put the protests? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Planning for Michigan's "Operation Gridlock" protest was circulating on Reddit as early as 7 days ago. It was a response to strong measures imposed by the governor that included prohibitions against purchasing common household items. Trump isn't helping, but he is not the cause. Sailing californium (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All three of those states: Tim Walz (Minnesota), Gretchen Whitmer (Michigan), and Ralph Northam (Virginia) have Democratic Governors; none of the GOP Govs who also have stay-at-home orders, so this is just self-destructive unhealthy partisan tactics. X1\ (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, he didn't start the protests. He just encouraged them after hearing about them on Fox News. But do we have anything about the protests in this article? If we want something, where should it go? And do we have references about the origin/organization of them? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN, it's worth including somewhere. It's also worth mentioning that a DeVos-linked group was involved.[9] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Better source on the Michigan Conservative Coalition: [10] – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Devos denied involvement and the protesters have legitimate grievances. That state has the strictest lockdown and is not the hardest hit. Sailing californium (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We're not saying that the protests are justified or unjustified. We are saying they ought to be in the article. We need to decide where - in an existing section, and if so which? Or in a new subsection or section? The NBC news and Guardian references are good; do we have more? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's lots. It could be a section about the response to shelter in place. [11][12][13][14] – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go - there's a section called "Public response". I'll work on an item for that section. I'm currently busy, if someone wants to beat me to it go ahead. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why the apparent urgency? This is a free speech demonstration which could disappear or be reduced from the news tomorrow. There are some who cast a wary eye on a rush to post news stories about divisive events, which in hindsight may mean little. Recall the flood of posts and cites about a few anti-Chinese activities in the U.S., which is even in the lead's final sentence. My estimate is that about 90% of the edits on the talk pages are focused on divisive subjects like that and on politics, and not about the disease: it's treatment, or potential cure. As one writer commented, "Trump bashing too divisive during pandemic". It may even appear to be opportunistic.--Light show (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly into Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on politics, MelanieN? X1\ (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See 2020 Lansing, Michigan protest. X1\ (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TALKNO -- MelanieN (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Wapo is as reliable as New York post. Read the article, hardly any of it is sourced, and the White House created a task force on the issue weeks beforehand, which is not the expected behavior of someone downplaying a threat. Let's keep wikipedia objective and credible. Solly989 (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WaPo is ideologically left. It is not objective. It will not praise Trump. There are no favorable articles about the current administration on Wapo.com Sailing californium (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WaPo is neutral. They are not "ideologically left". And Solly989 the White House didn't create their task force until March, I believe. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The WaPo editorial board endorsed Hillary Clinton, and the democrats. Most services consider them ideologically left. Sailing californium (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sailing californium, like every newspaper, the editorial board is separate from the investigative journalism units of the paper. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The investigations report that every action was deplorable and none were praiseworthy. Sailing californium (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does advocacy of insurrection against stay-at-home orders deserve its own section?

I asked this over at Talk:Curfews and lockdowns related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic but I am redirecting discussion here because that talk page gets relatively few pageviews.

Where should we document reactions by political leaders advocating defiance of shelter-in-place orders, e.g. [15], [16] and [17]?

Given the vast number in the past week when prior there were almost none, and potential these things have to increase Rt, should they have their own section in this article? 107.242.121.26 (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This could easily be covered under 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States#Public response. A new section or subsection isn't really necessary here. It could also be described in detail in Criticism of response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#United States government. Also, check the discussion above. Another two articles have been mentioned for this topic: Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on politics and 2020 Lansing, Michigan protest. -- Shawnqual (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty serious and unusual: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/salvadorhernandez/coronavirus-quarantine-protests-facebook-groups
Similarly: https://www.reddit.com/r/maryland/comments/g3niq3/i_simply_cannot_believe_that_people_are/fnstpyl/
Is this kind of subterfuge merely "Public response"? I mean, it's not entirely public if it's astroturf being organized behind the scenes, is it? This seems like a whole different level.
@MelanieN: what.do you think? EllenCT (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ellen, and thanks for the ping. I am in favor of reporting, briefly, on the protests. We currently mention them in this article in two places: A paragraph about Trump’s reaction to the protests in the Trump communications section (which may soon be forked to a separate article, see discussion below), and a sentence about the protests in the “public response” section, balanced by a sentence reporting public polling on the issue. IMO that is the right place and about the right level of coverage. The fact that there are groups organizing the protests is irrelevant; there are usually groups organizing any protest. As for these two references, we should not mention DeVos since the connection is very tenuous, and we don’t quote reddit as a source. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 16 is a biased and opinionized reference

WP:TALKNO -- MelanieN (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The link takes you to a wapo article that starts Trump's response timeline at Jan 27th. From there it is another example of poor journalism.

The whole sentence prior needs to be removed, or a better reference cited, to include ALL of the White House statements on the matter since late 2019. Solly989 (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Solly989, WaPo is a reliable source. What statements did the White House make on COVID prior to January 27? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WaPo is not inclined to paint the current administration neutrally. There are no favorable articles about the current administration on Wapo.com Sailing californium (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sailing californium, WaPo conducts investigative journalism, not propaganda on behalf of the administration. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WaPo is objective if you believe in ~4 years every action taken by the administration was worthy of rebuke while none were praiseworthy. The worst historical dictators did something praiseworthy during their reign. Sailing californium (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sailing californium, take it up at WP:RS/N if you want to hear more about how the Washington Post is a reliable source. This is not appropriate here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Appeals to authority end conversations, but do not persuade. Sailing californium (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sailing californium, I do not anticipate being able to persuade you, but this conversation is offtopic for the purpose of this talk page, which is addressing improvements to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. The original poster suggested the "wapo article" was "another example of poor journalism." Outrageous. WaPo is included on WP:RS and must be accepted. Sailing californium (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More than 30 million infected in the US?

So according the cited study based on antibody testing [18], the number of infected people in US is actually 50 to 80 times greater than the number of officially identified cases (600+ thousand). Hence ... This is unless the antibody test produced a lot of false-positives, which is possible. Just another example why wide testing is an imperative. And BTW, these guys [19] say that the curve is now flat only because it reflects small number of testings. I hope they are wrong. My very best wishes (talk) 04:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It says "may have" and "estimate". It is an extrapolation, not confirmed. I definitely agree wide testing is an imperative, but see #Testing has slowed, add? X1\ (talk) 05:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On your testing comment: Sarah Fitzpatrick, Heidi Przybyla, Dan De Luce, Laura Strickler and Adiel Kaplan Coronavirus testing must double or triple before U.S. can safely reopen, experts say; "We are an order of magnitude off right now from where we should be," said an expert in infectious disease modeling who advised the Obama administration. NBC News April 17, 2020 X1\ (talk) 06:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, add I think. Sure, the infections are strongly underestimated, but how much? First study gives an estimate: by 50-80 times! But it is even worse. First, according to WHO, not all people who recover from the coronavirus may have the antibodies (the subject of the test) to fight a second infection [20]. Secondly, there’s no evidence such serological tests, even if positive (i.e. the person has some antibodies detected) necessarily show that a person has strong specific immunity and can not be longer reinfected [21], although this needs to studied a lot more. Third, many people who "recover" have serious long-term health issues with heart, etc. (lots of publications; just a random example: [22]). My very best wishes (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice ! Great news ! A sample of 3300 randomized by zip code also seems pretty solid to me. I think we might need a few more days before using those source on WP, I guess more tests should come shortly. Iluvalar (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese export restrictions and medical supplies not shipping, add?

New Chinese export restrictions have stranded face masks, test kits, and other medical equipment for the U.S. in warehouses across China. The policies, instituted this month, have “disrupted established supply chains for medical products just as these products were most needed for the global response to Covid-19,” according to State Department memos.

X1\ (talk) 07:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation COVID model concerns, add?

There is criticism of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation COVID model.

Epidemiologists warned that an influential COVID-19 model is flawed and shouldn’t be relied on as the basis for government decision making, including on “re-opening America.” The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington projections were used by the Trump administration in developing national guidelines to mitigate the outbreak and have influenced the White House’s thinking on how and when to “re-open” the country.

X1\ (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would support adding a mention of the criticisms of the IHME model, but not in the manner you suggest above. If we add it, we need to focus on the fact that the IHME was the basis for the shelter in place directives to begin with, and that it it proved to wildly overestimate the number of deaths, IC beds needed and hospital beds needed. We could also mention that it was repeatedly revised downwards, sometimes within days of a previous revision. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-repatriated"??

Hi folks! I have not been part of this article from the beginning and am just getting acquainted with it now, so that is probably why this doesn't make sense to me. But why are we specifying cases as "non-repatriated"? What does that even mean? It probably did make sense in the very early days of the epidemic, when authorities were carefully specifying how each case got infected and whether it related to travel. But what difference does it make nowadays, when virtually all cases are via community spread and we are not even distinguishing how they got infected? I am sure I am not the only person whose reaction to the repeated invocation of "non-repatriated" in this article is "huh?" Comments? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone update nevada's numbers?

There are now 3626 cases and 151 deaths per NDHHS https://app.powerbigov.us/view?r=eyJrIjoiMjA2ZThiOWUtM2FlNS00MGY5LWFmYjUtNmQwNTQ3Nzg5N2I2IiwidCI6ImU0YTM0MGU2LWI4OWUtNGU2OC04ZWFhLTE1NDRkMjcwMzk4MCJ9

 Done. Thanks for the update! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shortages of ventilators

"Shortages in the United States were contrasted with Finland..."

I believe there was never a shortage. Everyone who needed a ventilator, got a ventilator. There was only a "shortage" against projections/guesses/models that were wrong. Does anyone disagree? Sailing californium (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that can safely be deleted, or at least needs to be reworded to something like "Projected shortages, which never materilized, were contrasted..." JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There is no evidence for Everyone who needed a ventilator, got a ventilator. It is a Trump talking point. But unless RS report evidence of excess ventilators sitting idle in New York and other high-impact locations, we have no basis to say that. From the reporting I have seen, the available ventilators were in use and there was no attempt to poll physicians as to whether they would have deployed additional units, had they been available. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're a little confused. If you want to write in an article that "Shortages in the United States...", you need a source that says there was a shortage. The onus is not on people wanting to remove a false claim w/o a source to source its opposite. But just to humor you: The Ventilator Shortage That Wasn’t. With NY shipping ventilators to other states, I think its safe to say there's evidence of excess ventilators sitting idle in New York a. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. The necessary number is the number that healthcare managers estimated according to the best unbiased estimates of their need. That ex ante estimate was based on mainstream scientific models. The number available fell short of that. The case load may also have fallen short of that, ex post. Now cycle back to my original statement. SPECIFICO talk 00:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
as I wrote , we can reword to "Projected shortages, which never materialized, were contrasted..." or something similar. But there were no shortages, only projected shortages, based on models. And take note of what I wrote regarding the criticisms of the models themselves, in another section. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News says New York had enough ventilators, and is now shipping them out to other states. Does anyone have a report, or the belief, that someone in the US needed a ventilator and could not get one? I can't find anyone reporting more patient demand than supply. Sailing californium (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous patients died who would have been put on ventilators, had they been available. We do not know whether they would have recovered with the help of the ventilators, but there is no doubt that if physicians had access to more ventilators, they would have used them and saved a significant fraction of the patients who were intubated. Nobody is taking time to "report" that circumstance - surely you are not suggesting ICU physicians are taking the time to file "woulda coulda" reports in this crisis. But it has been stated to journalists and public officials. SPECIFICO talk 12:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subhed in the article the removed information was under was "Abandoned and delayed efforts to improve mask and ventilator supply", and the sentence removed, in full, was "Shortages in the United States and many European countries were contrasted with Finland, which has maintained medical stockpiles since the 1950s, and was able to meet demand for masks from the government supply.[1]" Given that the sentence was clearly about mask shortages, how should we move forward? Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A couple quick citations for the fact there were and are mask shortages: [2] [3][4] Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Anderson, Christina; Libell, Henrik Pryser (April 5, 2020). "Finland, 'Prepper Nation of the Nordics,' Isn't Worried About Masks" – via NYTimes.com.
  2. ^ Chang, Kenneth (2020-04-03). "F.D.A. to Allow Use of KN95 Masks Approved by China". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-04-19. Medical masks: These are also in short supply
  3. ^ Kolata, Gina (2020-03-20). "As Coronavirus Looms, Mask Shortage Gives Rise to Promising Approach". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-04-19. Facing a dire shortage of protective face masks for health care workers...
  4. ^ Sun, Lena (March 10, 2020). "Face mask shortage prompts CDC to loosen coronavirus guidance". Washington Post. Face mask shortage prompts CDC to loosen coronavirus guidance
I think we just move on. The article itself was focused on Finland, not the US. That sentence was a bit of trivia, and included here in a section already very long. Why would the comparison with Finland be all that important here? 20 years from now when people read about the c2020 coronavirus pandemic in the US, will they care that some NYT reporter compared it to Finland? I don't think so. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, I don't think that they will care that someone compared the US to Finland, but other countries' successes with mask supply and our failure with the same is notable, in my opinion. Your rationale was "WP:UNDUE, especially since no shortages actually occurred" (emphasis added), does that still hold? Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The mask shortage is already discussed aplenty in the section. If the comparison with Finland won't survive the test of time, it does not belong. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You want evidence of shortages? This is not a myth; we have a whole article about it. Look there for the evidence you are seeking. Or look here: [23] [24][25] [26] Even Trump admitted it: [27]. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of these articles talk about projections. Did any patient who needed one, not get one? Where did people die because they couldn't get ventilation? If there was enough for all patients, there wasn't a shortage. Sailing californium (talk) 03:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a rhetorical question, since we don't claim anywhere in the article that lack of ventilators was killing people. We mention ventilators 40-some times in the article, and in all cases it is clear that we are talking about PROJECTED shortages and attempts to get, buy, or build more. An official government survey of hospitals [28] found that hospitals were reporting acute shortages of testing materials and personal protective equipment, and projecting that they might run short of ventilators. So our sentence in the lead, sourced to that report, says Federal health inspectors surveyed hospitals in late March, reporting shortages of test supplies, personal protective equipment (PPE), and other resources due to extended patient stays while awaiting test results. That is a completely accurate report of the situation and it says nothing about ventilators. I don't see what your point here is, since you are disputing a claim that is not in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The question is did we or did we not have an actual shortage of ventilators? Who cares what the expectations are if they are far from the actual situation? That needs to be made much clearer. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Ernie, to answer your question Yes we did have an actual shortage of ventilators. There still is a potentially catastrophic shortage of ventillators. Every day Trump assures us that more are being built. The U.S. number of infections continues to grow. SPECIFICO talk 17:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if we did or did not have an actual shortage of ventilators. Because we don't say, anywhere in the article, that we did. The point of a talk page is to discuss what is in the article. Since the article doesn't say we had an actual shortage, this discussion is off topic. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW it appears the sentence about Finland has been removed from the article, but it used to say Shortages in the United States and many European countries were contrasted with Finland, which has maintained medical stockpiles since the 1950s, and was able to meet demand for masks from the government supply. It mentions masks, of which we did and do have an acute shortage, but it says nothing about ventilators. So again, you are refuting a claim we never made. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 cases in United States Data Errors and Under Reporting of Deaths

The data is totally out of line with international reporting. It has become worse over the last days. COVID-19 cases in United States bar chart is now totally incorrect. Better figures are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_by_country_and_territory and also here: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries Under reporting on this page is now totally misleading. Cases 696,621 and Deaths 32,435 vs. Cases 736,790 and Deaths 38,920 Whoever is responsible for this is doing a bad job and misleading the public because this data is now seriously under reporting. Thinksome (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lede change "announced a partial ban" to "announced restrictions on"

Does anyone have any objections to changing "announced a partial ban of foreign nationals arriving from China" to "announced restrictions on foreign nations arriving from China" ?

He banned 1.4 billion people, exempting only those with family in the US. If 14 million were exempt, which is high, he still banned 99% of china. 99% is not "partial" it's "nearly all". Sailing californium (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It originally said "partial ban on travel from China" because it exempted Americans. If it has been changed to "foreign nationals," what would you think about saying "a ban on most foreign nationals arriving from China"? -- MelanieN (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"most" is fine. "partial" sounds like less than 50% Sailing californium (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International aid to the United States is too short

Please someone add to this section so we can say something other than one Chinese billionaire helped the United States. This is a short section and sounds like propaganda.

For example, Russia sent a plane: https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/02/politics/russia-medical-supplies-us-propaganda/index.html

I'm sure many other countries have sent supplies.

I couldn't find confirmation that the Chinese billionaire's aid was ever received in the US. Sailing californium (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All this has been removed from a prior post. Needs to be restored. 

"Chinese billionaire Jack Ma is shipping coronavirus test kits and masks to the U.S." CBS News. March 16, 2020.
Holland, Steve (April 2, 2020). "U.S. paying Russia for entire planeload of coronavirus equipment: U.S. official". Reuters. Retrieved April 11, 2020.
"Russian plane takes off for US with coronavirus help on board". Al Jazeera. April 1, 2020.
"Where Has Russia Sent Coronavirus Aid Around the World?". The Moscow Times. April 1, 2020.
Reuters (April 3, 2020). "Russian Ventilators Shipped to U.S. Made by Firm Under U.S. Sanctions: RBC". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 3, 2020.
"India says it will ship hydroxychloroquine to U.S. after Trump threatens retaliation". Los Angeles Times. April 7, 2020. Retrieved April 12, 2020.
India sold hydroxychloroquine to the US. That's not aid. Sailing californium (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sailing californium, aid doesn't necessarily equate to charity. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford "material given to a place of need, help or support". When you buy a burger from McDonalds, they should list that sale on their corporate aid page? Sailing californium (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They're offering goods and equipment to curb a disaster for monetary compensation. Aid can be charitable, but it doesn't have to be. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If they sent something we didn't pay for, sure. Amazon sent me "goods to curb a disaster" when I bought a first aid kit. Sailing californium (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on placement of cumulative cases bar chart and US cases by state

Where in the article should the total US cases chart and the US cases by state table be located? At the end of the article in the Statistics section as they are currently, or in a section at the beginning of the article (example revision is here[[29]])? Are the data in these templates informative/relevant/compelling enough to readers to warrant being in the first section? JoelleJay (talk) 07:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My contention as the requesting editor is:
a) these templates are likely the biggest draws to the article for most readers, and especially for repeat viewers. The cases by state table is analogous to the cases by country and territory table on the main pandemic page, which was the 12th-most visited wiki page in March, despite having almost zero content aside from the table. As I referenced in a previous talk section, multiple editors and readers have remarked on how informative the table is and have requested it and the cases chart be moved to the beginning of the article.
b) The cases charts are all at the beginning on the Spain, Italy, Germany, and France pandemic articles; we should be consistent in these areas. JoelleJay (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can we stop with the switching already and place it at the top, were it belongs, like in every other article about the pandemic spread? No one is interested in going through the entire article every single time they want to see an update on its spread. If they want to delve deeper in the timeline behind the spread they should be able to scroll down. Not the other way around. Sirtywell (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree: should be at the beginning. The logical flow should be information about the pandemic first, then the analysis of the details of progression and what went wrong with preparations. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Better kept in Statistics section at the end of article. There's no context in the article that would benefit from a link to any of the minutiae in that chart. If there was, a simple link like #Statistics from the text could be used. In addition, having any kind of 6-column technical chart at the beginning of this article IMO, acts as a wall, or barrier, to those want to read the article. That would be especially true on a portable screen.
And for an article about human beings and disease, I'd also prefer a lead image closer to the one used for Spanish flu, which is more humanistic than cold demographic charts. The lead image now, which can easily be described in a few words about which states have the most cases, and is followed by mostly infobox numbers, is already oriented to the technician, not average citizens. I actually think an image like this one might be an improvement. --Light show (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update Virginia numbers in State Table, not updated last 3 days

<refhttp://www.vdh.virginia.gov/coronavirus/></ref>

Virginia Department of Health showing 8,537 cases as of yesterday, with 1,422 hospitalizations and 277 deaths

Split out Trump communication section?

I think the communications section needs to be summarized and split out into its own article at this rate; it has become extensively long, and is now pretty much a topic in its own right that I think could be sorted out into individual topics better. The title I suggested on the split template (Communications of Donald Trump during the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic) was only a draft idea, and we could probably come up with a better one (Trump administration communications during the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic?) ViperSnake151  Talk  15:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. This article would be better if it were more focussed on the pandemic itself, and that was a separate article. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it can be summarized. Sailing californium (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure we need to spin this off so call me neutral on that question. But I do have some recommendations: We're talking only about "communications", right? What was said, not what was done? Because I think we need to retain government actions here in the article, and in some cases it might be hard to separate them. If we do split out communications it should be the entire "communications" section, including comments by other administration officials as well as Trump. That would also make the proposed article more balanced since it would include communications by health officials (usually regarded as credible) as well as by politicians and political appointees (often regarded as not credible). -- MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah we need to move some of the more notable statements to relevant areas. Right now I got Draft:Communications of Donald Trump during the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic but obviously this could evolve into something more like that. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States&oldid=951950584"