Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden/Archive 1

Cases table size

The cases table is beginning to be too large to be of use. Should it be removed entirely? I think there is some value to visualize number of patients by method of transmission for each region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chartagnan (talk • contribs) 17:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

removing the case table is probably one of the most dumb ideas I've ever seen here on wikipedia. Even if it is hard to manage, it still filled it's purpose. If it cluttered the rest of the page, the solution should have been to create a separate page for it... Furthermore, even if no new cases were added to the table, there was no need to remove it. The information on it was still correct! that table was one of the most useful things when tracking the pandemic so removing it looks more like it is a form of coverup. Right now In Stockholm they have decided to not test everyone that were in areas where they could have gotten sick. i.E it is the Swedish government trying to cover up the actual numbers that happen in that city. Removing the table now makes it easier to cover up that crap. Disgusting!--Thronedrei (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

We could also collapse it like on Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/International medical cases. 0x9fff00 (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Another solution could be to combine all the identical rows (like the recent Stockholm cases) into one (with e.g. 79-92 in the number column). This way we can still keep the earlier cases with more information. 0x9fff00 (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I implemented this here: User:0x9fff00/2020 coronavirus outbreak in Sweden/Draft 1 0x9fff00 (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

How about something like this? Or similar. I agree that it needs to be collapsed at this point. 78.66.184.236 (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The number of cases will definitely continue to increase. The table is getting way too big. Either we move the cases to a new page or we remove the table entirely. Perhaps we can replace it with a brief summary of the cases in Sweden? Mrconter1 (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

"The majority of the cases in Sweden occurred due to people traveling to and from Italy during the ski season. A small number of people brought the virus from places such as Iran and China. At the current moment most of the reported cases are caused by traveling and not so much due to the infection spreading within Sweden. The virus has been mostly found in larger cities such as Gothenburg and Stockholm." - Perhaps something like that? Mrconter1 (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it could be good to move it do a sub-page since the data is the only easily accessible public case by case tracker (to my knowledge).Chartagnan (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft by @0x9fff00: needs to be put in place meanwhile. 78.66.184.236 (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Linde Place: Since you reverted 78.66.184.236's edit, do you have any opinion on this or do you think it needs more discussion? Just for clarity, we have these options:

1. Remove the table entirely (proposed by Chartagnan)
2. Collapse the table (proposed by me)
3. Collapse the table per day (proposed by 78.66.184.236)
4. Merge identical rows (proposed by me)
5. Move the table to another page (proposed by Mrconter1)

I think a combination of 3 and 4 would be best so we don't have to duplicate rows and so you can expand only a part of the table. If the wikitext gets too big we can move it to a template like the statistics table. 0x9fff00 (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I made an attempt to remake the tables, which are now much smaller. However, it was reverted by Linde Place without any clarifying reason. While what I managed is certainly far from perfect, it does take a lot less space and I hope others can agree, we have to prioritize that at the moment. The table can't make up much more than 50% of the article. Carl Fredrik ^talk 18:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I like option 2 in combination with 4. As Chartagnan mentioned, it is probably the only public list of all cases, which makes it valuable. I think it adds comfort to people to see the full history and thus avoid speculation. But I agree it takes too much of the page right now. Also, there is probably a point where the list is too large or the daily amount of new cases is too large. But if it's hidden and collapsed I would put those limits at maybe 1000 total or 100 new cases per day. It would make sense to still keep it, but stop updating at that point. Osram (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• I would prefer option 4. To both Osram and 0x9fff00 I would point out that collapsing sections on Wikipedia is generally frowned upon. I agree it seems like a good idea, but there is a risk that someone may come along and suggest the entire section be removed then. I think we should explore all other venues first, if only to keep the tracking table here as long as possible. Carl Fredrik ^talk 23:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that option 4 by 0x9fff00 sounds the best at this moment, I am not a fan of collapsed tables but prefer simple oversight. If the number of cases are starting to reach the a few hundred or even a thousand then I suggest a new discussion can be held to decide format. THX everyone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuraStina (talk • contribs) 09:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Since we seem to agree on option 4, I have now implemented it on the main page. 0x9fff00 (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Linde Place: Why do you keep reverting any changes to the table layout? 0x9fff00 (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced edits in cases table

@SuraStina: Please add source for your edits in the cases table. 0x9fff00 (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, will do! And I have now found the talk page. Thanks for understanding I am new and still learning. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuraStina (talk • contribs) 09:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Cases 116-136 of "unclear" origin

@Soheila Bahrami: Can you explain why you think these cases should be listed as unclear instead of from northern Italy or Iran? The source doesn't seem unclear to me. For clarity, here is the specific part it's mentioned in:

Antalet smittade med coronaviruset ökade under fredagen till 140 personer. 80 av dem finns i Stockholmsområdet, konstaterar Maria Rotzén-Östlund på Smittskydd Stockholm.
– De har samtliga anknytning till resa i norra Italien eller resa i Iran, eller täta kontakter med någon som har varit i de områdena.

And translated:

The number of people infected with the coronavirus increased to 140 people during Friday. 80 of them are in the Stockholm area, says Maria Rotzén-Östlund at Smittskydd Stockholm.
– They all have a connection to travel in northern Italy or travel in Iran, or close contact with someone who has been in those areas.

0x9fff00 (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Not unclear to me either. Am following all Swedish media + regional press releases and have found nothing to confirm Bahrami's changes. SuraStina (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)SS

@Soheila Bahrami: Please explain why you think the origin should be listed like this or I will have to revert your changes. 0x9fff00 (talk) 10:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Table with origin

Hi! Am new here and still learning how to edit, so thanks for tips and corrections when I make mistakes. :) I am wondering if we could add a table on origin of virus for the cases, similar to the one on regions in Sweden. I think it could be of interest to the public where the virus has been caught (and to my knowledge Swedish media doesn't provide such an oversight). However I am far too much an amateur to know how to draft such a table.

On that note, can someone link to a tutorial on how to edit tables? I can add cells to the case list but am not successful in adding new dates or cases to the region table. Preferably in Visual editing since I haven't learned Source editing yet. Oh, and if someone can link to a tutorial on how I colour the cells that would be great too!

Thanks!SuraStina (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)SS

Unfortunately some of the requested functionality doesn't exist outside of source-editing. Help:Table has some very in-depth information, while what you are looking for may be available at Help:Introduction to tables with Wiki Markup/5. I'll look into the idea of a new table, it would be helpful if you could list the No's, how many from each locality per day, e.g.:

• 27th: 2 Iran 1 Iran;
• 28th: 1 Iran;

(Or something along those lines @SuraStina)

Carl Fredrik ^talk 13:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Carl Fredrik for info and links! Will try and read up on them to see if I can learn more. :) If you can put together a table I'm happy to do the counting and adding cases daily (or is it automatically generated from other cells?) Sorry I don't know how to tag you. :) SuraStina (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)SS

Östergötland marked on map, but no cases reported?

As subject line states: the map shows 1-9 cases (why not 1-10, by the way?) in Östergötland county, but I cannot find any reports on any cases there. Probably the map is wrong. Fomalhaut76 (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fomalhaut76: Fixed. 0x9fff00 (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

You're right, no cases have been confirmed in Östergötland. Possibly a programming error? Sorry I don't know how to fix it. SuraStina (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)SS

Disruptions on page

It seems someone it wanting to disrupt things on the otherwise excellently evolving article on the corona spread. :( The current version is now as it was before a great editor (can't remember name) cleaned up the whole case table and bunched cases together. Unfortunately I don't dare to undo anything in case I create more confusion. I have more data and sources to add but will wait until the table is cleaned up once again. THX for great contributions! SuraStina (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)SS

@SuraStina: Since Linde Place has broken WP:3RR by doing seven reverts in 24 hours, I’ve reported them at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Linde Place reported by User:0x9fff00 (Result: ). Unfortunately I can’t revert their edits without breaking this rule myself. @CFCF: Since you seem to be continuing to edit the cases table based on their version, do you think we should go back to this layout instead of my version? 0x9fff00 (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry 0x9fff00, did not see this, and now I implemented some other fixes such as non-breaking hyphens and non-row breaking spaces. If you could combine your changes with mine on a draft page, it would be very easy to copy everything over here. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@CFCF: I tried to do this at User:0x9fff00/2020 coronavirus outbreak in Sweden/Draft 2, let me know if there are any missing changes that are applicable to this version. SuraStina and Josve05a, you can also check your changes if you want. 0x9fff00 (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

CFCF- thanks for cleaning up once again! It seems the editor Linde Place has changed the table back to an earlier version. Is it possible for you to revert to the version before this? I had added lots of new info (details and sources) that is otherwise lost if you just clean it up all over again. THX! SuraStina (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)SS

SuraStina — That's a real shame. I'm running short on time right now… Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Use the code {{U|Username}} to ping people. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

0x9fff00 I liked your version so please revert to that if possible! I'll go through and check if any details have been lost that I did earlier today and add again. And thanx for reporting Linde Place, very upsetting for all the good work everyone else does.

CFCF Thanks for the tip, hope it works. :) SuraStina (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)SS

It worked ;). But I need to be off now. Carl Fredrik ^talk 17:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

0x9fff00 and CFCF- Linde Place is still creating havoc on the page by adding previously collapsed cells. Is it possible to speed up the process of blocking this person? Or do you know how to contact this person to notify them of the problem they are causing? (Not sure if they read this page or Edit history). SuraStina (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)SS

@SuraStina and CFCF: I have now reverted to User:0x9fff00/2020 coronavirus outbreak in Sweden/Draft 2. 0x9fff00 (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

0x9fff00 Thanks alot! I'll go thru the table tomorrow and update details and source that have been lost. SuraStina (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@SuraStina: I don’t think anything should have been lost, before reverting I made a draft based on [1] and applied the changes between Linde Place’s last revert (at 15:46) and my revert of their revert (at 18:53), except those that weren’t applicable to the new table layout. Let me know if you find anything that I missed though. 0x9fff00 (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@0x9fff00: Super! I'll go through and check, possibly I did changes on a later version without realizing. In any case, I'll go through and check. Thx again! SuraStina (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Case talk

Regarding the Gislaved case, I interpret it as one of the cases identified in Jönköping region on Fri 6 March (or possibly Sat). Do you concur? I do not believe it is a "new" case. See article https://www.gislaved.se/nyheter/2020-03-08-konstaterat-coronavirus-covid-19-i-kommunen SuraStina (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)SS

@SuraStina: I agree, it seems like one of cases 111-115. Also all previous cases have been confirmed by regions and not individual municipalities. 0x9fff00 (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

0x9fff00 Great! I'll update details in the table once the previous version is restored. SuraStina (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)SS

---

Regarding number of cases, DN has since yesterday reported 1 more case than SVT (ie today 204 vs 203) but I cannot find a missing case. Does anyone know if we have missed a case? I mistakenly did an incorrect addition yesterday while adding cells to the case table (ie added a case 162), and it was after that I saw DN reported 162 cases while SVT kept to 161 cases. Could DN possibly have misquoted my mistake? :O SuraStina (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@SuraStina: It’s probably DN that’s wrong, 203 is also the number listed on the Public Health Agency of Sweden’s website: https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/smittskydd-beredskap/utbrott/aktuella-utbrott/covid-19/aktuellt-epidemiologiskt-lage/ 0x9fff00 (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

0x9fff00 Ok, thanks for checking! We'll stick to our number 203. I've heard of a case in Halland now which I'll check and add. SuraStina (talk) 09:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

0x9fff00 Regarding the Kungälv case, I initially interpreted it as a new one, so added a new line but had second thoughts and clustered it with the others. But I'll add again since it seems like a 7th case. Regarding the SVT figures, the have gotten Örebro and Uppsala cases wrong, but I have checked our tables and verified all data according to region and FHM sources. So we are now in line with correct data. :) SuraStina (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

0x9fff00 Is it possible to add a vertical column to the case table- since we are now grouping cases together? It is hard to know how many cases were reported in for ex Sthlm w/out deducting figures in your head. This should help us stay on track if we encounter questionmarks regarding number of cases, since we are many editors. SuraStina (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@SuraStina: Can you clarify what you mean by this? Do you mean a column with the number of cases grouped on a row? This may be too many columns, especially if we also add a date detected column. @CFCF: What do you think about this? 0x9fff00 (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

0x9fff00 and CFCF Yes, exactly, a column after the first one with numbering so as to clarify number of cases grouped together. Today there were 60 in Sthlm so it is hard to know unless you look in another table or deduct the case numbers from each other. I would prefer such a column over two columns for detected and announcement date of positive tests. I suggest we go for one or the other, my suggestion would be to use announcement date (since most regions except Sthlm seems to announce the same day they get positive results) and just add an asterisk or comment that Sthlm cases lag behind a day. SuraStina (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Timeline case summary table

COVID-19 cases in Sweden      deaths      recoveries      cases
Date			# of cases
2020-01-31		​	1 (-)
...		​
2020-02-26		​	2 (+100%)
2020-02-27		​	7 (+250%)
2020-02-28		​	11 (+57%)
2020-02-29		​	13 (+18%)
2020-03-01		​	14 (+8%)
2020-03-02		​	15 (+7%)
2020-03-03		​	30 (+100%)
2020-03-04		​	52 (+73%)
2020-03-05		​	94 (+81%)
2020-03-06		​	137 (+46%)
2020-03-07		​	162 (+18%)
2020-03-08		​	203 (+25%)

Many other country pages (BE, DE, DK, ES, FR, IS, IT, UK) tracking the COVID-19 outbreak have an overview table of number of cases, number of recoveries and number of deaths, day-by-day, at the start of the timeline section.

Is there a reason this is omitted from this page? Or is it OK to add it like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.4.179.229 (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

We already have a chart tracking the number of cases under Statistics. Maybe it would be better to replace it with this for consistency with the other articles though. 0x9fff00 (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@0x9fff00: I think we should do as most other European countries do, so go ahead! I also think that graph is simpler than the two current ones. Regarding placing on page, do as the others do. SuraStina (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

County vs. Region

Wikipedia seems to refer to them as counties, example: Västra_Götaland_County. What should they be referred to as on this page? Edits renaming all occurrences of county to region break all of the links anyways so refrain from doing so. DayDun (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not refer to the regions as counties. Wikipedia refers to the counties as counties — they are two distinct entities, and this is something that hasn't been updated on Wikipedia — so the links aren't broken, they're WP:Red links, and in this case, they're supposed to be red (until someone creates the appropriate articles). Carl Fredrik ^talk 12:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@CFCF: I think “county” would be more appropriate here though. AFAIK “county” (“län”) refers to the geographical area, and “region” to the local government in a county. Doesn’t it make more sense to use the term for the area instead of the government? 0x9fff00 (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

What you say makes sense in being less confusing, however 'län' and 'sjukvårdsregioner' don't correspond perfectly — cases are reported by region, not county/län; which would make our reporting inaccurate. Yes, it's confusing, but so is the current organization. Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@CFCF: From what I can tell “region” and “sjukvårdsregion” (sv:Sjukvårdsregion) are different things, with “sjukvårdsregioner” consisting of multiple regions. Cases have been confirmed by multiple regions in a “sjukvårdsregion” (e.g. Gävleborg, Uppsala, Värmland and Örebro all seem to be in Uppsala-Örebro sjukvårdsregion and they have confirmed cases individually). All the regions seem to correspond to a county, do you have any example of this not being the case? 0x9fff00 (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to link to counties, but the article shouldn't use the word in clear-text. That the "county" articles should in turn be updated is a task for later — counties were abolished in Sweden recently. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Counties are not abolished. You confuse län with landsting. Every landsting has converted themselves to region, but a region correspond to a län equally well as the landsting used to do. Fomalhaut76 (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

User CFCF has removed most links to the counties in this article, which causes confusion. Form the discussion above, I can see that the user has misunderstood the differences between Sweden's counties, regional councils, and county councils.

The geographical areas are called counties (Sw: län). They used to be governed by a county council (landsting). During the last decade all of the county councils have devolved into regional councils (region/regioner).

What is interesting, when we report on the spread of a disease, is where the disease is spread. That is, in which counties it is found. The same is valid for any country: be it Mainland China or Italy. There is supposedly much less interest in which council reports the cases. So when the Regional Council of X reports Y cases, the reader might be interested in where in Sweden those cases are found (namely county X), not which administration is responsible for the oublic healthcare of that county. Besides this, only a minority of the regional councils has an article in English Wikipedia. Thus most of the links will be red and give no information at all. If I have time, I will start restoring the links to the counties in question. Fomalhaut76 (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding sources

For consistency regarding sources- specifically in the case table, I am wondering if we should only put sources in the Case no. column and skip them in other columns? Although this of course risks loosing vital details that may appear in other media, such as age, gender, city etc. What 's your view on this? As an example, in todays Halland case (204) I linked to the regions press release, however more details regarding home municipality and treatment facility were revealed in the press conference that was published on Youtube. When I tried to link to the Youtube clip in the Treatment facility column I wasn't able to (at least in visual editing). Also I'm unsure what Wiki states about using Youtube as a source..? SuraStina (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Date of diagnosed cases

It seems that Stockholm is reporting cases with one day's delay, but that there is a lack of consistency on this page regarding when the cases were diagnosed. In the "New COVID-19 cases in Sweden by region" table it is reported that Stockholm had 46 new cases on Marach 8. It seems this is a combination of the cases reported from Stockholm om March 8 and thus diagnosed on March 7 and the cases reported on March 9 that are from March 8. I'm not sure if the same problem runs backwards in time so that all the figures from Stockholm should be shifted back one day.

Maybe it would also make sense to add a comment in the table that the data from Stockholm lags one day? Muju (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

References

@Muju: Yes, starting on 7 March, Stockholm reports the cases confirmed until midnight on the previous day (see [2]). I’m not sure if we should use the announcement date or the confirmation date, but it should definitely be consistent between the different places the data is displayed in. Confirmation date would be ideal, but then the cases in the table will either be out of order or we would have to change their numbers, which may be prone to errors when referencing other related cases by number. I’m also not sure if other regions actually report their cases on the same day they are confirmed, since I’m pretty sure I saw an article about a case in Skaraborg yesterday, which is now cases 214-215 (can’t find it now though). 0x9fff00 (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

For the graphs it makes sense that we list the cases on the days they were confirmed, not reported. I only caught this on the 9th, and was not aware they had changed their reporting already on the 7th, which we will need to fix — as the cases on the 7th look artificially low, and the cases on the 8th artificially high now. As 0x9fff00 says, it would be ideal to list them in order of confirmation as well, but that is less important. Maybe add a new column with "date confirmed" as opposed to "date reported"
I also don't think it matters so much for the other regions yet, as they are mostly reporting single cases here and there — which don't really matter statistically speaking. Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Muju: @0x9fff00: @CFCF: I think in an ideal and not fast revolving scenario as is now, confirmation date would be better. However, as Sthlm is seeing alot of daily cases it is logical for them to tally all and report next day. An idea is to use announcement date and put in a reference about this, or as someone did in the case table- added a line that they were confirmed the day before. If we begin to shuffle around cases in the tables I think we'll loose ourselves. SuraStina (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I agree that makes sense. However, I meant that in charts we ought to list cases by day confirmed, not reported — to avoid the weird drop off on the 7th otherwise. I believe I've fixed this — but it means we have to remember to add all Stockholm cases to the day before in the graphs. Carl Fredrik ^talk 21:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@CFCF: As I understand [3] the cases on 7 March were actually confirmed on 6 March (“Från och med denna rapport den 7 mars redovisas antalet fall för dagen innan”), so there would be 42 cases on 6 March, some of these may be on 5 March but this isn’t mentioned by SLL. I have now moved these cases and fixed some miscalculations in the table, but now the cases on 7 March look too low (though there were very few reports on the 7th). Do you think I have misinterpreted this? We also seem to have one of the Örebro cases in the wrong place in one of the tables since there is one on the 7th and two on the 8th in the statistics table, and three on the 8th in the cases table. Was one of these confirmed on the 7th? 0x9fff00 (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

We’de have to look at the article history — I’m pretty sure I already moved them... Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@CFCF: Regarding the Örebro cases- yes if we look to reporting date- all 3 cases were reported on the 8th. So the region table is wrong and needs to be corrected. However I won't do it until we've settled on whether it's confirmation or reporting date that is to be used. (It is possible an article somewhere said one of the cases was confirmed a day before, but it's like looking for a needle in a haystack). SuraStina (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the tables will likely need to be updated properly some time in the future, and it is best to ignore single cases – but when Stockholms reports 60 cases all at once, it is important that we place them under the correct date. It is also considerably less work to get right, as opposed to getting single cases right. Carl Fredrik ^talk 14:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Reverts

84.217.81.100 has reverted back to using confirmation date in the statistics, not sure if they are aware of this discussion. 0x9fff00 (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I suggest reverting them back. Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@CarlWalterMolina: Please don’t change this without discussing here first. 0x9fff00 (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@0x9fff00: You say that the cases from Stockholm are reported one day late, but don't you understand that all cases are reported one day late? How do all regions report cases for a day that isn't even over? Because they report yesterday's cases... All news outlets report on how many cases were reported in a day, not how many that were tested positive in a day. It's just confusing for the readers if ALL the news outlets report this way, and you report another way. The news outlets have done it this way for a reason. //CarlWalterMolina

@CarlWalterMolina: Your statement is actually not correct. Only Sthlm has said they report all cases the day after, and Uppsala region will do it once every evening at 6 pm (previously they did it as tests were confirmed). All other regions either have set times daily (such as 10 or 10.30) or report as cases are found. For ex both yesterday and today Halland and Sörmland reported new cases twice the same day. Most big media (DN, SVT and evening press) report cases live as they are released by each region.

In any case, @0x9fff00: and @CFCF: What method have we settled on? SuraStina (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@0x9fff00: @CFCF: @SuraStina: Stockholm also did it twice in one day. Still, they report on cases that have happened the previous evening as well. All news outlets have said that the total cases is 94, 137, 161, 203, 260, 351. Not 94, 158, 175, 235, 320, 351. Show me a single news outlet that have reported those numbers and in that way for every day. The answer is no outlet has. Because it's confusing for readers. //CarlWalterMolina

@CarlWalterMolina: They haven’t done this since 7 March when they changed their reporting. (That comment was posted by SuraStina btw, not by me) 0x9fff00 (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@CarlWalterMolina: The difference is that for Stockholm all cases reported are from the previous day, as opposed to other regions which as far as I know report the cases since their previous report. This means we don’t know on which day the cases were actually confirmed (except for smaller regions that report their cases as they get them), so we have to use the announcement date. @SuraStina: I still think confirmation date would be best if we actually knew what day cases were confirmed on, but now we only know it for some regions. It may be better to use announcement date after all since this is the only date we know for all cases, however this does cause Stockholm cases to be delayed. 0x9fff00 (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@0x9fff00: @CFCF: @SuraStina: Yes it's better this way. As I said, news outlets don't report the numbers you've used as "today's total cases", why would we do it then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlWalterMolina (talk • contribs) 17:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@CarlWalterMolina: I agree with you that I think announcement date is the easiest since we don't have time to read all small articles or details about one case that was confirmed a day early or so. And when the "novelty" of the virus wears off in newly-affected regions and they find 20 cases a day or so, I assume they will also report once daily or the day after for simplicity. I think an asterisk or comment under the tables is enough to alert readers that the Sthlm cases lag behind a day. SuraStina (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of what "is better", this is a community decision, where we would discuss and come to a joint decision. Don't WP:Edit war. Carl Fredrik ^talk 17:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@CFCF: First of all, it was very unfortunate to change the methodology without proper discussion and without mentioning it in the main text. I was very surprised by suddenly different numbers. As the confirmation date is not always available and to be consistent with other European countries, e.g., Germany, I support to use the announcement date. Ritchie 2A02:2450:1010:4C:1C7C:25C2:C2B6:93DE (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

There was no change of methodology without discussion, this was done a few days ago. Carl Fredrik ^talk 20:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@0x9fff00: @CFCF: @SuraStina: Thank you Stina and CFCF. I am sorry for changing numbers like that, it was childish of me and it won't happen again. To the people that are still not convinced: The only region that we 100 % know report cases after which day they were confirmed, is Stockholm. Many report cases that have been confirmed during two separate days (evening day 1, morning day 2), but with this system you still put them during one day a.k.a. you're giving false information. The only thing we can know for sure is when they were reported. That's why we should report after what day they were reported, as everyone does... As I've said, show me a single news outlet that have reported "today's total cases" based on what day they were confirmed and not based on the day they were reported... No outlet has done that... So are we agreed on changing it to be based on announcement date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlWalterMolina (talk • contribs) 18:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

How to note the changed SLL reporting scheme?

It seems like there are three people for announcement date, so a majority. If no one has anything to add, I'll change it later tonight, as all the diagrams say different things right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlWalterMolina (talk • contribs) 19:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

First of all CarlWalterMolina, Wikipedia does not operate under majority rule (as per WP:No voting).

Secondly, there is no need to rush things. Normally Wikipedia can allow for several weeks to make such a decision, but of course the current situation with a rapidly evolving outbreak – this is different.

That said, the discussion to be had is how to handle that SLL changed their reporting in an inconsistent way that messed with the stats and makes the growth rate look fudged.

Their change will of course matter less and less if the outbreak keeps growing (which it looks like it will, but which we didn't know when we changed to "by day confirmed").

The continued growh is in turn an argument for us to show "date reported" in the long run, but for now I think it's better that we decide conclusively how we should mark the SLL-changed reporting scheme in the graphs, before we make any adjustments. Carl Fredrik ^talk 20:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@CFCF: I understand! What I meant is that right now, it doesn't seem like anybody is against graphs based on announcement date, everyone seems on board. All news outlets report cases that way, and in a climate where there is a lot of false information, I think we should follow the lead of all the news outlets, that knows best. So what do you say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlWalterMolina (talk • contribs) 20:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@CFCF: I think we’re going to have to go with the announcement date, since we have no way of accurately knowing the confirmation date for the regions that report once a day (except Stockholm), and since using the announcement date seems to confuse people because it’s different from what other sources report (it’s been changed by at least four users just today). Regarding how to mark the change by SLL, I think the best solution would be to have a footnote saying that the data for 6-7 March may be inconsistent because of Stockholm changing their reporting. 0x9fff00 (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@CFCF: @0x9fff00: Yeah, right now no one is updating it seems, so in this case it's something that needs to be fixed fast. It's better that it's done one way than no way at all. Updating in an hour if no one has anything to add. //CarlWalterMolina

@CFCF: @0x9fff00: @SuraStina: Everything is done now, and I put a little message below the chart regarding the date of the cases. Feel free to change the little message if you have a better way of doing it! Happy everything got resolved! //CarlWalterMolina

Sweden not checking people anymore

Here is the thing. Around the 11th, Sweden decided to not test people in Stockholm for the virus unless they ran the risk of being a person that would end up in Critical condition. Today on the 13th, Sweden has decided to apply this policy to the whole of Sweden. In other words, the numbers we will now be getting will be trash. If mostly people that will end up in Critical condition will be checked, the death-rate will rise... however the speed of the spread will now be wrongly shown that is will have slowed down. This is disgusting in my opinion and will create flawed data and make the datamodel that allows people to track how a virus act and spreads become incorrect. I don't know if this policy is applied in other countries (if it is that would be terrible), but at the very least this is how the idiots in the Swedish government have decided to handle the matter of the virus. Could we mention this new policy in the Swedish article? So that anyone that checks these articles at least know that the Swedish numbers are going to be greatly flawed.--Thronedrei (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree completely. I think it is reasonable to mention it in the end of the introduction and also as a small note to the diagrams. Mrconter1 (talk) 08:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject COVID-19

I've created WikiProject COVID-19 as a temporary or permanent WikiProject and invite editors to use this space for discussing ways to improve coverage of the ongoing 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Please bring your ideas to the project/talk page. Stay safe, --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The cross-border Greater Copenhagen (Zealand/Scania) conurbation

There should be a separate article for the European conurbation Greater Copenhagen, where a lot of people travel and commute to and from their jobs, shop or visit friends etc, across an arbritary state line between two neighborhoods in one local metropolitan/urban area, and its political consequences, when for example Scania historically is a part of Denmark.

https://www.oresunddirekt.se/se/nyheter/de-danska-granserna-stangs-paa-grund-av-coronavirus-covid-19

https://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/oklart-hur-oresundsregionen-paverkas-av-den-stangda-gransen/

https://www.sydsvenskan.se/2020-03-13/sa-klyvs-oresundsregionen-igen

https://www.sydsvenskan.se/2016-01-19/pendlare-borjar-koka-av-vrede — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.241.81 (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Changing cases chart to show deaths

CFCF, what do you think about changing the chart to show deaths instead of cases? Cases has gotten hard to track and no one updates it anymore. Also, cases per region is getting less significant now when people, sadly, have started dying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlWalterMolina (talk • contribs) 14:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

This is fixed now. It was reverted the first time without any given reason. I hope this change sticks. Mrconter1 (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Cases Table

Glentamara, Skarsgard314 and Hookandloop the sources you are using is not well enough. I checked it, and while some information you gave is true, some is false. The source used in the article of the Corona pandemic in the world, Europe and Sweden, is Aftonbladet. C19.se is not a reliable source. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlWalterMolina (talk • contribs) 16:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

What information on C19.se is not correct? Please clarify. --Glentamara (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Glentamara — CarlWalterMolina is correct, c19.se is not a WP:Reliable source. It doesn't have to do with if it's correct or not, but rather that it is much more likely to be incorrect as a self-published source, and Wikipedia doesn't allow it. Carl Fredrik ^talk 17:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Glentamara: @Skarsgard314: E.g. today's cases from Stockholm and Skåne. It was 42, not 41, and 31, not 33. There were many other things too. I have fixed this now. Sites like worldometers and C19.se are not reliable. Also, you are not allowed to change the source we use for something as important as this, without a discussion here first. We have people here blocking users that engage in an edit war with changes that have not been talked about here first. So for your own best, stop changing it. Aftonbladet is the only source to be used.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlWalterMolina (talk • contribs)

Glentamara The table doesn't really have anything to do with me. There seemed to be a need to clean up the Article page and I didn't want to see the data deleted, so I took the initiative and added the collapsed data as a resource. Nevertheless, it seems that the article has many unresolved sources, not just in this table. If that's true, and considering it might not be the best time to sort these out, I would prefer to leave the problematic data for now and leave the fact checking for another time. Most pages on Wikipedia seem to have some source reliability problems. Obviously, I'm still learning what's expected of an editor, so please correct me if I'm looking at this wrong. MXMLLN (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm using the official data from the Swedish Folkhälsomyndigheten and other media sources that are equivalent to Aftonbladet. It is at least as reliable as Aftonbladet, so stop reverting these numbers. Best --Glentamara (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

By the way, regarding the number of cases in Skåne I guess the number 33 comes from the official website of Region Skåne, see [4]. The statistics of the website c19.se seems to be quite reliable, but I agree that it should not be used here if there are other more reliable websites. There I'm completely agreeing. --Glentamara (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

To be honest though, they are suppressing the numbers. In Skåne's case they even lie in public and say that there are no cases in certain cities even though there are. Right now Sweden have stopped testing people which there is only 814 found cases now. The infected that arrived in Västernorrland as an example were shipped away from the airport on a public buss... SHARING the buss with other travelers they hadn't interacted with before. This is how Sweden handles the virus. The lie and hid their actual numbers while allowing infected people to travel around freely. Since the start they have done everything wrong allowing Corona to spread and infect all of the country.--Thronedrei (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hookandloop: @Glentamara: This is not about fact checking, it's about spreading false information. Your sources give false information in general, if you don't believe me, go to all the regions official statements of corona cases today. They show other numbers than C19.se and worldometers. We appreciate that you want to help, but then Aftonbladet is the fastest reliable source to use.

Eh, do you mean that the Swedish Folkhälsomyndigheten spreads fake news? And the numbers from c19.se (which I agree we should avoid) give correct numbers for all except Stockholm. The other sources I've added in the table all belong to the official regions of Sweden. So, I don't really see your point.. --Glentamara (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Did you actually call Aftonbladet a reliable source? You do know that they along with Expressen are just tabloid trash right?--Thronedrei (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Glentamara: As I said, you don't change the source without conferring here. Carl Fredrik told you that it's not a reliable source and he works/has worked for Wikipedia. @CFCF: can you make sure that they don't keep changing it, and block them if they continue?

When and where was this decided? That Aftonbladet is more reliable than the Swedish government agency that is responsible for official statistics? And by the way, it is completely irrelevant that somebody has worked for Wikipedia. Here we discuss facts, and they don't depend on the authority of the person who tells them. --Glentamara (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Glentamara: You only use Aftonbladet. Please stop changing, you will get blocked by someone if you continue.

I think I have any right to discuss this matter here and also question that Aftonbladet is more reliable than Folkhälsomyndigheten. I'm asking again, where and when was this question settled? I can't see that it has been discussed here before. --Glentamara (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Glentamara: As I said, it's the fastest reliable source to update numbers. Folkhälsomyndigheten can update sometimes but they usually only say the number of cases, not where they're from, which we need to update the table correctly. Aftonbladet is used by the Wikipedia page about the pandemic in the world as well as Europe. That's why we use it here as well. You are welcome to share your opinion, but you may not change the source and numbers if it's not based on Aftonbladets numbers. I would love to have you help updating the table, but if you continue you will most likely be blocked. So please, for your own best, do as me and CFCF have said.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlWalterMolina (talk • contribs)

Again, who, when and where decided that Aftonbladet is the only reliable source? You yourself? That's not how Wikipedia works. I agree that Folkhälsomyndigheten is slow in general, but now it turns out that they actually are quicker than Aftonbladet. And stop threatening me with blocking. I don't want an edit war, I just want the right information to be in the table. And I'm really asking, who, when and where decided that Aftonbladet is the only allowed source? --Glentamara (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

CFCF and others: Can someone please interfer in the edits in Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Sweden medical cases. I updated the numbers for Västerbotten and Västernorrland using the official websites of Region Västerbotten and the Swedish government agency Folkhälsomyndigheten as sources. User:CarlWalterMolina is consistently reverting my edits, insisting that the (quite unserious) newspaper Aftonbladet is the only allowed source. However, it is unclear when and how this practice was established. At the same time, CarlWalterMolina is consistently threatening me to get me blocked if I continue edit. I'm therefore leaving now, however, I think this is an unacceptable behavior for Wikipedia. --Glentamara (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Glentamara: I'm not threatning you, I'm saying others will because they don't accept your behaviour. I've never said that that has been settled. We all have just seen that Aftonbladet is the best source for our purpose, at the moment. I'm not saying that Aftonbladet is the only source to be used. But as you 1. entered an edit war and 2. used bad sources, your judgement doesn't seem well enough for this work. We had everything under control, we have worked on this for a long time, please just let us continue our work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlWalterMolina (talk • contribs)

I have only insisted on using the official sources from Region Västerbotten and Folkhälsomyndigheten. When you say "We all have just seen that Aftonbladet is the best source for our purpose", what are you refering to? Where has this discussion taken place? Or do you talk about yourself in plural? --Glentamara (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Glentamara: For the fourth time: All the Wikipeida articles about Corona, uses Aftonbladet as their source for Swedens statistics. That was also the case when I started editing here, and no one has ever said anything about it. It is like that for a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlWalterMolina (talk • contribs)

CarlWalterMolina — Then that needs to be changed, aftonbladet is a tabloid. Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Sign your posts!/Neither self-published sources nor tabloids i.e. c19.se or aftonbladet are WP:Reliable sources

Things above are super confusing and you need to sign your posts by using ~~~~
at the end of every post!
According to Wikipedia's policies, and the policies of the Swedish Wikipedia, neither c19.se nor Aftonbladet are WP:Reliable sources (Sv:WP:Trovärdiga källor). If Aftonbladet isn't good enough for the Swedish Wikipedia, it isn't good enough for the English Wikipedia – so stop using it. Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Glentamara: @Skarsgard314: @Hookandloop: @Thronedrei: @CFCF: Please stop using c19.se and Worldmeters as sources, and please stop reverting the article to previous edits with these sites as sources and/or remove sources to AB. I had a quick look on that site. Apart from having errors in their stats, they are at best tertiary sources, and sometimes even quaternary sources. Many of the sources on that site are simply links to various Swedish news outlets (amusingly, one of them is Aftonbladet which you are so keen to remove). One of the sources links a tweet from a TV station in Gibraltar. It might be a good source, I have no idea, however the tweet is about a new Corona case in Gibraltar. Even worse, an update about "167 new cases in Sweden" links to yet another obscure site called Platz, which in turns links a myriad of different sources for those 167 cases, which obviously makes it impossible to verify. So: here we have an unreliable source, using another unreliable site as source, which in turn links to updates from established news media, reporting new information from official press releases. It's a mess. Regarding Aftonbladet, your link does not support your idea about some supposed ban on Wikipedia. The term tabloid doesn't have the same meaning in all countries. Aftonbladet isn't The Sun. And it's a reliable source. Period. Kittens n thugs 💬 00:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Aftonbladet is not a WP:Reliable source – and no there is no blanket ban, but it is considered an inferior and only rarely acceptable source. I am fully aware that it might not be as bad as The Sun, but I have not as you accuse me ever used Worldmeters, so I deplore that false accusation. We should always be using the best possible sources, and it does not matter if Aftonbladet is 10 minutes ahead of SVT/DN/SVD/etc. – all of which are excellent sources. We should always premier the better sources, and Aftonbladet is not one of them, it is sensationalist and most certainly falls under tabloid-territory. That said we shouldn't be using Expressen either. Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Can https://www.icuregswe.org be considered a reliable source for serious cases? It's an official website for SIR (Svenska Intensivvardsregistret). Fellow editor @MarioGom: removed it as "unreliable" at rev 947004137. Excuse me if I'm wrong, I'm a quite new wiki editor. XZero707 (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

XZero707: I removed it because it was either redundant with other sources or outdated, not because it was not reliable. It can be added back when necessary. --MarioGom (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@MarioGom: Thank you for clarification. I thought that official websites like SIR were preferred sources? I do not think it's outdated, I've seen it updating multiple times per day. I suggest adding it to WP:WikiProject COVID-19/Case Count Task Force unless you or someone else has some objections. XZero707 (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@XZero707: No objections. Official sources are preferred. Feel free to add it to WP:WikiProject COVID-19/Case Count Task Force yourself. Thank you! --MarioGom (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

And just to be clear, Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Case Count Task Force is just a complementary resource for those of us who are working on updating statistics. It is not a policy and it does not mean that sources listed there are the only you can use. --MarioGom (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Most of the regional statistics were from the coronakartan tidslinje site ("corona map time line"), which is a non-official site, compiling data from news reports the regions of Sweden reports. I replaced some of the data with the official data at https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/smittskydd-beredskap/utbrott/aktuella-utbrott/covid-19/aktuellt-epidemiologiskt-lage/ . There are about 80 snapshots of old versions at the latter site, at least daily versions, at Wayback machine. Is it a good idea to replace all of it? Who has time to replace the rest?

Why the difference? The official numbers are lower and seems to be about 24 hours later than the "coronakartan" source.Tomastvivlaren (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Is there any source that the ban on gatherings larger than 500 people is temporary?

I've been looking for a source for this, but as far as I can see, I see no end date, and no politician of any weight has voiced any promises that it'll be lifted. I think it's prudent to, until we see real, hard evidence to the contrary, to consider it permanent. At the very least, it's a "cite needed" situation. 94.254.39.93 (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

✓. Kittens n thugs 💬 22:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean with permanent? I think it is safe to assume that it will be lifted some time in the future. Mrconter1 (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Length of article

Since the article is now getting very long and often incalculable for readers as well as difficult for editors to update figures in tables, graphs, running text etc we need to settle on condensing it.

Here are a few suggestions (please add more):

- The third paragraph in the initial introtext regarding nr of current cases- is it needed or can be omitted at this time? Perhaps it can be added once the outbreak is over with a total number of infected, dead and recovered. At the moment many forget to update the date and total number, making it not correspond to the tables or the map. Perhaps a line can be added that the latest total is shown on the map? Many editors seem to update that number but then forget/ don't have time/ aren't skilled enough (like me) to edit the different tables.

- Are all tables needed or can one or the other (for ex the curve diagram and the initial bar chart) be moved to a link (if not omitted)? The bar chart under Timeline is excellent though and I think it should be moved up for easier readability.

- Should the case table- which is growing massive by the day- be moved to a link? For those wanting to access sources (articles and govt agencies websites) further down, they will be completely discouraged to scroll through the whole case list. And god forbid- but we could pass into the thousands soon...

- Can sources be condensed? Currently I (and others) have added sources to verify for ex gender, age, hometown etc in the case list which has a point in itself. But since there is a jumble of sources now, shall we only put a source on the case numbering and omit the rest?

- And what about the Timeline-section? It is sometimes a repeat of data in both the case list and region table. Shall we not list daily cases by region anymore and settle on only mentioning specific details, such as when Sthlm announces 2 cases are in ICU?

- Also, can the region table be cleaned up somehow? We have 21 regions in Sweden and the table will soon be difficult to read when all regions are represented. Or can it be omitted and replaced by a simple horizontal bar chart where we just add daily additions per region (ie update total only) but not state which date each case was initially detected (that data is anyway in the case list). I think the bar chart under Timeline captures the daily %-increase, so calculating this in the regional table is just tedious.

@0x9fff00: and @CFCF:, you seem to be experienced editors, what do you suggest? SuraStina (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• The article introduction (lede) should generally not be more than 4 paragraphs, and yes it would be a good idea to cut out a significant portion of it.

• The only benefit of having the case table in the article, as I see it, is that it is visible and more likely to be kept up to date – otherwise I would support moving it out.

• Unfortunately sources can not be condensed, and Wikipedia is strict that each independent statement in the article must be verifiable. If there is no corresponding source to verify e.g. sex – then it can't be included.

• That table is the same which is used across several of these articles, and is even more messy in countries like Germany. However, portions of it could be collapsed; it might be worth taking a look at how 2020_coronavirus_outbreak_in_Germany#Statistics is structured.

Those are just my immediate thoughts, I'm quite busy with other things right now, and can't implement any of it myself, but I hope it's of some help... SuraStina Carl Fredrik ^talk 17:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@CFCF: Great thoughts and points! Will continue to add sources for details then.

I have changed a few sentences in the intro (lede) so we won't have to update daily:

"The total number of infected persons in Sweden are tallied on the map to the right and by region below. The majority of the cases are in Stockholm County. The first infected person, the woman from Jönköping, is the only officially recovered case. There are no reported deaths from the virus yet."

The table has now been changed by someone and looks fab! I like that the region shields are visible- it makes it more pleasant for the eye. Well done! SuraStina (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the table change – that was me. I procrastinated my other work. I agree with your changes. It's better to only update the lede when something major comes along. Carl Fredrik ^talk 19:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Many of the references are duplicated two or more times. Combining them would make the section shorter and easier to navigate. I have started with a few. Kreggon (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Alternative approach - Splitting article

The current content has historical value and is probably the best resource for English users living in a Swedish-speaking country. A safer approach to removing all the content and losing it in the revision history is to break this article into two different pages. As the article stands now, this version would effectively be the "timeline" of events. The "main" article would probably use the current page's title, e.g, "2020 coronavirus pandemic in Sweden" and create the summary Talk page users are suggesting. What does everyone think of this approach? MXMLLN (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it serves a purpose, however, since it's been gone for a day already, it's not up to date. Having it on another page, I don't think it will see enough views to be updated regularly.

The solution I can see is to make an exception to the rule and include it on this page in collapsed form. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm not familiar with all the UI options in Wikipedia, but the collapsible section sounds perfect. From a historical or epidemiological perspective, the early stages of the pandemic are probably most important. Since Sweden has also stopped testing the regular population in the last few days, that change in the nature of the data makes this a reasonable stopping point anyway. The title of this section could be "Initial outbreak" or "The first 45 days" (like 28 Days Later). MXMLLN (talk) 08:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Restoring the table?

The following code in the header solves it: class="mwcollapsible mw-collapsed"
I'm attaching the deleted version here, in collapsed form. If anyone is willing to update it and reintroduce it into the article, I think that would be fine.

Total case list of all confirmed infected in Sweden
Case no:   Recovered (no detectable virus)   Clinically recovered   Not reported Origin type:   T – Travel-related   T/PTP – Travel related person-to-person spread (or unclear travel-related)   PTP – Person-to-person spread
Case no.	No. of	Date announced	Origin type	Origin	Location		Treatment facility	Sex	Age
	cases				City	Region
1	1	31 January 2020	T	Wuhan, China	Jönköping	Jönköping	Ryhov County Hospital	F	20s
2	1	26 February 2020	T	N. Italy	Gothenburg	VGR	Sahlgrenska University Hospital	M	30s
3-4	2	27 February 2020	PTP	Case 2	Gothenburg	VGR	-	F	30s
5	1	27 February 2020	T	N. Italy	Gothenburg	VGR	Sahlgrenska University Hospital	M	30s
6	1	27 February 2020	T	Iran	Stockholm	Stockholm	Karolinska University Hospital	F	Middle-aged
7	1	27 February 2020	T	Germany	Uppsala	Uppsala	Uppsala University Hospital	F	-
8	1	28 February 2020	T	N. Italy	Jönköping	Jönköping	Ryhov Region Hospital	M	50s
9	1	28 February 2020	PTP	Case 6	Stockholm	Stockholm	Karolinska University Hospital	M	-
10	1	28 February 2020	PTP	Case 6	Stockholm	Stockholm	Karolinska University Hospital	-	-
11	1	28 February 2020	T	Iran	Tierp	Uppsala	In-home isolation	F	Middle-aged
12	1	29 February 2020	T	Iran	Gothenburg	VGR	-	-	-
13	1	29 February 2020	PTP	Case 6	Stockholm	Stockholm	Karolinska University Hospital	-	20s
14	1	1 March 2020	T	N. Italy, travelled with case 5	Gothenburg	VGR	In-home isolation	M	30s
15	1	2 March 2020	T	N. Italy	Stockholm	Stockholm	Karolinska University Hospital	-	-
16	1	3 March 2020	T	N. Italy, travelled with case 8	Jönköping	Jönköping	In-home isolation	F	50s
17-19	3	3 March 2020	T	N. Italy, travelled together	Gothenburg	VGR	-	-	-
20	1	3 March 2020	T	N. Italy	Lund	Skåne	Skåne University Hospital	M	25
21-23	3	3 March 2020	T	N. Italy, travelled together	Stockholm	Stockholm	Karolinska University Hospital	-	-
24	1	3 March 2020	T	N. Italy	Stockholm	Stockholm	Karolinska University Hospital	-	-
25-28	4	3 March 2020	T	N. Italy	Stockholm	Stockholm	-	-	-
29	1	3 March 2020	PTP	Case 28	Stockholm	Stockholm	-	-	-
30	1	3 March 2020	T	Iran	Stockholm	Stockholm	-	-	-
31	1	4 March 2020	T	Iran	Gothenburg	VGR	-	-	-
32	1	4 March 2020	T	N. Italy	Gothenburg	VGR	-	-	-
33	1	4 March 2020	T	N. Italy	Malmö	Skåne	Skåne University Hospital	F	Around 45
34-35	2	4 March 2020	T	N. Italy, travelled together on bus tour	Karlstad area	Värmland	In-home isolation	-	50s
36	1	4 March 2020	T	N. Italy	Örebro	Örebro	Örebro University Hospital	-	Teen-aged
37-51	15	4 March 2020	T	N. Italy	-	Stockholm	-	-	-
52	1	4 March 2020	T	Iran	-	Stockholm	-	-	-
53	1	5 March 2020	T	N. Italy	Borås	VGR	South Älvsborg Hospital	-	-
54-60	7	5 March 2020	T	N. Italy	-	Skåne	In-home isolation	-	-
61-62	2	5 March 2020	PTP	Case 34/35	Karlstad area	Värmland	In-home isolation	-	-
63	1	5 March 2020	T	N. Italy	Karlstad area	Värmland	In-home isolation	-	-
64	1	5 March 2020	T	N. Italy	-	Gävleborg	Gävle Hospital	-	-
65-78	14	5 March 2020	T/TPTP	N. Italy	-	Stockholm	-	-	-
79-92	14	5 March 2020	T/TPTP	No case specific information	-	Stockholm	-	-	-
93-94	2	5 March 2020	T	N. Italy	-	Uppsala	In-home isolation	-	Middle-aged
95	1	6 March 2020	T	N. Italy	-	VGR	-	-	-
96	1	6 March 2020	T	Iran	-	VGR	-	-	-
97-101	5	6 March 2020	T	N. Italy	-	Skåne	In-home isolation	-	-
102-108	7	6 March 2020	T/TPTP	N. Italy and case 34-35	Karlstad area	Värmland	In-home isolation	-	-
109	1	6 March 2020	T	Netherlands	Karlstad area	Värmland	In-home isolation	-	-
110	1	6 March 2020	PTP	Related to case 93-94	-	Uppsala	In-home isolation	-	-
111	1	6 March 2020	T	N. Italy	-	Jönköping	In-home isolation	F	63-74 yrs
112-113	2	6 March 2020	T	N. Italy	-	Jönköping	In-home isolation	M	63-74 yrs
114	1	6 March 2020	PTP	Another region in Sweden	-	Jönköping	In-home isolation	M	75-78 yrs
115	1	6 March 2020	PTP	Another region in Sweden. Related to case 114.	-	Jönköping	In-home isolation	F	75-78 yrs
116-136	21	6 March 2020	T/TPTP	No case specific information	-	Stockholm	-	-	-
137	1	6 March 2020	T	N. Italy (same region as case 64)	-	Gävleborg	Gävle Hospital	-	-
138-140	3	7 March 2020	-	-	-	Skåne	In-home isolation	-	-
141	1	7 March 2020 Detected on the 6th	T	Europe but not Italy	-	Stockholm	Initially handled at Danderyd Hospital, later moved	-	-
142-161	21	7 March 2020 Detected on the 6th	-	-	-	Stockholm	-	-	-
162	1	8 March 2020	T	N. Italy	Uppsala	Uppsala	In-home isolation	-	Senior high school student
163-167	5	8 March 2020	T/TPTP	-	-	Skåne	-	-	-
168-179	12	8 March 2020	T/TPTP	-	Gothenburg area	VGR	-	-	-
180-186	7	8 March 2020	T/TPTP	N. Italy and case 34-35	Karlstad area	Värmland	In-home isolation	-	-
187	1	8 March 2020	T	United States	-	Örebro	In-home isolation	-	50s
188	1	8 March 2020	PTP	Related to case 187	-	Örebro	In-home isolation	-	50s
189	1	8 March 2020	PTP	Related to case 187	-	Örebro	In-home isolation	-	20s
190-203	14	8 March 2020 Detected on the 7th	-	-	-	Stockholm	-	-	-
204	1	9 March 2020	T	N. Italy	Särö, Kungsbacka municipality	Halland	In-home isolation	-	Elementary school-aged
205	1	9 March 2020	PTP	An earlier Värmland case from bus tour to N. Italy	Karlstad area	Värmland	-	-	-
206-209	4	9 March 2020	PTP	-	Gothenburg area	VGR	-	-	-
210-211	2	9 March 2020	T	Abroad	Skövde area	VGR	-	-	-
212-243	32	9 March 2020 Detected on the 8th	-	-	-	Stockholm	-	-	-
244-245	2	9 March 2020	T	N. Italy, travelled together	-	Jönköping	In-home isolation	F	40s
246	1	9 March 2020	T	N. Italy	-	Uppsala	-	-	University student
247	1	9 March 2020	T	N. Italy	-	Uppsala	-		Adult
248	1	9 March 2020	PTP	Case 204	Särö, Kungsbacka municipality	Halland	In-home isolation	-	Elementary school-aged
249-250	2	9 March 2020	T	Italy	Laholm	Halland	In-home isolation	-	-
251	1	9 March 2020	T	Italy	Varberg	Halland	In-home isolation	-	University student
252	1	9 March 2020	T	N. Italy	-	Sörmland	-	F	Adult
253	1	9 March 2020	T	N. Italy	-	Norrbotten	-	F	-
254	1	9 March 2020	-		Kungälv	VGR	-	-	-
255-257	3	9 March 2020	T	N. Italy, related to each other	-	Västerbotten	In-home isolation	-	Adults
258-259	2	9 March 2020	T	N. Italy	-	Västerbotten	In-home isolation	-	Adults
260	1	9 March 2020	T	N. Italy	Eastern parts of county	Östergötland	In-home isolation	-	Adult, working-age
261-263	3	10 March 2020	T	N. Italy	-	Skåne	-	-	-
264	1	10 March 2020	T	Italy, travelled with case 251	Varberg	Halland	In-home isolation	-	University student
265	1	10 March 2020	T	N. Italy, related to three Stockholm cases	-	Örebro	In-home isolation	-	20s
266-325	60	10 March 2020 Detected on the 9th	-	-	-	Stockholm	-	-	-
326	1	10 March 2020	PTP	An earlier Värmland case from bus tour to N. Italy	-	Värmland	-	-	-
327-341	15	10 March 2020	T	Abroad	4 from Norra Älvsborg area, 6 from Gothenburg area, 2 from Skaraborg area, 3 from Södra Älvsborg area	VGR	-	-	-
342	1	10 March 2020	T	N. Italy	-	Sörmland	In-home isolation	F	Adult
343	1	10 March 2020	T	N. Italy, connected to 4 cases in other regions in Sweden	-	Jämtland	In-home isolation	-	-
344-346	3	10 March 2020	T	Italy, related to each other	-	Västernorrland	In-home isolation	-	-
347-349	1	10 March 2020	T	Austria	Varberg	Halland	In-home isolation	-	Adult
348-349	2	10 March 2020	T	N. Italy or Austria	Kungsbacka, Varberg or Laholm	Halland	In-home isolation	-	-
350	1	10 March 2020	T	N. Italy, related to case 253	-	Norrbotten	-	M	-
351	1	10 March 2020	T	Austria	-	Kalmar	-	M	50s
352-354	3	10 March 2020	T	Italy, related to and travelled with case 344-346	-	Västernorrland	In-home isolation	-	-
355	1	10 March 2020	PTP	A case in another region	Another county, visiting Kronoberg	Kronoberg	In-home isolation	-	-
356	1	10 March 2020	T	Austria	-	Kalmar	-	M	20s
357-391	35	11 March 2020	T	Italy and Austria	-	Skåne	-	-	-
392-417	26	11 March 2020	-	-	-	Stockholm	-	-	-
418-454	37	11 March 2020	-	-	8 from Norra Älvsborg area, 20 from Gothenburg area, 4 from Skaraborg area, 5 from Södra Älvsborg area	VGR	-	-	-
455	1	11 March 2020	PTP	Another region, another infected case	-	Blekinge	In-home isolation	F	-
456	1	11 March 2020	T	Italy	-	Dalarna	In-home isolation	M	60s
457	1	11 March 2020	T	N. Italy	-	Gävleborg	In-home isolation	-	-
464	7	11 March 2020	-	-	Kungsbacka, Varberg, Laholm and Falkenberg municipality	Halland	In-home isolation	-	-
465	1	11 March 2020	T	N. Italy, travelled with four other infected persons from other regions	-	Jämtland	In-home isolation	-	-
466	1	11 March 2020	T	N. Italy	-	Jönköping	In-home isolation	M	20s
467	1	11 March 2020	PTP	-	-	Jönköping	In-home isolation	M	50s
468	1	11 March 2020	PTP	-	-	Jönköping	In-home isolation	-	Primary school student
469-475	7	11 March 2020	T	N. Italy and Tyrol, Austria	-	Kronoberg	In-home isolation	-	-
476-480	5	11 March 2020	T	Risk areas abroad		Sörmland	In-home isolation	-	Adults
481-484	4	11 March 2020	-	-	-	Uppsala	-	-	-
485-486	2	11 March 2020	PTP	-	-	Värmland	-	-	-
487-489	3	11 March 2020				Norrbotten
490-492	3	11 March 2020	T	N. Italy, related to each other. Visited same region as previous 5 Västerbotten cases	-	Västerbotten	In-home isolation	-	-
493-494	2	11 March 2020	T	Tyrol, Austria	-	Västmanland	In-home isolation	-	-
495	1	11 March 2020	T	N. Italy	-	Västmanland	In-home isolation	-	-
496	1	11 March 2020	T	Switzerland	-	Västmanland	In-home isolation	-	-
497	1	11 March 2020	T	Austria	-	Örebro	In-home isolation	-	30s
498	1	11 March 2020	T	Austria	-	Örebro	In-home isolation	-	70s

References

An alternative option is to place it under Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Sweden medical cases table, but it would certainly be best to update it fully first. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Update: I've added the table back to the main page. I think this approach would be best for the rest of the data as well. They all use a similar structure, basing the data on days instead of summarizing. MXMLLN (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Hookandloop MXMLLN Thanks, I think it serves a good purpose to have somewhere on the main page, whether in collapsed form or not. It gives a little bit of history and oversight of the initial spread of covid in the country so although it is nolonger updated I think it is very useful for future references and interest. Thanks again! SuraStina (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Reworking the article headlines

I've reworked the article headlines because the previous format amounted to a list of things that had happened, without detailing why they were important. I hope the new format allows us to be more focused on important events that the previous one. It no longer matters much how many cases where reported on the 3rd of March, or where they came from. I've moved down all that to the "Timeline"-section. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I see that people have already understood the purpose of the restructuring, and that important events should be placed both in the main body of the article and in the timeline, as here [5], edit by 154.61.65.189 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

CFCF Thanks for reworking headlines and cleaning up- looks alot better! :) SuraStina (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Spelling/diacritics

Why are Swedish words and places spelled in different ways than (for example) their respective article names on Wikipedia? For example: Joencoeping instead of Jönköping, Vaestra Goetaland instead of Västra Götaland, Boraas instead of Borås and Folkhaelsomyndigheten instead of Folkhälsomyndigheten? AEriksson (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if it is some setting in the visual editor or what but it seems User:Linde_Place edits change the Swedish letters to the ae, oe, aa things --Benighted77 (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I went through and changed it to åäö for improved readability.. I did not change the Scania back to Skåne, as I see it the old province (landskap) Skåne can be called Scania, and searching for Skåne one is redirected to Scania, but there is a English Wiki-page for Skåne_County which is for the "län/region" of Skåne, so a bit more complicated which to use, but these days I would go with the region name myself especially when talking about medical districts as they are now split into regions and not following the "landskap" (for example Västra Götaland etc).. --Benighted77 (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

And they changed it back deliberately, I'm giving up on this --Benighted77 (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems they have been involved in a edit war before on this page and has been blocked from editing once before in March 8 2020, how should we handle this? Make another edit warring report as it's clear that they are not discussing anything looking at their talk page and just reverting what seems to be the general consensus how we should spell things in this Wiki-page and basically all other English language Swedish Wiki pages. If someone else wants to undo their changes feel free so we are several doing it to indicate it's not just one who is doing it to them. --Benighted77 (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to make things clear. Should we stick to using Swedish names or the English equivalence? Mrconter1 (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mrconter1: The only county name that has an English equivalent is Skåne/Scania. I think the distinction here is that Scania can only be used to refer to the province (landskap). Since we're writing about the counties and not the provinces, I'd say we use Skåne and not Scania. When it comes to å/ä/ö/k vs. aa/ae/oe/c, the latter spelling is in no way standard so we should just stick to the Swedish spelling. ― Ætoms ^[talk] 11:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with: "When it comes to å/ä/ö/k vs. aa/ae/oe/c, the latter spelling is in no way standard so we should just stick to the Swedish spelling" AEriksson (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Benighted77 AEriksson Mrconter1 You're right, editor Linde_Place is causing alot of problems with edit warring so has been blocked before. Please do so again when it happens. Unfortunately I don't know how to report this. SuraStina (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Should we add a separate diagram for deaths?

The most relevant aspect of this pandemic right now is probably the number of deaths. Partly due to the fact that the government have stopped the testing of everyone but also because the number of deaths are likely to rise quickly. Mrconter1 (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this. Death toll today just hit the record per day. XZero707 (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Even more important is to show the number of cases per 100 000 people. The regions are very different from each other in population size. The cumulative number of infected per 100 000 is shown in column 3 of table 1 in the official statistics: [https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/smittskydd-beredskap/utbrott/aktuella-utbrott/covid-19/aktuellt-epidemiologiskt-lage/ . Historical data can be found at waybackmachine. The number of deaths per 100000 can easily be calculated.

(It would also be of interest to somehow relate this to the number of deaths other years in influence. See sources [6] [7]) Tomastvivlaren (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Showing cases per 100 000 people will not be possible to do as diagram if you want to have it by region. You would need to have one graph for each region. But it should be possible in table form. Showing the death cases per 100 000 people might be an good idea though. But I think starting with absolute number is a good start. Mrconter1 (talk) 10:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I have updated the page to reflect this. I think most agree that the trend in deaths are much easier to see now. I changed to this a couple of days ago but it was reverted by BosnaSWE. I have tried to contact him on why he reverts my changes by asking on his talk page but he has not answered as of this time. Here is an example of the change instead of looking like this:

It now looks like this:

Note: Diagrams have been sized down for this example.

CFCF 0x9fff00 Mrconter1 Tomastvivlaren XZero707 Thanks for updating the tables nicely with number of deaths! (Cannot see who did it, but thanks!) However, I feel the page is a little cluttered now with many graphs. Can one or a few of them be eliminated since the same information can be found in other graphs? I am specifically referring to the first graph under the regional table under headline Statistics, ie. the one with active and confirmed cases. I also believe some of the other similar tables (New cases per day, Recovered cases & deaths and Deaths per day) could be reflected in one and the same table- preferably the "Covid-19 cases in Sweden" graph under heading Additional data. By adding all data into one graph it will make it easier for editors when editing just one table and not five, as well as for readers who get the same info from just one table. So my suggestion is to add the details of dead and recovered cases to the Covid-19 graph, explicitly stating how many new deaths/ recoveries/ infected there were on the right side. I would eliminated the % in brackets since I don't see the point of this.

Moreover, can the Covid-19 graph be more centered on the page? Currently it is annoyingly placed on the right for some reason.

Lastly, regarding the Timeline which has now been changed into a table rather than just running text as before. Although running text was maybe not the greatest way to present the info, I find the table to be completely impossible to read especially since there are many blank boxes now. My suggestion is to revert to running text but in one way or another highlight the dates better for easier readability. Thoughts on this?

What do you all think? Unfortunately I am a new editor so have no skills in changing any of what I recommended, so would appreciate if someone else can help with this. :) SuraStina (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

First of all thank you for contributing to the discussion. The updating of table numbers has been a collaborative effort. I definitely agree that the page feels cluttered. I was one of the users whom originally pushed for splitting the diagram into two. The advantage with it being that the more relevant numbers, number of deaths, could be seen. The disadvantage being that the page became more cluttered. There are a few options as I see it:

• We could remove some of the diagrams. Perhaps the accumulative ones. Though I really think they visualizes the pandemic in a good way. Also almost all other pages has these.
• We could combine the line diagrams again. The disadvantage being that number of deaths would be hard to discern. As the numbers of deaths increases however this option will be more and more viable.
• We could combine the line diagrams and have two y-axes. One on the left for number of confirmed cases and one on the right for number of deaths. However, this could be perhaps make it more difficult for people to read the diagrams. In worst case they could mistake the confirmed number of cases axis with the number of death axis leading to a conclusion of an extremely high number of dead people in Sweden. I do not think this is worth the risk.
• We could have the four diagram in a square table layout. But this means that we need to make the diagram smaller and I think it still looks cluttered that way. Some pages seems to just list the diagrams in this way and i assumes presumes that the user will click on the graph to enlarge it.

Looking at the other pages for the UK, Spain, France and so on there doesn't seem to be a consensus on how to present the data. Some pages combines the cases/deaths. Some have a separate diagram for deaths. But it is important to note that Sweden officially has stopped testing people which practically means that the number of cases are irrelevant in contrast to number of deaths. I also suggest you check out the sandbox tool to play around and learn how to manage tables.

Thoughts? Mrconter1 (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Source for deaths. Should we stick to folkhalsomyndigheten?

Those number are probably the most official but they only get updated once a day. If we choose to use newspapers we need be very confident about the sources. Mrconter1 (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that falling back to official sources for numbers is the right thing to do at this moment, now every region has community spread, numbers are at a level where updates every day is not necessary, it's more important to have correct and verifiable numbers than the latest news.--Benighted77 (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The only problem with using newspapers as sources for the numbers is that the article seems to be under a spell causing them to quickly transform into false numbers with sites spreading misinformation as sources. Tags questioning the reliability of the sources gets quietly removed, and often the new numbers aren't even in line with the sources.

I doubt using numbers from Folkhälsomyndigheten is enough to break the spell, I think only an administrator is capable of dealing with this kind of dark magic. I'm not experienced enough to know how to summon those though. Kittens n thugs 💬 15:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

There indeed seems to be some Voodoo involved with the page, I guess just keep on reverting the missinformation updates is the best we can do. Benighted77 (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Let's try to keep to official numbers. Mrconter1 (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I changed the reported deaths from 62 to 42. The source for 62 deaths was an article reporting 18 new deaths. It does not even mention the number 62. We must keep to official number from folkhalsomyndigheten. Even aftonbladet.se is reporting 42 death cases right now. We must not end up being more unreliable than sources like aftonbladet or expressen. Mrconter1 (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

In this article SR (The offical Swedish gevernment radio) is reporting 62 deaths. They are using this page hosted by Johns Hopkins University. Does this mean that Johns Hopkins University qualifies as an reliable source? Mrconter1 (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't see any mentions of 62 dead in the link. The same site updated today 8.30 local time, are now reporting 42 deaths. Of the data sources that John Hopkins University refer to, only worldometers.info mentions 62 deaths (now 64), and they have been using newspaper/site expressen and Platz, a small infopage managed by one person, as sources for the last 5 days. But expressen in turn cites worldometers in part as a source for their information, so we have a loop. Platz doesn't loop back to any of these and they refer to official sources for their Stockholm figures (of 37 dead), but the link clearly shows that number to be 21.Supsym (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Right. It said 62 when I checked by they probably changed it for some reason. Right know SR is stating that 66 has died and refers to the talk given by folkhalsomyndigheten. Perhaps we should decide to simply using folkhalsomyndigheten as a source. Either taking numbers from their website or from there press conferences. I suggest we stick to folkhalsomyndigheten for statistics. Mrconter1 (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Mrconter1 Benighted77 I agree with you both. Since newspaper are continously reporting different numbers, and many regions don't even publish press statements anymore but just report their numbers to Folkhälsomyndigheten, I think the only correct thing to do is to use FHMs data. They do lag behind a bit from the newspapers, but I guess it has to do with data entry capacity and verification. Regarding John Hopkins I read somewhere today that their data is not super reliable. Don't know the source of this, but unless we know they get their data straight from the public health agencies in each country we may want to be careful with quoting them. SuraStina (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Let us stick to Folkhälsomyndigheten for official numbers then. I think it is perfectly acceptable to update the numbers once or twice a day. The problem is all the people who jump at the chance of updating the numbers. A lot of those people refers to news papers or other unreliable pages. Regarding John Hopkins, perhaps you are right. It is still weird however that Sverige Radio was using that source. The changed the number later thought. Mrconter1 (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)