Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

"First outbreak" location in infobox

The captioned item in the infoboxes is not consistent at present, with that information in some country articles being plain wrong (for example for Bolivia); rather than fix all of these individually, I am wondering if someone could run a script to unify this? Thank you. --CRau080 (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Of interest...whilst checking through some references....ref 346- report 13 from Imperial cites Wikipedia several times. Whispyhistory (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

More interesting is how their predictions was off by an order of magnitude (confusing confirmed cases with actual infections) and we still use them in the article. Iluvalar (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit: To be fair, their absolute lower error margin was kinda fine. Iluvalar (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

cases / deaths per population

My edit with a graph with cases divided by population was reverted, claiming that it was too US centric. I feel that the opposit is the case: Numbers should be shown in relation to the size of the population. It's not reasonable to compare a huge country such as the United States with a small country such as Spain. --Traut (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Where/what is the title, vertical axis label, and data source? - Wikmoz (talk) 06:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss matters of how to improve this graphic on its discussion page. I removed those labels on purpose in order to improve the readability, but can add them easily again. Maybe an international date format (Mar/Apr) will be better. --Traut (talk) 06:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's the matching image for the deaths section --Traut (talk) 07:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Should be COVID-19. But the title can probably go in the caption rather than in the image itself.

What is the source for the graphs? Can we order the labels from highest to lowest? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

+1 does the source include also data for EU as a whole? Comparing the whole USA to just Spain or Italy is irrelevant. Better comparison would be to include individual states. Maybe New York S. and Washington S. should be in there? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

labels are sorted the same way for cases and deaths. I can reorder them, but should use the same colors then, too. The graph is made by myself with data from github by JHU. --Traut (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The motivation for this chart is the non-comparable lists and charts of cases as shown anywhere else - where the total numbers of the huge USA are compared with smaller countries, such as spain (842.624 US / 213.024 Spain). Sorting lists just by rate may show very small countries such as Vatican or e.g. San Marino: 118 deaths/100k on top, vs. Spain 47.4, USA 14.4. It might be a good idea to compare total numbers for comparable populations - such as North America, China, India or whole Europe - but numbers usually are given by nations. You can easily add them up, but I feel this would not be any improvement. --Traut (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Since I just have all the data around, you may see the same death rate data on my User:Traut, when shifted to the same starting condition --Traut (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• One small suggestion, perhaps arrange the countries in the legend from top to bottom according data points of the graphs at the end - it would be easier to read that way and makes it more straightforward for the readers to identify the colours in the graphs with the countries. Hzh (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I have three thoughts on this.

1. I find Traut's graphs helpful, I agree that comparing cases or deaths per population is instructive, and I think the only thing that makes them USA-centric is the USA being the first label, which would be corrected by adopting Hzh's recommendation.
   
2. An issue with the label on that for deaths is the term "death rate". A rate per unit population or per unit time is implied by "rate", but at first glance, I cannot tell if this is deaths per 100,000 people, weekly deaths per 100,000 people or something else.
   
3. I agree with Traut's suggestion that the starts be standardised somehow but disagree with Traut's feeling that comparing comparable populations would not be an improvement. I think both regional comparisons and country comparisons are highly informative, especially as, if I'm reading the graph correctly, despite it's lower population density and greater size compared to many European countries, not only does the USA have the most cases, it is in the top three for cases per person.

68.96.208.77 (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC) Constructive Feedback

Thanks for all the helpful feedback. I'll think about the label problem. Currently it's just the same order as given within the table on the article page - by total case numbers. It's easy to resort by rates instead, but then labels would be in different orders for both charts. I'll try to insert the charts now... --Traut (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It might be interesting now to define a color palette for the most interesting countries in order to use the same color within each chart here. --Traut (talk) 10:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I have reordered the labels, have taken new colors and have adjusted the picture size to 5x7". I'll add the colors to my discussion page and encourage others to use the same color scheme. --Traut (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Should we include something about a chance of reinfection/relapse, instances of testing positive after recovery, etc. in the lead?

A clause was added a few days ago to the sentence "More than XXX,XXX people have recovered" which stated "although there may be a chance of reinfection". After a few iterations, my latest edit which stated "although there have been instances of people testing positive after recovery" was reverted by User:Sdkb (reason: WP:UNDUE for lead). I also saw a news article which stated that WHO stated that there was [Evidence' Yet That Recovered COVID-19 Patients Are Immune]. I think that this is an important topic, so I wish to establish a consensus on this: should we add a clause to the lead about a chance of reinfection or relapse, instances of testing positive after recovery, or there being no evidence that recovered COVID patients are immune in the lead? sam1370 (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

We're talking not just about the lead, but about the first paragraph of the lead. That paragraph has to be reserved for the absolute most essential facts, and reinfection or relapse, while an interesting topic, just doesn't come close to meeting that bar in my view. (Also, apologies on the rollback just now; your self-reversion contained an error that I had to correct quickly.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I see, maybe we could include it in the excerpted paragraph. No need to apologize, I think I thanked you for it earlier haha sam1370 (talk) 11:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Any way to make this page rank top in the Wikipedia search suggestions?

After I added Template: R unprintworthy to the 2019-20 Coronavirus pandemic redirect (since the capitalization was appearing at the top of the search results instead of the regular article) the normal article gets ranked below all the "2019-20 coronavirus pandemic in X" ones. Is there any way to make this page rank top in the search suggestions? sam1370 (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

SEO is complicated and can easily backfire. Plus, the best SEO strategy is to create excellent content, which editors contributing to 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic are doing. ¶ Two questions: (1) What do you mean by "search suggestions" (it's a term with more than one meaning), and you might actually mean something like "Is there any way to make this page rank top on the SERPs?"; and (2) What did you search for? Did you search for "coronavirus pandemic"? "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic"? "coronavirus"?   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 05:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Markworthen: I should have made myself clearer; what I mean are the search suggestions that appear when you begin typing in a query on the 'Search Wikipedia' box on the top right. As for your second question, I simply began typing in the name '2019-20 coronavirus pandemic' and, as I see when I type it in now, the incorrectly capitalized one is the most prominent. sam1370 (talk) 05:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The lowercase (correct) title is the one suggested to me. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, thank you Sam1370, I understand now. I wonder how many visitors use the Wikipedia search function to search for "2019–2020 ..."? In other words, it might not be a major problem (I really don't know). Overall, if visitors can find what they want, that's the best outcome. Perhaps there are some IT/stats experts who track such things for Wikipedia?   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 07:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, okay, yeah not many people are going to search for “2019-20” so it’s not that important of a thing. Still, if anyone has a solution, it would be a nice QOL thing. sam1370 (talk) 11:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. :0)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 12:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Page has exceeded the template include size

The article is in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded and many of the citations are thus no longer visible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Re-adding the lockdown template pushed it over, I think. I took it out and looks like we're back under now. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Add section: Impact on mental health

I'm surprised this hasn't been included yet. Many suicide hotlines are reporting massive upticks [1] [2] [3] [4] (the Disaster Distress helpline saw an 891% increase in calls in March 2020) in the amount of calls amid the pandemic and the necessary social distancing and quarantining, resulting from economic fears, virus fears and underlying depression and anxiety and feelings of isolation and separation.[5] This has also resulted in the rise of teletherapy.

The National Suicide Prevention Hotline has adjusted "#BeThe1To" to provide coping tips for individuals and loved ones amid the pandemic[6]. The CDC has provided similar tips as well.[7]

Individuals with anxiety disorders such as obsessive-compulsive disorder[8][9] and post-traumatic stress disorder[10] are of a greater concern. Ghoul flesh • talk 22:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Good idea. I suggest first contributing to Mental health during the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, which needs some work, and then adding a sentence or two in the present article about psychological sequelae, with a hatnote to the main article on the subject.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Reunion

Why was data for Reunion (France) deleted from the table of countries/territories? At last count, if I remember correctly, it had close to 500 cases and 1 death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 (talk) 07:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The numbers are now included in the French total, and the official French figures include it. This change happened after a discussion on Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data‎. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have no issues with the change, however Reunion should then be added to the list in the Note for France (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic#cite_note-64). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

U.S. deaths

It looks like the US deaths are wrong? 535,625 is way too high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloftus2 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Moved from #Highlighted open discussions. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 07:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The droplets quickly fall on objects or onto surfaces but with certain medical procedures can hang in the air for longer periods?

What does "certain medical procedures" signify? Seems rather ambiguous to me. MattSucci (talk) 04:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't remember this being in the lead the last time I checked, so I think it was added recently. Possible vandalism? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It's in an excerpt from coronavirus disease 2019, so checking there... {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer the "current consensus" above but also prefer the wording User:Doc James and I agreed on "The virus is mainly spread between people during close contact, often via small droplets produced during coughing, sneezing or talking. While these droplets are produced during breathing out, they usually fall to the ground or surfaces rather than being infectious over large distances."

Please note the WHO has updated its FAQ. Maybe they noticed us using their tweet instead of their FAQ to reach consensus and remove technical language? ;) Their FAQ now states People can catch COVID-19 from others who have the virus. The disease spreads primarily from person to person through small droplets from the nose or mouth, which are expelled when a person with COVID-19 coughs, sneezes, or speaks. These droplets are relatively heavy, do not travel far and quickly sink to the ground. People can catch COVID-19 if they breathe in these droplets from a person infected with the virus. This is why it is important to stay at least 1 metre (3 feet) away from others. These droplets can land on objects and surfaces around the person such as tables, doorknobs and handrails. People can become infected by touching these objects or surfaces, then touching their eyes, nose or mouth. This is why it is important to wash your hands regularly with soap and water or clean with alcohol-based hand rub. --Almaty (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Have restored per discussion here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the restoration of the text but just wanted to answer MattSucci’s original question. But in healthcare facilities we make sure that healthcare workers use standard droplet precautions with the exception of when they are doing an aerosol-generating procedure and then we recommend airborne precautions p. 8. In that 16 March 2020 press conference, Dr van Kerkhove responded to a question about one (frustratingly unnamed) study about how long the virus remains in the air specifically for aerosolizing procedures in medical facilities. She emphasized that the WHO stands by standard droplet precautions for all other situations. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Have restored again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

someone update the map in the top right

the map is from a while ago, and it is probably outdated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firestar9990 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Firestar9990, that's gonna be a fact of life as time goes on. All these manually updated stats and facts and figures are going to lag behind the wherewithal of Wikipedians to update them, and they'll go stale. I don't think any numbers anywhere in the COVID-19 project should be trusted as current. Elizium23 (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Someone update the statistics for new Zealand it is showing cases from a week ago

New Zealands cases are way out of date Username900122 (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

At the moment, the list of countries and territories (in Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data) is using the NZ Ministry of Health's website for its source, and is up to date. Do you mean a figure for New Zealand elsewhere in this article? Capewearer (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Greetings Username900122. It would be really cool if you became a Wikipedian and went to work on that section to improve it. We need more good editors like you! The getting started page is very helpful.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I have explained to other Wikipedians that I hold the rank of Major General in the World Federation of People Who Can Give Orders, but they think I'm joking. And even worse, when I issue commands to other editors, they rarely do what I say. Such recalcitrance among the troops is disgraceful! What's a 2-star to do? ...   Yes, this is my attempt at a little humor. My kids tell me I have an "esoteric" sense of humor, so my apologies in advance if it lands flat.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Those "kids" have quite a vocabulary! A loose necktie (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Strokes

I heard there's a correlation of strokes to infection.. is this true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slinkyw (talk • contribs) 00:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is the ref https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32329044 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I have also read about this. I saw an article this morning in which a case of infection caused an unlikely stroke in a 44-year-old man, and moreover that when the surgeon opened him up to remove the clot, other clots immediately started forming around the removal site. So let's agree that the information is likely true. I think the real question is, "Should this information be included here?" (given that it is already mentioned on the main article for the disease) and, if so, "Where should it be included?" I do not know that the answer to the first question is "Yes." A loose necktie (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Xenophobia section length

I am certainly not averse to covering the xenophobia that has arisen from the pandemic, but the length of the current section on it (which recently had a level 4 sub-heading added to it) strikes me as just too long. It's much longer than the comparable nearby sections on the environment and misinformation, and nearly as long as the culture section, which has a far bigger scope. The {{Very long section}} tag I added was recently removed by Pancho507. Do you all think the section needs some streamlining? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. As for streamlining, now i think that it could be streamlined, however i don't wanna risk biasing that section, and i feel not much can be removed from that section anyway. Pancho507 (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree, it's far too long for the very slight notability. --Mtaylor848 (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I've trimmed about 9 kB out. (Pace Mtaylor848, it's a fairly notable aspect of the pandemic, and unlike some other sections which have their own articles their content could/should be moved to, we don't seem to have any summary-format article on xenophobia during the pandemic, only linking to a list-format article cataloguing instances of xenophobia. So, there's more basis for summarizing the situation in this article. However, it did merit some trimming and may still merit further trimming.) -sche (talk) 05:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Country comparisons

The article should better contrast & explain how countries differed in their reactions to the pandemic & how that affected the incidence of infection. How & why did S Korea recover from being one of the worst-affected countries whilst in many other countries the pandemic worsened? Jim Michael (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Various redirects listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2019-20 China pneumonia outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata ^{stay at home 🏠} _{wash your hands 👋} ^{to protect from COVID-19 😷} 10:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect China pneumonia outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata ^{stay at home 🏠} _{wash your hands 👋} ^{to protect from COVID-19 😷} 10:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Controversies related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata ^{stay at home 🏠} _{wash your hands 👋} ^{to protect from COVID-19 😷} 10:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Controversies related to 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata ^{stay at home 🏠} _{wash your hands 👋} ^{to protect from COVID-19 😷} 10:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Controversies related to the 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata ^{stay at home 🏠} _{wash your hands 👋} ^{to protect from COVID-19 😷} 10:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Controversies related to 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata ^{stay at home 🏠} _{wash your hands 👋} ^{to protect from COVID-19 😷} 10:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Controversies related to the 2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata ^{stay at home 🏠} _{wash your hands 👋} ^{to protect from COVID-19 😷} 10:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Controversies related to the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata ^{stay at home 🏠} _{wash your hands 👋} ^{to protect from COVID-19 😷} 10:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2019-2020 coronavirus 2019 pandemic. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata ^{stay at home 🏠} _{wash your hands 👋} ^{to protect from COVID-19 😷} 10:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Explanatory footnote removed

Hello, the explanatory footnote at the end of the first sentence was removed on 22 April by User:Brandmeister. The footnote stated "In summary, this article is about the coronavirus pandemic, which is caused by the disease COVID-19, which is caused by the virus SARS-CoV-2."

His reason for removing the footnote was "redundant, the title and links define the scope". I disagree with this; I originally added the footnote because when I first read the introductory sentence, I was confused by the wording and had to click on the disease and virus articles to understand the meaning. This may be confusing to others too, as I don't believe the actual full name of the virus (coronavirus disease 2019) or disease (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) is that well-known -- most news articles that I see with a coronavirus google search simply refer to it as "coronavirus" or "covid-19". I'd like to get consensus on this -- should we reinstate the explanatory footnote? sam1370 (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - I definitely support reinstating the explanatory footnote as it provides a clear, concise, and correct explanation that quickly boosts reader comprehension.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 05:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  Since this section doesn't seem to be getting many other comments, I think I'll reinstate the edit, if anyone objects here I'll remove it. Edit: nevermind. sam1370 (talk) 05:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think we should be using a footnote to explain something as basic/important as this; we should make the language itself clear. The way I'd like to do that is by changing the current "ongoing pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2)" to "ongoing pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2) virus". But when I went to do that just now, some hidden text warned me not to use "the". Virus experts, would my proposal be non-grammatical? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Sdkb: I mean, the language itself is clear and unambiguous, it is simply confusing to people who do not know the names for the viruses or the difference between a disease and a virus. I think including it in the language would give credit to Brandmeister's argument; doing so would be redundant if added in the lead itself instead of an explanatory footnote. By the way, thanks for rolling that edit back, sorry for that typo. sam1370 (talk) 06:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  I think we shouldn't delve into excessive explanations just because some people may confuse something. It's Wikipedia's goal to explain things in plain language and clarify any ambiguities so that additional explanations become redundant. The lead IMO does a good job in distinguishing between pandemic and its cause, with wikilinks. Also, the article already has many notes and is too long for things like that. From what I see, there have been no complains at this talkpage about confusing language. If people have trouble, they can always post here so that their concerns may be addressed. Otherwise we shouldn't fix what is not broken. Brandmeister^talk 08:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The problem with that argument is that the visitors who have trouble are the least likely to post a question on an article talk page. Keep in mind that the majority of Wikipedia users either don't know what a talk page is, or they have only a vague notion and they don't want to try to figure it out. We (including me) tend to assume that all Wikipedia visitors have about the same level of knowledge as we (I) do. Of course, you are probably thinking, "I don't make any such assumptions!" But that's only because I raised the issue. In our day-to-day Wikipedian goings on, we are not challenged to consider the average visitor's knowledge about Wikipedia, website functionality, Internet savvy, etc., and we operate on our default assumptions.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 10:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree; I may be wrong about this but I’m guessing most of the people visiting the page are IP addresses who don’t know much (if anything) about Wikipedia, how it works, tslk pages, etc. Either way, explanatory footnotes are footnotes for that reason — so they don’t clutter up the main sentence with content that may not be relevant to everyone. I can imagine someone being confused by the main sentence, seeing the [a] next to the sentence, and hovering over it and getting the info they need. sam1370 (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Another way to think about this controversy is to ask a question ... followed by a quick quiz!

Q: For whom do we write Wikipedia articles?

1. Other editors.
2. Ourselves, because it's so awesome to craft perfect prose.
3. Our high school English teachers.
4. People who visit Wikipedia because they want to learn.

  - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 12:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

If you don't like the explanatory footnote ...

Then we should copy edit the first paragraph to enhance comprehension for the average Wikipedia visitor. After all, it is our job to do everything we can to boost understanding; it is not the reader's job to decipher our meaning. (If it's the reader's job to decipher my writing, nhetuyo hsuodltnimdn edhpicngihits uljmbe. Don't you agree?)

Here's my suggested copy edit:

The 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic is a widespread epidemic of the respiratory disease COVID-19 (an acronym for “coronavirus disease 2019”). The scientific name for the coronavirus is "SARS-CoV-2" (an acronym for “severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2”). SARS-CoV-2 (the virus) causes COVID-19 (the disease), which began to infect humans in 2019, and reached pandemic proportions during 2020. The outbreak was identified in ....

  - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 12:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we're risking WP:OVERSIMPLIFYing which WP:TECHNICAL explicitly discourages (e.g. it's clear that bracketed COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 are shorthands for their preceding respective terms, much in the same way as the USA standing for the United States of America). The encyclopedic tone by definition should not lapse into oversimplification as if the encyclopedia is for children. Our audience is mixed, including both knowledgeable and non-knowledgeable readers. I, for one, despite my humanities-oriented mind, don't have any problem with understanding the lead which is certainly more simple than the likes of Poincaré conjecture or Lambda calculus. Second-guessing of what readers might not understand is sometimes a treacherous path. But this case is not the hill I would die upon. Brandmeister^talk 15:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I prefer clarifying the terminology in an endnote (explanatory footnote), partly because I agree with you that we risk oversimplification for some visitors if we define terms in the first two or three sentences.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 19:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Brandmeister: Hey, have you changed your mind? I’d like to reach a consensus on this. sam1370 (talk) 02:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I still think the note is rather redundant, but at least we moved it out of the lead. Perhaps this is as good as it gets. Brandmeister^talk 07:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Brandmeister: Of course it is redundant, but that's why it's in a footnote instead of the article text. To clarify, since I'm a bit confused on your tone here, would you be prepared to accept the footnote's reinstatement on the page? sam1370 (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

If you mean moving the footnote from the infobox to article's body - no (the footnote currently labeled "a"). Ideally I'm for removing it altogether and preserving the current lead opening sentence. There appears to be a trend for "dumbing down" the encyclopedic tone, which became a concern in the Arbcom case request. Brandmeister^talk 19:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah okay, I was not aware of it being in the info box. This seems like an OK compromise, but like you, I would prefer it be in the first sentence. A compromise leaves all parties dissatisfied, haha. sam1370 (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Incidents of xenophobia and discrimination in the intro

I propose removing the mention of xenophobia and discrimination from the intro. I don't want to downplay the incidents, but there is already a section in the article. Right now it has the same weight in the intro as the recession caused by the virus, which in my opinion is much more relevant. Vpab15 (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, nope, that sentence has already been discussed at length (see current consensus item 8), and nothing significant has changed since the prior discussion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

We have sections in the article for many things mentioned in the lead. The lead introduces the subjects, the sections flesh them out in detail. sam1370 (talk) 11:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

"Excluding the disputed Taiwan"

Moved to Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data § "Excluding the disputed Taiwan"

 – MarioGom (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Asia section needs an update

Asia section starts with As of 16th April. This is over 2 weeks old. It is also incorrect as there were 3 asian countries with no reported cases - North Korea is missed. Dhristhadyumana (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Nine countries have more cases than China?

It doesn't appear plausible that 9 countries (all of which are thousands of miles away from Wuhan) each have more cases than China. Jim Michael (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The whole point of a pandemic is that it has spread around the world, so distance is not an issue. I assume you are referring to the table, which has the footnote "This number shows the cumulative number of confirmed human cases reported to date. The actual number of infections and cases is likely to be higher than reported" Is there something other than showing the official reported number that you believe we should record? Kevin McE (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Someone apparently did not read the header: This talk page is not a forum for general discussion. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I've read that many times. It's not a forum post - I'm questioning the accuracy of the official figures. Some sources say that the Chinese government (& perhaps some other governments) greatly under-report the extent of the pandemic. I'm saying that we should improve the article by including that. Jim Michael (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

No one said China have less cases or more. All we say is they have less confirmed cases. It's very plausible, even in assumption that it started in Wuhan, if China don't confirm as much cases. Iluvalar (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit: to be clear, China's tests stop ramping up after this source [11] was published on February 4. It became clear the virus was out of Wuhan as well. Iluvalar (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Iluvalar: The only mention of non-Hubei cases is as follows: Figure 4 shows the fraction with each outcome by age, drawn only from the cases before Jan 15 for which most have complete data. To put a lower bound on the confirmed-case-fatality-ratio (confirmed-CFR) for this first month of cases, we assume the censored cases, almost all of whom are outside Hubei, will eventually recover, and the model shown extrapolates the confirmed-CFR to younger ages based on that assumption. Considering the update is referring to an updated IFR (with a ridiculously wide 95% confidence interval), and that section is referring to pre-15 Jan outcomes, your inference that China's tests stop ramping up after this source was published on February 4. It became clear the virus was out of Wuhan as well. involves too many logical jumps. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion Caradhras. First I complained myself about the confidence interval of that study, which is still used in our WHO source for the IFR. I believe since feb 4 we can do much better in that direction and we should stop using this in our main article. Now, for our main discussion, I think it's self evident that after this source Wu et al (jan 31) and [12] (feb 4), The chinese authorities changed their attitude toward COVID-19. Up to that point, they were increasing their test capacity and trying to contain the virus. After being told that 100 times more cases were already all around Wuhan, I'm inferring that they returned to their normal ILI strategy. We can all see ourselves that the confirmed cases peaked on feb 4. I don't think i'm doing that many logical jumps. We have a peak of confirmed case on feb 4, a source that evaluate the IFR down by an order of magnitude and make the containment at an hospital level or city level ridiculous on feb 4 and an international consensus that since then, china's numbers are "suspicious". Iluvalar (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed over and over. Please, WP:NOFORUM. Unless there is some particular source and change to be discussed, this is not going anywhere. --MarioGom (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This topic is also being archived all the time. And Jim Michael is totally right, When you put me in the box a months ago, I was a bit edgy to claim that China stopped on feb 4. I had little decisive secondary sources to back this up. But since then, Trump addressed it in a press conference and I'm plated with sources. We should mention it more clearly in the article. Iluvalar (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

...much more clearly in the article IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand the popular interpretation of this, but again, I don't see the "cover up" they talk about since China never stated they were doing tests. There was a research published that there was at least 100x more cases just in Wuhan. It was confirmed by both China and the WHO. The WHO still use that very source for their IFR. China also openly questioned the origin. Trump even won a famous twitter battle about this exact subject a few weeks later. I don't know why it was decided to only test people from Wuhan who are actively coughing, but that day they should have started testing the street of NY. The information was available. Iluvalar (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

/* Updated cases, deaths, and recoveries */

Confirmed cases: 3,273,972 Active cases: 2,010,732 Deaths: 231,458 Recoveries: 1,031,782

On the top of this page, it states that the consensus is that Worldometers is not reliable. Benica11 (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

References

But I'm sure that's the only live one I can find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.51.215 (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Redundant graphs?

Taking a brief glance at them, some of the graphs/charts/maps in the cases and deaths sections seem redundant to each other (or to ones in the infobox or history section). Should we be removing some of them? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Which are you wanting to remove? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

For now, I just want to open a general discussion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2020

You need to remove any and all information provided by WHO...given their repeated and proven lies on behalf of protecting the Chinese government. You should also remove any references to President Trump "claiming" China lied about the virus...given that this is also completely and inarguably proven fact. 76.72.63.16 (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Declined. We need reliable sources, not people's opinions. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2020 (Actual USA deaths)

 Not done

{{edit semi-protected}} USA deaths according to current CDC (Center for Disease Control) site are stated as 37,308, nowhere near the incorrect 68,040 currently listed. Source: CDC.gov site Paulieweb (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

To quote that site "COVID-19 death counts shown here may differ from other published sources, as data currently are lagged by an average of 1–2 weeks." so it would not be sensible to use that site to "correct" the sources that it differs from. ϢereSpielChequers 21:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Status of Tajikistan

For any observer of Tajikistan its Coronavirus positive status was quite obvious a month ago due to large amounts of doctors being quarantined in various hospitals mostly across the north of the country. In any case the Tajik government has now officially certified that the country does indeed have Covid-19. This means the map needs to be updated. The source of this information can be found in Russian in Asia Plus's article here: https://asiaplustj.info/ru/news/tajikistan/security/20200430/v-tadzhikistane-ofitsialno-priznali-koronavirus-v-strane-est Zaharous (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

United States timeline

"On 6 March 2020, the United States was advised of projections for the impact of the new coronavirus"...Should it be 16 March? Whispyhistory (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The source states 6 March 2020. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure the source (a newspaper) is correct? Whispyhistory (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Whispyhistory: If you can provide a reliable source to counter that statement, then please do so. If not, we will trust The Guardian over Whispyhistory. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 10:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for replying @Sam1370:.... It’s old enough to be cross-referenced, or stated in other sources, as it doesn't fit with other timings. I’m probably missing something. I don't understand what happened on 6 March.

• The pandemic article cites The Guardian (4 April), which says ”On 6 March, a group of epidemiologists at Imperial College London gave the White House coronavirus taskforce a heads-up about the terrifying projections for the disease they were about to publish relating to the US.” [13] and makes reference to the paper of 16 March.
• In the section on the ‘Containment efforts within the U.S.’ in the pandemic in the United States article, it says ”On March 16,… Coronavirus Response Coordinator Deborah Birx cited an analysis by Imperial College London that if nothing was done by government officials, 2.2 million would die in the United States and is referenced with The Washington Post (30 March).
• The NYT said on “16 Mar 2020 - A new report shows the number of deaths that could occur in the U.S. and ... The lead author of the study, Neil Ferguson, an epidemiology professor, said in an interview that his group had shared their projections with the White House task force about a week ago” [14], which still makes 6 March too far back.
• The government press briefing for 6 March doesn’t say anything about it and the W article on the US timeline doesn’t mention it on 6 March. Whispyhistory (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Whispyhistory: Alright, that makes sense. Yes, that should be 16 March sam1370 (talk / contribs) 17:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I have removed COVID-19 project essays

The template that they placed at the top of the page is against policy. Current COVID-19 consensus is invalid, they can have consensus over there, but it is local consensus and should not be binding on any page until it has gone through WP:PROPOSAL. From WP:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Advice_pages, An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay.

Please ecourage members of the wikiproject to continue to write essays, but not impose them as Current COVID consensus or the like, because they are only essays, per wikipeida policy . --Almaty (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

And I have restored them, as they seem perfectly in keeping with the principles at WP:PROJ. They are communication, not imposition. "The pages of a WikiProject are the central place for editor collaboration on a particular topic area. Editors there develop criteria, maintain various collaborative processes and keep track of work that needs to be done. It also provides a forum where issues of interest to the editors of a subject may be discussed." Kevin McE (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:PROJ is not a policy or a guideline. This template is imposing it literally like the current consesnsus of the page is, with far less consensus, it is disruptive and it causes confusion and false consensus. Your project does not control or own the page, yet it acts like it does. --Almaty (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Am I right to assume the only problem right now with this list is the "origin" part ? Because the consensus is to use Index case. But in the model the attribute is called "origin" still. Iluvalar (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Wrong venue. Please move to the WikiProject talk page

   – You've brought this up at the project talk page. Don't create duplicate discussions — use Template:Please see to refer one to another. If this draws further comments here, someone uninvolved should archive it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• This is exactly my point, a very important discussion as to whether the project has scope to impose consensus on all articles is brought to the project page. Rather than the page where most editors contribute. It isn't right. --Almaty (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  Feel free to make an invite from one to the other, but you are violating WP:MULTI. See WP:TALKFORK for more info. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

possible future projection

(aside from the current 'Duration' subsection)might it be a good idea to insert a section/subsection towards the end which indicates which way this thing might go?...I was looking through "Covid-19's future: small outbreaks, monster wave, or ongoing crisis". STAT. 1 May 2020. Retrieved 2 May 2020.which offers three possible scenarios, 1 a larger infection in the fall(U.S.), 2. a continuation thru 2022/ or until theres a vaccine 3 a smaller but continuing version of the present. Of course, better references than this one would be needed....however the 3 'scenario' graphs, with proper referencing, may not be a bad idea IMO --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Who did those graphs without paying attention to the ILI seasons ? XD . Could of of those scenario include a peak next January please (as if it was a coronavirus) ? Iluvalar (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Remdesivir

Hasn't gone through the full approval process of the FDA but they have approved it for emergency use. It has the following wording it is reasonable to believe that the known and potential benefits of RDV outweigh the known and potential risks of the drug for the treatment of patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19. So this is an specific, approved antiviral treatment to use our wording, and therefore the lead is now incorrect. What are others thoughts? --Almaty (talk)

The benefit with respect to mortality if any is likely to be small as no significant difference in that study. There are also concerns that the primary endpoint changed half way through the trial.[15] Also a little concerned when I see this happen. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes there doesn't seem to be a difference in mortality. The endpoint changing is the Gilead sponsored studies, not the NIH study (Adaptive COVID treatment trial), two different studies. First published RCT shows nothing but thats because they couldn't enrol. But theres a trend in that study towards what NIH is finding too. However, what the FDA have done is balanced up all the data we have so far (to use a legal term for that as a another way to explain it other than our previous lengthy discussions - its still approved though, that is a real approval, whether we agree with it or not. So our wording is currently wrong. We need to change it to "there is no antiviral treatment that has been proven to be effective on mortality in published RCTs", and consider at what point Remdesivir goes into the lead of the article. Just like oseltamivir gets into the lead of influenza despite having only a slight benefit on duration, but not on mortality. --Almaty (talk) 08:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah okay thanks. This is looking at ACTT and also discusses how the primary endpoint changed. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/04/what-the-public-didnt-hear-about-the-nih-remdesivir-trial/

When WHO changes / updates their position should than definitely go in the lead. We have a bunch more studies ongoing so I am sure we will know more soon.

We of course have a published RCT in the Lancet on May 1st that found no benefit (14% mortality for remdesivir, 13% for placebo) but yes a trend at 14 and 28 days for more improvement but not change in time to hospital discharge.[16][17]

Hydroxychloroquine is also approved for emergency use, though more and more evidence shows it is harmful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah the Wuhan study was the one i was referring to above. Its not very helpful because it didn't enrol its target number of patients. I wouldn't say the WHO are the authority on medicines, rather the FDA, EMA, TGA, health canada etc. --Almaty (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Source not about COVID

This text ", though the CDC says that hand sanitizers are less effective than hand washing, in part due to the higher margin for error (wiping sanitizer off too early, not using enough, etc)." the source is not about COVID.

It says "Soap and water are more effective than hand sanitizers at removing certain kinds of germs, like Cryptosporidium, norovirus, and Clostridium difficile1-5" and would be fine in those articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Typo in the "Epidemiology" section

 Done

I can't edit this page, seeing as it's protected and I'm on my IP address rather than a custom made account, so can someone fix the two typo in the "Epidemiology" section in the word "comparative" and "coronaviruses" in this sentence: "A comarative sequence analysis of different coronoviruses found no evidence that COVID-19 was made in a laboratory."? 2600:1702:10A0:6DA0:71B1:8FB6:2531:3BE4 (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the suggestion. ϢereSpielChequers 21:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussed elsewhere under the heading "Lab Accident"Robertpedley (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Recommend starting a section on Reopening

I think it is the right time to start this section, even though just a few countries are beginning to do this, this will soon start to become a major topic throughout the world and it is best to start this section when it is still an early topic of discussion. This section can include general examples of reopening strategies used throughout the world, risks and problems associated with reopening, as well as some specific examples of countries reopening. Maybe even WHO recommendations on reopening when they come around to making them or the fact that currently they are cautioning against reopening. One interesting question that can be touched on in this section is what constitutes the "end" of an epidemic in a given country? Which nations have already declared that their epidemic has ended, and what criteria are they using? If done well, I envision a similar section on each nation's 2020 coronavirus pandemic page with more specific information for each specific country, state, or region. -- Beezer137 (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes agree with starting a section and maybe we need a who page on the topic?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

We don't have a section on Lockdown so you'd have to call it "Lockdown and Reopening". Lockdown measures in different countries are pretty diverse, and reopening measures more so (tattoo parlours in Georgia, US?). It's going to be difficult to get it right.Robertpedley (talk) 11:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hubei description in the lead

header refactored 19:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC) for clarity

I notice an interesting difference in the lead in this article and coronavirus disease 2019. There, a clause in the first paragraph of the intro reads The disease was first identified in December 2019 in Wuhan, the capital of China's Hubei province, whereas here we just use The outbreak was identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. A while back, it read The outbreak was identified in Wuhan, Hubei, China, in December 2019. The difference seems a little backwards, since we shouldn't have more on the origin at the disease article than the pandemic article. So: what phrasing should we use at each? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, I'm not too sure what you're concerned about. The first time the disease was noted was in Wuhan which eventually became the pandemic. It's appropriate to use "disease" in coronavirus disease 2019 and "outbreak" for this article that is talking about the pandemic. Is is the omission of "Hubei" that you have problems with? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: sorry, I should have clarified more. Yeah, it's the difference between "Wuhan, the capital of China's Hubei province", "Wuhan, Hubei, China", and "Wuhan, China". Which option do you prefer for here, and which for the disease article? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, I like being as specific as possible, so the third one is out. I also think that mentioning that the place of origin is the capital city is helpful as it is already notable, so my choice would have to be the first phrase for both articles. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I mildly prefer the 3rd "Wuhan, China" and consider any efforts to homogenize articles systematically as evil by definition. Sorry Tenryuu, that's about as far as it could be from your opinion ^^. Iluvalar (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Tenryuu and Iluvalar: Saying "Wuhan, China" rather than "Wuhan, Hubei, China" feels a little like saying "Boston, United States", rather than "Boston, Massachusetts, United States"; the former would sound odd to me. I don't have a good sense of how appropriate it is for Wuhan; do any MOS folks or folks with cultural knowledge want to weigh in? Regarding the longer option, I have some hesitations from WP:DUE — it's absolutely important information, yes, but for the second sentence of an article with as much to cover as this one, there is a massively high bar to clear. And there's also the matter of people who have sought to emphasize the virus's "Chineseness" for xenophobic reasons — I wouldn't want to give ammunition to that perspective by letting the coverage of the virus's early history in the lead become overlong. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: If you look at the Chinese Wikipedia's article on the subject, it reads "疫情最初在2019年12月於中華人民共和國湖北省武漢市開始爆發，隨", which, using my extensive Chinese knowledge (read: Google Translate), translates to "The outbreak began in Wuhan, Hubei province, the People’s Republic of China, in December 2019." I think this gives a bit of credibility to your argument. sam1370 (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the "Wuhan, China" wording is my doing: another user objected that having both "Hubei" and "China" was redundant and mentioning its capital-city status was excessive detail, and so they removed "China", but in an article on a global pandemic (on an edition of Wikipedia where many readers are unlikely to know Chinese province names) removing the country name was clearly bad, so I changed it from "Wuhan, Hubei" to "Wuhan, China". I would prefer "Wuhan, Hubei, China" (but would be fine with the "Wuhan, capital of China's Hubei province" wording, if that's preferred). I don't think it's a problem for articles to be inconsistent about such minor points, though—it's not as if any of the wordings differs on matters of fact, only presentation. -sche (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Its historical the lead was very unweildy in the early march editathons of hundreds and hundreds of additions per day, i was cutting text every day. I took out Hubei because It's unnecessary detail IMO. Wuhan, China is like saying Christchurch, New Zealand or Lyon, France or St Petersberg, Russia dont need the state or province in most articles not particularly about the region in question --Almaty (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Happy with Wuhan, China as it keeps it shorter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• Okay, so we're quite split here so far. We have 1 for the long version, 2 for "Wuhan, Hubei, China" (I'm starting to lean that way), and 3 for "Wuhan, China". I'm going to put out a few invites to see if I can gather some others to comment and help us flesh out consensus here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• I would prefer "Wuhan, China" - it's a little more brief and Wuhan is a reasonably large enough city in itself to allow omission of its province name. "Hubei" just doesn't feel like it has enough relation. Juxlos (talk) 06:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Wuhan, China is probably sufficient and shorter. Unless some significant cultural element emerges as discussed above by others. Wikilinks can be used if someone is wondering why it says Wuhan and not Hubei. Also: there is a relevant item in the project consensus: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19/Current_consensus let's remember to update it once this discussion is over as this decision applies potential to several project pages. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Map: Status of Nunavut

Nunavut needs to be grey on the map again. Their single case was a false positive. Source CBC News: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/covid-19-nunavut-false-positive-1.5554545 Basser g (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Wrong venue. You should mention this at the talk page for File:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map per Capita.svg. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Transclusion sections

I am sure most will agree that transclusion of sections is very detrimental for updating this article and is something we should be discouraging if we want editors to get involved here on this article. Wondering if we should take the time to just write the sections so they are not repetitive in nature and flow as one article. Lucky we dont have to many sections with this yet and I think It should be discouraged and fixed. I do remember us having a guideline or an essay on the merits and disadvantages of this but I cant find it (anyone remember the name of the essay?).--Moxy 🍁 15:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I tried swapping the transclusions for actual text and was reverted. I'm all for anything to reduce the post-expand include size and make editing easier. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. The number one thing transclusions help with is making sure material stays up to date, and that's extremely important when it comes to COVID-19. Copying transcluded sections would double the amount of work needed to keep everything updated, and result in many lesser-edited articles rapidly decaying. It's not hard for editors who want to update a section to go to that article, and if any extra clarification is needed, that's what hidden text is for. Also, I'm not sure where the idea that there aren't many transclusions here is coming from — there are a bunch and they're firmly established at this point. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I support reducing the number of transcluded sections. While they can be useful in some articles, and some of them (involving paragraphs full of frequently-updated figures) may be useful here, others are unhelpful and indeed harmful and result in text (and PEIS-limit-approaching references) being included here that may be fine for the main subtopic article but that is excessively detailed or redundant or undue in this global, full-topic overview article. This is particularly true with content that does not see overly frequent (substantive) changes, for which the rationale of keeping things up to date does not hold/apply, like the "misinformation" section. -sche (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Correct transclusion of pros text is just lazy and impedes article updating and flow. This causes a few problems - editors have to search for articles, creates repetitive text, triple editing to add references, non-relevant pictures being used and formatting and wording at the parent page just to accommodate transclusion.... all time consuming and discouraging for anyone not familiar with how portals type pages work. Also bad to have to start a discussion at one article when the intent is to change another article when the change may not be relevant to both articles...lets all try an encourage contributing not block it. Article sizes also a factor as mentioned above. --Moxy 🍁 18:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Transclusions have held up when they've been brought here before, and they have community support across Wikipedia more broadly. If you really dislike them for generalized reasons, I'd suggest going to the pump rather than trying to build a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here. Or, better, try to improve them rather than tearing them down by offering suggestions to the developers. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

What is best here in this article is the topic...I think it's best we write summaries for sections that don't have stats so all have the ability to edited here over having to convince others to change another article just to make a change here. We should make revision as easy as possible for anyone so we don't get dated statements. Telling editors to go start a talk somewhere else definitely doesn't address the concerns raised for this article.--Moxy 🍁 04:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Just as a procedural note, the question "should X paragraph be transcluded into Y article, or should article Y include different text on topic X?" is a question to be addressed no the talk page of article Y (here), and if you tried to file such a small-potatoes, in-the-weeds, article-specific RM in a big forum like the pump, you'd most likely be told you were in the wrong venue and should have a discussion here before possibly escalating to a bigger venue. -sche (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

We should start working on this as we just had an new editor block for edit waring because they had no clue what the non-inclusive tags are in an article. Not only is this making it harder for all to update the article it's also causing us to lose editors.--Moxy 🍁 00:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2020

Schools might go back to school on May 25th 203.218.207.118 (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Acalycine (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Title

The title of this article is different from other pandemics and epidemics. There is no year included in the title. So the title should be '2019-2020 COVID-19 pandemic'. The previous title '2019-20 Coronavirus pandemic' was better. --Wester (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

If I may, boldly, but this has been discussed with an RM which closed yesterday (see higher on the page). You (and I, and others) might not fully agree with the current result, but get over it. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)}}

That past discussion was on the topic of COVID-19 versus Coronavirus as name in the title. I simply point to the fact that the naming system of pandemics and epidemics is not followed here. A year should be added in the title, and '19' is not recognizable as a year. To follow the naming convention it should be '2020-19 COVID-19 pandemic'. --Wester (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wester: It is not per se standard to put the year in the title, unless there have been multiple pandemics with the same name. There has been only one Spanish flu, which is why we name the page "Spanish flu", and there has been only one COVID-19 pandemic. --MrClog (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic should be the final move decision even after when this is over just like "SARS" or "EBOLA". There no evidence the COVID-19 pandemic ended in 2020 from the start anyways even the oppose cant provide one. Regice2020 (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Please ping me when the 2047 COVID-19 pandemic hits (as we all know it will) and we can consider disambiguating the name. Until then, there was a lot of consideration put into the RM that just closed. Please don't make us implement another move moratorium; just let the new name stand. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wester: The title of the article was just changed recently, and we're in the process of changing all the other articles for consistency, so that's why they're not all the same. I'm starting to support the move moratorium that was proposed earlier. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 01:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Continuing of discussion about whether it is WP:DUE to include a sentence about there being no evidence for immunity in the lead

Hey User:Sdkb, since you reverted my edit including the sentence in the part of the article excerpted from the disease lead, I'd like to reopen the discussion (and hopefully get a few more opinions than just me and you as well). Personally, I believe that the fact that people who recover from the pandemic are not immune is an important thing that should be included in the lead, since I think it would be a common misconception considering the common characteristic among many diseases that recovering from them grants you immunity. sam1370 (talk) 05:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

To help out anyone else who wants to comment on this, the reversion diff is here and the prior discussion is here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

This seems important to me as it more or less directly addresses the cure. Benica11 (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Its a negative statement; there's no evidence for the opposite either. Important to keep clutter out of the lead. Plenty of room for something along these lines, further down the page. Robertpedley (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but it should be absent from the lead. --Almaty (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Robertpedley: Of course there's no evidence for the opposite either, but many diseases have that characteristic of recovered means immune, which I think is why the fact that there is no evidence recovereds are immune is making headlines. sam1370 (talk, contribs) 11:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree should go in the body not the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: Isn't it an important fact, however, that clears up a misconception that I believe should be fairly common? sam1370 (talk | contribs) 09:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Important and should go in the body. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Eh, alright. Maybe it can fit in Epidemiology or something. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 01:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Establishing consensus for "also known as" in the lead

I'd like to establish a consensus on what name (if any) should be included in "The COVID-19 pandemic, also known as..." in the lead.

I think there are three immediately obvious options:

1. Nothing, remove the clause entirely, because "COVID-19 pandemic" is accurate unlike many of the common names

2. "...also known as the coronavirus pandemic" because it is just as common, if not more, than the COVID-19 pandemic and because regardless of it's in accuracy (naming a pandemic after the virus instead of the disease) it is often called that (currently on the page as of time of writing)

3. "...also known as the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic", to help with the transition between the old name and the new. sam1370 (talk | contribs) 02:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• 3. "2019-20 coronavirus pandemic" still describes the time frame (assuming the pandemic doesn't go past into 2021). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

No need the 19 has nothing to do with a time frame but the year of discovery.... makes no difference if it goes on for 5 years....the disease is called COVID-19 and that won't change no matter how long it goes on. A new virus will have a new name.--Moxy 🍁 02:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Moxy, it does have to do with the time frame in the sense that the pandemic started in 2019. The virus name has already been decided. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The pandemic didn't start in 2019. The spread of the disease did. There is a huge difference. Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: However, it is less common, with the Google search (including quotes) "2019-20 coronavirus pandemic" returning 241,000 results, while "COVID-19 pandemic" returns 143 million and "Coronavirus pandemic" returns 136 million. Description as "also known as" would therefore be WP:UNDUE. The start date of the pandemic is only a few sentences away in the lead. sam1370 (talk | contribs) 02:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sam1370: (edit conflict) Google search results are not definitive proof and are subject to many limitations; see WP:GOOGLETEST. As I described in my comments to the RM discussion above, a search on google trends still shows that "coronavirus" is more frequently searched for than "covid". A prospective reader is thus likely to come here having searched for "coronavirus". 107.190.33.254 (talk) 02:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

107.190.33.254: WP:GOOGLETEST states that problems with partial search results can be fixed by putting the topic in quotation marks, which I have done. However, I agree with User:Tenryuu when he stated that the coronavirus pandemic is not the only one, and combined with your info that coronavirus is more frequently searched for than "covid" I change my stance to 3 as it seems to be the best option that is still precise. sam1370 (talk | contribs) 03:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Sam1370, "coronavirus pandemic" is inappropriate because SARS and MERS are also coronaviruses that had pandemics. I support 3 as the transitional option from what we had before. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: I see. However, is there any real need for a transitional name when we already have a redirect? sam1370 (talk | contribs) 03:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Sam1370, the article has gone through various renames starting from "Wuhan pneumonia"/"China pneumonia outbreak" to "2019-20 novel coronavirus outbreak" to "2019-20 coronavirus pandemic" and there had been thorough deliberation and consensus over each rename, which meant that the names were notable. The last one is still the most accurate out of all of them —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: I'm sure all of those were accurate at the time -- for example, "2019-20 novel coronavirus outbreak" named the specific coronavirus we are facing, unlike "2019-20 coronavirus pandemic", which actually makes it more accurate. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 05:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

​Except that there have been no other coronavirus pandemics in that time frame. Despite not being as popular as other search terms, it is still commonly used and understood as the COVID-19 pandemic, even if it is nominally incorrect. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: COVID-19 pandemic is nominally incorrect? Doesn't it follow all the rules of naming a pandemic, i.e. after the disease? sam1370 (talk / contribs) 00:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Sam1370, subject confusion. I was still referring to the "2019-20 coronavirus pandemic". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Ah, okay. 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic isn't as common as COVID-19 pandemic, as evidenced by Google search results (with the term quoted) "COVID-19 pandemic" is about 590 times more common (154 million vs 260 thousand). sam1370 (talk / contribs) 10:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• 2 or 3, I have not seen "2019-20 coronavirus pandemic" used outside anywhere but here as the previous title for this article (out of concerns for precision); and since the less precise "coronavirus" is commonly used instead of "covid-19" it should be included, in whichever form (precise or less so) is deemed most appropriate. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 02:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC) Edit 04:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

107.190.33.254: However, as Tenryuu stated, "coronavirus pandemic" is completely inaccurate because there have been multiple. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 03:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not disagree that "coronavirus pandemic" is wholly lacking in accuracy; my point was that outside of WP, I have not seen option 3 used (since mostly everybody is discussing the "current" (i.e. no dates required) pandemic). In the spirit of being somewhat precise and future-proof I see no significant problem with variant 3 either. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I see your point. Actually, I've changed my mind on this one: SARS and MERS were not, as User:Tenryuu said, coronavirus pandemics: see 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus outbreak and 2002–2004 SARS outbreak. I now support 2. By the way, is there any specific reason you haven't made an account? I'm not sure if this is all you, but your IP address appears to have made over two thousand edits. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 05:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Sam1370, I'll concede to that. They were at most epidemics. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

2 (or 3), although we might change "also known as" to "commonly known as". Pace the editors who find it technically inaccurate, it's certainly common... although, as long as "coronavirus" occurs somewhere in the first sentence, I suppose the identity of the ongoing "coronavirus pandemic" with the "COVID-19 pandemic" will be adequately apparent even if we drop the a.k.a.-clause. -sche (talk) 05:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

1, although not simply for that reason. "...also known as the coronavirus pandemic" gives undue prominence to a loose, almost slang, reference. "...also known as the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic" is not true for most. "Could be recognized" might be true, but "known as" is a high threshold statement. If anywhere, a brief synopsis of what people were calling it in different times and places belongs in COVID-19 pandemic#History, not the lede sentence. This article is already content heavy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: I disagree; many news sources refer to the COVID-19 pandemic as the coronavirus pandemic and a search on Google (with the respective terms quoted) shows they both have around the same number of results, which eliminates any possibility of WP:UNDUE. "Also known as" is just that, "also known as", and does not guarantee that it is in accordance with the rules of naming a pandemic or that it is not slang. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 07:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Many news sources are not reliable sources. Ghits is even worse. Look at quality sources. Surely, the quality sources are represented by the reference list. I just went though the first 12 references. The “COVID-19 pandemic” is dominant, where the word “pandemic” occurs at all. Only one uses “Coronavirus pandemic”, and it was a paragraph about what Trump had to say. The high Ghits you mention can be explained by the previous title of this article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: The Ghits for the article in quotes only number about 300,000. Reliable sources are a reliable source for the information they provide, not how common something is, while Google hits, with the term quoted, is a fairly accurate measure of how popular a term is. Of course reliable sources are going to use the more precise wording, because they are reliable and accurate. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 01:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sam1370. I'm not sure what you're saying to me there. #1 is good. It's the name that matches the sources. #2 is bad, because although loosely known as "the coronavirus pandemic", it is not the first coronavirus pandemic, and putting it there like like makes it liable to mislead. #3 is cumbersome, is not supported by any of the first twelve references, and if it goes anywhere it belongs in the History section; it is but one of a set of terms that have been used. #1 is simple and accurate and the way forward. If #1 is not adopted immediately due to the recent title change, it should be adopted fairly soon, unless something changes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: To clarify, I support 2. #1 is fine, but 2 is better as it includes a name that is approximately as common as COVID-19 pandemic. This is the first coronavirus pandemic, the other outbreaks/epidemics being 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus outbreak and 2002–2004 SARS outbreak. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 10:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• 2 with 3 being my second choice. 2 gets 136 million hits. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Anything but 3. The old name was a compromise, whereas "also known as ..." is used to describe other common names. "2019-20 coronavirus pandemic" is not a common name. "coronavirus pandemic" or, "corona pandemic", yes, but no one right now says "2019-20", partially because it wasn't even a pandemic until 2020 but mostly because we're still in the middle of it (or, more likely, somewhere at the start). As of right now I'd agree with both 1 and 2, with a slight preference for 1 since we don't really need an alternative title that may again be debated. Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Prinsgezinde: I think having an alternative title will be useful for clarity, since it shows up in Google search results and is right there so readers who are unfamiliar with "COVID-19 pandemic" can see the alternative title. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 01:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Citation errors

There are few citation errors that I have found. It would be great if someone fixes those. Thanks, Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you list the precise location of these errors here so we don't have to go looking for them? Also, you're extended-confirmed, so you can always fix them yourself -- just an FYI if you didn't know. sam1370 (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not that good in citaions, and I didn't know if the citation name(multiple uses?) is wrong, link is wrong, etc. Next time, I would put the citation number.(Red ones in the main article.) Also, I apologize because I can't spend enough time on Wikipedia these days. Sorry! Just wanted to help.Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Luke Kern Choi 5: No need to apologize at all; I should have realized that not everyone was able to fix the citation. If you list the citation numbers in the article here, I can try to fix them. sam1370 (talk, contribs) 21:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Luke Kern Choi 5: I accidentally linked your user page as a template last time, so just redoing the ping here so you get the notification. sam1370 (talk, contribs) 11:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!!! Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Citation 706 says this... Cite error: The named reference no_covid was invoked but never defined (see the help page). Possibly an error about nickname??? Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

No historian is going to refer to as COVID-19

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.

---

No historian is going to refer to as COVID-19. It's called Coronavirus Pandemic--128.114.255.218 (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

This issue has already been decided at § Requested move 26 April 2020, though I appreciate your concerns. --MrClog (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

A pandemic is named after a disease, not the virus (and especially not an entire virus family, which is what "coronavirus" is), so that's simply incorrect. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 01:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Also see WP:CRYSTALBALL. QueerFilmNerd^talk 01:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Also historians would all set the coronavirus pandemic to start a few million years ago, not 2020. Bad title. Iluvalar (talk) 14:56, 5 May 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.

Reference sources

Original agency sources are preferable to Yahoo News quoting them. Currently the source for "it was later discovered that a person near Paris tested positive for the virus on 27 December 2019 after retesting old samples" is https://www.yahoo.com/news/retesting-samples-french-hospital-discovers-153353216.html. It should be replaced with https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-france-idUSKBN22G20L which is what appears at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_France#cite_note-Reut4520-29. At the moment I'm being prevented from changing the URL. Mcljlm (talk) 10:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done: updated as requested. robertsky (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to independently re-open this request. As at COVID-19 pandemic in France, the following ref should either be added or substituted for the above one since it is the actual original source for this (i.e. it's the paper by the researchers).

"SARS-COV-2 was already spreading in France in late December 2019". International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents. In Press, Journal Pre-proof. 2020-05-03.

Thanks, 107.190.33.254 (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done: however, fair game if some other editor decides that the additional ref is not necessary here. You may want to update in COVID-19 pandemic in France as well. robertsky (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Is coverage really 'neutral' enough? specially in article leads & 'impact' articles & sections

As a reader, each of my subsequent visits to various COVID-19 pandemic related articles bemuse me more.

If there were no human individual & group failures, then how did the decease spread ? If failures at multiple levels contributed spread of decease where is adequate Wikipedia coverage?

People and groups not following expected precautions on various pretexts- whether for secular or non secular reasons does not seem to to be adequately covered. Whether it is half-heartedness of W.H.O. in issuing timely advisories; to governments, to groups, to individuals; not following advisories. Failures are at multiple level and media seems to have if not enough minimal coverage of the criticism of human failures in giving pandemic proportions to the decease .

My contention is Wikipedians do not seem to cover criticism, as I said each of my visit I find refrain, avoidance, curtailment, window dressing and at places undeclared censorship that criticism does not get wider attention. On side note many times I find Wikipedia consensus more of a democratic process than logical process which tends to indirectly compromise on neutrality.

Most of 'impact' articles & sections are unidirectional, how the COVID-19 pandemic affected 'So and so' but hardly any mention of the 'so and so' were likely contributors to spread of pandemic and many not taking seriously and flouting public health wise very important advisories.

Is not main article COVID-19 pandemic indirectly connected to sub topic article? and talk page of main article does not want to entertain failure of neutrality in subtopic article than how does main article remains neutral?

As a Wikipedia editor my present focus is some other topics, still I attempted to give minor coverage to criticism part, but as a reader and frank reviewer I find information gaps on above mentioned topics.

Thanks and greetings

Bookku (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, centralized discussion is @ Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#Is_coverage_really_'neutral'_enough?_specially_in_article_leads_&_'impact'_articles_&_sections thanks.

Bookku (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Could you give some examples of where specifically in the article you see an absence of neutrality? For example, can you provide an example for "how the COVID-19 pandemic affected 'So and so' but hardly any mention of the 'so and so' were likely contributors to spread of pandemic and many not taking seriously and flouting public health wise very important advisories."? Would be very useful for this discussion. Thanks. Acalycine (talk) 04:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:BOLD rewrite of virturally all of transmission

@Doc James: - just removing redundancy and following the WHO faq predominantly. I like explaining it to people that the surfaces are the small droplets, its the same method. And as I was saying during our dispute, the surfaces are not as important in WHO's opinion anymore.

WOuld appreciate a discussion of this as opposed to a complete rewrite! Thanks James. --Almaty (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

that's a lot to rewrite IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)\

Yes done because the QnAs cited especially by the WHO and ECDC have been entirely rewritten, and they now synthesize the very same evidence we were trying to do. So the rewrite aims to follow WP:MEDRS and avoid WP:SYNTH, whilst giving the primary studies that the WHO ECDC and CDC use their WP:DUE weight. Also the previous revision repeated itself a lot. --Almaty (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

When something like this is done it would be better to include a WP:DIFF to help others see what you did. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 07:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

coronavirus pandemic

this article should be renamed simply "coronavirus pandemic" this isnt a science journal. the intricacies and details are described within the article. no historian is going to refer to this disease as COVID-19 i assure you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.114.255.226 (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, there are many different coronaviruses, and Wikipedia's goal is to be as accurate as possible. For example, both COVID-19 and SARS are coronaviruses and caused outbreaks, but we don't title them both "coronavirus pandemic". Andromeda26430 (talk) 06:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a page move discussion up the page. But if either of you bring comments there, please try to refrain from such gross crystal balling, and inform yourselves about the difference between a virus and a disease. Kevin McE (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

A bit unnecessarily hostile towards Andromeda26430 there, Kevin McE, it's a pretty common mistake to call COVID-19 a virus and their point actually still stands. In any case, I agree that the IP is not contributing to a discussion here with this thread. Prinsgezinde (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Much of the thrust of the discussion, I would suggest the entire essence of the discussion, has been about the naming differences between viruses and diseases. I believe it is perfectly reasonable to ask people to come to the discussion with clarity about that distinction. Kevin McE (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

As discussed in the previous requested move, a pandemic is named after the disease, not the virus, so "COVID-19 pandemic" is the accurate name. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 18:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You don't know how historians will refer to this. I'd think it's more likely they call it COVID-19 because SARS is a coronavirus. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

lead sentence inline citation

Does the leading first sentence need an inline citation to a reference with the information? The text in the first sentence is not in the following inline citation, but I suppose it is the main article. If so, this could be used, but I couldn't find a WHO one. Whispyhistory (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:LEADCITE, I think it'd probably be fine without it. Unless we have some really stellar source we just can't resist pointing people to up top. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying... Whispyhistory (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure that belongs within this article. As time goes on yes we may need an article on addressing multiple disasters simultaneously which could than be linked to from here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2020

Say how much 5 trillion rials equals in the Iran section (USD, Euro) 68.96.114.42 (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done per WP:CURRENCY. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Auto-archiving...

I don't know why it isn't working atm, I think it's because of the somewhat-recent massive title-change and maybe something about the title of target-page isn't quite right or whatever. Can we please try to figure out what's wrong with the code and stop manually archiving? It will be almost impossible to keep up with the sheer volume of posts here by archiving manually... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

FIXED IT. Please let the bot do its thing, it should kick in later tonight/today. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 7 May 2020

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

---

COVID-19 pandemic → 2019–20 COVID-19 pandemic... what if there was another one? 2019–20 COVID-19 pandemic would make it easy to distinguish from, say... 2027–28 COVID-19 pandemic. On the other hand, COVID-19 pandemic and 2027–28 COVID-19 pandemic would make it very confusing, right? Stay COVID free, 🐔Chicdat ^ChickenDatabase 12:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The title is good final...This is a pandemic of the COVID-19 disease ...there wont be another call 19. A new virus will have a new name and a new name for the disease. See here for more information.--Moxy 🍁 13:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

"What if there was another one?" sounds a lot like WP:CRYSTAL to me; and we aren't yet out of the woods with this one so we shouldn't be in a hurry to wait for the next one... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

If there is another one, then we can change it, but there isn't, so we shouldn't. This topic has already been discussed extensively at the move request on 26 April. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 19:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy Close After reviewing overwhelming info from the recent completed move request few days ago. The COVID-19 pandemic shall be final name of this article regardless if people like or not. This is same way how SARS and EBOLA was named. Regice2020 (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:CONCISE. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy close too soon after the previous RM consensus. An exception to a ~6 month delay on revisiting a consensus RM decision demands a comprehensive rationale, including addressing specific points raised in the previous RM(s). A rapid, low-detail rapid repeat of a RM is disrespectful of the previous discussion and its close. WP:TROUT the RM nominator, Chic, for not even mentioning Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Requested_move_26_April_2020, let alone speaking to its substance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy close - "what if there was another one" sounds a tad WP:CRYSTAL to me. MiasmaEternal^TALK 05:34, 8 May 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.

Turning the references list into a scroll box

The references section takes up nearly half the scroll length of this article. I think this may be discouraging to readers, since they may not realize they're making as much progress as they actually are (e.g. "I've already read a lot, but the scroll bar says I'm only a third done!"). An interesting solution I noticed at the Vietnamese Wikipedia is to turn the references section into a scroll box, similar to what we're already doing with the main cases table. It's a little ugly there since there's no light border on the top/bottom, but that could be fixed here. Would this be desirable? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Support - this is a good idea, but are we sure that such a solution will not cause display issues on certain devices? i.e. scrollbar not displayed. Thanks. Acalycine (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, we'll have to be careful with the implementation. But we should be able to find a way if the idea itself has support. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Accessibility to information should be our main goal MOS:DONTHIDE - - all tertiary sources such as encyclopedias are designed to introduce readers to a topic, not to be the final point of reference. Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, provides overviews of a topic and indicates sources of more extensive information for researcher and education.--Moxy 🍁 12:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This is merely an attempt at treating the symptoms of an oversized-article (see, this article has the highest number of references for a proper article in main-space (i.e. excluding lists)). I don't think it's necessary, and in any case I think it would be preferable if we could somehow focus down the info and reduce the size rather than having to resort to such measures (318 KB is well above the recommended split size, and this also ignores all the transcluded sections...) 107.190.33.254 (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It was a lot of work getting the one scroll box to work. Not sure we need one for the references... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Floods combined with coronavirus

It would be good to have section on health experts concerns about how severe floods affect severity of illness and how it gets transmitted, measures to deal with it that are in place or planned on. At least in the usa, and probably elswhere too, a lot of floods could happen later this year.Rich (talk)

are there any references that touch upon that?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

When we have sources we can discuss multiple disasters occurring simultaneously, not sure it belongs here necessarily. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Move moratorium

As we finally passed final name "COVID-19 pandemic" for this article and first step on improving page with correct info. We still need the move requests controlled meaning no one should doing it for next 30 days. This is to prevent "opposed" move disruption on the COVID-19 pandemic page.Regice2020 (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment How about we wait and see if the RM's become a problem or not. The moratoriums are to prevent disruptive discussion, not act as pre-emptive strikes for possible unwanted proposals. Mgasparin (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The RM we just had was huge, and probably contains arguments against almost all other reasonable name changes. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 03:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Mga, we should wait and see if they become an issue. If they do we can propose another one. QueerFilmNerd (talk | contribs) 03:57, 4 May 2020‎ (UTC)

Propose the standard 6 months following a consensus decision, and this means hiding this thread, because this thread is in violation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

*We should wait to see if any issue occurs. Not sure we need a moratorium currently. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support as we are already getting move requests. Maybe this one should be for 3 months. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment If RM counter was not record high, then move request fetish indeed existing. But at least April 26's one was interesting. --91.207.170.201 (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not necessary - If multiple persons propose RM that are not substantially different from the previous ones then we might reconsider this but as of right now this appears premature. In any case, if any such RM was proposed in the near-future, I would see no objection to a speedy close for it being disruptive...107.190.33.254 (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Suggestion: A moratorium might be overly strict, but we're already having issues below. What I would suggest would be a requirement that requested moves have to themselves be proposed. So, before you'd be allowed to use the RM tag and place a notice on the article, you'd have to open a small meta discussion on the talk page here about whether there is sufficient interest in holding a RM. This would allow us to shut down the more frivolous ones while providing a path for more serious proposals. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Wait: Such actions should be reactive, not anticipatory. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• wait per benlisquare--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Criticism (Censorship)

Added COVID-19_pandemic#Criticism section here [18]. I was surprised no section, I suppose eventually there is an article for this, but for now can be a placeholder. If there is already and article, please let me know as it then should be crosslinked. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

FYI Section was immediately renamed COVID-19_pandemic#Censorship which I dont have any present objection to. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, relegating "criticisms" and negative reactions to a single section is poor practice. We should not allow the section to grow without integrating it into the rest of the article. Elizium23 (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Its standard pratice for a wikipedia article to have a criticism or controversy section and as you mention no requirement that the content cant also be woven into the aritcle as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not standard practice, but it's "sometimes appropriate": please see Wikipedia:Criticism#"Criticism"_section. Capewearer (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I moved the section out of the entry; in addition to the issue mentioned above, it's not at all clear that the three quite disparate news stories cited (and poorly summarized: e.g., in the first sentence, who censored what? and in the second sense, whose COVI-19 response was questioned?) are WP:DUE a place in this already overlong top-level global summary article as opposed to the three(!) more relevant articles, to wit Media coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic, COVID-19 pandemic on social media, and Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on journalism. -sche (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Reverted, [19] WP:NOBLANKING applies. Dont do it again. Jtbobwaysf (talk)

@Jtbobwaysf:: Per WP:BRD, you need consensus to add such a section, and as the edit notice you see when editing the page states, this page is subject to discretionary sanctions above and beyond the existing BRD rules. Continuing to add such content without consensus tends to result in being blocked from editing. Cheers! :) -sche (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

May be some one would also look @ Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#Is coverage really 'neutral' enough? specially in article leads & 'impact' articles & sections

Bookku (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Is it really helpful?

...changing all instances of {{nbsp}} to  ? If it's to improve page loading speed then I believe there are other more effective ways to do this (notably, by actually reducing article size by removing extraneous content...)? 107.190.33.254 (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it reduces a template call? Not sure, though. It makes the wikitext slightly less readable but doesn't otherwise harm. Hopefully whoever did it knew what they were doing and judged it helpful in reducing the page size. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Whoever did it is [still] laughing his ass off. (Settle down, kids.) --Brogo13 (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

POV fork

Per WP:POVSPLIT and WP:PRESERVE putting this here

The scientific consensus is that COVID-19 has a natural origin.

This is a POV fork and doesnt belong on this article. This type of WP:MEDRS statement in wikivoice needs to be left on the medical article Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, which btw doesnt support this POV. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Please see Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#The_Question_of_Origin where this has already been discussed to great depth. The article on the virus which you link has no statement about the various conspiracy theories which suggest this virus originated in a lab; and in fact all of it appears to take for granted that the virus had a natural origin... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure what the issue is? It is the consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, i didnt see it on the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 thus I was surprised. I've added it it over at the other article. If there is not wikipedia consensus to include it on both articles, then it has no business on this article and not the other. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Europe missing from history section

The history section jumps from late January to where the United States is the center of the pandemic. Europe was the center of the pandemic at some point. This should at least be mentioned. The U.S got it from Europe? How, if there were no cases in Europe? But we know there were. The article just doesn't say it, at least there.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

article is too long already--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that Europe should be in the history section. It looks like it is: On 31 January 2020, Italy had its first confirmed cases, two tourists from China.[500] As of 13 March 2020 the WHO considered Europe the active centre of the pandemic.[501] On 19 March 2020, Italy overtook China as the country with the most deaths.[502] By 26 March, the United States had overtaken China and Italy with the highest number of confirmed cases in the world. Not sure if that's a recent addition or not. The history section focuses too much on the early history; that part should be trimmed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Possibly good news regarding the mortality rate

Hello.

Would the following information be useful to incorporate into the article, if it has not been cited previously?

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/04/11/why-a-study-showing-that-covid-19-is-everywhere-is-good-news

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/17/antibody-study-suggests-coronavirus-is-far-more-widespread-than-previously-thought

Help to do so would be appreciated if it is deemed acceptable

David A (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

In addition, has it been mentioned that the United Nations think that the global shutdowns could cause 265 million people to starve?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52373888

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/un-warns-biblical-famines-due-coronavirus/

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/22/africa/coronavirus-famine-un-warning-intl/index.html

https://www.france24.com/en/20200422-un-says-food-shortages-due-to-covid-19-pandemic-could-lead-to-humanitarian-catastrophe

David A (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

We've been sitting on the antibodies results for a while now. The tests are not the most reliable. Although it have been conducted in many place around the world with the same ~20%ish result. I also note that today Robertpedley cleaned up Doc James IFR chapter. The higher estimates have just been removed. So, in some sens, the article is moving. I'd expect both of them to come have a chat here later today. Iluvalar (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for the information. What about the projections of mass-starvation released by the UN? David A (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The UN announcement is relevant IMO. Not sure how and were we should cover it. Primary source : 2020 GLOBAL REPORT ON FOOD CRISES (there is a page about covid-19). Iluvalar (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Were other than NYC is the result 20%? We should be moving to review articles at this point rather than the popular press and primary sources. By the way 0.15% have died in NYC from COVID, with 20% maybe infected that would give an IFR of maybe 0.6%. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

What the IFR is, is separate from projections regarding if people are going to starve. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, according to models by the Public Health Agency of Sweden, 26% of the population of Stockholm county (0.26 x 2.344 million = 609440 people) have supposedly currently been infected at some point, and Sweden as a whole currently only has 2669 dead from the infection: [20]

That said, the researchers may have changed their mathematical models since then. I unfortunately haven't kept up to date regarding every detail.

In any case, as far as I have understood, this article also lists social effects of the pandemic, and 265 million starving people is certainly an enormously devastating social effect. David A (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Doc James the first tests you questionned was from california, germany had similar results. I kinda lost track, there is a few more places, all with similar results. Chelsea, Massachusetts ? Between 15% to 25% of the world seems infected already. Iluvalar (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The Santa Clara study claimed 2.5 to 4.2% of people had antibodies not 20%.[21]

User:CFCF can you read the Swedish paper?

Which ref says "Between 15% to 25% of the world seems infected already"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is the main page containing the PDF document. It was released April 21, so it is fairly recent: https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/publicerat-material/publikationsarkiv/s/skattning-av-peakdag-och-antal-infekterade-i-covid-19-utbrottet-i-stockholms-lan-februari-april-2020/ https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/publicerat-material/publikationsarkiv/e/estimates-of-the-peak-day-and-the-number-of-infected-individuals-during-the-covid-19-outbreak-in-the-stockholm-region-sweden-february--april-2020/

That said, it was almost 2 weeks ago, so I am not certain that they haven't changed their estimations since then. I will check to see if I find something. David A (talk) 07:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't find any further updates via several adjusted Google searches at least. David A (talk) 08:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Roche's antibody test claims a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 99.8% and got FDA EUA, warrants inclusion. Havent seen the studies but if this is true it warrants inclusion --Almaty (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

So should we add mentions of the reliable studies that indicate a much lower mortality rate in the page? David A (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay it says "To estimate the model parameters, we used a survey that showed that 2.5% of the population in the Stockholm region were infected between March 27 and April 3." So did they do antibody tests and find that 26% of people had antibodies? Does not look like it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. I think that they simply made mathematical models of the projected infection rate. David A (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Doc James, I must say i'm confused, I'm sure the santa clara study was mentioning data for santa clara CITY which was significantly higher then in all the county. But who knows, maybe i'm just going crazy. It seems obvious that in most big city the R0 of COVID is a bit higher then in less populated area, which cause a large variation of prevalence. [22]. So when I say 15%-25% that's in the big city, the regions around are lagging behind. Iluvalar (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

So is somebody experienced willing to insert the United Nations mass-starvation projections into the article? David A (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Or am I allowed to make an attempt to start a brief new section myself? David A (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Anyone? David A (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@David A: WP:BOLD. The worse than can happen is that somebody disagrees with how it's done and this discussion continues. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I have added it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic#Food_shortages David A (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It was moved here instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic#Socioeconomics David A (talk) 06:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

We need reliable sources to provide something like 80 million (1% of 8 billion people) overall (including 4 million confirmed cases) were exposed and/or infected by COVID-19 from Dec 2019-May 2020, especially be in mind the pandemic's place of origin Wuhan has 11 million people in a country like China with 1.4 billion people. 2605:E000:100D:C571:7D82:A683:E434:DB3D (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I still think that it seems extremely important for us to collaborate to find and include references to all reliable studies that indicate a much lower mortality rate than the initial WHO estimates. It could help us to avoid a global depression and mass-starvation: [23] [24] [25] David A (talk) 06:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I suppose that I could try to write something academically appropriate regarding the references that I already know of on my own, if I am allowed to, but I would appreciate some guidance regarding which section of the page that it should be added to. Thanks in advance for any help. David A (talk) 07:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Here are several reliable sources that cite the Stanford University study, which calculated a total mortality rate of 0.12% to 0.2%: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] David A (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I have added a brief text segment: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_pandemic&type=revision&diff=955854649&oldid=955853194 David A (talk) 05:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Never mind. It was rejected as redundant, which seems like a valid point after further inspection of the section: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_pandemic&type=revision&diff=955863694&oldid=955860782 David A (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

We’re building consensus right now. I will not respond further to this user’s inexplicable attitude and fingerpointing. I’ve made my point. This person is just systematically trying to have it their way. EelamStyleZ (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Did you intend to respond to another section of the talk page? David A (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC on censorship section

The subject of this RfC is if we should keep or delete the sub-section on censorship. At the time of this RfC, the subjection contains the content below, however the content is not the subject of this RfC, as that would conflate the issue. This RfC is limited to whether or not a subsection is DUE or not. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

---Censorship--- "The Guardian said censorship of coronavirus facts began during the early phase of the pandemic in China. The UK's Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies criticized the UK government for censoring a report it drafted that questioned the UK's COVID-19 response, with Steve Reicher calling the response "Stalinist". The Washington Post wrote about YouTube's and Facebook's censorship of the film Plandemic, which featured Judy Mikovits's criticism of the pandemic response."

References

Survey (censorship)

• Keep as there is widespread coverage of censorship by both media and government thus WP:DUE is met. WP:TOOLONG is not a justification removal of entire swaths of content (as been suggested above on this talk page). Lots more sources shown in any quick google search NPR: EU Officials' Opinion Piece In Chinese Newspaper Censored On Coronavirus Origin, foreignpolicy.com: Coronavirus Has Started a Censorship Pandemic, thediplomat: Southeast Asia’s Coronavirus-Driven Censorship, NYT.com: China Post-Coronavirus: Signs of Life, Censorship and Paranoia, etc. Too many to list. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove as it can be discussed in one sentence or less with a wikilink. --Almaty (talk) 08:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove and cover relevant content elsewhere. Generally, I think "Censorship", "Controversies" and sections of that nature are clumsy, and they attract lots of disparate information that I think is almost always better addressed in other ways and other places.

  Specifically to this example, I think coverage of alleged Chinese censorship is a reasonable thing to have somewhere, but as I say, it just sticks out as clumsy in a general "Censorship" section. In specific coverage of China somewhere might be a better place for it?

  Then on to the Plandemic thing. It's alleged censorship of a conspiracy theory nutjob making obviously false accusations and allegations, and it's one step away from "censorship" at the core of the pandemic itself. If we include "censorship" of anything anyone says about any aspect of the pandemic, or of anything people say about anything other people say, we'd be opening up an already very long article to potentially huge amounts of disjointed and distracting material. Another thing is that "Censorship" is a very loaded term, and we'd be appearing to judge the decisions made by Facebook et al to not offer a platform for it. Is it protecting people from dangerous lunacy, or is it censorship? Is it some of both? Is it for us to judge by applying a single label? Am I talking to much? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Remove per Boing! said Zebedee. This really doesn't need more than a single sentence and a wikilink at most. It's not remotely appropriate for us to be making value judgements in Wikipedia's voice that privately-owned websites deciding not to offer a platform to assorted mentalists equates to "censorship". ‑ Iridescent 08:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove Removing someone screaming fire in a theater ala Pandemic movie is not censorship, it is simple not allowing ones platform to be used to propagate dangerous misinformation / conspiracy theories. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove The early claims about COVID-19 was something along the line of an IFR of 25% if I recall correctly. It was absolutely no "facts", and there was in no way enough scientific evidence to claim such thing. So as Doc James say, screaming about apocalyptic scenario in any public chat will lead you to some resistance. I tried to point out to the WikiProject COVID-19 participant that Italy reached a plateau before it was cool to say such thing (it was on fringe of WP:OR back then). I got censored and called "troll" by other participants here. Same kind of situation. As much as I don't like china's censorship reputation, it have no encyclopedic value here. Iluvalar (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• remove per all of the above editors--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove No need to keep, as just a one sentence and a wiki-link is enough, per Iridescent Idealigic (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per Jtbobwaysf. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Include in some form in the "Information dissemination" section, but not as a separate section. I don't particularly like the proposed text; some workshopping would be needed before it'd be ready for inclusion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Don't include per Iridescent and my comment in the earlier section; stringing three incidents together and asserting that they constitute evidence of "censorship" seems WP:SYNTH-y aside from this not seeming to be WP:DUE so much weight in this article. We do already link to COVID-19 pandemic on social media and two articles no the relationship of COVID-19 to journalism. If someone wants to propose a shorter text as suggested above, that can be discussed on its own merits. :) -sche (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Keep as it is a distinct and notable piece of information that has several main development areas and, as such, it deserves a subsection.--Forich (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The main image - against policy?

the old image

the new image

the new cropped version

Thinking about the main image which is sourced from here, I cannot see consent of the patient subjects of the image to be used in this way so visibly. The image use policy states Because of the expectation of privacy, the consent of the subject should normally be sought before uploading any photograph featuring an identifiable individual that has been taken in a private place,...examples of private places include Any medical facility. I support replacing it with another image, perhaps one of the many from the US military such as this with clear consent --Almaty (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Support removal and replacement, if we are clear that the farsnews.ir image was not taken with consent of the patients. It's possible that they asked them, but of course if we don't know consent has been given then we should proceed as if it hasn't. Acalycine (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• The pts in those images are not identifiable no matter how far one zooms in though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that they are based on physical characteristics, location etc. It is certainly unethical unless they gave consent, we don't even know if they lived or died, and isn't it 70% of those requiring intubation die? Especially at that point of the outbreak. Not that it makes a difference. No consent = not appropriate for inclusion, as per the policy. --Almaty (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure I would call them "identifiable" but I have no concern with you using another image instead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Found a high resolution image of a nurse in appropriate PPE preparing a COVID-19 patient for procedure in ICU. Just with this one can't see the patient, so I think that works well. Also US is the current centre of the pandemic, so OK to use globally. --Almaty (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The old image was fine, in my view; the patient was not identifiable. Editorially, I have only a very mild preference for it compared to the new one, though (which is a little visually cluttered). So if anyone feels strongly enough about it to revert, I'll support that, but I'm not going to revert myself. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I can ask the commons image people if they can help with the new image cluttering. I think the old image you can identify the patients, because you know 1. The hospital 2. The date 3. The location, 4. the bed location 5. the Body mass index and other visual features such as hair colour and rough age. So, a family member or friend may be able to identify the two patients. Also we do not have explicit permission from the health worker for them to be identified, so it is both unethical and against policy. We don't just upload patient images of conditions at random to wikipedia just because they may or may not be identifiable, without their permission. But with these patients, they may be able to be identified, and we don't even know if they're alive. --Almaty (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I've asked the graphists at the commons whether they can help with the framing and cluttering, they're usually really good! --Almaty (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

New cropped version of the image added. PawełMM (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:PawełMM! It turns out there is a possibly higher resolution of the image on the US Navy's Flickr I'm not sure if it's helpful graphically or not. If others think there's a better image to use there or elsewhere please discuss I just happen to think this is the best one from the search I had time for today, and was quite keen to replace the previous image ASAP. --Almaty (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, it makes no sense to replace the image with a better resolution. The one used is good enough. PawełMM (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Almaty and PawełMM: My understanding would be that we should absolutely replace the version on commons with the highest resolution copy available. Regarding the cropping, it helps make the image less cluttered, but it also causes it to really dwarf the other images in the panorama. I'm neutral as to whether that's okay or not, though; perhaps I just need a few days to adjust to it. Sorry to be so picky; it's a very important spot. If anyone wants to search more thoroughly and open up a new thread with a gallery of candidates, that might be good. There's also some room to improve the other images — I like the trucks and conference ones, but the supermarket and airport ones could perhaps be replaced with something better. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment. The cropped version of the new image does IMO give the impression that C.P.R. is being performed on the patient. This coupled with the big size of the image evokes shock/sensationalism. If the editorial *consensus* supports switching to this new image, then I would like to suggest that we use the original/wide shot version instead. Thank you, History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 03:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Length

This tag was added. I am not seeing discussion here. The world count of the text is 18,000. What section should be cut? Recommendation is to keep text under 100 kb / 20,000 words. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• My thoughts, I'll put them under separate headings so people can support or oppose. I did lots of major cuts back in March, but it has become over long again. --Almaty (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• I don't think the tag was appropriate, and I'm glad to see it gone now. The page loading time is a bit concerning, but ultimately this is a big topic with a well-developed article, so it's going to be longer than most. There are a few sections that could be cut down, yes, and possibly even a few things to add in a few places (although we need to be very judicious on that), but on the whole it's not terrible. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

International responses

Can be one third of the size --Almaty (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree this section can be summarized more tightly. Doing so will entail bypassing the 'excerpting" which is currently used to shoehorn in unimportant details. -sche (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I trimmed a ton of less-important stuff out of the "travel restrictions" section, moving it to its main article, in diff. -sche (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I also dropped the list of specific companies that had donated to China, as excessive detail here. -sche (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I would consider also dropping the bit that starts "On the same day, U.S. Secretary" and reiterated that on 3 April", which amounts to "the US said it'd do something but China said it didn't". -sche (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

yes, it seems to be too much info for this article at present--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. As I mentioned below, I think that it is vital with elaborate information for the public at large when it comes to a global crisis that greatly affects all of us. David A (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Diagrams

I support the main epidemic curve, the cases per million map and the ten most affected countries semi log plot, the rest can be on sub pages and removed from this page. --Almaty (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The data IMO is very useful for understanding the pandemic and we should keep it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with Doc James. David A (talk) 10:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Deaths

Quite repetitive section and probably a fair bit too much detail. --Almaty (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Can be trimmed some a decent amount of detail is still needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think that this contains extremely important information for the public at large to be made aware of, and that the section in question is not particularly long in the first place. David A (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Containment and mitigation

This can be mostly spun out to sub articles, reads like a public health textbook at present. --Almaty (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Duration

It has a few expert opinions. I think we can say what the WHO said and that expert opinion varies and we simply do not know how long the pandemic will last. --Almaty (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Happy to see this moved elsewhere. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this can be cut down some. I would start by trimming this. I might even cut it all the way down to just these sentences and their refs: The WHO said on 11 March 2020 the pandemic could be controlled. The Imperial College study led by Neil Ferguson stated that physical distancing and other measures will be required "until a vaccine becomes available". William Schaffner of Vanderbilt University said because the coronavirus is "so readily transmissible", it "might turn into a seasonal disease, making a comeback every year". -sche (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

National responses

This can be summarized with China - 5 sentences. United States - 5 sentences. Italy, Iran, UK, Spain, 4 sentences. Every other country 3 sentences. --Almaty (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Or even less. Where there is a wikilink to a sub-article there is no reason for so much main page content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed but i think China can have 5 sentences possibly the US. --Almaty (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

An alternative is to have no national responses sections, and just put it all under "history", massively summarized. --Almaty (talk) 08:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

No concerns with it being trimmed further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Partial support, partial oppose. There's certainly some slimming to be done for some countries (e.g. China), but many countries have already been slimmed. The sentence limits suggested seem too tight to allow for proper coverage. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think that it is vital with elaborate information for the public at large when it comes to a global crisis that greatly affects all of us. David A (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Impact - politics

Cut the section, with a wikilink and one sentence --Almaty (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd happily give any of these a try if supported in advance. --Almaty (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Also User:Doc James what do you mean by Recommendation is to keep text under 100 kb / 20,000 words? Per WP:PAGESIZE A page of about 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 4,000 to 10,000 words - so about half the current page size. --Almaty (talk) 11:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I was reading here Wikipedia:Article_size#Size_guideline "> 100 kB Almost certainly should be divided" and "> 50 kB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)"
  • This topic has so many facets so IMO it is not unreasonable to be between 50 to 100 K. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've paid the most attention to the U.S. subsection of this, and I don't think there's any way it could be reduced further without removing vital information. For other countries, I imagine there's pretty vital information too. Some slimming could probably be done for some, but this is an important topic that needs to get its WP:DUE. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Sdkb. David A (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Small droplets

Just to throw a spanner in the works of my own contributions, would appreciate any other thoughts or experts help in synthesizing these kind of opinions that are becoming more common. Reading between the lines of the evolution of the WHO, ECDC and CDC FAQs, I think the distinction between "airborne transmission" and "respiratory droplet transmission" is being mentioned less often. To rethink, do we need to give the possibility of airborne transmission its due weight as a valid minority view? --Almaty (talk) 09:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

If Sars-1 transport with evaporated droplets, why Sars-2 Wouldn't ? But please, do not spin it like this research do. This doesn't mean the government need more protection and more distancing. It just mean that the social distancing in place wasn't that effective and the spread of the virus has been flattening on his own. (due to laws of physics, not mass hypochondria) Iluvalar (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Its quite a technical discussion. Anyway the article does pretty well as it stands. Just some say it is technically airborne, whether we should include that as a minority view, I really dont know. The above article makes a compelling case though, even literally "pleads" public health authorities, and by extension us, eventually to do so. Could be swayed either way, if other experts have opinions here would most appreciate. --Almaty (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

should this be mentioned

"Children With Kawasaki-Like Disease Positive for COVID-19". Medscape. Retrieved 11 May 2020. and today Jacobs, Andrew; Sandoval, Edgar (9 May 2020). "Mysterious Coronavirus Illness Claims 3 Children in New York". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 May 2020....3 dead /73 cases, rather like a syndrome...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Probably should somewhere. Its an emerging phenomenon though User:Ozzie10aaaa is there better sourcing yet --Almaty (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

well...Riphagen, Shelley; Gomez, Xabier; Gonzalez-Martinez, Carmen; Wilkinson, Nick; Theocharis, Paraskevi (7 May 2020). "Hyperinflammatory shock in children during COVID-19 pandemic". Lancet (London, England). doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31094-1. ISSN 0140-6736. Retrieved 11 May 2020.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)