Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United States/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2020

Change "There have been widespread incidents of xenophobia and racism against Chinese Americans and other Asian Americans."

To "There have been isolated incidents of xenophobia and racism against Chinese Americans and other Asian Americans."

The citation does not support the term "widespread." Instead, this term appears to have been added due to an editor's political agenda. NTAbbott (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: I removed the term "widespread" from the sentence but I'm not putting the word "isolated" in its place since the sources do not use the term "isolated" or a similar term. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 07:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

President Trump and Diamond Princess Passengers

"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.

Agree with this comment. Here’s some further info. According to the Washington Post, Trump had previously said that as a general matter he did not want infected Americans repatriated (he would later say that publicly about another cruise ship in San Francisco (“I like the numbers where they are”)) but was not informed about the 14 people from the Diamond Princess until after they were flown home. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-was-not-told-coronavirus-infected-americans-would-be-flown-home-from-cruise-ship/2020/02/21/ae58b24c-54be-11ea-b119-4faabac6674f_story.html 2604:2000:1280:96DB:D38:4C41:73D2:932F (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Since the provided source does not mention the President I removed that bit from the sentence. If another editor wants to add that bit back the burden of finding a reliable source with that information falls on them Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 07:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

True information about severeness of coronavirus in United States of America is not available on this article.

I think this article have very little useful information about Covid-19's severeness in USA. International media is reporting that USA became on of the epicenter of coronavirus in the world. There's no medication Available, doctors don't have masks and PPE equipment. Peoples are in long lines to test themselves to know they're Covid-19 positive or not. But this article looking like written by US government who's hiding severeness of COVID-19. Please improve this article by adding information with proper Citations. Kundan Ravindra Dhayade (talk) 12:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Be wp:BOLD, Kundan Ravindra Dhayade. X1\ (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This page has devolved into politically motivated garbage, with very little useful information about the pandemic in the United States.

A few days ago it was possible to use this page to actually learn something about the progress of the pandemic, but now it's just another forum for people shrieking out their political grievances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.98.242 (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

If you have constructive and specific suggestions, share them here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 11:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The new section on prior predictions, preparation and non-preparation is SYNTH POV --- a gratuitous conversion of the upper part of the article into a selectively anti-Trump screed. Even if it were rewritten to be NPOV it belongs much further down the page, below all the day by day updates, or in a separate prehistory article, which are the main point of the article for probably 99+ percent of people reading the page these days. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I think some background about why the US got into such bad shape should be somewhere close to beginning. --Igor Yalovecky (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
This is where the Background and preparations section was put back into semi-chronological order with as ES of per long-standing practice, background and history are the first two section of the body. You, 73.149.246.232, do not seem to understand wp:SYNTH. There are better websites to get day by day updates, as wp is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. X1\ (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

add Jan. 29 & Feb. 23 Peter Navarro memos, wording?

Presumably into Background and preparations:

In a pair of memos, Peter Navarro warned in January that the lack of a vaccine or cure for the virus “would leave Americans defenseless in the case of a full-blown coronavirus outbreak on U.S. soil” and there was “an increasing probability of a full-blown COVID-19 pandemic that could infect as many as 100 million Americans, with a loss of life of as many as 1-2 million souls.”

In a Jan. 29 memo, Navarro called called for “an immediate travel ban on China.” In a second memo on February 23, Navarro urged the Trump administration to immediately begin laying the groundwork for a $3 billion supplemental spending appropriation from Congress. “This is NOT a time for penny-pinching or horse trading on the Hill,” the memo reads. Trump waited several weeks after receiving Navarro’s memos before taking aggressive steps to mitigate the spread of the virus, and would later claim that “nobody could have predicted something like this.”

X1\ (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Feds seizing medical supplies, add?

The federal government has been seizing orders of ventilators, masks, and other protective gear. FEMA has not publicly reported the acquisitions, leaving hospital and clinic officials who’ve had materials seized with no guidance about how or if they will get access to the supplies they ordered.

X1\ (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2020

Death toll is one more in ny 2601:151:C301:2CB0:24FB:7356:7747:A2EE (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you have an RS for your claim? X1\ (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 Not done for now: I'm closing this as not done because the current reliable sources says there have been 7,067 fatalities in NY and that is what the table has. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 08:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2020

Change the confirmed cases for Missouri from 3,539 to 3,799 and the confirmed deaths for Missouri from 77 to 96 To fact check the information I would like changed follow this link https://health.mo.gov/living/healthcondiseases/communicable/novel-coronavirus/ Yaboisquanto (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done 2 hours ago The information you requested to update is a template, which is Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United States medical cases by state. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 22:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2020

The aid plane that russia sent wasn't an aid because the us paid for it. It should be at least mentionned, this article is Russian Propaganda. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-russia-usa-idUSKBN21K34Z 176.102.68.98 (talk) 09:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Despite your request being unclear,  Done. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 23:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Marked edit request as answered. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 04:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2020

On April 11, 2020, Wyoming became the 50th state to declare a disaster, thus for the first time in history, all 50 U.S. states have simultaneously been under emergency declarations.[citation needed]

Please include that the United States has now documented more COVID-19 deaths than any other country. Please also include this source confirming the declaration of disaster for Wyoming as well.

On April 11, 2020, Wyoming became the 50th state to declare a disaster, thus for the first time in history, all 50 U.S. states have simultaneously been under emergency declarations.[1] The same day, the United States became the country with the most confirmed COVID-19 deaths.[2][3][4][5]2601:447:4100:C120:F1D1:6E42:A59B:4CEA (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 09:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://k2radio.com/president-trump-declares-disaster-in-wyoming-due-to-coronavirus/
  2. ^ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/04/11/coronavirus-us-more-covid-19-deaths-than-italy-any-country/5121962002/
  3. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/04/11/coronavirus-latest-news/
  4. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/us/coronavirus-live-updates.html
  5. ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/overtake-italy-coronavirus-deaths-live-updates-200410232614536.html

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2020

AckleyAttackTV (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC) Under "Current number of non-repatriated cases by state and territory," Have the number of people recovered in New York change from 13,000 to 17,089. The numbers on this page is 100% inaccurate and it needs to be caught up.

 Done. Matched number with the one in 2020 coronavirus pandemic in New York (state). --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 16:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Trump "I don't take responsibility at all" quote

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/13/trump-coronavirus-testing-128971

Should it be included? 73.222.115.101 (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

He knew about it in November [1], but did nothing. How is that he is not responsible? This is just another lie, one of thousands. Do not include it. My very best wishes (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
See Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, User:73.222.115.101; over time the most appropriate and pithiest Trump quotes will presumably stay at the surface. X1\ (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Found
U.S. intelligence officials warned in late November about a contagious disease sweeping through China’s Wuhan region. The report by the military’s National Center for Medical Intelligence “concluded it could be a cataclysmic event,” which was repeated at briefings through December for policy and decision-makers across the federal government, as well as the NSC at the White House. The warning also appeared in the President's Daily Brief in early January, which would have had to go through weeks of vetting and analysis.
X1\ (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
First shot at it here in #Reports predicting global pandemics. X1\ (talk) 04:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
This is good section about predicting the pandemics. But there is more about. There was a special task force created under administration of ... George W. Bush [2]. He had a very different attitude. He was rightly criticized for many things, but if he were a president now, a lot would be different. My very best wishes (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Useful to compare how this presidency is "not normal". X1\ (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Rush of Americans back to the US

I don't see mention of that sudden rush of American citizens back to the States -- and the crowds trapped in airports for hours. It was when there were only certain airports would take overseas flights. Any info? Abductive (reasoning) 23:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe at Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on aviation? X1\ (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

using Abbott quick test on White House visitors, add?

White House visitors have been receiving the Abbott Laboratories 15-minute coronavirus test. (see COVID-19 testing)

Every visitor who meets Trump or Pence receives the new tests, even those who feel healthy and are not exhibiting symptoms. A spokesperson for the company said they can deliver a positive result within five minutes and a negative result within 13 minutes. The new tests were approved by the FDA under an emergency authorization and company officials have not publicly disclosed their accuracy rates, which are still begin assessed as more people receive them.

X1\ (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure. As the article tells, "company officials have not publicly disclosed their accuracy rates" [even though they have them]. Why they have not? There is only one logical explanation: the test is not so reliable or possibly not reliable at all. My very best wishes (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Good question, My very best wishes. I am curious too. X1\ (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Of course they suppose to make public the validation of their tests. False-negatives can be significant [3]. My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I am concerned about that too, My very best wishes. I am sure there are a wide-range of variables that need to be untangled, but best not to discuss this on this Talk page; maybe at, such as, Talk:COVID-19 testing/Archive 1#false positive / false negative detection concerns, add? besides seeing what other editors have already done with RSs. X1\ (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this could be included - based on secondary sources. According to original research publication such as this, "In patients with negative RT-PCR results, 75% (308/413) had positive chest CT findings..." (yes, a lot of false negatives with PCR test), but that would require some additional interpretation. But perhaps the test by Abbot is better (or worse)? Unfortunately, we do not know. P.S. in this ref, Deborah Birx only tells about only 50% of data being reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; these are not false negatives. My very best wishes (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Unless there is/are RS(s) that are, at least somewhat, definitive it would seem the best we could say here now is that there is confusion. I wouldn't want to put testing information here that isn't reliable enough yet. X1\ (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

attitude polls, add?

55% of Americans say the federal government has done a poor job preventing the spread of the novel coronavirus pandemic in the US — up nearly 8% since last week. 80% say they think the worst is yet to come, and 55% say Trump could be doing more to slow the spread. 37% say they’re more concerned about the virus than they were a few days ago, while 5% say they’ve become less fearful in recent days.

85% of voters say they are concerned they or someone they know will be infected with the coronavirus – up 31 percentage points from early March. 70% say that the coronavirus crisis in the US is getting worse, while 20% say it is staying the same and 8% see it getting better. 63% say they expect the coronavirus crisis to be over in a few months, 23% say more than a year, and 10% say a few weeks.

X1\ (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this information should go to Criticism of response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#United States government. Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Good idea, Liz. I will look into editing on that page when time allows. X1\ (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I would say some materials from the "criticism page" belong to this page because they are not really a criticism, but important facts relevant to the pandemic. For example, Early_warnings, 2018_closure_of_pandemic_preparation_office, Distribution_of_medical_equipment, and Healthcare_policy_and_agencies belong to this page (but perhaps most of this was already included here). My very best wishes (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I agree My very best wishes, facts exist. Where items finally land, is to be seen. If you think those item can fit into this page, I will support it. It would seem the history of this Administration's non-action/actions could fill an entire wp article page, per #IGs and PRAC comments with Tcr25 too. The Criticism of response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § United States government section is rather large now. X1\ (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

54% of Americans say the federal measures have not gone far enough – up from 45% in late March – 35% say the measures have been appropriate, and 7% say they have gone too far.

47% of Americans say they are not satisfied that the Trump administration is doing everything it can to stop the coronavirus, 38% are satisfied. The 9 percentage point spread has more than doubled over the last two weeks. 50% of Americans disapprove of Trump’s coronavirus response, while 42% approve. Among registered voters, 54% disapprove, while 43% approve.

X1\ (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

add to or update Trump's promotion of unproven drugs ?

To 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States § Research into vaccine and drug therapies

and/or 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States § President Trump (under "Communications" section):

Again, without evidence, Trump claimed that hydroxychloroquine is a “great” and “powerful” anti-malaria drug “and there are signs that it works on this, some very strong signs.” It was the second day in a row at a White House briefing that Trump recommended the use of hydroxychloroquine, adding: “But what do I know? I’m not a doctor […] What do you have to lose? What do you have to lose?” Dr. Patrice Harris, elected president of the American Medical Association, pushed back: “You could lose your life.”

Dr. Mehmet Oz, the controversial celebrity doctor, has been advising senior Trump administration officials on coronavirus-related matters. Rudy Giuliani said he has spoken directly to Trump “three or four times” about the potential us of hydroxychloroquine as a coronavirus treatment. “There are obviously other people around him who agree with me,” Giuliani said.

Trump’s trade adviser Peter Navarro (who is not a physician or involved in the pharmaceutical industry) claimed there was a “clear therapeutic efficacy” of hydroxychloroquine in treating the coronavirus. Navarro’s claim set off a debate in the Situation Room with Dr. Anthony Fauci, who said there was only anecdotal evidence (the weakest kind of evidence, my comments) that hydroxychloroquine works against the coronavirus and more data is needed to prove that it’s effective. Navarro, an economist by training, shot back that the information he had collected was “science,” claiming his “qualifications […] is that I’m a social scientist.” Navarro later said Dr. Fauci’s caution about the effectiveness of an anti-malaria drug warrants a “second opinion.” Separately, Trump personally pressed federal health officials in mid-March to make chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine available to treat the coronavirus, though they had been untested for COVID-19. Shortly afterward, the federal government published guidance informing doctors they had the option to prescribe the drugs, with dosing information based on unattributed anecdotes rather than peer-reviewed science.

My comments: the French study that excited Trump about hydroxychloroquine he saw on FOX was small and inconclusive (I have been searching for the best ref on that).

See Intrinsic activity/efficacy and Efficacy#Pharmacology. Also relatedly see the phrase "I'm not a scientist, but ..."

Also, for reference, see previous Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States/Archive 6 § another example Trump's promotion of unproven drugs, add here?

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

X1\ (talk) 09:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Yes, sure, while certain antiviral compounds might be helpful (after testing) the infamous hydroxychloroquine is not an antiviral compound, and it is highly toxic. It has not been approved by the FDA for treating this virus. And BTW, there are certain other drugs (not against the COVID) approved by the FDA, which should never be used. FDA has a huge problem with the conflict of interest. Speaking about COVID, use of BCG vaccine seems to be very promising to reduce the probability of infection (already in the process of testing in Australia). My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
It's not just Trump that's proposing chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine. They do have antiviral effects (which are better understood that the anti-malarial effects), and might turn out to be useful - the problems are 1) treating them as a silver bullet/clutched straw in the absence of adequate evidence, 2) ignoring the risks of chloroquine treatment (it has a narrow therapeutic index), 3) ignoring that some of the risk groups for COVID-19 are groups in which chloroquine is contraindicated, 4) distracting attention from other equally promising avenues of investigation, and 5) making infection control practices less effective by reducing public concern. But Trump could get lucky. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Lavateraguy, it is not some much that he is proposing them, it is that he is promoting them, see below. X1\ (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I read that Trump's indirect holding in Sanofi is all of $3,000. In this instance I'd put his actions down to wishful thinking rather than cupidity. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
In which did you see the $3,000, Lavateraguy? X1\ (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Forbes. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Potentially interesting stuff in the April 7 Forbes article too:

Billionaire Ken Fisher, a major Republican donor (including to Trump), is one of Sanofi’s largest shareholders, while Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross used to run a fund that invested in Sanofi, the Times reported.

X1\ (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Trump has a personal financial interest in Sanofi which makes the brand-name version of hydroxychloroquine, the drug Trump has been touting as a “game changer”. Trump and his family trusts are all invested in a mutual fund that features Sanofi as its largest holding. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and other associates of Trump also run funds that are invested in the pharmaceutical manufacturer.
X1\ (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This RS has fact-checking of some of Trump's public statements (below). Can a President be charged with malpractice?

X1\ (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

CDC website change

In contrast with Trump's promotions:

The CDC removed its dosing information for doctors on how to prescribe hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. The original guidance – which was based on unattributed anecdotes rather than peer-reviewed science – was crafted after Trump personally pressed officials to make the malaria drugs more widely available, though the drugs had been untested for COVID-19. CDC website no longer includes that information, but instead says: “There are no drugs or other therapeutics approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to prevent or treat COVID-19.” Some ICU doctors, meanwhile, report that they’ve seen no evidence the drugs are helping their sickest patients.

X1\ (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

IGs and PRAC

add Intelligence Inspector General Michael Atkinson fired in the midst of a deadly pandemic ?

Michael Atkinson was fired months after he delivered the whistleblower complaint to Congress about Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian president, as required by law. Atkinson released a statement saying that the reason Trump fired him “derives from my having faithfully discharged my legal obligations as an independent and impartial Inspector General.” per Politico, NPR, NYT, WaPo, AP, CNN, NBC News, Bloomberg, Vox, etc

Adam Schiff: Trump is “decapitating the leadership of the intelligence community in the middle of a national crisis. [4]

X1\ (talk) 10:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Probably not on this page. As about “decapitating", yes, sure, the entire country was decapitated in 2016. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
While disturbing, I think it's tangential to the focus of this page. Perhaps there is a need to shift some of this to a new article "Trump Administration response to 2020 coronavirus pandemic" or something similar. If that's done, then I could see including it. Carter (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree it's tangential, Tcr25, and there is growing need for something along the lines of the Trump Administration and the 2020 coronavirus pandemic as there are so many RSs of significance. X1\ (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't have time to create that article now, but I think it is the best approach and would solve the problem in other threads on this talk page about information about the virus's impact getting lost in the outlining of the Trump administration's actions/inactions. Carter (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Me neither, but my guess something similar will arise eventually. The virus's impact is directly connected to the Trump administration's actions/inactions, both now and previously. X1\ (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Tcr25, see Criticism of response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § United States government. X1\ (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Another ref linking pandemic and firing:
X1\ (talk) 06:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery (SIGPR)

Trump nominated Brian D. Miller for SIGPR. X1\ (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Pandemic Response Accountability Committee (PRAC) Chair

However, that (Trump removes independent watchdog tasked with overseeing coronavirus emergency funds) does belong to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Glenn A. Fine article has wording we can use here. X1\ (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Here are some RSs:
Fine was tapped to lead the group responsible for preventing “waste, fraud, and abuse” of the $2 trillion coronavirus emergency stimulus package passed last month. A panel of inspectors general had named Fine to lead the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee (PRAC). Trump, instead, replaced Fine with EPA’s watchdog, Sean O’Donnell, as the temporary Pentagon watchdog. Because Fine is no longer acting inspector general, he is ineligible to hold the spending watchdog role, since the new law permits only current inspectors general to fill the position.
X1\ (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
On April 8, legislation was introduced in the House to allow Fine to continue as chair the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee.[1] X1\ (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

HHS Inspector General Christi Grimm

Trump publicly attacked, on Twitter, Health and Human Services Inspector General Christi Grimm for publishing a report critical of the federal coronavirus response.[2][3] X1\ (talk) 06:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's a RS for IGs Glenn A. Fine, Michael Atkinson, and Christi Grimm.[1] X1\ (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ a b "Trump's Claims on IG, Wisconsin Election". FactCheck.org. April 8, 2020. Retrieved 9 April 2020. {{cite web}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
  2. ^ Zack Beauchamp (April 8, 2020). "Trump's coronavirus purge; By firing one inspector general and quietly demoting another, Trump has declared war on the very idea of oversight". Vox. Retrieved 8 April 2020.
  3. ^ Lori Robertson (April 7, 2020). "The HHS Inspector General Report". FactCheck.org. Retrieved 9 April 2020.

Requesting neutrality review of Background and preparations - Preparations

Requesting review of the section {Background and preparations --> Preparations} for neutrality.

Based on a review, the neutrality of this section is inconsistent with the introduction and subsequent sections of the page. It has a limited quantity and diversity of references, and has questionable adherence to the principles of neutrality based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view.

This editor would like to start discussion on neutrality of this section and considers posting the "POV-section" tag above this section. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.10.250.69 (talk • contribs)

[5] I tend to agree with your concerns. The section appears to repeat the US White House's focus on the Global Health Security Index, which is a single-number metric, while glossing over the significant missteps the US made leading up to the outbreak. I'll tag it for NPOV and a rewrite. VQuakr (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Discrepancy Daily Infection and Death Chart

The daily infection and death totals chart is very interesting and useful. However, I've noticed that the total number of cases for the past few days (4/5, 4/6, 4/7) have been less than the total number of cases reported by Google and various other sources as of midnight central time (and midnight eastern time) over those days. Usually the case numbers reported as of the afternoon of those days (i.e. 5 PM on 4/6) on other sources will be greater than the chart reports after the day is over. I understand that it may take time for totals for a day to catch up, but this does not appears to be the issue. If we know there are say 431,437 cases as of this moment (6:35 PM Central Standard Time on 4/8/2020) per Google, it doesn't seem to make sense that days from now when even more data from today is in it will say that the case total for today was say 429,000-something. Is that an error or is there a reason for the discrepancy (i.e. all totals being as of 0:00 GMT or something similar)?

Nogburt (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

As a non American, I can assure you it is noteworthy. The USA’s federal response to the pandemic is all over our media, mostly for how rubbish it is. We can be pretty confident that history is going to condemn how long it took the president to do something. The articles on China emphasise that their figures are probably invented, which on the surface seems biased, but comes from credible sources. As for making things political: the actual response is political. Not including Trump’s words and reactions just because his cult-followers get sad when they are reminded he is inept is not a reason not to include them. Vision Insider (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

"There have been incidents of xenophobia and racism against Chinese Americans and other Asian Americans," is this really notable enough to be included in the lead?

There is support for one sentence covering this in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Compared to everything else in the current coronavirus pandemic, I doubt we need to help propagate a narrative of mass racial injustice where there appears to be very, very little. We should really be focusing on the core issues at the moment and documenting federal and state responses, not giving spotlight to irrelevant tidbits. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree. It's more of the same stuff being dug up, and should be removed from the lead. It does not summarize anything. --Light show (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
See List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. X1\ (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
It's absolutely prevalent enough to warrant inclusion in the lead. Doing so follows the example at the main 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, which notes instances of xenophobia in the lead section, and there are certainly no fewer instances here than elsewhere around the world. The addition was backed up by a reference to a news article in The New York Times, which documents not just scattered anecdotes but trends such as increased firearm purchases by Chinese Americans fearful for their safety. What is your evidence that "there appears to be very, very little"? Sdkb (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
And? This is an article on the coronavirus outbreak in the United States, how in anyway is the U.S. deemed more noteworthy of its racism than any other country on that list. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Incidents against Chinese has started way before Trump started calling it a Chinese virus. This is irrelevant to the discussion. SunDawn (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
For related context, see Talk:China–United States relations#SARS-2, add?. X1\ (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC

Should the last paragraph of the lead section include the following sentence?

There have been incidents of xenophobia and racism against Chinese Americans and other Asian Americans.[1]

References

  1. ^ Tavernise, Sabrina; Oppel Jr, Richard A. (23 March 2020). "Spit On, Yelled At, Attacked: Chinese-Americans Fear for Their Safety". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 March 2020.
Sdkb (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes (as proposer). Including this sentence follows the example at the main 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic article, which notes instances of xenophobia in the lead section, and there are certainly no fewer instances in the United States than elsewhere around the world. The addition is backed up by a reference to a news article in The New York Times, which documents not just scattered anecdotes but trends such as increased firearm purchases by Chinese Americans fearful for their safety; many other reliable sources are reporting similar trends. The editors opposing the sentence on the grounds that "there appears to be very, very little" anti-Chinese sentiment have so far declined to provide any reliable source to back up their claim. Sdkb (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
    What about other countries articles? Why only in the U.S. article we are going to include it in the lead?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
    May I just point out the irony in the proposer suggesting we (the No voters) are hesitant to respond to criticism when he doesn't respond to inquiry himself? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
    No one is obliged to respond to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and it's even more baffling Whataboutist cousin OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST, the logical argument being presented two posts above. --Calthinus (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No. Something that constitutes such a small and measly footnote in the article itself should not see special preference to belong in its lead. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 04:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes - The relevant article lists many public assaults, incidents of bullying, race-related civil rights violations, and racist commentaries by public officials. This is being reported from all over the country. It's more than reasonable that the lead should address it. -- Veggies (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
    To add on to the point about media coverage, just in case anyone wants to try to claim that the New York Times news article above, which appeared on page A1 of the paper this morning, isn't sufficient evidence of the WP:WEIGHT being given to this issue in reliable sources, here is news coverage on this exact issue in every other top American newspaper:[1][2][3][4][5]

References

  1. ^ Hobbs, Tawnell D. (8 March 2020). "Feds Sound Alarm Over Claims of Asian Discrimination in Schools". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 25 March 2020.
  2. ^ Chiu, Allyson. "Trump has no qualms about calling coronavirus the 'Chinese Virus.' That's a dangerous attitude, experts say". Washington Post. Retrieved 25 March 2020.
  3. ^ "Fear of coronavirus fuels racist sentiment targeting Asians". Los Angeles Times. 3 February 2020. Retrieved 25 March 2020.
  4. ^ "Officials decry anti-Asian bigotry, misinformation amid coronavirus outbreak". Los Angeles Times. 3 March 2020. Retrieved 25 March 2020.
  5. ^ Lam, Kristin; della Cava, Marco. "Coronavirus is spreading. And so is anti-Chinese sentiment and xenophobia". USA TODAY. Retrieved 25 March 2020.
I have to note that, despite the ample participation this RfC is getting, those asserting that there is "very little" anti-Chinese sentiment have yet to even attempt to provide reliable sources other than their own anecdotal experience. The closer of this RfC will be assessing the strength of arguments, not counting votes, and I expect that they will not find simples assertions of "this is unimportant" persuasive. Sdkb (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Your tirades against those voting 'No' (even though you only ever quote me specifically) for not "even attempt[ing] to provide reliable sources" is wholly irrelevant to the discussion, this is not a debate on whether discrimination is occurring against a minority group, this is a debate where we are arguing that your persistent assertion that we must include a sentence that only accurately defines a meager three sentences of the entire article that only consist of 70 words, whilst the rest of the article currently contains 19,723 words altogether, does not "stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • No. Using the race card against America with the pretext of an article for cover, is poor judgment. Play another country's cards first.--Light show (talk) 06:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes - According to LEDE, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." We have a section in the article for this with a link to the listed article due to this article already being at 180k bytes. The US section on that article is just above 20k bytes by itself. Given that we already include a line for sports, I would argue that we should include this as a general controversial issue in addition to considering if we should add stuff like the impact on US television, the US stock markets (if the section has enough support), US restaurants, (etc.) given the size of the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Goku V (talk • contribs)
  • No. While we all agree that instances of racism occurred, this article should mainly about pandemic, not about its societal effects, and the lead section should stick with pandemics.SunDawn (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
    The article body has an extensive section on the social impact, just as it does the economic impact. Both are significant; why would we want to arbitrarily exclude the social impact? Sdkb (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
    Yet we don't have a paragraph about economic impact.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
    Good point. We should definitely address the economic impacts in the lead as well. -- Veggies (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • No - We should not allow racial issues in lead sections when it comes to situations like pandemics. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes - Societal issues relevant to the pandemic in the U.S. appropriate for the article, and this particular one has been extensively reported on in the press. It is especially significant in that the xenophobia has been spread the by the U.S. President and the far-right.[6][7] - MrX 🖋 11:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose As it is a minor sideline issue that further obfuscates the scope of this already poorly scoped article. Seems the nonsense that Trump and "far-right" is the reason for recent rise in anti-Asian backlash in the U.S. is hogwash as the virus was referred to by the mainstream media news as either "Wuhan" or "China(ese)" coronavirus before they switched and tried to blame Trump for all that. See this. Basically, not enough room in lead to deal with this sideline unless we of course clearly show that the initial word play on racial/locale semantics was performed by the hypocritical left wing media.--MONGO (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
At present, the page has an enormous block quote from Trump defending Asian Americans. Perhaps at the time of writing what you are saying may have been an issue, I am too lazy to check the history, but right now, it seems a bipartisan matter to note that what Asian Americans -- and to an extent other minorities -- are experiencing is an aspect of this crisis.--Calthinus (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Mixed I only support if that section is WP:SPLIT into its own article, "xenophobia_and_racism_related_to_the_2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic in the United_States". A brief mention is not able to effectively communicate the situation. If this is worth mentioning then someone should demonstrate that the content passes WP:GNG. There is too much other content to share which definitely does and space is scarce in the lead. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes It's an issue that gets enough coverage to receive mention in the lead. --valereee (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes - "Societal issues relevant to the pandemic in the U.S. appropriate for the article, and this particular one has been extensively reported on in the press", per MrX, there are an awful lot of defensive WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments here. Although it is off-topic - I would point out to Mongo that there is a world of difference between early days (when COVID 19/coronavirus lacked generally known names and was confined to, or almost entirely confined to Wuhan/China) - and wilfully doing so later, when one knows the words have consequences. It was possible once-upon-a-time to innocently refer to "Gay plague", because one did not know what else to call it. Pincrete (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
    • While the argument here is about the inclusion of just one sentence in the lead, which I still oppose since it is deflection, it should be noted that the vast majority of noted attacks listed here happened before Trump started calling it the China Virus and during the period that our beloved media called it that, as you say, "innocently" of course.--MONGO (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
      • The proposed sentence doesn't mention Trump, so the timing of his terminology doesn't seem relevant. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak yes. The current last paragraph clearly focuses on social consequences of the pandemic and as such this sentence would fit there, but I feel like more besides xenophobia and event cancellation can be added on. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 16:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak yes per Tenryuu. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes it's part of the response of the highest level of government in the country. And, unfortunately so. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • No - per BattleshipMan Idealigic (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • No - I am concerned about poor fact-checking and this is more based on rumor and false accusation triggered by personal agenda (reference Jussie Smollett). There is also no comparison with intermittent race-related incidents that occur when we aren't dealing with a pandemic. I think the whole section should be stricken if not taken from a global context. Also, "widespread" is far-too-ambiguous a term to use; any rational editor would strike it as having no qualitative value. dsdesc (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • No per WP:UNDUE. The pandemic is the only news story nowadays, and in the context of that, the coverage is nowhere near sufficient for the lead. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. I agree with the points made by Pincrete and others here. It's part of the societal reaction to the disease and how it manifested in the U.S. A mention in the lede is appropriate. Carter (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • No. From sources that I've read in the context of the wider US 2020 coronavirus pandemic, I think this is too much of a side line issue to be featured in the lead paragraph.--AdvancedScholar (talk) 07:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • No. Peripheral subjects should not be addressed in the lede. Bus stop (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes -especially agree with the analysis of arguments being made here by Pincrete -- well said. This is a major impact of the social aspect of this crisis. Early on in the crisis, before coronavirus was even an immediate threat in most of the states, Chinese American restaurants were suffering [[8]]. If anything, we actually have an under-coverage of this aspect here, though I am glad that the blurb I wrote on the growth of anti-Semitism as reported by the ADL, Life After Hate and even the FBI on the main pandemic page got a blurb moved over here. --Calthinus (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: Contributors to this RfC may also be interested in this one. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, but unfortunately this is only a small part of the mounting tensions in the country. Some people are buying guns and do not like the "outsiders" whoever they might be. My very best wishes (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes It has been widely covered by reliable sources and news outlets:
The New Yorker Al Jazeera NBC NPR another NPR Time Forbes another Forbes PBS ABC The Atlantic LA Times Business Insider The New York Times CNN Washington Post
These two tweets by the current U.S. President/Trump [9][10] are worth mentioning in the 2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_the_United_States#Xenophobia_and_racism section as well. Some1 (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes Since as much as I know, this is considered as a particular issue, which is with very/sufficient coverage (extensively reported...) to be received in the lead of the mentioned article. And likewise especially by paying heed to this issue that: it is relatively a famous long article (with almost a long lead), therefore adding the --short-- significant mentioned sentence can be more useful rather than being useless, at least based on my opinion. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No It could be added to the lead of articles for states with large Chinese populations where it has been an issue, but it's a relatively small part of the nationwide pandemic. For states like Ohio and Tennessee I have only found some articles about restaurants and cancellations of Chinese New Year, but they're discussing loss of business from Chinese clients. Gammapearls (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes: it's received a high amount of coverage from reliable sources. MiasmaEternalTALK 04:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No from what I've seen, the coverage does not justify that prominence. It is only a very minor aspect of the epidemic. buidhe 20:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Summary

Well this is close. We have 15 yes 12 no. The content is covered in the body of the article. Supported by the NYTs (plus a dozen other sources). One sentence would be due weight for the lead. So I think the yes's sufficient support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Placement of state cases and statistics

Why were these sections moved down? There were many, many talk discussions advocating for the state-by-state table to be moved up, as that is arguably the most informative part of this whole article for the majority of readers. Now that the cumulative totals graph is separated from the Statistics section it's probably ok for that to be further down the page, although I personally find it much more interesting to look at dynamic graphs than to slog to the bottom of each section on the off-chance that someone has added a one-sentence update. JoelleJay (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, the Statistics section now has an empty "repatriated cases by state" subsection, and the (useful) log graphs have been removed without deleting the multiple references to those log plots elsewhere in the article. JoelleJay (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I moved those sections down with the rationale: Relocated section which should be used with context via wikilinks; if the chart supports a detail from the article, then link to it. The other section which was not yet moved, Current number of non-repatriated cases by states and territories, which you wrote is the most informative part of the whole article for the majority of readers, is, IMO, totally useless filler without, at a minimum, a per capita column. And even if a column like that was added, the chart would not be relevant without some context to the article body. There were also previous discussions about why those or some other giant charts were moved as they were hogging and cluttering the beginning of an important text article. Entering the article with those was like entering a fine restaurant by the back door, having to walk through the kitchen first, IMO. --Light show (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I believe the discussion about the clunky giant charts referred to the ones that showed the number of cases for every state, every day; the detailed list of cases removed long ago; and the various maps; not the table that is identical to the one in the world cases article (except with states, not countries) or the bar/line graphs. Considering the cases by country table has always been at the top of the world article, I think these data are important even without per capita numbers. Multiple editors have remarked on the relevance of the US state table (see here, here, here, here, and here). The majority of users interested in the US article are going to be from the US and likely already follow their particular state's cases but want to contextualize it with other states. They are generally already aware of population differences.
The statistics section graphs show trends better than the raw case/death count bar graph (although I think that is still the most important of the graphs) since either explicitly state the number of new cases per day or have the data on a grid with numbered Y axis ticks. JoelleJay (talk) 09:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
After moving the table back up to the beginning, I wanted to add that while it would be great if we had a per capita number for each state, that would require editors to recalculate the exact cases/population every time they updated since there's no automatic calculation. Also, there are maps showing per capita cases in the infobox; I doubt presenting the exact incidence in real time is all that more informative than the visual representation. Clearly the template as it stands now is attractive enough on its own to garner 300k page views per day for the main pandemic page, even after almost all textual information was split to other articles. Even when the equivalent table on the main page was accompanied by lots of background info, people were noting how important it was to keep it at the top, for example: "

I go to this article frequently - as I expect thousands of people do - for the latest picture, or rather Table of cases by country. But each time I then have to scroll down a bit to see what I consider this article's main raison-d'etre, the said main table.
— User: Trafford09 10:09 28 February 2020 (UTC)

" JoelleJay (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
JoelleJay's quote's right, in that I like to go to the numbers, in articles like these, on a regular basis, to see the changing data. I tend to go the article originally and - maybe without reading every word - learn from the overall article. But after that, all that matters to me is the raw data, but I return very regularly to see what that data now looks.
I'm actually from the other side of the pond to US readers, who I assume are the main regular users of this article. As a European, I actually go to [11]. Note that this is a template, rather than the article I found it in. I was put off revisiting the article it came from, as that article persisted in burying the raw data way down below text that I'd already read.
As a frequent & experienced WP-er, I was able to give myself this solution.
WP-readers - if they who don't know how WP works - have to keep searching for the data every time they can be bothered to do so, sadly.
Maybe regular viewers of this US article may care to use the corresponding template directly, too? Then the 'view count' of each constituent is more revealing?
HTH, Trafford09 (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2020

Your article states that Trump recommends chloroquine. Please change "chloroquine" to "hydroxychloroquine."

Explanation: In his daily White House briefings, Trump has been repeatedly recommending HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE, not chloroquine.

Primary Sources: Live daily televised White House briefings. Secondary Sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/07/real-reason-trump-is-obsessed-with-hydroxychloroquine/ https://www.nytimes.com/article/coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine-malaria.html

(Thanks! btw: I'm a donor to Wikipedia.) 73.194.247.71 (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@73.194.247.71: Thank you for being a donor! I checked the article and sources Trump has recommended both chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine and the article has both mentioned a lot of times. Is there a specific instance that mentions chloroquine but not hydroxychloroquine where you feel it would be beneficial to include hydroxychloroquine? Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 06:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
@Alucard 16: IPs do not recieve mention/ping notifications. So in this case, you should've placed {{talkback|Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States|Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2020}} on the IPs talk page which I have just done. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 20:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
@Can I Log In: I did not know that :/ Well we all learn something new everyday hehe. Thanks . Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 21:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Something screwy going on

I've been running a spreadsheet since early March of both total cases and total deaths. This was from when both numbers were low, and I wanted to see what sort of numbers were going to play out. It was pretty horrific. I was able to predict reasonably accurately when America would pass China in both measures, and top every other nation likewise.

It's been good to see the rate of increase in cases is no longer exponential, but a steady rise. Not flattening the curve, but not running away, neither.

However, the number of deaths as a percentage of cases is exponential. Instead of being a fixed percentage, it's rising. It was about 1.2% on 22 March, now it's about 3.9%.

I'd expect a certain lag, given that it takes some time between testing positive and dying, but three weeks is too long. To me this indicates that something odd is going on with the testing. Like not near enough, and the true number of infections is a lot higher than reported.

This doesn't seem to be reflected in our article, which indicates a rosier picture. I doubt that I'm the first to have noticed this. I hope that I'm out with my analysis, but if I'm not, then I'd expect within a week or so that daily deaths will exceed daily infections, and if that continues too long it will be obvious that the data is bad. --Pete (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

This is WP:OR unless a secondary source makes a similar implication. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Special efforts have been made to try to test all deaths. As there is not enough test to test everyone. The CFR grow because, well, that's what they try to do. Iluvalar (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
You can see various countries' changes in CFR here. There are all sorts of reasons for the changes, as that website discusses. 68.7.103.137 (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

push to end social distancing, add counter-argument example(s)?

The model predicts that 81,766 people will die in the U.S. over the next four months, with just under 141,000 hospital beds being needed. That’s down about 12,000 deaths and 121,000 fewer hospital beds from last week. Dr. Anthony Fauci said it would be a “false statement” to claim the outbreak is under control, stressing that it could return in force by fall and emerge as a “seasonal, cyclic” threat.

South Korea’s CDC warns that the coronavirus may be “reactivating” in people who have been cured of the illness. About 51 patients classified as “cured” in South Korea have tested positive again. A patient is deemed fully recovered when two tests conducted with a 24-hour interval show negative results.

Titrated measures:

CDC Director Robert R. Redfield announced new guidelines that would allow what he called “essential workers” to return to their jobs sooner.

Relatedly (see "In contrast with" below), VP Mike Pence blocked public health officials from appearing on CNN until the network agreed to carry the daily White House coronavirus briefings in their entirety (see Veracity of statements by Donald Trump and his spread of misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic). Pence’s office later reversed course, allowing for the booking of Redfield, Fauci, and Dr. Deborah Birx. CNN and other networks frequently air only the first portion of the daily briefings live – the part that is typically led by Trump – before returning to their news anchors during the second half of the briefing.
X1\ (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

In contrast with:

Attorney General William Barr called the practice of social distancing meant to control the spread of COVID-19 “draconian” and suggested that they should be eased next month. “When this period of time, at the end of April, expires, I think we have to allow people to adapt more than we have, and not just tell people to go home and hide under their bed, but allow them to use other ways — social distancing and other means — to protect themselves,” Barr said.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin believes that “if the doctors let us,” the U.S. economy could reopen in May. White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow also said he believes the economy could open sooner, predicting it’s possible “in the next four to eight weeks.” Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, meanwhile, warned against trying to return to normal too quickly.

X1\ (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Check this. There are many excellent points here. Among them, (a) this is false dilemma; saving lives is the most profitable strategy even if one thinks about it as an economist, and (b) it is a lot more important to test all people who do not have any symptoms than people who have symptoms, exactly opposite to the practice right now. My very best wishes (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Here is one of main points about it. One must identify and isolate sick people to stop any epidemic. This is the cornerstone measure. However, there are way too many asymptomatic people with this virus (which is unusual). Therefore, in essence, the entire population of the US must be tested (and the found sick people isolated) to restart the economy. Moreover, the extensive testing must continue after restarting it. This is first condition. Others include having adequate medical supplies, people, and other resources, etc., in addition to having the epidemics to slow. But that man apparently has no idea about it [12]. This is shame. My very best wishes (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Add Estimates of Active Cases to Plots?

Earlier someone requested a plot for active cases. I've added this curve to the log plot. I've computed this estimate from numbers given in the template for "Number of non-repatriated cases by date" as

<No. of active cases> - <No. of recovered> - <Sum of deaths per day up to current date>

with the color blue. As of now, it isn't separated enough from the total cases plot to be worthwhile, but I left it up for a day or two for discussion. I'll comment out that plot but keep up the data for a later time when the two plots diverge more.

This estimate is just an estimate because two of the three numbers are estimates (deaths are probably pretty accurate). The template for this section doesn't have another good way to estimate the number of active cases. If this plot begins to behave like the plots in,[1] I'll un-comment it.

I think that changing the curve for deaths in the log plot from the number each day to the total deaths to date would improve the log plot because all the other curves in that chart are current totals, not daily reports. I think the linear plot for deaths is best as it is now. But a cumulative curve for deaths on the log plot will also simplify updating the active cases plot, which will become arguably the most important number in a week or two. -- motorfingers : Talk 15:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "HealthData.org".

Agreed that update cases should be included Keveterzzzz (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

NY age distribution

A quick look at the age pyramid seems to suggest me that there is roughly twice as much 80-90yo resident in NY state then in USA in general. I'm not from the region but is it possible that elder people chose to end their life closer to the city center ? *sigh* The more I analyze it, the more complex it gets. Iluvalar (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2020

In Re: section "Preparations"

Request for Additional Essential Substantive Sentence, given below:

Please see this existing statement: "According to Sue Desmond-Hellmann, former chancellor of the University of California, San Francisco, there is no substitute for federal preparedness, especially for having a stockpile of protective equipment that health care workers need to safely treat patients, and to prepare for "surge capacity" with equipment like ventilators."

Please add after this statement: In the final year of the administration of George W. Bush, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (a division of the Department of Health and Human Services) "estimated that an additional 70,000 machines would be required in a moderate influenza pandemic." [Quotation Source: New York Times, "The U.S. Tried to Build a New Fleet of Ventilators. The Mission Failed." March 29, 2020; updated March 31, 2020] However, while the administration of Barack Obama soon after made a contract with a private firm (Newport Medical Instruments, subsequently a subsidiary of Covidien) for the production of up to 40,000 ventilators, the government failed to secure that order, leaving the national stockpile of ventilators seriously underprepared for the COVID-19 epidemic in the United States. [Information Source: New York Times, "The U.S. Tried to Build a New Fleet of Ventilators. The Mission Failed." March 29, 2020; updated March 31, 2020]

Thanks! Btw, I'm a donor to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! 73.194.247.71 (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Not done. Please format the source as a ref (see tutorial), including a url (if possible). After that, I think you're good to go. El_C 09:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
@El C: This is a pretty simple do it yourself thing. FInd the source they provided, and implement the request. If they provided a source, then the source is there, and go to it and verify. If you do this again in the future, you should place {{talkback}} on their talk page so they'll be notified. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 19:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 Done  Partly done: the phrase "the government failed to secure that order, leaving the national stockpile of ventilators seriously underprepared for the COVID-19 epidemic in the United States" appears to be original research. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 19:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC); edited 19:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on using county-level data for the infobox map

 You are invited to join the discussion at commons:File talk:COVID-19 outbreak USA per capita cases map.svg#Transition to county-level data. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Stats about influenza deaths per day seem to be wrong at bottom of page

Page currently says US averages 551 endemic influenza deaths per day, seasonally averaged over several years (referencing footnote 599). But that would mean around 200,000 Americans per year die of the flu and its complications. Which is too high by a factor of about five. I think the real number of flu deaths per day averages around 100, which COVID-19 passed somewhere around March 22, not March 30 as the page claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lehicks (talk • contribs) 03:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the sentence say "influenza AND pneumonia". Which is a little misleading because influenza is a disease and pneumonia is a condition. I encourage you to look at the sources from CDC to convince yourself that the 551 deaths is real. I'm not really sure where your 100 deaths from flu come from. It is true that flu alone cause less deaths in general. The vast majority have complications turn into pneumonia before it gets lethal. Then some states make systematic flu tests, but many don't. Maybe you refer to the confirmed tests ? Finally, if you talk about this week (Apr 9), it is indeed usual to have a low quantity of flu. The flu season is over now. While the cases of pneumonia are still fairly high. I ensure you that the deaths by pneumonia at this time of the year account for up to 8% of all deaths. It was already like that in 2009 when I was helping to edit the H1N1 outbreak and it kept going every years in between. Iluvalar (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

But isn't this is comparing apples to elephants? The implication in the sentence in the article is that it is about comparing two epidemic diseases, covid-19 and seasonal influenza, which, of course, is the comparison constantly being made in popular and administrative discussions. If one includes all pneumonia deaths, it's kind of misleading because most pneumonia deaths are not related to any epidemic disease at all. The underlying culprit is some bacteria or virus or fungus or parasite that is just hanging around somebody's house or workplace or whatever. Plus, cases resulting from autoimmune disease, lung cancer, drug side effects. Not epidemic at all. These all-cause pneumonia deaths shouldn't be included in a comparison of covid-19 and influenza. The meaningful comparison perhaps should be to influenza deaths (including those that occur as a result of influenza-caused pneumonia).Lehicks (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

First of all, the source we use is COVIDView [13]. It is THE official source about COVID from the CDC. It was published in Apr 4. So from a Wikipedia stand point, if the sources compare apples and elephants, we should too. This is the first time in history that such a massive test is conducted. This is the state of the art of science, the number of pneumonia that doesn't happen to be flu. This is misleading in both way. Many people with life threatening conditions for years are now classified as COVID death even though it's usually just a mild cold (often asymptomatic even). Iluvalar (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
You think asymptomatic carriers are being classified as Covid deaths? If not, what does the existence of mild cases have to do with categorizing the deaths. 113.37.159.155 (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, They are. And there is other questions left open about how long after recovering the tests are still positive. You may had the COVID, recovered from it and tragically 2 weeks later die from an heart attack. Will the test be positive ? Iluvalar (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

179.209.142.85 (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States/Archive_7&oldid=1136586424"