Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Travel Restrictions on US & Mexico Border[edit]

As of 3/20/20 the US/Mexico border is restricted to cargo traffic and essential personnel similar to the restrictions placed at the US/Canadian border in order to stem the spread of COVID-19.

[1]

50.198.133.197 (talk) 20 March 2020 (UTC)


References

Current number of non-repatriated cases by state[edit]

There is no data in this section anymore. Was it moved elsewhere? DrHenley (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Someone removed it last night and claimed they were making a better version, really until they make a better version it probably should be returned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.162.230.27 (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Please restore this table about cases by states. Everything else on this page is relatively insignificant. I occasionally checked this page only to look at this table. My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • One More vote in favor of restoring it. Alas, I'm not up on the finer points of wikipedia page editing, just a user of the service. Was the section removed by the person who was actively maintaining it? I appreciate it's probably more effort than one might imagine to collate info from various sources into a single chart; but it *was* definitely useful. (User talk:24.5.158.255) —Preceding undated comment added 16:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Agreed, this table should not only be added back, but also put in the first section; cases by state and territory should be its own section at the top to mirror the global page table.

I think the user who keeps removing the table believes it is somehow inaccurate? Just because it's not always updated in a timely manner doesn't mean it is wrong. There is also a seemingly-ongoing battle in the order of the deaths and recoveries columns, which is messing things up. JoelleJay (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we put a clarifying statement next to the chart to that effect? Many times timely data is more important than precise data (within reasonable bounds.) And I wouldn't want to kick off a flame war 'cause someone thought they were being dissed. (User talk:24.5.158.255)

I've restored the table and added a disclaimer above it. @SquidHomme: If you want to remove this table, please discuss the matter here. Kaldari (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, I oppose removing the table without at least providing an alternate method to easily get to the state-level outbreak articles. Kaldari (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
@JoelleJay:I think the user who keeps removing the table believes it is somehow inaccurate? Just because it's not always updated in a timely manner doesn't mean it is wrong.. I'm sorry maybe you should see the template a day ago. Not only was it "not always updated in timely manner," but it also contradicted all the numbers from the reliable sources (JHU, worldometers, etc). An also, update it if you can, instead of blabbering here.
@Kaldari: Add it once the numbers gets corrected. Why you even mention me here? Use me as a culprit or something? I removed it because it was misleading. Return it to where it belong only if it no longer misleading.—SquidHomme (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
@SquidHomme: I've created a technical proposal to address your concerns. Please endorse it there if you support the idea. Kaldari (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
@Kaldari: Ok, I'll look into that, and thank you for putting the concern into something.—SquidHomme (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I think we just need to update the table as frequently as possible. This is developing very fast. Even rank order of states is not obvious. For example, in Michigan [1]... My very best wishes (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps this continued removal of the section table by one (!) user should be considered vandalism, and the user being actioned for it. youdonotneedtoknowmyrealname (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E8:7F15:1401:8100:C7AA:795A:18E1 (talk)

Talk about Bury the Lede: Can this table be positioned at or near the top of the article? CoatCheck (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Done! JoelleJay (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

failed to follow NSC’s pandemic playbook, add?[edit]

The Trump administration ignored a White House playbook that was created in 2016 to help fight back against a potential pandemic.

The National Security Council (NSC) playbook lays out strategies and recommendations that an administration should take, including moving swiftly to fully detect potential outbreaks, securing supplemental funding and considering invoking the Defense Production Act, and making sure there are sufficient personal protective equipment available for healthcare workers. The NSC created the guide — officially titled the “Playbook for Early Response to High-Consequence Emerging Infectious Disease Threats and Biological Incidents” but known colloquially as “the pandemic playbook” — in 2016 and the Trump administration was briefed on it in 2017, but administration officials ignored it, and it never became official policy.

X1\ (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

See 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States § Background and preparations. X1\ (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

And now that US has surpassed China in the number of cases, there is a legitimate question: why? The only answer is the leadership and the system [2]. Note that (a) China was the first (so US could prepare and follow her example), (b) US has/had bigger resources, and (c) the final number of cases in the US can easily be in millions. My very best wishes (talk) 03:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Note that the Trump administration is planning for a pandemic with multiple waves of illness that are expected to stretch into next year [3]... My very best wishes (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Here is an RS who's title hits the nail on the head: The missing six weeks: how Trump failed the biggest test of his life; The president was aware of the danger from the coronavirus – but a lack of leadership has created an emergency of epic proportions 28 March 2020. X1\ (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

internal CDC emails, add?[edit]

Internal CDC emails show how public health officials fumbled communication and underestimated the threat of the coronavirus as it gained a foothold in the United States.

X1\ (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

See 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States § Background and preparations. X1\ (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Has this been covered in any other sources? If so, I think it would be worth including. - MrX 🖋 11:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Salon, but it is a republishing of the ProPublica article. Other than that, the best source I have found was the Kaiser Health News one. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

USA Hospitals Requesting Homemade Masks[edit]

  • students at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health have started a list.
  • Hospitals Requesting Homemade Masks.pdf
  • GetPPE.org features a map of those hospitals
  • 100 Million Mask Challenge
  • Providence hospital chain in Washington state

—§—T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 11:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

OK. - MrX 🖋 11:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I am assuming that User:T3g5JZ50GLq was attempting to suggest adding this (somewhere) into the article. Is that correct? --Super Goku V (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
@Super Goku V:: that is correct, probably in Production of emergency supplies.
please include this research topic.—§—T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Made One of the Summary Plots a Semi-Log Plot[edit]

I added the option "|yScaleType=log" to make the y axis, total cases of COVID-19, a log scale. This makes the information available over the whole timeline, and shows the rate of growth of cases the same way throughout the timeline.

The first time I did this it was immediately reverted on the basis that the ordinary user would not understand what a log scale was and would be misled by the plot. The second time, I added a line of text to explain what a log axis does for this plot, and indeed another editor added a link to logarithmic scale. But someone updating the data for the plot, which is done daily, accidentally broke this plot and the third plot, and published them that way. That editor or another editor fixed both plots, and in the process deleted the "|yScaleType=log" option. So, this time I added comments to the editors on how to keep the log scale if they need to fix a broken chart.

If the people maintaining the data in these plots have problems updating them as log plots, we need to give up and leave them as linear plots or use one of the other chart templates to make them easier to maintain. It has occurred to me that these plots summarize data from

and I wonder if it is feasible to make these charts update automatically when the source page is updated.

I think the other two charts at the end of the article should be on a log scale too, for the same reasons. But, bar charts are best for linear plots, and I think that they would be best presented as line charts with data symbols, like the first plot. I'll wait for comments here before I change the second two plots. -- motorfingers : Talk 20:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we should bring back the bar graphs for new cases, deaths, and recoveries for the following reasons:
1) Although I kind of get your reasoning, most people find line charts not as visually informative as bars (some psychology stats book, don't remember now where exactly I read that)
2) A log plot is confusing, require additional processing, and if not used correctly, it can be drastically misleading (here I can provide citations, it's another psych stats book). For example, it hides the exponential aspect of the data, which in the case of this pandemic is essential information not only for regular citizens to know what to expect, but also for policy makers with no training in epidemiology. Likewise, a linear chart leads to more estimations ("guesses") than the bar charts because it explicitly requires extra processing to check the Y axis back and forth. So the longer the graph is (which we will unfortunately have), the content is likely lost to the eye even if the trend is better visualized.
3) Keep it consistent across Wikipedia pages; all other countries (or at least the first 20 or so I clicked on) have bar graphs. Keeping data in the same visual format enables quick comparisons between countries.
4) Keep it consistent with the official reporting sites, e.g. CDC https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html.

Please bring back the bar graphs.Elenaschifirnet (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

We *really* need log plots, as they are the representation most likely to demonstrate any positive news. And we need one for deaths. There is one under Statistics (last chart of five), but it is using WHO numbers and has a lag (like WHO, yes?). I can't believe someone removed a log plot as too confusing. Shenme (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
"We *really* need log plots, as they are the representation most likely to demonstrate any positive news." I don't know that a desire to demonstrate positive new is an appropriate reason to make the change. The numbers are what they are, we don't need to try to present them as positive or negative. CUA 27 (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
It was reverted once, almost instantly, as misleading, which tells me that there are smart people that do Wikipedia editing of hot pages like this one who don't grok logarithmic scales. I think I addressed that adequately. So, I'll look at making the other plots log plots in the morning. I will keep the numbers above the dots. All three plots may get a little taller to expand the log scales a bit. -- motorfingers : Talk 00:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
DONE. Found that third plot has factor of 10^3 while first two have five, so the third y axis was stretched relative to the other two; fixed that by shrinking the y axis of the third plot. To make plots clearer, make height=80*<number of factors of 10> so the y scales are all the same, 80 pixels per factor of ten. I'll watch this if the maintainers of the data don't adjust height=* as things progress. I also find that showvalues=1 is not supported on log plots in the template used here :-(. I changed the colors of the first and second plot; they were both medium orange and I made the first one more red and the second one more orange. I added a few to help out the maintainers. The template for these three plots is at Template:Graph:Chart. The log axis isn't in the documentation yet; it was added for us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motorfingers (talkcontribs) 05:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Now that the three plots are in place with log y scales, I'm wondering if we can put all three curves on one plot as a final improvement. This in-line template supports simple maintenance by data updates, and putting them all in one plot may make this more difficult. I'll look at this in sandbox mode before I publish anything. -- motorfingers : Talk 12:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

motorfingers — Given that you have encuontered reverts, as well as a post below opposing your changes, it would be best to use the talk page to gain consensus first before continuing. Thanks. CUA 27 (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Please read below comments under "Edit request on 30 March 2020: bar graphs" about the bar charts. Thank you. Elenaschifirnet (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Logarithmic charts should be avoided if possible[edit]

The page has switched to log-scale charts. The majority of the population can't read these, and they hide the exponential nature of trends. If the logarithmic charts are necessary, please try to include standard charts with reduced timeframe as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.128.72.144 (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Elenaschifirnet (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I also agree. CUA 27 (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Disagree. Linear scale isn't well suited to exponential growth. VQuakr (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
The issue with linear scale for exponential growth is well understood by those who can read log-scale charts, but is lost on everybody else. Determine target audience and do what works best for the target. I see a combination out there today, which I think satisfies the need.
Agree. Growth rates in the US have been nearly linear for over a week. Look how flat that daily plot is. Is there a way to have a radio button for viewer choice to log? --That should maybe be a future platform development. But right now it is less clear to the average consumer of this site. If one wants a data analysis environment, they can pull the data in Octave or RStudio and plot it temselves.

Edit request on 30 March 2020: bar graphs[edit]

I think we should bring back the bar graphs for new cases, deaths, and recoveries for the following reasons:

   1) Although I understand that line charts show a trend better than a bar, most people find line charts not as visually informative as bars (some psychology stats book, don't remember now where exactly I read that)
   2) A log plot is confusing, require additional processing, and if not used correctly, it can be drastically misleading (here I can provide citations, it's another psych stats book). For example, it hides the exponential aspect of the data, which in the case of this pandemic is essential information not only for regular citizens to know what to expect and prepare, but also for policy makers with no training in epidemiology. Likewise, a linear chart leads to more estimations ("guesses") than the bar charts because it explicitly requires extra processing to check the Y axis back and forth. So the longer the graph is (which we will unfortunately have), the content is likely lost to the eye even if the trend is better visualized. Remember that the vast majority of Wikipedia readers are not used to reading graphs every day, so we should put up the data in the easiest to understand way, which, in my opinion, is bar graphs.
   3) Keep it consistent across Wikipedia pages; all other countries (or at least the first 20 or so I clicked on) have bar graphs. Keeping data in the same visual format enables quick comparisons between countries.
   4) Keep it consistent with the official reporting sites, e.g. CDC https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html.

That being said, I don't see why we can't have all graphs. Elenaschifirnet (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Not done line graphs are much easier to present multiple data series. Line vs bar and linear vs log are two distinct and unrelated discussions, BTW. VQuakr (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I am aware of that. Perhaps I have not been clear or I have not posted my reasoning/request in under the right heading. Regardless, why can't we have all three types of graphs, like the South Korea COVID19 page? Elenaschifirnet (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
A link would be helpful to see what you are saying. My first impression is that duplicating graph types would lead to a lot of clutter. VQuakr (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Sure! Here are a few pages that show all three types of graphs at the bottom of the page and they don't look cluttered:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_South_Korea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Romania
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Spain Elenaschifirnet (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
The first chart at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Spain#Charts based on daily reports is an example of a poor approach that would would want to avoid. The left half of the chart (as of this writing) is indistinguishable from zero because it covers 4 orders of magnitude of data. VQuakr (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Then don't do those linear charts! Bring back the bar charts. They were fine, they are used by official reporting agencies (CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html, ECDC: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/geographical-distribution-2019-ncov-cases and many others), by local news media, by WHO (https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200323-sitrep-63-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=d97cb6dd_2) and by most other COVID19 wiki pages. I fail to understand why the US COVID page is the only one missing bar charts. I gave the Spain page as an example not for its accuracy, I didn't check that, but for showing you can have all three types of charts without any clutter. People are not able to compare US versus other countries if our page is the only one dissenting from the norm of data visualization! Elenaschifirnet (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
"A log plot ... hides the exponential aspect of the data,"
I strongly disagree. A log plot exposes an exponential trend, since a straight line is the easiest thing to see -- and that's what a log plot makes an exponential function. On a linear plot you can see that a line is getting steeper-steeper-steeper, but you have to eyeball it and guess whether the increase per step is a constant proportion, or more, or less.
—WWoods (talk) 07:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I suggest having both the log plots and the bar charts. A log chart is great for anyone with training in data analysis, but that does not apply to many members of the general public. Wikipedia should be accessible to all, regardless of education level. It can be misleading to show a graph that appears to be solely a straight line, even if there is a properly clear caption attached. In the interest of transparency for all readers, both types of charts should be present. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Totally agree. Why can't we have what Canada has (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Canada)? All their graphs fit in one screen, they have linear chart and line chart log with a neat explanation for the logs. Simple, clear, uncluttered, something for everybody. Elenaschifirnet (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

We Have Multiple Conflicting Suggestions[edit]

The purpose of this article is to convey information. That is the priority requirement in writing and editing. I think that if this requires a reference to log scale in a tutorial thumbnail to reach some people, than, if the information conveyed is significantly increased, then this is a good approach that should be considered. I'm not a fan of arguments that we must not raise the bar for understanding common graphics technicques like log scales.

The point that log scales "hide" exponential growth is another consideration. Note that the exponential growth is a single point to be made, while the log scale makes clear what is happening with the data throughout the timeline, something that a linear plot cannot do with data that shows exponential growth.

I'm OK with combining the three log plots into one to make the relationship between the total cases, the new cases, and the deaths clearar. I'm OK with bringing back the bar charts as linear plots with the numbers above, or log charts with the nubers in the bars near the top. My principal concern is that daily maintenance involves extending the date lables in the x axis and editing or replacing the y axis data, and if we have two sets of plots with the same data, the editor that updates the plots must update both plots. With the template we are using now, that can be done with a clipborad copy, but it's still added work.

My personal rule for posting is to present a solution when I present a problem, so in that vein I suggest that we put the three log scale plots on one graphic, and bring back at least one log plot to show the exponential growth. If we put the linear plot that shows exponential growth first anc caption it as showing the exponential growth, it need not be updated daily, or at all. I think this, with an improvement in the log scale tutorial thumbnail, is the best way to satisfy all the comments. -- motorfingers : Talk 21:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with most people on here that we need to bring back the bar graphs. Most people will not intuitively grasp log scales, and really they are good for rates of change not showing exponential growth which is both real and hidden. Mattximus (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mattximus: bar graph has nothing to do with log scale. VQuakr (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I noticed the bar graphs were replaced by log scale line graphs, and agreed with others that it was a poor choice and should return to the bar graphs. Mattximus (talk) 02:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

In an attempt to move toward a consensus, I have duplicated the first chart but on a linear scale, and added a sentence that points out exponential behavior. I've also added for the updater(s) to show which lines can be clipboard copies to update the linear chart when these charts are updated.
@Elenaschifirnet: Please find your old psych book or another reference on the use of log scales. I think that you must look at individual data sets in making decisions about whether or not to use a log scale. In some cases, a log scale is necessary to show the data properly. Comparing the new linear plot at the beginning of this section with its twin that uses a log scale, you can see that in our data here, the linear scale chart completely hides data and the behavior of the epidemic before about March 17, and the fact that the data is beginning to level off in the last few days of March is not apparent on the linear chart.
You can use bar charts in log scales, too, and you can display data in the bar charts too. We can do this if that is the consensus. Combining the three charts into one chart isn't really possible with bar charts, though. Ao, if we put back the bar charts, we can't combine the log scale chartws into one chart. Doing that will prevent us from showing the similarities of the charts, and their shapes.-- motorfingers : Talk 04:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Normally, I would dig up the stats books box. But I'm in the middle of a COVID wave right now. We can debate some other time of the benefits of chart vs bar, log vs linear. But people need information right now. As others have voiced concern over the general population log plot readability level, so I will ask again just one question: why can't we have the linear bar chart and the log line chart, like the other COVID Wiki pages, news agencies, and official reporting agencies? I have yet to hear a good argument against that. Clutter is not a good argument, since other wiki pages manage to have all graphs fit on a regular PC screen (see Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Canada). "You can use bar charts in log scales, too, and you can display data in the bar charts too. We can do this if that is the consensus. " That's great. Forgive my Wiki novice question: how long do we wait until there is a consensus and how many voices need to be heard in order to reach said consensus? It seems to me we are wasting precious time when we can have both type of charts (linear bar and line log) without clutter or fuss and let this discussion proceed until we reach the consensus. Does that sound reasonable? Elenaschifirnet (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I fully agree that the bar graphs need to come back . Almost every country has them and getting used to seeing the data a certain way makes it harder to comprehend the data when inconsistencies appear. I also think that in this particular case bar graphs make it easier to track the progress ...but that's just my opinion Romdwolf (talk) 05:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is a Solution[edit]

First, I brought back the bar plots, and put them on a linear axis. Secod, I left the log plots below the original plots.

The format is that the linear scale plots are shown first, then the text with the log scale tutorial thumbnail, then the three log plots. My next change will be to combine the three log plots into one chart, probably later today.

I believe that this will satisfy the many people who will never accept a log scale, while providing information about the pandemic over the entirety of it recent history. Combining the log charts was always my eventual goal, because this shows iformation about how the three datasets are related, something that is not done elsewhere.-- motorfingers : Talk 13:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the bar charts back. Elenaschifirnet (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Now, I've brought back the bar charts and combined the log scale charts onto one graph, and added a text sentence that comments on the log plots chart. I've also reordered the options in the templates and added comments to make maintenance easier. The template that we use here has been improved, so that a y value of 0 doesn't break the template anymore, which also helps in maintenance because exactly the same data can now be used in both linear and log plots.-- motorfingers : Talk 15:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
First, I'm happy as a clam with the linear bar charts. Second, I have a suggestion (mention?) since we're talking about graphs. I have noticed that some other countries' pages also include a graph with the testing administered, like South Korea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_South_Korea) or Romania (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Romania) (Italy had this too at some point, I think). Data is taken from here I believe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_testing. The reasoning being the more you test, the more likely it is to see an increase in confirmed cases. I have no argument pro or con. I don't even know if we have enough data or at least enough frequent data to make a graph. Just a thought. Elenaschifirnet (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
This works. Mattximus (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Companies making new products[edit]

Under financial and economic impact, including in the specific articles about that, it should be mentioned that companies are making products they don't normally make in response to the pandemic, as car companies contributed to World War II.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I see that at least some of the changes are mentioned in this article. time to decide where they go in related articles.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

section "Cricticism of slow responses" missing[edit]

Internationally the United States are famous (indepenent if it is true) in many countries around the world for failing in this pandemic, from Fake-News, slow testing, not working testing-equipment, late restrictions. Even poorer countries like China or South Korea did better job (at least more tests per citizen), than America is doing now.


I suggest following seciton in 2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_the_United_States#Government_responses


Cricticism of slow responses[edit]

Briefing of US-Präsident Donald Trump about COVID-19, January 2020

End of January presient Trump said they have everything under control, on Febuary 26, he said that it's like a miracle and will disappear and two days later he said that the democrats are politicizing and called it a hoax. On March 11. president Trump called the Coronavirus outbreak an "unprecedentted response". On March 13. Trump said that he is not taking respoibility for the lag of testing. Internationally several newspaper around the world reported an outbreak of missinformation during the start of the coronavirus[1][2][3][4][5][6][7], some even call it a failing in leadership[8].


Is there a reason this is missing, or did I just overlooked it?

As far as I can see the governemt in 2014 took Ebola_virus_cases_in_the_United_States much more serious (maybe too serious, can't tell) than this Pandemic in the early stage.

an Austrian Wikipedian  — Johannes Kalliauer - contrib. 23:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

If you ask people here, they will tell you that everything he said to this point was tongue-in-cheek and everyone is stupid for taking things the president says seriously. Today he said this is a nightmare, but I assume that too was tongue-in-cheek. 113.37.159.155 (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
@JoKalliauer: - see the section on 2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_the_United_States#President_Trump. starship.paint (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2020[edit]

Va has 1020 cases

vdh.virginia.gov/coronavirus Yeet3433 (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2020[edit]

Maine now has 275 confirmed cases, 3 deaths, 41 recoveries, 231 active cases. (From 211 confirmed, 1 death, 16 recoveries, 194 active) Lewis Christopher S (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Tenryuu 🐲💬 • 📝) 16:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2020[edit]

Change to States with a lockdown order or advisory Virginia - June 10, 2020

[9] 24.214.226.2 (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Relevance of the comparison of the US death toll to that of the 9/11 attacks[edit]

Needs justification, specially since it's made right on the lead paragraph. Any primary source did it? Also, if the US death toll is indeed at around 3,100 deaths (as given here, in an already used reliable source, as of this writing: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6) then it's no longer the sixth country with the most deaths, but the fourth or third. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:18:185E:CD68:C02D:B384:FF59:7381 (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Chart types for statistics and counting of days[edit]

Hello, I noticed that some countries are using chart "type = line" or "type = stackedrect" instead of using "type = rect". This is actually very mixed. What is the standard and how should each individual-country page use it? For daily new cases/deaths I find it very helpful do see numeric evolution (rect) instead of line.

The next topic is if there is a way to show counting of days since Case 1 per country. Does anybody know? tx. A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammadeusy (talkcontribs) 07:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

President Trump and Diamond Princess Passengers[edit]

"In mid-February, the CDC, along with President Trump, opposed allowing fourteen people who had tested positive for COVID-19 while passengers on the cruise ship Diamond Princess to be flown back to the U.S. without completing a 14-day quarantine. They were overruled by officials at the U.S. State Department."[119]"

Should be changed to:

"In mid-February, the CDC opposed allowing fourteen people who had tested positive for COVID-19 while passengers on the cruise ship Diamond Princess to be flown back to the U.S. without completing a 14-day quarantine. They were overruled by officials at the U.S. State Department."[119]"

There is no mention in the source (https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/coronavirus-patients-flew-to-us-after-cdc-explicitly-recommended-against-it/) that President Trump opposed allowing the fourteen people back into the country. Furthermore, the way this is worded leads to the conclusion that officials at the U.S. State Department overruled President Trump in this decision, which is not possible, as the President is the chief executive, and in fact the person who orders the State Department.

The article should be changed to have a source that provides sufficient evidence for this statement and be restated in a method that does not imply the State Department can and did overrule the President, or changed to my suggested change above.

dead link[edit]

In subheading 5: Social impacts, there's a map close to the top which has a link in the text area: "Full map including municipalities". I clicked on it and there's an empty map file there. --Dutchy45 (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Lock-down States Map doesn't show Massachusetts[edit]

It looks like Massachusetts has been in lock-down since 3/23/2020. The map of lock-down states still shows it uncolored. It would be fantastic to see this updated.

https://www.mass.gov/news/governor-charlie-baker-orders-all-non-essential-businesses-to-cease-in-person-operation

Cortis Clark (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


Link to US timeline not working on Android Wikipedia App[edit]

The following: "Further information: Timeline of the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States" does not appear at all on my Galaxy 8 Android Wikipedia App. 2600:8802:3000:630:100D:76F1:BF09:D3C4 (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ Trump, Donald J. (2020-03-09). "The Fake News Media and their partner, the Democrat Party, is doing everything within its semi-considerable power (it used to be greater!) to inflame the CoronaVirus situation, far beyond what the facts would warrant. Surgeon General, "The risk is low to the average American."". @realDonaldTrump. Retrieved 2020-03-29.
  2. ^ Ecarma, Caleb. "The Coronavirus Fake-News Pandemic Is Very Real". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 2020-03-29.
  3. ^ Rajan, Amol (2020-03-14). "Coronavirus and a fake news pandemic". BBC News. Retrieved 2020-03-29.
  4. ^ Scott, Mark. "Social media giants are fighting coronavirus fake news. It's still spreading like wildfire". POLITICO. Retrieved 2020-03-29.
  5. ^ tagesschau.de. "Fake News in Afrika: Mit Knoblauch gegen Corona?". tagesschau.de (in German). Retrieved 2020-03-29.
  6. ^ "US-Wahlkampf: So eiskalt entlarvt Joe Biden die Corona-Aussagen von Donald Trump". https://www.horizont.net (in German). Retrieved 2020-03-29. External link in |website= (help)
  7. ^ tagesschau.de. "Kommentar: Trumps Strategien versagen bei Covid". tagesschau.de (in German). Retrieved 2020-03-29.
  8. ^ Pilkington, Ed; McCarthy, Tom (2020-03-28). "The missing six weeks: how Trump failed the biggest test of his life". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2020-03-29.
  9. ^ https://www.governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/all-releases/2020/march/headline-855702-en.html