Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Growth plot (Epidemiology section)

Agree Epi curves are not usually shown as semi-log graphs. If you scroll down, I've done a line plot of mainland China (includes Taiwan) and the rest of the world, which emphasizes the confirmed cases in China are 100-fold greater than anywhere else. Detailed numbers are of course in the nearby table. The JHU site presents the data the same way. I propose replacing both the semi-log and the horizontal bars with this graph. I am in Thailand (1 hour from China time) and can update it every morning, maybe twice a day. The is done in R ggplot2. I'm working on an interactive version which will show the data in a popup. I'll look into the toggle to the semi-log view JuanTamad (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the plot of arcgis.com should server us as a reference. Their "Other locations" is plain flat which is absolutely not informative. Cheater no1 (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

It's informative in the sense that it indicates how comparatively few cases are outside China. JuanTamad (talk) 08:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree the linear plot shows that most cases are in China. On the other side, this graph is in the "Basic reproduction number" section, which implies answering a different question: what is the speed of growth. I believe the point about the distribution of cases is to be made in the Epidemiology section (which already includes a linear bar chart). Cheater no1 (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I intended this graph to replace the horizontal orange bars, now at the top. The semi-log graph is another issue. JuanTamad (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

WHO response: a small correction

"especially to low- and middle-income countries without robust health systems capable" should be "especially to low- and middle-income countries without robust health systems capability"... or "capacity". — Preceding unsigned comment added by WookyPoody (talk • contribs) 21:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

1st death outside china

Phillipines just reported a virus death, first outside of china. Article still shows 0 dead

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/02/coronavirus-update-philippines-reports-first-death-outside-of-china.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.9.34 (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Updated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Easier to understand language

As our goal is to write for a general audience thus IMO "time from exposure to onset of symptoms" is better than simple incubation period. We should try to reduce the need of people to go to other articles to figure out what the lead of this article is referring to. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Great point and edit! Thanks User:Doc James. Your fix brought my attention to a separate issue in the following sentence. Called it out below if you can take a look. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

This isn't Simple English Wikipedia. For anyone who is able to understand a good quality of English, trying to read in Simple English is cumbersome. If you want to provide information in Simple English then please write about the topic over in the Simple English Wikipedia article. Tsukide (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Writing for a grade 12 audience is not Simple English. Easier to understand English can be understood by everyone. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

This isn't Simple English Wikipedia, nor is it a medical journal - For the vast majority of native English speakers, trying to read in Simple English is cumbersome. Simple English should be avoided in this article and instead Simple English should confined to over in the Simple English Wikipedia. Similarly, this article should avoid overtly technical terms where its rough meaning cannot be assumed clearly from context, such as using the term "PCR test" without the preceding sentence "scientists were able to develop tests that can confirm whether a patient is infected. A PCR test was used ...". Since there is an ongoing epidemic, I agree that this article shouldn't be overtly technical, with more technical descriptions being written in the 2019-nCoV article instead, but that doesn't mean the article should be written in Simple English. Tsukide (talk) 08:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Writing for a grade 12 reading level is not simple English but standard English. We are trying not to write in technical English but for a general audience as much as possible. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

In this case I would argue that "incubation period" is better than "time from exposure to onset of symptoms". More wordy phrasing is harder to read (more concepts to parse), while incubation period is simple enough for most people, "incubation" isn't that technical a word, I would be surprise if a level 12 reader can't understand it. In this case, I would start wondering if "exposure" means "infection" and how they are different if any, what exact does "onset of symptoms" entail, etc. You are introducing extra ambiguity, or unnecessary extra level of understanding required, or extra thinking needed by more wordy phrasing. Hzh (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

As a regular guy, I agree. Incubation is common in many mainstream media, whether dealing with viruses, ideas or eggs. A billion surviving people have likely been exposed to the concept, if not more. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Simple English uses fewer words, a limited vocabulary, simple grammar, and shorter sentences, "for people with different needs, such as children, students and adults with learning difficulties, and people who are trying to learn English." In the above case, I think User:Doc James was just trying to make sure we're not using potentially-confusing medical terms; particularly when there's a short-term public health interest in people understanding the details. Maybe an inline parenthetical explanation (e.g. incubation period (time from exposure to onset of symptoms)) would solve it? - Wikmoz (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Wikmoz have done as you suggested. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks good. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Possibility of being lab created

I removed the following text from the article.

A Indian research concluded that they found in the strains of the new Corona virus, that 4 of the strains seems to have been inserted, and those 4 inserts originally came from HIV. Thus giving the possibility that the virus was man made.

The source was non-peer-reviewed pre-print, not a reliable source. Extraordinary medical claims require reliable sourcing. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Everything is possible, yet... That all DNA sequencing labs in China, USA, Europe and rich-researches countries missed that sequences-matching seems very unlikely. Need more to include this weird claim. Yug (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed No section on the possibility of the virus being lab created should be included in the article until an acceptable source is provided. 173.200.98.210 (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed Would urge caution around any of these theories. Foreign Policy article and Politifact article (half-way down page) discuss this topic. Specific to the above-cited claim, reaction by scientists on Twitter is pretty strong with several pointing out there are natural DNA segment overlaps with dozens of other vireses: Nextrain virus evolution, Notable Twitter response. - Wikmoz (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed . There is a similar discussion in the talk section on the page about the virus itself and this article is not the place for speculation on the claim from India. The text excised from the article is utterly wrong in any case. Wikimucker (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

New analysis: No, the 2019-nCoV genome doesn’t really seem engineered from HIV debunks the significance of the India study. Credit to User:Wikimucker for the find. - Wikmoz (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Disagreed I think given that currently any of the studies on the origin of the Virus are speculative in nature (be it transmission from animals or a human made pathogenic) any possibility including the Indian study should at least be mentioned in the article. Else Wikipedia will again resort to selective reporting on 'unpleasant' topics. The article linked by Wikmoz provides no clear reasoning why the Indian study is flawed or should be discounted. It just calls it doubtful which is no real peer-review. - Samjam7 (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Lunatic-fringe is not the same as plain ol' "fringe" - so, no, this bunk has no place in a serious science/medical related article.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

"The article linked by Wikmoz provides no clear reasoning why the Indian study is flawed or should be discounted." Are you referring to the article in The Prepared titled "No, the 2019-nCoV genome doesn’t really seem engineered from HIV" or one of the earlier articles? The Prepared article itemizes all of the reasons the research was flawed in detail. - Wikmoz (talk) 06:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Disagreed : The comments on the now withdrawn paper are interesting. Opinion appears to be divided. The small sequences of proteins each individually occur in many other proteins but the fact that they may be all found in HIV in important positions, and as if as a modified form of SARS is noted by some. The only other appearance of all these small snippets that overlap with HIV appear to be from a bat coronavirus genetic sequence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology just released after the article was written, as can be verified by searching BLAST for the "insertions" that the paper identified: TNGTKR, HKNNKS, RSYLTPGDSSSG and QTNSPRRA. Additionally the Wuhan Institute of Virology was experimenting with SARS / Bat coronavirus, and making new versions to test treatments, since (or at least in) 2015 under the heading Will SARs Return. Professor Zubay claim that there have been multiple cases of SARS resulting from laboratory contamination. A lab accident, or making this look like a lab accident, does not seem impossible though close to fiction. Timtak (talk) 06:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Criticism section

2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak#Criticism What do you think of the criticism section? There was an edit to demote it from level 2 to level 4, in other words to bury it. I think the section is of much interest and should not be buried.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Information on the subject seems scarce (not a surprise), but because of how important this is and China's record with covering up diseases, I think it should stay. --Colin dm (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

"other words to bury it." Let's keep this within WP:GF.

It's wholly inadequate and there used to be a comment flag regarding its critically underdeveloped status before that was removed. On its own, as the criticism is wholly laid onto the Police and Government authorities, it fits under Domestic Response as I've appended unless criticism further develops past that Jan 20 declaration. Unless criticism reaches far more substantive degrees, which may become the case in the future, some Weibo commentators and an incident of withholding camera footage feels like WP:UNDUE to merit its own top level section. The governmental response under that heading along with the potential for insertion of contrary views, such as that by the WHO in praising transparency (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-who-idUSKBN1ZM1G9), will create a clumsy read under such a heading.

Reorganizing the section will keep it in line with cases such as:

• See Ebola virus disease#2013–2016 West Africa
• See 2009 flu pandemic
• See Kivu Ebola epidemic

Sleath56 (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I first started this section and I will definitely expand it. It may not have a lot of content right now but it will certainly expand. Beyond censorship on the press and social media sites, there have been tons of criticisms on insufficient medical supplies and patients overhauling hospitals. Colin dm said information in this section seems to be scarce because here's China, and of course it would be scarce - but the truth is the exact opposite. Most criticisms are in Chinese and a surprising amount is from Chinese media. I suppose I'm the only Chinese speaker here so the real problem is, souces are already here but no one writes about it.

Censorship is important but for some reason, most western media have become too full of it. I suppose half of the NYT's coverages are about censorship and mismanagement from the central government's level instead of things like face masks shortages and skyrocketing food prices. I will keep working on Chinese sources in the coming days as foreign outlets seemed to have suffered from a kind of ridiculous-sounding difficulty, which is to send correspondents on-site - I can tell that the BBC failed from a video they made, and several have scaled back or moved to their regional headquarters in Beijing instead of staying in Wuhan, as the authorities locked the city and they probably don't want to die in China themselves. There are many quality journalism produced by Chinese media, especially after censorship eased these days.

Speaking of English sources, Caixin and Sixth Tone are good sources as they are relatively liberal, and they are subsidiaries of credible Chinese media, although no one heard of them. Xinhua is the go-to source for official stuff, Global Times is nationalist and conservative, China Daily is more neutral. CGTN remains close to the government yet its TV programs are relatively liberal as well. Be aware that official Chinese English-languaged media also use Xinhua's news pieces a lot. The South China Morning Post, despite having China in its name, is a Hong Kong-based newspaper, did a lot of good stories on China, and doesn't care about China's censorship. Plus, people in Hong Kong criticised their government a lot as well. These are all good sources to start with.

--Techyan（Talk） 20:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Techyan: Appreciate the response and editorial initiative. My issues with the section remain nonetheless. As it is now, it is hard to claim the section maintains WP:NPOV as an top level section. One, while media criticism of authority actions should be absolutely documented here provided it passes WP:UNDUE. The caveat is that in an developing situation like this however, it’s easy to find plenty of voices with a variety of such allegations and concerns and WP:PROPORTION fall into mind here to not bloat such a section.

Titling criticism as a top level section bears validity if such views are largely predominant or unanimous. This is not generally the case in epidemic articles, as official response is rarely so inept it attracts universal condemnation throughout the whole process without any contrary views. As it stands, there are many RS that hold positive commentary on elements of the authorities conduct in the matter, in particular from voices of medical authority. Such RS include that by WHO, which is far more relevant for WP:RS/MC than any ordinary media allegations, such as I’ve provided here: 1. Additionally to demonstrate the point of contrary reactions are political commentary such as those by Germany, who approve of the authorities’ ‘rapid management.' and 'praised their transparency'. 2. With the existence of such RS/MC, it is inappropriate to dedicate a section wholly under the title of “Criticism”.

These situations are largely reactive, the meaning can be demonstrated through the new point you've added on the Wuhan festival is definitely of far greater merit than anything yet documented in the section. The criticism directed to that event is worthy of documentation here, but the subsequent governmental response in closing further festivals as the epidemic developed should also be narrated as a follow-through case. This makes for a very clumsy section if inserted into the current state.

The solution as often adopted by other associated epidemic pages as cited, has been to file such reactions under a “Response” section, often a top level section. This allows for the capacity to add RS/MC responses (whose addition would be a priority in any circumstance), like WHO’s which indeed have not been of criticism, to balance concerns of WP:UNDUE and also satisfy WP:NPOV.

I see two means by which this can be achieved:

• 1) As this current page has already developed its own Responses sections, it would be appropriate to organize this through that direction as a result. I believe this is the most feasible and efficient manner.
• 2) Reorganize the sections to accommodate for a top level Responses section. While this may act as a compromise and indeed bring this page to equivalent styles in other epidemic articles as I've cited, the concern I hold is that the 'Prevention and Management' top section is already well developed to a degree that transporting away the Response sections from there may damage that area's coherency.

Sleath56 (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It is very important to be highly critical of ourselves, because it will help improve our responses to re-occurrences. This will save lives and potentially billions of dollars. This is a higher priority than concerns about NPOV. From the Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission:

anyone who deliberately delays and hides the reporting of cases ... will be nailed on a pillar of shame for eternity.

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure to what you are exactly referring. It may be of benefit to reiterate what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy. See WP:NOTADVOCACY. We document non-original information that satisfies relevance and notability utilizing secondary and reliable sources. Eschewing WP:NPOV as a secondary priority is a false proposition as that policy is one of Wikipedia’s WP:5P and is not a suggestion for editors but compulsory. It is “non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.” Sleath56 (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Let me restart that then. NPOV concerns should be addressed within the section rather than burying. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion I had with Techyan, which you’ve responded to, lists the issues of the titled section in its current top level form. You’re welcome to fully engage in that discussion directly. Sleath56 (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Another tidbit to express my opinion: We are all this together. It benefits all to be highly critical. Bringing up NPOV seems arbitrary. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The second paragraph in the section is ignorant at best, and possibly with intentional conceal of information in itself. One most likely reason for observing infections outside China but not in other provinces within China is because between province travelers do not receive the same level of medical checks/control as between country boarder travelers do. In fact there was no body temperature motoring when you travel across provinces, just like traveling between states in the US or traveling between countries within Europe. Why did I say this second paragraph itself is intentionally concealing information? Because the above explanation was already given in a reference cited within the paragraph, yet it was not mentioned at all. And now even the reference has been deleted (reference link: https://www.hk01.com/議事廳/424736/武漢肺炎-坊間調侃-愛國病毒-地方有否-瞞報-疫情) 193.54.67.94 (talk) 10:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

That is good info. Should add it as a counter. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

With reference to a better source for "Wuhan police interviewed eight residents..." (First para; 2nd sentence), I've been trying to find articles for this. I've made an edit to add a reference for an article in the Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/24/coronavirus-fears-rise-chinese-cover-up-40-million-lockdown/), however, this article seems to suggest a much earlier date (or they have conflated this with another earlier issue). So the Telegraph may not be an adequate source, at least not without another reference next to it. The ref. for the NYT (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/22/health/virus-corona.html) covers this the claim (about the eight being questioned) to a certain extent, but does not support the date of 01.01.2020. Also, it’s not entirely clear whether the 8 people were punished, or just interviewed. The wiki sentence being looked at currently states: "with none ultimately being detained or punished". But there is a BBC article (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-50984025) that states that the eight had been punished. Not sure what to do. I could add the BBC article as well?SpookiePuppy (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the attempt. The lack of clarity in the sources makes this entry rather hard to trace. Normally, I'd call preference for an English source just for the clarity, but the BBC only nebulously cites "Wuhan police". The point about "with none ultimately being detained or punished" was lifted from a machine translation of the original Sina source, which credits: On the evening of the 21st, Hu Xijin revealed that relevant persons in Wuhan had contacted him to explain the situation. The source said that the public security department had invited the eight citizens to investigate, and the process was very friendly and polite, and none of the eight citizens were detained and punished.. While it's not my preference to rely on a machine translation (or if a Chinese speaker could verify), the Sina article appears to identify the source for the report, so I would say to leave as is for now. Sleath56 (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Daniel.Cardenas: I've undone the change as the CNA article cited is a rip in that section of the BBC one already discussed by @SpookiePuppy. I'm not sure why you keep making unilateral changes without consulting ongoing discussion in Talk even though you started the thread. I'd be happy to add a reworded caveat showing that there are conflicting sources but you need to clarify in Talk. Sleath56 (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Didn't realize it was discussed here. Don't know what you mean by keep making unilateral changes. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sleath56: On 1 Jan, the official Weibo account of City Police of Wuhan, Ping'an Wuhan issued a statement in a weibo post that Our police staff have investigated the matter, subpoenaed all the eight persons flouting the law, all of them been dealt with. (公安机关经调查核实，已传唤8名违法人员，并依法进行了处理。) Swoopin swallow (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a strong clarification. Adding a comment about conflicting sources seems unnecessary with this, and I think this, in conjunction with the BBC article as a secondary source in English, can supplant the claim about them 'being unpunished' in the earlier article entirely. Sleath56 (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

References

@Ganesha811: Thanks for the edit summary explanation, but Talk is a better place for it. I've reverted the edit to unify the #Local Criticism section, as I believe it merits a discussion here beforehand. The weight of criticism has been largely focussed on the local response as of yet, so at the present moment, an independent section on that area should stand as it is substantive enough on its own. The reported increase of central censorship fits under Management#Domestic response as that area is already structured around the central authorities management tactics, including censorship, particularly per the extant opening paragraph of that section. The point about the tactics to skirt censorship is the only new element, so it's been incorporated there. Sleath56 (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@FobTown: Not sure what you're trying to do with transplanting information from other sections. Calling a section #Propaganda is not NPOV. As #Censorship is a government tactic being used, it's been placed under management for relevancy. You're welcome to suggest alternatives here, but as your first edit to create such a section was reverted, this needs to be established in Talk first. Sleath56 (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@FobTown: I've undone your edits. While I appreciate that you've (potentially) noted my previous comment and took heed to organize your edits under the already established sections, you're encouraged to converse on Talk when these issues arise, not just read. The problem extends however with the specific entries you've tried to insert for the third time now. The particular sources you've used have both been questioned enough at RSP12 for them to be used them as the sole source for any authoritative statements. Beyond that, even by the standards of utilizing them to the merit of statements of opinions, they are far below the bar in satisfying WP:UNDUE to include them without other more mainline sources stating the same views. As I've said earlier, you're welcome to suggest proposals on how to extend those sections, or any others, but this must be done with interacting with discussions on Talk. Sleath56 (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

This content is of much interest, and can be worked on further with more mainstream sources. At the same time there is nothing wrong with these sources when reporting events that have happened. FobTown (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Added citations from Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. As long as we are reporting events that happened with proper sources, it isn't controversial and is permitted to go into the article directly. BTW, saying "you're welcome to suggest proposals on how to extend those sections, or any others, but this must be done with interacting with discussions on Talk" can be construed as a stalling tactic or even censorship. FobTown (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Instead of claiming wp:undue how about just letting it grow and move it to own page, and trim and summarize? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Daniel.Cardenas: Which is precisely what has been done. The section has been trimmed and summarized once I determined the independent initiative for that regard was not present, with material more suitable for other sections moved accordingly. See #Reactions to Response. You're welcome to review it as it now compared to its state before: here and share your thoughts, as I believe only a WP:DRR/3 is going to resolve the matter. Sleath56 (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

See how big it grows, and we could consider this plan of action.

I noticed that Sleath56 is strategically deleting content regarding Xi Xinping's media directive even if citing by WSJ and NYT and Washington Post, while leaving in isolated media incidents, all without getting consensus for their removal. FobTown (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@FobTown: It appears you missed my comment below, and if you are going to invoke someone's name, it's a common courtesy to ping them.

As I said, you can construe it what you like, "stalling tactic" or "censorship." I call it the peer review process of establishing WP:CONSENSUS, one of the WP:5P of this site. Wikipedia is not your personal essay, when you encounter objections to your entry, you are expected to participate in discussion on Talk, which is designed for constructive dialogue, not blithely snide remarks at your fellow editors with no suggestions of how to revise the entries per concerns. You’ve been warned for edit warring in the past, so the courtesy as has been reflected onto you throughout this discussion that would be to reciprocate AGF in kind should be clear.

The point of Talk is to establish consensus when issues between editors are brought up. A point of contention brought against your edit doesn’t mean they cannot exist in the article, but that they require work through discussion. The courtesy of editorial dialogue is to allow the individual editor to adjust their own entries as they know their source best. Contrary to your personal belief on being 'stalled,' I've trimmed your entries which still are extant after repeated requests for you to do so yourself were ignored. Your repeated attempts to re-enter the same desired phrasing when other editors have tried to adjust are not constructive to reaching that regard.

Sleath56 (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Has there been consensus? Has anyone agreed with you or is everything you are dong unilateral? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see you, or just anyone rather, are still interested in this section's improvement, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Is there any other form of consensus when there's only two editors participating in the discussion? It should be clear that there has only been myself and the other editor despite invitations for otherwise, correct? That you've been invited to contribute your opinion, including to give a DRR/3. You're clearly invested in this section, as indicated by your initial opening of the thread and your following of this current discussion, so I'm not sure why you're unwilling to provide direct comments on the substance of entries themselves, rather than making side comments. Sleath56 (talk) 06:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Philippines (First death outside China?)

According to bnonews.com, there's now a new case (a fatality), and technically the 2nd case, in the Philippines. This would constitute the first death outside China.

https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/01/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/

https://twitter.com/WHOPhilippines/status/1223797298477424641

SpookiePuppy (talk) 03:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely major news, this should be added in lead if there are no other objections. The WHO's twitter is enough of a RS to make this note credible, but other more established RS should replace the citation later on as this news doubtlessly becomes more proliferated. Sleath56 (talk) 03:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Secretary Duque said there are mixed pathogens in the 44-year-old male including Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenza type b. https://twitter.com/WHOPhilippines/status/1223797298477424641 Nickayane99 (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

"The first death outside China was reported in the Philippines, when a 44-year old man confirmed to have contracted the virus passed away on 1 February."

This was the entry I've added to lead, but removed this because of this further comment by the WHO as well. I'd say to refrain from adding until the circumstance are further clarified whether the cause is principally attributable to the nCoV. Sleath56 (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Update: Further RS have now confirmed it. The entry has now been added. Sleath56 (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I changed "passed away", added a hyphen and noted his two less-sexy and better-known infections. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I cannot find any source mentioning that this man 'contracted the coronavirus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and influenza B [...]' aside from a reply to the tweet linked above (https://twitter.com/WHOPhilippines/status/1223824965851480064).

It's in the CNN Philippines story attached to the entry in Wikipedia's news feed, February 2, citing the DOH secretary. It used to be in the CNBC piece from this lead, citing the WHO tweet, but was excised as "erroneous". WHOPhilippines' Twitter seems to say the error was only in calling influenza B (a virus) "Haemophilus influenza type B" (bacteria), which we don't here. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Should trump statement reworded

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, I found some of statement like this:

• US President Donald Trump thanked Chinese leader Xi Jinping "on behalf of the American People"

But because many English language source refer to Xi Jinping as president, any words regarding name Paramount leader or just leader would be confusing because word Paramount was unknown in many english-language media's except in literature. Can someone change description to:

• US President Donald Trump thanked Chinese President Xi Jinping "on behalf of the American People"

I believe this word reflects Common name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed and fixed. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2020

I cannot find sources for the fifth paragraph of the "Misinformation" section claim that "some media, including Daily Mail and RT spread misinformation that the cause of the virus was people eating bats in Wuhan". I have found no support for such a claim on the website of either outlet.

The "Virology" section of the article furthermore states that "it is likely that the primary reservoir for the virus is bats.[53] Of 585 animal specimens taken from the market, 33 showed evidence of 2019-nCoV.[112]". This is also what seems to have been reported in the above mentioned oulets.

I would thus suggest to either:

1. replace the names of the two outlets by the names of the media which have actually been making the claim, 2. add the appropriate references to the claims made in the said outlets (which I might have missed), or 3. remove the first sentence altogether. 2A01:E0A:D5:D430:8007:9CA0:71D2:CCD2 (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. QueerFilmNerd^talk 02:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I have cited (a slightly modified version of) the challenged statement.  --Lambiam 08:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm shocked it wasn't locked a week ago! 80.169.132.92 (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Lockdown table redundancy

In 2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak#Quarantine_measures, should we remove the table of cities? A similar table appears in 2020_Hubei_lockdowns#Lockdown, so now we have 2 tables (current with different figures) to maintain? I propose we remove the table from the parent article if we're going to display the same table on the 2020 Hubei lockdowns article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Merge in progress. Thank you for pointing this out ! Yug (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Yug, Can you clarify what you mean by "in progress"? I see the table is still present. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: both tables have been moved to a template page {{2020_coronavirus_quarantines}}, and data has been merge. So there is no redubdancies anymore.

Review of sources is still to do, in order to keep it all sourced with the minimal noise possible (fewer references). Yug (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Yug, But isn't displaying the table in both articles still redundant? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: oh.... i didnt treated THAT redundancy. Yug (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Growth of infected percentage slows down

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

COVID-19 cases in Mainland China  ()
     Deaths        Recoveries        Tested        Clinically diagnosed (C.D.)        Tested or C.D.

20192019202020202021202120222022

DecDec

JanJanFebFebMarMarAprAprMayMayJunJunJulJulAugAugSepSepOctOctNovNovDecDec

JanJanFebFebMarMarAprAprMayMayJunJunJulJulAugAugSepSepOctOctNovNovDecDec

JanJan

Last 15 daysLast 15 days

Date			Number of cases (excluding C.D.)	Number of cases (including C.D.)
2019-12-31				27(n.a.)
⋮				27(=)
2020-01-03				44(+63%)
2020-01-04				44(=)
2020-01-05				59(+34%)
⋮				59(=)
2020-01-10			41(n.a.)
2020-01-11			41(=)
2020-01-12			41(=)
⋮			41(=)
2020-01-15			41(=)
2020-01-16			45(+9.8%)
2020-01-17			62(+38%)
2020-01-18			121(+95%)
2020-01-19			198(+64%)
2020-01-20			291(+47%)
2020-01-21			440(+51%)
2020-01-22			571(+30%)
2020-01-23			830(+45%)
2020-01-24			1,287(+55%)
2020-01-25			1,975(+53%)
2020-01-26			2,744(+39%)
2020-01-27			4,515(+65%)
2020-01-28			5,974(+32%)
2020-01-29			7,711(+29%)
2020-01-30			9,692(+26%)
2020-01-31			11,791(+22%)
2020-02-01			14,380(+22%)
2020-02-02			17,205(+20%)
2020-02-03			20,438(+19%)
2020-02-04			24,324(+19%)
2020-02-05			28,018(+15%)
2020-02-06			31,161(+11%)
2020-02-07			34,546(+11%)
2020-02-08			37,198(+7.7%)
2020-02-09			40,171(+8%)
2020-02-10			42,638(+6.1%)	48,315(n.a.)
2020-02-11			44,653(+4.7%)	55,220(+14%)
2020-02-12			46,472(+4.1%)	58,761(+6.4%)
2020-02-13			48,467(+4.3%)	63,851(+8.7%)
2020-02-14			49,970(+3.1%)	66,492(+4.1%)
2020-02-15			51,091(+2.2%)	68,500(+3.0%)
2020-02-16				70,548(+3.0%)
2020-02-17				72,436(+2.7%)
2020-02-18				74,185(+2.4%)
2020-02-19				75,002(+1.1%)
2020-02-20				75,891(+1.2%)
2020-02-21				76,288(+0.52%)
2020-02-22				76,936(+0.85%)
2020-02-23				77,150(+0.28%)
2020-02-24				77,658(+0.66%)
2020-02-25				78,064(+0.52%)
2020-02-26				78,497(+0.55%)
2020-02-27				78,824(+0.42%)
2020-02-28				79,251(+0.54%)
2020-02-29				79,824(+0.72%)
2020-03-01				80,026(+0.25%)
2020-03-02				80,151(+0.16%)
2020-03-03				80,270(+0.15%)
2020-03-04				80,409(+0.17%)
2020-03-05				80,552(+0.18%)
2020-03-06				80,651(+0.12%)
2020-03-07				80,695(+0.05%)
2020-03-08				80,735(+0.05%)
2020-03-09				80,754(+0.02%)
2020-03-10				80,778(+0.03%)
2020-03-11				80,793(+0.02%)
2020-03-12				80,813(+0.02%)
2020-03-13				80,824(+0.01%)
2020-03-14				80,844(+0.02%)
2020-03-15				80,860(+0.02%)
2020-03-16				80,881(+0.03%)
2020-03-17				80,894(+0.02%)
2020-03-18				80,928(+0.04%)
2020-03-19				80,967(+0.05%)
2020-03-20				81,008(+0.05%)
2020-03-21				81,054(+0.06%)
2020-03-22				81,093(+0.05%)
2020-03-23				81,171(+0.1%)
2020-03-24				81,218(+0.06%)
2020-03-25				81,285(+0.08%)
2020-03-26				81,340(+0.07%)
2020-03-27				81,394(+0.07%)
2020-03-28				81,439(+0.06%)
2020-03-29				81,470(+0.04%)
2020-03-30				81,518(+0.06%)
2020-03-31				81,554(+0.04%)
2020-04-01				81,589(+0.04%)
2020-04-02				81,620(+0.04%)
2020-04-03				81,639(+0.02%)
2020-04-04				81,669(+0.04%)
2020-04-05				81,708(+0.05%)
2020-04-06				81,740(+0.04%)
2020-04-07				81,802(+0.08%)
2020-04-08				81,865(+0.08%)
2020-04-09				81,907(+0.05%)
2020-04-10				81,953(+0.06%)
2020-04-11				82,052(+0.12%)
2020-04-12				82,160(+0.13%)
2020-04-13				82,249(+0.11%)
2020-04-14				82,295(+0.06%)
2020-04-15				82,341(+0.06%)
2020-04-16				82,692(+0.43%)
2020-04-17				82,719(+0.03%)
2020-04-18				82,735(+0.02%)
2020-04-19				82,747(+0.01%)
2020-04-20				82,758(+0.01%)
2020-04-21				82,788(+0.04%)
2020-04-22				82,798(+0.01%)
2020-04-23				82,804(+0.01%)
2020-04-24				82,816(+0.01%)
2020-04-25				82,827(+0.01%)
2020-04-26				82,830(=)
2020-04-27				82,836(+0.01%)
2020-04-28				82,858(+0.03%)
2020-04-29				82,862(=)
2020-04-30				82,874(+0.01%)
2020-05-01				82,875(=)
2020-05-02				82,877(=)
2020-05-03				82,880(=)
2020-05-04				82,881(=)
2020-05-05				82,883(=)
2020-05-06				82,885(=)
2020-05-07				82,886(=)
2020-05-08				82,887(=)
2020-05-09				82,901(+0.02%)
2020-05-10				82,918(+0.02%)
2020-05-11				82,919(=)
2020-05-12				82,926(+0.01%)
2020-05-13				82,929(=)
2020-05-14				82,933(=)
2020-05-15				82,941(+0.01%)
2020-05-16				82,947(+0.01%)
2020-05-17				82,954(+0.01%)
2020-05-18				82,960(+0.01%)
2020-05-19				82,965(+0.01%)
2020-05-20				82,967(=)
2020-05-21				82,971(=)
2020-05-22				82,971(=)
2020-05-23				82,974(=)
2020-05-24				82,985(+0.01%)
2020-05-25				82,992(+0.01%)
2020-05-26				82,993(=)
2020-05-27				82,995(=)
2020-05-28				82,995(=)
2020-05-29				82,999(=)
2020-05-30				83,001(=)
2020-05-31				83,017(+0.02%)
2020-06-01				83,022(+0.01%)
2020-06-02				83,021(=)
2020-06-03				83,022(=)
2020-06-04				83,027(+0.01%)
2020-06-05				83,030(=)
2020-06-06				83,036(+0.01%)
2020-06-07				83,040(=)
2020-06-08				83,043(=)
2020-06-09				83,046(=)
2020-06-10				83,057(+0.01%)
2020-06-11				83,064(+0.01%)
2020-06-12				83,075(+0.01%)
2020-06-13				83,132(+0.07%)
2020-06-14				83,181(+0.06%)
2020-06-15				83,221(+0.05%)
2020-06-16				83,265(+0.05%)
2020-06-17				83,293(+0.03%)
2020-06-18				83,325(+0.04%)
2020-06-19				83,352(+0.03%)
2020-06-20				83,378(+0.03%)
2020-06-21				83,396(+0.02%)
2020-06-22				83,418(+0.03%)
2020-06-23				83,430(+0.01%)
2020-06-24				83,449(+0.02%)
2020-06-25				83,462(+0.02%)
2020-06-26				83,483(+0.03%)
2020-06-27				83,500(+0.02%)
2020-06-28				83,512(+0.01%)
2020-06-29				83,531(+0.02%)
2020-06-30				83,534(=)
2020-07-01				83,537(=)
2020-07-02				83,542(+0.01%)
2020-07-03				83,545(=)
2020-07-04				83,553(+0.01%)
2020-07-05				83,557(=)
2020-07-06				83,565(+0.01%)
2020-07-07				83,572(+0.01%)
2020-07-08				83,581(+0.01%)
2020-07-09				83,585(=)
2020-07-10				83,587(=)
2020-07-11				83,594(+0.01%)
2020-07-12				83,602(+0.01%)
2020-07-13				83,605(=)
2020-07-14				83,611(+0.01%)
2020-07-15				83,612(=)
2020-07-16				83,622(+0.01%)
2020-07-17				83,644(+0.03%)
2020-07-18				83,660(+0.02%)
2020-07-19				83,682(+0.03%)
2020-07-20				83,693(+0.01%)
2020-07-21				83,707(+0.02%)
2020-07-22				83,729(+0.03%)
2020-07-23				83,750(+0.03%)
2020-07-24				83,784(+0.04%)
2020-07-25				83,830(+0.05%)
2020-07-26				83,891(+0.07%)
2020-07-27				83,959(+0.08%)
2020-07-28				84,060(+0.12%)
2020-07-29				84,165(+0.12%)
2020-07-30				84,292(+0.15%)
2020-07-31				84,337(+0.05%)
2020-08-01				84,385(+0.06%)
2020-08-02				84,428(+0.05%)
2020-08-03				84,464(+0.04%)
2020-08-04				84,491(+0.03%)
2020-08-05				84,528(+0.04%)
2020-08-06				84,565(+0.04%)
2020-08-07				84,596(+0.04%)
2020-08-08				84,619(+0.03%)
2020-08-09				84,668(+0.06%)
2020-08-10				84,712(+0.05%)
2020-08-11				84,737(+0.03%)
2020-08-12				84,756(+0.02%)
2020-08-13				84,786(+0.04%)
2020-08-14				84,808(+0.03%)
2020-08-15				84,827(+0.02%)
2020-08-16				84,849(+0.03%)
2020-08-17				84,871(+0.03%)
2020-08-18				84,888(+0.02%)
2020-08-19				84,895(+0.01%)
2020-08-20				84,917(+0.03%)
2020-08-21				84,939(+0.03%)
2020-08-22				84,951(+0.01%)
2020-08-23				84,967(+0.02%)
2020-08-24				84,981(+0.02%)
2020-08-25				84,996(+0.02%)
2020-08-26				85,004(+0.01%)
2020-08-27				85,013(+0.01%)
2020-08-28				85,022(+0.01%)
2020-08-29				85,031(+0.01%)
2020-08-30				85,048(+0.02%)
2020-08-31				85,058(+0.01%)
2020-09-01				85,066(+0.01%)
2020-09-02				85,077(+0.01%)
2020-09-03				85,102(+0.03%)
2020-09-04				85,112(+0.01%)
2020-09-05				85,122(+0.01%)
2020-09-06				85,134(+0.01%)
2020-09-07				85,144(+0.01%)
2020-09-08				85,146(=)
2020-09-09				85,153(+0.01%)
2020-09-10				85,168(+0.02%)
2020-09-11				85,174(+0.01%)
2020-09-12				85,184(+0.01%)
2020-09-13				85,194(+0.01%)
2020-09-14				85,202(+0.01%)
2020-09-15				85,214(+0.01%)
2020-09-16				85,223(+0.01%)
2020-09-17				85,255(+0.04%)
2020-09-18				85,269(+0.02%)
2020-09-19				85,279(+0.01%)
2020-09-20				85,291(+0.01%)
2020-09-21				85,297(+0.01%)
2020-09-22				85,307(+0.01%)
2020-09-23				85,314(+0.01%)
2020-09-24				85,322(+0.01%)
2020-09-25				85,337(+0.02%)
2020-09-26				85,351(+0.02%)
2020-09-27				85,372(+0.02%)
2020-09-28				85,384(+0.01%)
2020-09-29				85,403(+0.02%)
2020-09-30				85,414(+0.01%)
2020-10-01				85,424(+0.01%)
2020-10-02				85,434(+0.01%)
2020-10-03				85,450(+0.02%)
2020-10-04				85,470(+0.02%)
2020-10-05				85,482(+0.01%)
2020-10-06				85,489(+0.01%)
2020-10-07				85,500(+0.01%)
2020-10-08				85,521(+0.02%)
2020-10-09				85,536(+0.02%)
2020-10-10				85,557(+0.02%)
2020-10-11				85,578(+0.02%)
2020-10-12				85,591(+0.02%)
2020-10-13				85,611(+0.02%)
2020-10-14				85,622(+0.01%)
2020-10-15				85,646(+0.03%)
2020-10-16				85,659(+0.02%)
2020-10-17				85,672(+0.02%)
2020-10-18				85,685(+0.02%)
2020-10-19				85,704(+0.02%)
2020-10-20				85,715(+0.01%)
2020-10-21				85,729(+0.02%)
2020-10-22				85,747(+0.02%)
2020-10-23				85,775(+0.03%)
2020-10-24				85,790(+0.02%)
2020-10-25				85,810(+0.02%)
2020-10-26				85,826(+0.02%)
2020-10-27				85,868(+0.05%)
2020-10-28				85,915(+0.05%)
2020-10-29				85,940(+0.03%)
2020-10-30				85,973(+0.04%)
2020-10-31				85,997(+0.03%)
2020-11-01				86,021(+0.03%)
2020-11-02				86,070(+0.06%)
2020-11-03				86,087(+0.02%)
2020-11-04				86,115(+0.03%)
2020-11-05				86,151(+0.04%)
2020-11-06				86,184(+0.04%)
2020-11-07				86,212(+0.03%)
2020-11-08				86,245(+0.04%)
2020-11-09				86,267(+0.03%)
2020-11-10				86,284(+0.02%)
2020-11-11				86,299(+0.02%)
2020-11-12				86,307(+0.01%)
2020-11-13				86,325(+0.02%)
2020-11-14				86,338(+0.02%)
2020-11-15				86,346(+0.01%)
2020-11-16				86,361(+0.02%)
2020-11-17				86,369(+0.01%)
2020-11-18				86,381(+0.01%)
2020-11-19				86,398(+0.02%)
2020-11-20				86,414(+0.02%)
2020-11-21				86,431(+0.02%)
2020-11-22				86,442(+0.01%)
2020-11-23				86,464(+0.03%)
2020-11-24				86,469(+0.01%)
2020-11-25				86,490(+0.02%)
2020-11-26				86,495(+0.01%)
2020-11-27				86,501(+0.01%)
2020-11-28				86,512(+0.01%)
2020-11-29				86,530(+0.02%)
2020-11-30				86,542(+0.01%)
2020-12-01				86,551(+0.01%)
2020-12-02				86,567(+0.02%)
2020-12-03				86,584(+0.02%)
2020-12-04				86,601(+0.02%)
2020-12-05				86,619(+0.02%)
2020-12-06				86,634(+0.02%)
2020-12-07				86,646(+0.01%)
2020-12-08				86,661(+0.02%)
2020-12-09				86,673(+0.01%)
2020-12-10				86,688(+0.02%)
2020-12-11				86,701(+0.01%)
2020-12-12				86,725(+0.03%)
2020-12-13				86,741(+0.02%)
2020-12-14				86,758(+0.02%)
2020-12-15				86,770(+0.01%)
2020-12-16				86,777(+0.01%)
2020-12-17				86,789(+0.01%)
2020-12-18				86,806(+0.02%)
2020-12-19				86,829(+0.03%)
2020-12-20				86,852(+0.03%)
2020-12-21				86,867(+0.02%)
2020-12-22				86,882(+0.02%)
2020-12-23				86,899(+0.02%)
2020-12-24				86,913(+0.02%)
2020-12-25				86,933(+0.02%)
2020-12-26				86,955(+0.03%)
2020-12-27				86,976(+0.02%)
2020-12-28				87,003(+0.03%)
2020-12-29				87,027(+0.03%)
2020-12-30				87,052(+0.03%)
2020-12-31				87,071(+0.02%)
2021-01-01				87,093(+0.03%)
2021-01-02				87,117(+0.03%)
2021-01-03				87,150(+0.04%)
2021-01-04				87,183(+0.04%)
2021-01-05				87,215(+0.04%)
2021-01-06				87,278(+0.07%)
2021-01-07				87,331(+0.06%)
2021-01-08				87,364(+0.04%)
2021-01-09				87,433(+0.08%)
2021-01-10				87,536(+0.12%)
2021-01-11				87,591(+0.06%)
2021-01-12				87,706(+0.13%)
2021-01-13				87,844(+0.16%)
2021-01-14				87,988(+0.16%)
2021-01-15				88,118(+0.15%)
2021-01-16				88,227(+0.12%)
2021-01-17				88,336(+0.12%)
2021-01-18				88,454(+0.13%)
2021-01-19				88,557(+0.12%)
2021-01-20				88,701(+0.16%)
2021-01-21				88,804(+0.12%)
2021-01-22				88,911(+0.12%)
2021-01-23				88,991(+0.09%)
2021-01-24				89,115(+0.14%)
2021-01-25				89,197(+0.09%)
2021-01-26				89,272(+0.08%)
2021-01-27				89,326(+0.06%)
2021-01-28				89,378(+0.06%)
2021-01-29				89,430(+0.06%)
2021-01-30				89,522(+0.1%)
2021-01-31				89,564(+0.05%)
2021-02-01				89,594(+0.03%)
2021-02-02				89,619(+0.03%)
2021-02-03				89,649(+0.03%)
2021-02-04				89,669(+0.02%)
2021-02-05				89,681(+0.01%)
2021-02-06				89,692(+0.01%)
2021-02-07				89,706(+0.02%)
2021-02-08				89,720(+0.02%)
2021-02-09				89,734(+0.02%)
2021-02-10				89,736(=)
2021-02-11				89,748(+0.01%)
2021-02-12				89,756(+0.01%)
2021-02-13				89,763(+0.01%)
2021-02-14				89,772(+0.01%)
2021-02-15				89,788(+0.02%)
2021-02-16				89,795(+0.01%)
2021-02-17				89,806(+0.01%)
2021-02-18				89,816(+0.01%)
2021-02-19				89,824(+0.01%)
2021-02-20				89,831(+0.01%)
2021-02-21				89,842(+0.01%)
2021-02-22				89,852(+0.01%)
2021-02-23				89,864(+0.01%)
2021-02-24				89,871(+0.01%)
2021-02-25				89,877(+0.01%)
2021-02-26				89,887(+0.01%)
2021-02-27				89,893(+0.01%)
2021-02-28				89,912(+0.02%)
2021-03-01				89,923(+0.01%)
2021-03-02				89,933(+0.01%)
2021-03-03				89,943(+0.01%)
2021-03-04				89,952(+0.01%)
2021-03-05				89,962(+0.01%)
2021-03-06				89,975(+0.01%)
2021-03-07				89,994(+0.02%)
2021-03-08				90,002(+0.01%)
2021-03-09				90,007(+0.01%)
2021-03-10				90,018(+0.01%)
2021-03-11				90,027(+0.01%)
2021-03-12				90,034(+0.01%)
2021-03-13				90,044(+0.01%)
2021-03-14				90,049(+0.01%)
2021-03-15				90,062(+0.01%)
2021-03-16				90,066(=)
2021-03-17				90,072(+0.01%)
2021-03-18				90,083(+0.01%)
2021-03-19				90,087(=)
2021-03-20				90,099(+0.01%)
2021-03-21				90,106(+0.01%)
2021-03-22				90,115(+0.01%)
2021-03-23				90,125(+0.01%)
2021-03-24				90,136(+0.01%)
2021-03-25				90,147(+0.01%)
2021-03-26				90,159(+0.01%)
2021-03-27				90,167(+0.01%)
2021-03-28				90,182(+0.02%)
2021-03-29				90,190(+0.01%)
2021-03-30				90,201(+0.01%)
2021-03-31				90,217(+0.02%)
2021-04-01				90,226(+0.01%)
2021-04-02				90,252(+0.03%)
2021-04-03				90,273(+0.02%)
2021-04-04				90,305(+0.04%)
2021-04-05				90,329(+0.03%)
2021-04-06				90,341(+0.01%)
2021-04-07				90,365(+0.03%)
2021-04-08				90,386(+0.02%)
2021-04-09				90,400(+0.02%)
2021-04-10				90,410(+0.01%)
2021-04-11				90,426(+0.02%)
2021-04-12				90,435(+0.01%)
2021-04-13				90,447(+0.01%)
2021-04-14				90,457(+0.01%)
2021-04-15				90,468(+0.01%)
2021-04-16				90,483(+0.02%)
2021-04-17				90,499(+0.02%)
2021-04-18				90,510(+0.01%)
2021-04-19				90,520(+0.01%)
2021-04-20				90,541(+0.02%)
2021-04-21				90,547(+0.01%)
2021-04-22				90,566(+0.02%)
2021-04-23				90,575(+0.01%)
2021-04-24				90,588(+0.01%)
2021-04-25				90,599(+0.01%)
2021-04-26				90,610(+0.01%)
2021-04-27				90,622(+0.01%)
2021-04-28				90,642(+0.02%)
2021-04-29				90,655(+0.01%)
2021-04-30				90,671(+0.02%)
2021-05-01				90,686(+0.02%)
2021-05-02				90,697(+0.01%)
2021-05-03				90,714(+0.02%)
2021-05-04				90,721(+0.01%)
2021-05-05				90,726(+0.01%)
2021-05-06				90,739(+0.01%)
2021-05-07				90,746(+0.01%)
2021-05-08				90,758(+0.01%)
2021-05-09				90,769(+0.01%)
2021-05-10				90,783(+0.02%)
2021-05-11				90,799(+0.02%)
2021-05-12				90,808(+0.01%)
2021-05-13				90,815(+0.01%)
2021-05-14				90,829(+0.02%)
2021-05-15				90,847(+0.02%)
2021-05-16				90,872(+0.03%)
2021-05-17				90,894(+0.02%)
2021-05-18				90,908(+0.02%)
2021-05-19				90,920(+0.01%)
2021-05-20				90,944(+0.03%)
2021-05-21				90,954(+0.01%)
2021-05-22				90,973(+0.02%)
2021-05-23				90,991(+0.02%)
2021-05-24				91,006(+0.02%)
2021-05-25				91,019(+0.01%)
2021-05-26				91,038(+0.02%)
2021-05-27				91,045(+0.01%)
2021-05-28				91,061(+0.02%)
2021-05-29				91,072(+0.01%)
2021-05-30				91,099(+0.03%)
2021-05-31				91,122(+0.03%)
2021-06-01				91,146(+0.03%)
2021-06-02				91,170(+0.03%)
2021-06-03				91,194(+0.03%)
2021-06-04				91,218(+0.03%)
2021-06-05				91,248(+0.03%)
2021-06-06				91,267(+0.02%)
2021-06-07				91,300(+0.04%)
2021-06-08				91,316(+0.02%)
2021-06-09				91,337(+0.02%)
2021-06-10				91,359(+0.02%)
2021-06-11				91,394(+0.04%)
2021-06-12				91,428(+0.04%)
2021-06-13				91,451(+0.03%)
2021-06-14				91,471(+0.02%)
2021-06-15				91,492(+0.02%)
2021-06-16				91,511(+0.02%)
2021-06-17				91,534(+0.03%)
2021-06-18				91,564(+0.03%)
2021-06-19				91,587(+0.03%)
2021-06-20				91,604(+0.02%)
2021-06-21				91,629(+0.03%)
2021-06-22				91,653(+0.03%)
2021-06-23				91,669(+0.02%)
2021-06-24				91,693(+0.03%)
2021-06-25				91,718(+0.03%)
2021-06-26				91,732(+0.02%)
2021-06-27				91,753(+0.02%)
2021-06-28				91,771(+0.02%)
2021-06-29				91,780(+0.01%)
2021-06-30				91,792(+0.01%)
2021-07-01				91,810(+0.02%)
2021-07-02				91,833(+0.03%)
2021-07-03				91,847(+0.02%)
2021-07-04				91,869(+0.02%)
2021-07-05				91,892(+0.03%)
2021-07-06				91,949(+0.06%)
2021-07-07				91,966(+0.02%)
2021-07-08				91,989(+0.03%)
2021-07-09				92,015(+0.03%)
2021-07-10				92,039(+0.03%)
2021-07-11				92,066(+0.03%)
2021-07-12				92,095(+0.03%)
2021-07-13				92,119(+0.03%)
2021-07-14				92,147(+0.03%)
2021-07-15				92,183(+0.04%)
2021-07-16				92,213(+0.03%)
2021-07-17				92,246(+0.04%)
2021-07-18				92,277(+0.03%)
2021-07-19				92,342(+0.07%)
2021-07-20				92,364(+0.02%)
2021-07-21				92,414(+0.05%)
2021-07-22				92,462(+0.05%)
2021-07-23				92,497(+0.04%)
2021-07-24				92,529(+0.03%)
2021-07-25				92,605(+0.08%)
2021-07-26				92,676(+0.08%)
2021-07-27				92,762(+0.09%)
2021-07-28				92,811(+0.05%)
2021-07-29				92,875(+0.07%)
2021-07-30				92,930(+0.06%)
2021-07-31				93,005(+0.08%)
2021-08-01				93,103(+0.11%)
2021-08-02				93,193(+0.1%)
2021-08-03				93,289(+0.1%)
2021-08-04				93,374(+0.09%)
2021-08-05				93,498(+0.13%)
2021-08-06				93,605(+0.11%)
2021-08-07				93,701(+0.1%)
2021-08-08				93,826(+0.13%)
2021-08-09				93,969(+0.15%)
2021-08-10				94,080(+0.12%)
2021-08-11				94,161(+0.09%)
2021-08-12				94,260(+0.11%)
2021-08-13				94,326(+0.07%)
2021-08-14				94,379(+0.06%)
2021-08-15				94,430(+0.05%)
2021-08-16				94,472(+0.04%)
2021-08-17				94,500(+0.03%)
2021-08-18				94,546(+0.05%)
2021-08-19				94,579(+0.03%)
2021-08-20				94,599(+0.02%)
2021-08-21				94,631(+0.03%)
2021-08-22				94,652(+0.02%)
2021-08-23				94,687(+0.04%)
2021-08-24				94,707(+0.02%)
2021-08-25				94,733(+0.03%)
2021-08-26				94,765(+0.03%)
2021-08-27				94,786(+0.02%)
2021-08-28				94,819(+0.03%)
2021-08-29				94,842(+0.02%)
2021-08-30				94,879(+0.04%)
2021-08-31				94,898(+0.02%)
2021-09-01				94,926(+0.03%)
2021-09-02				94,954(+0.03%)
2021-09-03				94,982(+0.03%)
2021-09-04				95,010(+0.03%)
2021-09-05				95,028(+0.02%)
2021-09-06				95,064(+0.04%)
2021-09-07				95,083(+0.02%)
2021-09-08				95,111(+0.03%)
2021-09-09				95,128(+0.02%)
2021-09-10				95,153(+0.03%)
2021-09-11				95,199(+0.05%)
2021-09-12				95,248(+0.05%)
2021-09-13				95,340(+0.1%)
2021-09-14				95,413(+0.08%)
2021-09-15				95,493(+0.08%)
2021-09-16				95,577(+0.09%)
2021-09-17				95,623(+0.05%)
2021-09-18				95,689(+0.07%)
2021-09-19				95,738(+0.05%)
2021-09-20				95,810(+0.08%)
2021-09-21				95,851(+0.04%)
2021-09-22				95,894(+0.04%)
2021-09-23				95,948(+0.06%)
2021-09-24				95,986(+0.04%)
2021-09-25				96,015(+0.03%)
2021-09-26				96,050(+0.04%)
2021-09-27				96,081(+0.03%)
2021-09-28				96,106(+0.03%)
2021-09-29				96,128(+0.02%)
2021-09-30				96,162(+0.04%)
2021-10-01				96,203(+0.04%)
2021-10-02				96,231(+0.03%)
2021-10-03				96,258(+0.03%)
2021-10-04				96,284(+0.03%)
2021-10-05				96,310(+0.03%)
2021-10-06				96,335(+0.03%)
2021-10-07				96,357(+0.02%)
2021-10-08				96,374(+0.02%)
2021-10-09				96,398(+0.02%)
2021-10-10				96,423(+0.03%)
2021-10-11				96,435(+0.01%)
2021-10-12				96,457(+0.02%)
2021-10-13				96,478(+0.02%)
2021-10-14				96,488(+0.01%)
2021-10-15				96,502(+0.01%)
2021-10-16				96,522(+0.02%)
2021-10-17				96,546(+0.02%)
2021-10-18				96,571(+0.03%)
2021-10-19				96,601(+0.03%)
2021-10-20				96,622(+0.02%)
2021-10-21				96,665(+0.04%)
2021-10-22				96,715(+0.05%)
2021-10-23				96,758(+0.04%)
2021-10-24				96,797(+0.04%)
2021-10-25				96,840(+0.04%)
2021-10-26				96,899(+0.06%)
2021-10-27				96,938(+0.04%)
2021-10-28				97,002(+0.07%)
2021-10-29				97,080(+0.08%)
2021-10-30				97,151(+0.07%)
2021-10-31				97,243(+0.09%)
2021-11-01				97,314(+0.07%)
2021-11-02				97,423(+0.11%)
2021-11-03				97,527(+0.11%)
2021-11-04				97,605(+0.08%)
2021-11-05				97,660(+0.06%)
2021-11-06				97,734(+0.08%)
2021-11-07				97,823(+0.09%)
2021-11-08				97,885(+0.06%)
2021-11-09				97,939(+0.06%)
2021-11-10				98,001(+0.06%)
2021-11-11				98,099(+0.1%)
2021-11-12				98,174(+0.08%)
2021-11-13				98,263(+0.09%)
2021-11-14				98,315(+0.05%)
2021-11-15				98,337(+0.02%)
2021-11-16				98,368(+0.03%)
2021-11-17				98,403(+0.04%)
2021-11-18				98,427(+0.02%)
2021-11-19				98,450(+0.02%)
2021-11-20				98,467(+0.02%)
2021-11-21				98,505(+0.04%)
2021-11-22				98,524(+0.02%)
2021-11-23				98,546(+0.02%)
2021-11-24				98,570(+0.02%)
2021-11-25				98,583(+0.01%)
2021-11-26				98,608(+0.03%)
2021-11-27				98,631(+0.02%)
2021-11-28				98,672(+0.04%)
2021-11-29				98,711(+0.04%)
2021-11-30				98,824(+0.11%)
2021-12-01				98,897(+0.07%)
2021-12-02				98,993(+0.1%)
2021-12-03				99,083(+0.09%)
2021-12-04				99,142(+0.06%)
2021-12-05				99,203(+0.06%)
2021-12-06				99,297(+0.09%)
2021-12-07				99,371(+0.07%)
2021-12-08				99,454(+0.08%)
2021-12-09				99,517(+0.06%)
2021-12-10				99,604(+0.09%)
2021-12-11				99,679(+0.08%)
2021-12-12				99,780(+0.1%)
2021-12-13				99,856(+0.08%)
2021-12-14				99,923(+0.07%)
2021-12-15				100,000(+0.08%)
2021-12-16				100,076(+0.08%)
2021-12-17				100,201(+0.12%)
2021-12-18				100,284(+0.08%)
2021-12-19				100,386(+0.1%)
2021-12-20				100,467(+0.08%)
2021-12-21				100,544(+0.08%)
2021-12-22				100,644(+0.1%)
2021-12-23				100,731(+0.09%)
2021-12-24				100,871(+0.14%)
2021-12-25				101,077(+0.2%)
2021-12-26				101,277(+0.2%)
2021-12-27				101,486(+0.21%)
2021-12-28				101,683(+0.19%)
2021-12-29				101,890(+0.2%)
2021-12-30				102,083(+0.19%)
2021-12-31				102,314(+0.23%)
2022-01-01				102,505(+0.19%)
2022-01-02				102,666(+0.16%)
2022-01-03				102,841(+0.17%)
2022-01-04				102,932(+0.09%)
2022-01-05				103,121(+0.18%)
2022-01-06				103,295(+0.17%)
2022-01-07				103,454(+0.15%)
2022-01-08				103,619(+0.16%)
2022-01-09				103,776(+0.15%)
2022-01-10				103,968(+0.19%)
2022-01-11				104,189(+0.21%)
2022-01-12				104,379(+0.18%)
2022-01-13				104,580(+0.19%)
2022-01-14				104,745(+0.16%)
2022-01-15				104,864(+0.11%)
2022-01-16				105,087(+0.21%)
2022-01-17				105,258(+0.16%)
2022-01-18				105,345(+0.08%)
2022-01-19				105,411(+0.06%)
2022-01-20				105,484(+0.07%)
2022-01-21				105,547(+0.06%)
2022-01-22				105,603(+0.05%)
2022-01-23				105,660(+0.05%)
2022-01-24				105,705(+0.04%)
2022-01-25				105,749(+0.04%)
2022-01-26				105,811(+0.06%)
2022-01-27				105,875(+0.06%)
2022-01-28				105,934(+0.06%)
2022-01-29				106,015(+0.08%)
2022-01-30				106,073(+0.05%)
2022-01-31				106,139(+0.06%)
From 10 February 2020 onwards, the data includes the cases in Hubei that were not tested for the virus but clinically diagnosed based on medical imaging showing signs of pneumonia. The lab-tested data was also separately available for 10–15 February 2020. Data from 16 February 2020 onwards did not include a separate number of lab-tested cases. From 19 February 2020 onwards, only new lab-tested cases were counted towards the total (but clinically diagnosed cases counted earlier were not discarded). On 17 April 2020, following the Wuhan government's issuance of a report on accounting for COVID-19 deaths that occurred at home that went previously unreported, as well as the subtraction of deaths that were previously double-counted by different hospitals, the NHC revised their cumulative totals dating to 16 April, adding 325 cumulative cases and 1,290 deaths. Data sourced from NHC daily reports. (In another link before January 25, on Wuhan MHC website before January 10)

The infected cases growth slows down. It was infection doubled after 2 days and now is doubled after 3 days since this weekend. Where can such growth numbers be found in the article? It is good news the infection rate slows down. We will only have estimated 50000 infected by end of the week.92.117.230.38 (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Already discussed.

Serious alert was given around Jan. 21~23th, 8 days ago.

Asymptomatic incubation periode is believed to be about 6 days.

The Basic Reproduction Ratio is moving from a pre-alert walk free level BRR, to an alerted-public taking precautions BRR level. This BRR move (reduction) is very important, but clearly not enough. BRR must move under 1, which means, new cases now (2020.02.01: 14,380-11,791 =2589) should be equal or under new cases of today minus 6 days (2020.01.25: 1,975-1,287=688). It still isnt. Yug (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Daily growth rate added to the figure : {{2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus data/China medical cases (confirmed)}} Yug (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Typo under 4.2 Virology (Cause section)

I believe there is a small typo in the "4.2 Virology" sub-section (3rd para: 2nd sentence), where the word "to" possibly needs to be added between the words "bias" and "refute". The sentence isn't straightforward, so apologies in advance if I have this wrong, but it reads:

"This claim has been widely disputed: some argued that the reservoir must be bats and the intermediate host, bird or mammal, not snakes (as snakes, unlike humans, are poikilotherms), while others used data on recombination and SARS/MERS codon usage bias refute the reasoning."

I haven't made this edit (even though it is very minor) because the subject matter is so complex, and the addition of the word "to" may not be what the authors intended. (For example, it is quite possible to say "these things (x & y) refute something (z)"). Having said that, it's worth noting the word "used" is in play, so I would suggest the word "to" is required. SpookiePuppy (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done I added "to". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Recovered patient

Reference https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 and https://systems.jhu.edu/research/public-health/ncov/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ErnyTech (talk • contribs) 11:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

"100,000 probable cases" is inflammatory and not grounded in data

"Probable cases: near 100,000[4][6]" is a poorly sourced an highly inflammatory number coming immediately after the Government derived "Confirmed cases: 20,626[4]" in the summary table. The 100,000 number should be immedately removed. It derives from various speculative extrapolations and is not source to any data. Pwfen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The New York Times article does mention epidemiological models (but doesn't say which.) https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/02/health/coronavirus-pandemic-china.html This is the relevant paragraph from that article: "But various epidemiological models estimate that the real number of cases is 100,000 or even more. While that expansion is not as rapid as that of flu or measles, it is an enormous leap beyond what virologists saw when SARS and MERS emerged." SpookiePuppy (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I read it. The NYT article is referencing Ferguson at Imperial College and another study at Lancaster U. Both are extrapolations from data making assumptions. There is simply no way those numbers should be sitting next to the reported CCDC numbers in the summary box. Pwfen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The Lancaster U. article: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.23.20018549v1.full.pdf. Pwfen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for sorting this out and keeping a watchful eye. An infobox really does need concrete, reliable material, it's often the first thing we read. SpookiePuppy (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The Imperial College stuff is a bit more complex. There are multiple numbers floating around. 4000 cases on 18 January 2020, people thinking there are 100,000 cases, etc. https://www.tweaktown.com/news/70177/coronavirus-death-toll-rises-56-100-000-people-probably-infected/index.html There are other papers, new articles, etc. referencing Imperial College. None of the large numbers derived from those sources are data on the same footing as CCDC numbers. Pwfen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Well maybe we can say some estimate the numbers are high in the lead. The rest of the estimates IMO should go in the body. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Change of source for "2019–20 nCoV outbreak by country" recommended

I strongly recommend to change the source for the table "2019–20 nCoV outbreak by country" to the WHO daily reports (https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports). This is the most reliable and referenced source. The data is largely consistent with the now referenced BNO News, but the discrepancy for Germany (12 or 10 cases) already lead to unnecessary discussions within the German wikipedia. The difference might have been caused by two cases on the evacuation plane that did not show symptoms when leaving Wuhan, but were tested positive immediately after arriving in Germany. It should be up to the WHO where to count such difficult assignments. Thanks.--Lguenth1 (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The WHO data just comes out once a day. People want to have this updated more often than daily. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Should this be added?

Should the articles about Thailand's cure be added? If yes where? See: Portal:Current events/2020 February 3 Elijahandskip (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• It's potentially a very important development, so it would be warranted to at least mention it in the treatment efforts. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 20:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, Elijahandskip. I believe such content should be added but: 1) there should me more sources for it if possible; and 2) is "cure" the right term to use? why not "possible treatment" or even better "possible treatment being studied". Because "cure" my be a little bit "click-baity" and may misinform the readers. What do you think, Elijahandskip and Kirbanzo? FranciscoMMartins (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Definitely sounds like more appropriate wording to me. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 20:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

See WP:RSMED - reliable sources for medical articles in Wikipedia. Boud (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Popular press is not sufficient to support the claim of a "cure". We should only include it when the CDC or WHO supports. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus: scientists identify possible new mode of transmission in human faeces

"New coronavirus may be transmitted through the feces.  Now this issue should be taken very seriously, because the virus is found in the feces, and whether the feces are infected with the virus is highly vigilant.  In some places in Hubei and Jiangxi, there is indeed a habit of using toilet bowls, and they are still washed in fish ponds, which really needs to be brought to the attention of prevention and control."
Source: South Plus

https://news.qq.com/zt2020/page/feiyan.htm#news

https://amp.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3048611/coronavirus-scientists-identify-possible-new-mode-transmission

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/02/02/asia-pacific/science-health-asia-pacific/coronavirus-feces-risk-of-spread/#.XjdI8mRX5kx

Nickayane99 (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• I'd say this is probably a better fit for the article on the disease itself, but perhaps it could work in one of the sections? Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 23:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Kirbanzo: If this disease spread through the feces we should add this to both articles Nickayane99 (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

2019-nCov is an article about the virus itself. I guess the question is do we need an article on the disease itself? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, i guess, but we need to add this information to virus spread section Nickayane99 (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Nickayane99 Thank you for bringing these sources to my attention. I am always leery of referencing news agencies for purported scientific/medical claims given the risk of misinformation. I looked up the manuscript referenced by these articles, and the authors state, "It is notable that we also detected 2019-nCoV RNA in a stool specimen collected on day 7 of the patient’s illness... However, extrapulmonary detection of viral RNA does not necessarily mean that infectious virus is present, and the clinical significance of the detection of viral RNA outside the respiratory tract is unknown at this time." I will update what's written in the section to be more precise. Moksha88 (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb : don't roll your face in anyone's faeces during a pandemic. Even "just to test". Yug (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC) XD

Even your own, even if you've tested negative, even if nobody is watching. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

We all have our opinions. Yug (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC) XD

What we have here is a very big "may be"...

Would wait for something more definitive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

No support in the cited sources for escalation in transmission rate... and it's complicated.

The first paragraph of the article contains this claim: "with its transmission rate escalating in mid-January 2020" The cited sources do not seem to mention any change in the transmission rate. This are is fraught, with some sources claiming that some increases in reported cases in January are due to increased reporting after case reporting had been previously suppressed. (See Laurie Garrett's discussion here:[1]) So I have removed the phrase. If there is another source for it, please restore and cite it and then let's discuss in light of the reporting controversy. Chris vLS (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Chrisvls agree Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Name change of the article to the official name by WHO

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: The previous discussion, found at Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic/Archive 6#Requested move 9 February 2020, was closed for WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) CoronavirusPlagueDoctor (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Dear Wikipedians,

Would it be possible for us to change the name of this article to novel-coronavirus-2019 outbreak? or other names without using city name or China.

As there is potential issue of negativeness to Chinese or Asian people regarding the current health issues, I saw the article previously that WHO now named the virus with an neutral point of view without city name or country name. (I saw that one of the newspaper in Australia named the virus as a China Virus: it could create potential negative influence in our society. examples : if we named the Virus as a Australia Virus, British Virus or U.S. Virus)

Please refer to the name of virus from WHO.

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019

As you know well, Previously, WHO named the virus without consideration of the name of the city or country.

examples , Spain Flu, Middle East respiratory syndrome and others...

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

There now have discussion regarding this rename in Chinese and Korean Wikipedias. See link Chinese Wikipedia Korean Wikipedia, I think in their languages it is more like grammar issue in their name like whether in Chinese should be 2019年－2020年 or not. Why English named the range of years as 2019-20 not 2019-2020?

I agree with Goodtiming8871. I vote to change the name of the article to "2019-20 Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak". FranciscoMMartins (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Please refer to the related article link from WHO below.

https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2015/naming-new-diseases/en/

23:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I would rather to support rename to "2019-2020 Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak". This proposed was to more aligned with Chinese original name change (2019年－2020年 新型冠狀病毒肺炎事件) These change is more relevant in English title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

This needs to be done if desired with a proper move request section, not just a general Talk thread. Sleath56 (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep the name as is for now. This was already heavily discussed in the move to this title. And Wikipedia consensus was not to use that WHO name. Using "novel" also indicates that it is not a real permanent name, so we should just stick to the common name until a permanent official name becomes widely used. If we at risk of undiscussed changes in the title we can protect the article against moving. But since I have expressed a point of view, I should let someone else do this if required. A unilateral move happened once before when someone failed to notice a big discussion on this talk page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Keep the name should remain for now until a more common or official name for the virus/outbreak is released. A reminder that Ebola is named after the Ebola River where that illness was first observed. Krazytea(talk) 19:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. The common name should stay. We can include WHO's official name, when it become available. The logic for the renaming proposal is unsound, given that we have names like German measles or Spanish flu. Nerd271 (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. The idea of "novel" or "new form" is not good because it's relative. There will be another 'new' virus soon enough. If they want a neutral and non-geographic name, then it should be something that is special about this virus. So far I know of no such characteristics. It's not any sort of moral judgement of Wuhan or Hubei, but just the historical fact of where it was first detected. However, if there are no other major outbreaks this year, then "2020 Coronavirus" would probably be my pick. Shanen (talk) 11:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Please vote in the discussion that is already underway on this page, here [2]. Goodtiming8871, Graeme Bartlett, Nerd271, Krazytea, Sleath56, please take a look. Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Could this page be protected please?

This page keeps being vandalised, such as people changing the number of casualties to something ridiculous. A few days ago, somebody changed the picture to graphic anal sex. Could we please protect this page, at the very least to autoconfirmed users? Kirundist (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Kirundist: see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection – Reidgreg (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Kirundist: This page now again become semi-protected because high level of IP Vandalism after protection expired. It is my concern about many vandalism in this article. Why semi-protected for this article is not going indefinite? 110.137.171.220 (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Should local transmission in Singapore be added?

I saw this in the references for another page, and it seemed significant enough to add here, since it appears to be the largest incidence of local transmission thus far in the outbreak.Quonker (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

There's also a Malaysian citizen that was infected who hadn't been to China, but had been to Singapore for a week in mid-January. It seems likely they contracted the virus at a meeting with business delegates from Wuhan, but this appears to be a case of local transmission in Singapore, even if it turns out none of the infected individuals were Singapore citizens. Quonker (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Wrong number of annual face mask production

Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak#Criticism_of_local_response second paragraph: the correct amount of face masks produced annually schould be 1.8 million. amount is correctly given in source 194.8.223.8 (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Does bushfire season theory related to this article

I remove text about bushfire because it is hypothetical and unrelated to coronavirus outbreak: the text as follows:

• Bushfire effect. many people believe that Australian bushfire contribute to outbreak of coronavirus that spread around the world. Many Australian politicians also made assumption that many people around the world, including Wuhan experience the effects of bushfire. This assumption was supported by many newspapers. Many paranormals blame Australia for spreading coronavirus because its bushfire season.

I briefly added the statement before it was removed because it assumed that was unrelated. Does someone have opinion about this. 110.137.171.220 (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Too much "many", at least. If attributed to actual people, politicians, press and paranormals(?), it'd be easier to know if someone's actually lying here. As it was, vague enough to be useless (but technically undebunkable), should stay out. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• This is not factual at all and should be left out. No reliable sources have suggested there being a link between the bushfires and the spread of the virus, and believing in such a link is a fringe, conspiracy position. If anything it should be included alongside the conspiracy that Coronavirus was made by the Chinese in List of conspiracy theories. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 20:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not a conspiracy theory. It's just superstition about smoke. Fringe and kooky, definitely. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure it is a conspiracy theory. There are a lot of wacky conspiracy theories about both this virus and the Australian bushfires. Scott Morrison and the Australian government were under a great deal of domestic pressure due to the bushfires and the outbreak seems to have been a decent 'distraction' so in some ways it's not that hard to see how the conspiracy theory may come about, but it's still utter nonsense. As for adding it to an article, unless it's well known and documented in multiple sources, there's no reason. As I said, there are a lot of conspiracy theories surrounding both. We're only going to be adding those with sufficient sourcing. Nil Einne (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

At least as written above, nobody alleges any group secretly plotted to start the fires, release the virus or shift Australian attention away. If such a scenario is laid out elsewhere, it's likely a conspiracy theory. But if the smoke or heat from the fires is simply believed to cause respiratory distress in China, that's just classic poppycock/horsefeathers, like the sketchy wives' tales about toads causing warts, gays causing hurricanes or rap causing crime. The supposed "real enemy" is deemed guilty by its inherent otherness, regardless of lack of alleged intent. That's called scapegoating, where I'm from. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• I haven't heard a single politician or Australian mention the bushfires and Wuhan coronavirus as being connected unless it relates to the economic impact that will be felt by two disasters so close to each other. I would be extremely interested in finding a link that shows "Many paranormals blame Australia for spreading coronavirus because its bushfire season". Considering every summer in Australia is technically a bushfire season, I am unsure how they can create pathogens in a market in Wuhan. Ozcloudwarrior (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Smearing in Wikipedia

Could you just stop with nonsense such as this "The Far-right news site Zero Hedge claimed that a scientist..."? Far-right why? Does Zero Hedge claim to be far-right? Because if not you're just smearing like CNN and pals. Even in your own Zero Hedge article you state that Zero Hedge is Pro Russian biased, alt-right and libertarian. What kind of nonsense is that? You can't be all of those given Russia is anything but right wing or libertarian and much less far-right. Once again this just makes Wikipedia look an unreliable source of information. I don't even know Zero Hedge that well but I know for sure it's not far-right because left wingers claim that anything they don't like to be far-right. Unit73e (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (a tertiary source), like all encyclopedias it's not about truth, but about verifiability, reflecting what the facts are reported to be in the mainstream. If mainstream sources (such as the Washington Post) are saying that Zero Hedge is on the far right, that's what we will write on Wikipedia.

Don't get me wrong, maybe it's not far right at all, but it's not relevant because we're not arbiters of truth. It would be very inappropriate for a gang of editors to consider that a source that is widely considered reliable on Wikipedia would be wrong on a particular issue simply on the basis of our own personal views.

So unless you find another source deemed reliable on Wikipedia that claims that the political orientation of the site in question is not far-right I think the discussion is over. Have a good day/night. --RaphaelQS (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

See the Talk for Zero Hedge, which brings up this matter. The conclusion being to appeal to WP:RS/P if you believe the RS show otherwise. Sleath56 (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

As we're mentioning it in a bad science context, not a political one, seems irrelevant even if 110% true at its own article. It'd be like calling some honest scientist or health worker out by their marital status, or referring to The Washington Post as "capitalist". There's an appropriate time and place for pointy adjectives, disputed or not. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Someone has removed the "far right" descriptor. So nothing more is needed here. I agree that it was not required. and it added bloat to the page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Well I added it back in since its a relevant description... If you want to call two words in an article this long bloat thats little out there. In addition “news site” unmodified is misleading, it would be an endorsement of them as an actual news site which is inappropriate to do in Wikipedia’s voice because they aren’t one. No policy based argument has yet been made for removing the language. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

"Right-wing" just conveys political orientation. If a leftist, Communist or Satanist outlet was said to have spread unfounded bullshit and been Twitter-banned for that, it'd be just as easy to understand it's the lying sort of news site. Are you sure you don't mostly want to make the right seem like xenophobic snakes by association? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I will remind you to mind WP:PA, failure to do so will get you banned. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Not attempting to attack you. Just asking for clarification. If you're sure you're not doing this for political purposes, I'm sorry to even bring up the question. But if you are, I'd base my argument somewhere in WP:NPOV. Not calling anyone a snake, xenophobe, Satanist, Communist or leftist, if that's how it read. Only trying to see things from your perspective; maybe you're right (correct) and I just missed how, you know? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I have removed that prefixing text. It is just adding bloat. This article is not about Zero Hedge, but about the bogus story therein. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Those two sentences are, that is. The article is about a novel coronavirus outbreak. Or so the "real" news spins it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Add rate of change for deaths?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Growth_Chart_of_Confirmed_Cases_Coronavirus_Outbreak.jpg I think adding the deaths to this chart might be a good idea

Gerdolfo (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

These changes of daily groth rates are not reasonable this way because of delays and announcements. One should take at least 3-5 days into account and compare the number N(t) - N (t-5), and N(t-1) - N (t-6) to obtain resonable numbers wich are free from "meassurement noise". This first was mathematically meanful. Although it is interesting that the rate apperas stable the recent 5 days. But could also be a bad sign, namely that the measurement capacity of the hospitals there might be exceeded. Hardwareonkel (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

BMJ

might be helpful….--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Update for Feb 4

23,874 confirmed, 492 deaths https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#repro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaisersauce1 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2020

In 8.4 Disinformation, insert a reference to the following RT article, which might be interpreted as making the claim: https://www.rt.com/news/478997-bat-soup-china-virus-wuhan/. I would insert it immediately after the mention of RT. 2A01:E0A:D5:D430:1984:FE15:997D:F5DA (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. We already have multiple reliable, secondary sources to back this up; we don't need anything primary here on top of that. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Anything primary would be a claim made by RT that they made that claim. This is the article on which the person who reversed the suppression of the mention of RT based their edit. They did not base it on any secondary source referenced here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:D5:D430:E9FF:C5A8:9EED:AE90 (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Both the sources mention RT specifically. Nothing more is needed. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Lancet article / projections of the epidemics spread

Hi all, in looking into the outbreak I stumbled over an article at the Lancet that models the outbreaks number of infections and spread amongst major Chinese cities. In a nutshell, their modelling suggests that a) there were already locally spreading epidemics in some of the largest of China's cities as of at least a week ago, and b) Unless you have a very drastic reduction of the average number of people that are newely infected through each existing case (whats refered to as R0), that is by half, then the Virus will continue to spread in those cities with the rate of infection peaking around summer.

Their interpretation of those results is that you will subsequently see the virus spread globally, and that it would therefore make sense to prepare and plan for that. (To be quite honest, that's also been my personal assesment from when I started looking into the outbreak).

I've not seen any news sites reporting on the article, ie no secondary sources (nor have I searched yet though!), but I was curious as to what other people here think about adding a section on modeling / projections for the epidemics growth? I personally would like to see that added, as I think it would be good to see people more aware of the fact that its more a question of "when" rather than "whether" the virus will continue to spread (and its not just the Lancet article that points in that direction - everything I've been reading so far has made indications to that end: for example, a report on the ECDC (European Center for disease control) points out that if the Outbreak can't be contained to Hubei province, then a global spread is inevitable. I'll list more if people are interested!

Here's the ECDC quote, btw: "The options for response might change when more epidemiological and clinical data become available. During the current phase, it is important for EU/EEA countries to focus on containment measures that prevent and/or limit secondary transmission in the community and healthcare settings. Should the epidemiological situation evolve to signal significant and sustained community transmission in locations outside of Hubei province, containment measures will become increasingly ineffective in limiting introduction of community transmission in EU/EEA countries, although such measures might delay local introductions by some days or weeks. "

Regards Sean Heron (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

That is a very interesting article and should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pestilence Unchained (talk • contribs) 07:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The Lancet article by the Hong Kong University group is already given under the estimate section, so you can add a bit more about projection in that section. Hzh (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I'll get to it when I have more time later on! Regards Sean Heron (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Best and worst of Wikipedia... I suggest we push out some more sections into focused "sub-pages"

Hey everyone - I've been following the epidemic since about 2 weeks ago, and was thinking of making some additions (more on that in a separate section below), and thought I'd review the article as a whole first. Well! It definitely has both the best and worst of what Wikipedia has to offer: Lots of information collected in one spot (woo!), but also overall quite a mess of an article (boo!), but I see in the talk-page notices that some effort has been made in that regard to push out some parts into separate pages (yay!).

So my suggestion - as per the Section title - lets push out some more of the listy, very much in-detail info (eg details on evacuations from Wuhan/Hubei, list of airlines that have reduced airtraffic, etc). into extra pages? I'd be happy to be bold and get started on that, just thought asking for comment doesn't hurt!

Regards Sean Heron (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Oh, and I think that the articles new name stinks, btw ... (and I don't think it was policy conform either - none of the papers I read call it "Wuhan coronavirus". But endless discussions on that kind of thing are part of the worst of Wikipedia as well...)

User:Sean Heron made one move. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Cool, thank you! I'll give that a little context, and see if I can move some more stuff out when I have time later! Regards Sean Heron (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

No mention of developing immunity or not to the virus?

What is know about that? This should be mentioned in this article, because it very much affects the dynamics of spreading.

If you find a source for information on it then we can add something. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. --Philipwhiuk (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Would be too early to know 100% but I imagine people will develop immunity. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

We have "The toll of a seasonal-flu-like coronavirus also depends on immunity — which is also scientifically uncertain. Exposure to the four endemic coronaviruses produces immunity that lasts longer than that to influenza, Webby said, but not permanent immunity. Like respiratory syncytial virus, which can re-infect adults who had it in childhood, coronavirus immunity wanes."[3] But would want a better source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

We also have "Doctors and virologists don't yet know enough about the Wuhan coronavirus to say whether humans develop full immunity after they've contracted the illness. According to Zhan, doctors aren't sure that the antibodies patients develop are strong or long-lasting enough to keep them from contracting the disease again."[4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Recoveries

An example of cases, recoveries, under treatment, and deaths

Are discussed in a few places. Does not justify a NPOV tag. Expecially when people are free to add more details. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

NPOV: recoveries underrepresented

Hi, I think the article seems non-neutral, with little info about recoveries compared to cases/deaths, esp. in the tables, graphs etc. For example, I had to add the number of recoveries to the lead, as it had so far reported only deaths and confirmed cases. The maps and graphs report only confirmed cases/deaths, not recoveries, while recoveries are mopnitored and reported by sources. Opinions? WikiHannibal (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The section above this one is on the same topic. We mention recoveries in multiple spots in the article. Sure you could add it to the table but based on which source? I guess this one https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/02/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/ Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

User:WikiHannibal I am still not sure why you simple did not add it?[5] Anyway I did. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, my point is they are underrepresented. From an encyclopedic point of view, too much attention is given to the "shocking" news. Thanks for adding the data to the table but there are more maps and graphs in the article. For example, there is a timeline showing "Confirmed cases in mainland China" but not a corresponding one showing recoveries. Similarly, maps and semi-plot logs show confirmed and suspected cases but not recoveries. And no headline about recoveries. I understand editors add what they want but the tag merely describes the result. Until the article is made neutral, readers should be warned (by the tag) that the article is not balanced. I hope for opinions from more editors, and the tag was meant to draw attention to the issue. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not a neutrality issue. News coverage is primarily about new cases, we don't invent what news outlet choose to cover. I would suspect that only those intent on skewing the narrative would get upset over coverage of number of new cases over the number of recoveries. In any case, where recoveries may be notable for example where there may be possible cure, it would be covered. Hzh (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE, WP:BALASP, WP:STRUCTURE are part of neutrality. And what "news outlet choose to cover" is not directly relevant for wikipedia; wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER (e.g. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.) Editors choose what to add and how to present information, and maps, tables, graphs focuse on deaths/confirmed/suspected cases. I mentioned several examples of that above; another examples, refs which were formerly used for some of the tables etc. presented recoveries as equally important as cases/death but these sources are no longer in the article; maps in quality sources, such as WHO reports, color countries in proportion to the number of cases, so that, for example, the two cases in Russia are represented in a more neutral way than on a map used in the article. I am not saying new cases are not important but that the overall picture the article presents is not balanced. Do you think suspected cases (those may or may not have the virus) are more related to the topic, more notable, than recoveries (those who had the virus)? It seems a result of following the media hype without having the encyclopedic nature of the earticles in mind. WikiHannibal (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I suspect you are applying WP:NOTNEWSPAPER to something that it is not intended. The article is not hiding the number of recoveries since it is clearly given. The maps show the spread of virus, recovery is of no relevance there. Similarly for the number recorded. The only complaint you can make is about the two graphs (which is given in the spread of the disease section), and you can easily fix that if you want to, it does not warrant sticking a NPOV tag at the top. Also if you want to, you can simply add a section on recoveries. The only real NPOV issue is with the map that suggests Taiwan is part of China, and that is under discussion. There is little to be said on recoveries now, trying to hype up recoveries now would be in effect WP:UNDUE.Hzh (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Deaths are not particularly high. That is reassuring if anything rather than shocking. Most cases are in an "unknown" stage. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Yah if someone want to make that graph for this disease that would be great. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Talking of number of deaths, unless I missed it, I don't see anything about death rate in the article. I see in various news articles that the death rate is lower than SARS, but higher than flu (or about the same outside of Hubei province), perhaps it's something worth mentioning. Probably far too early to say anything about recovery rate, which I assume would be high. Hzh (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

It is unclear what the death rate is. I think the best we can do is 1) dead 2) recovered 3) still sick like in the graph above. And of course this is just for symptomatic cases. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• The novel coronavirus case fatality rate (CFR) is currently estimated at around 2%, the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Wednesday, January 29, 2020

worldometers.info Nickayane99 (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Indonesia.

So apparently an Indonesian got infected with nCoV in Singapore, should we add Indonesia or put it on Singapore section? As of right now Indonesia is still "clean" from the virus but one national got infected abroad in Singapore, and being treated by the Singaporean government working with Indonesian Embassy. -EvoSwatch (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

This statement should be included in Singapore because this is when the case confirmed, not about their nationality. for example a confirmed cases in US is American-born Chinese. Until recently, not positive coronavirus case reported in Indonesian soil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.69.56.176 (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyright issue introduced here

User:Quasar1826 recently added a large section of text to the virus article that turned out to be copied directly from the papers cited, and it looks like he may have done that here as well, cut into four pieces with many other editors active in the interim. I have not had time to check the edits here carefully, but there may be a substantial copyright issue that needs to be cleaned up as soon as possible. I have done what needs to be done at the virus article, which was easier, but I am unable to do it here at this time (this is the last time I can post before being away from the keyboard). It would be helpful if someone could review the edits and/or call in the copyright squad or an administrator noticeboard if necessary. Pinging a few admins who may be in the area: User:Amakuru, User:Doc James. Dekimasuよ! 12:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Dekimasu trimmed a bunch of it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

"Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory." - Sun Tzu

Fortune cookie says: "Do not look toward the past, when you should look toward the future."

Quasar1826 (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Signed: User:Quasar1826

That's a somewhat less than encouraging response, since I alone spent an hour cleaning up after the copyright infringement at the virus article yesterday. Dekimasuよ! 06:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't get how a quote about warmaking applies to a collaborative project. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 07:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

"even if this was rewritten in your own words to some extent, it still has several of the problems it did yesterday: it contains duplications, much of it is not about 2019-nCoV, what nine patients?, citing preprints of things that are already published and referenced elsewhere in the article." - Dekimasu

We agree that the copyright issue here has been resolved then?

By "duplications", I presume that you mean a single reference posted by myself that cites a preprint reference, where a published reference already exists within the same article? Then why not simply repair the known duplication citation instead of reverting back the entire article?

S: "much of it is not about 2019-nCoV"

This statement is not logical, since the article was narrated from reference citations for scientific research specific to the novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). I can only presume that you have never completed an academic university level course on Genetics, Virology, or Taxonomic Nomenclature?

Q: "what nine patients?"

A: The nine patients that were tested for the novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in Wuhan, and already mentioned in the article by citation by a source that was not a duplication. Why could not a (clarification needed) be sufficient enough until a User update, instead of a full article reversion?

According to my understanding, that after three reversions, a User is done here?

Quasar1826 (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Signed: User:Quasar1826

Reference:

06:36, 5 February 2020‎ Quasar1826 talk contribs‎ 252,262 bytes +5,468‎ Added virology information 5...

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2020

change 'usedby' to 'used by' under "Prevention" -> "Surgical Masks". 3p8 (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Danski454 (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Confirmed deaths in mainland China

A graph like the one "Confirmed cases in mainland China" would be very nice to see how dangerous this disease really is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.109.67.117 (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2020

Would it be possible to add the below image to this article?

File:The expanding footprint of coronavirus.png

The expanding footprint of coronavirus

Regards, Rradhak1 (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

No - it's not suitable. Individual charts are better split out separately and the aim of the page is not to advertise someone's blog. --Philipwhiuk (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to add to that - I agree entirely with your message PhilipW, but I personally also welcome any people offering their work under free licences! I think some of the visualisation is pretty good, but eg some info would needed to be added where there are references to hovering over the bars / icons. I want to work on the page as a whole in general, and I'll be starting with general structure, but if I get round to it, I'll look into reusing parts of this!

Regards Sean Heron (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

|No| It would be disingenuous to the reader to include an image which references interactive elements (hover over to see more...) where the interactive portions could not be maintained. 173.200.98.210 (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

First epidemiology map legend is too close to the second epidemiology map

Because the colours used are similar, I keep accidentally looking at the legend for the first map, thinking it applies to the second map. There must be a simple way to fix this - increase the gap, or change colours on one of those visuals? Arteme (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

About 10 people on a cruise ship anchored off the port of Yokohama are infected with the virus

Where do we suppose to put this information.

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20200205/k10012273141000.html Nickayane99 (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Nickayane99 that is fairly important. How many people on the ship? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Found it 3,700 people on the ship.[6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James:

• 10 new cases in Japan. :They were found on a cruise ship off Yokohama, raising the ship’s total to 20.
• source Nickayane99 (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Alternative to the bar graph of confirmed cases

The graphs below are more conventional means of showing epi data than the orange-colored horizontal bars. The data are from a Chinese site that is updated throughout the day with a major update about 7AM China time each morning. JuanTamad (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Confirmed cases have already topped 6,000, making the chart obsolete. Not to mention if we're including total infections it's worth it to include every country. Aqua817 (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Two thoughts, one on chart type, one one data. On chart type, I think that the current vertically oriented graph is counter-intuitive and very non-standard. Your column chart is an improvement. A line chart would probably be best, as this is a time series. On the data, I think following the JHU approach of "Mainland China" and "Other Locations" is good. Charting the total of all cases might even be better. Chris vLS (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • We would also need to endeavor to keep it up to date daily... perhaps we could load a common file for generating the chart every day as data are available. Chris vLS (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The JHU do keep it up to date. The current bar chart also includes a problematic projection as well as claims on Taiwan, the NHC data includes Taiwan , eg todays version > http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/202001/1c259a68d81d40abb939a0781c1fe237.shtml (use Google Translate) Wikimucker

Confirmed and severe cases 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease for mainland China (and Taiwan) and confirmed cases (including severe) in all other countries.

Confirmed cases 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease for mainland China

This is mainland China and Taiwan from the same source as the JHU, a Chinese news site. The numbers for the rest of the world are still so low it almost work on the same plot. A more complex plot is going to difficult to maintain daily. It going to become obsolete at some point anyway.JuanTamad (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

wide version vs tall, which do you prefer? JuanTamad (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

the wide seems better to me now. I added severe cases as another line, same data source, noted in details. JuanTamad (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The curve type "Severe" is not comparable with "China" and "Other countries". Moreover it is not clear if these are severe cases in China or severe cases worldwide. Anyway, one of "Severe in China" or "Severe worldwide" will lack. I don't see a simple way to integrate the "Severe" cases without at least renaming the categories to more cumbersome "Severe in China", "Confirmed in China", etc. Cheater no1 (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

read the caption: Confirmed and severe cases 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease for mainland China (including Taiwan) and confirmed cases in all other countries. The labels on the graph legend are clearer now. JuanTamad (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

A grouped bar plot like this is possible alternative or addition, for cases within China; the numbers for the other countries are in the table. JuanTamad (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I can remove Taiwan and group with other countries. The difference will be hardly noticeable, but that might politically be the preferred way to present the data.JuanTamad (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Added histogram, mainland China cases only, with confirmed, severe, deaths and healing. Deaths and healing for 6 FEB only, can add previous days. JuanTamad (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The horizontal chart had some projections on it that must have been original research (WP:NOV), but looks like they’re gone.JuanTamad (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks great! I think that having a graph of the total for all countries is ideal because 1) no politics, 2) is important. Doesn't hurt anything right now, because the numbers are so close, but that may change. A minor style point... I think your graph would look even better if it didn't have the minor gridlines. They don't help much and when the graph is small, they detract from its looks. Let me know if you ever need to skip some days an need someone to cover for you updating it! Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

If you include other countries in the same line, you can't see them (if that's what you meant), the number is such a small fraction of those in China. This is like the JHU graph, showing other countries in a separate line. The minor gridlines are removed. I do this in R. If you know how to regenerate a graph in R after adding the additional data, you could also update. The information from the Chinese government is available here, so can use this data rather than the news websites. JuanTamad (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

SO now will have to propose replacing the horizontal thing.JuanTamad (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

At this stage, I would go with either a) your current graph with two lines, one for "Mainland China" and one for "ROW", or b) a graph with one line "Total cases". I have a slight preference for b. But both are an improvement over the current one. So, be bold and go for it! Chris vLS (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Chrisvls 1: the problem with b I think is that when you have such as disparity (China vs ROW) in number of cases, by combining you make it unclear that the disparity exists, i.e. you might give the impression that there are huge numbers of cases somewhere outside China. The totals are in the tables.JuanTamad (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I added a comment above in the discussion about the semi-log, proposing that this standard line plot replace both the semi-log and the horizontal bars. I'll give it a while more for responses. The bar graph wasn't uploaded to wikimedia commons. I haven't tried to delete it yet. It might be protected. JuanTamad (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

True enough, and there will likely be more in other countries soon enough... go for it! The current one should really be replaced, it's not the correct selection for a time series, please save us from it! Chris vLS (talk) 08:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok.Could you give me an example of a link that you are not satisfied with, then give me another link that you are satisfied with,so I know your expectations and can provide good links. Thank you! Wuhan2019 (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I guess this is kinda reliable source for death rate https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/ Nickayane99 (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Another secondary source. They list several sources so it's unclear. JuanTamad (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep. Maybe change to Wuhan novel Corona virus for clarity of needed Hendra ibaraki1 (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Keep I find this plot very useful just he way it is. The percentage increase numbers are also very helpful. It is a very good indicator of how the infection is progressing in China. Please don't change it. Boardhead (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• Replace the horizontal bars are not at all in line with scientific graphing ideas, like here. It is easier to see the trend in changes by changes in the line slope on an epi curve than the percentage numbers every day. Horizontal bars are usually reserved for when the labels are too long for the bottom axis. Look at any other wikipedia disease outbreak page - or WHO CDC JuanTamad (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)