Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source

Thinking about how to incorporate this into the article. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreading-globally The history section is already presuming the market and animals was the source, while this article says otherwise. Quote:

... the first human infections must have occurred in November 2019—if not earlier—because there is an incubation time between infection and symptoms surfacing. If so, the virus possibly spread silently between people in Wuhan—and perhaps elsewhere—before the cluster of cases from the city’s now-infamous Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market was discovered in late December. “The virus came into that marketplace before it came out of that marketplace,” Lucey asserts.

What do you think? Take a knife to current assertions that it was animal and market started? Or at least tone down significantly?   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not contradicting, it's just stating there was transmission before we grabbed the current early node at the sea market. Yug (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

---

I suggest to add a sentence about the statement from Daniel R. Lucey, an infectious disease specialist at Georgetown University. About a significant finding. About the first human infections must have occurred in November 2019 and maybe earlier. How about the draft paragraph below? With notable source.

Sources

Francewhoa (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

---

As noted above the article calls into the question of animal spread. I removed references to animal spread. I'm not sure the article should add speculative sources that are called into the question be a notable article. Some question the deletion saying the article above is ambiguous. I don't know what is ambiguous about it. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The article title includes the caveat "may not be", yet on that basis alone you saw fit to remove a large, well-cited section of the article, without waiting for consensus here to do so, and when reverted, to edit war to remove it again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Just uploaded this from the CDC if it's useful

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Symptoms

Victor Grigas (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add it to the main article as it is useful info Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree; images of text are not, generally, useful; and country-specific resources for an international epidemic, likewise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

In order to preparation to GA nominee, semi-protected pages need to time expand

Hello folks, it is so interested to read to outbreak. IMO, this article is eligible to nominate as GA nominee. Yet in order to preparation of this article to GA nominee, semi-protected pages needs to indefinitely until the cases is ended. It is urgent because when semi-protected was expired on 3rd February, many IP users edited it again to featuring rumours, hoaxes, etc, like India CAA protest about the outbreak and this is also the medical article that needs a indefinite semi-protected. Chinese and French wikis have indefinite semi-protected to they version of the article, at least until the outbreak ended. Why English is not get a indefinite semi-protected for this article like articles of 2011 Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami and Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I guess we will cross that bridge when the protection expires. If there are anon edits made in bad faith then, admins can always extend the protection then, hopefully longer or indefinitely. robertsky (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

At this point, the main focus of this article needs to be recording information of this emerging situation. We can focus on GA nominations and the like after the end of the viral outbreak. Aqua817 (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep data updated - There are currently 9,171 confirmed cases worldwide, including 213 fatalities.

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/01/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/ Nickayane99 (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Spelling Errors

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Under the WHO section, whoever wrote it misspelled Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus's name and left out the final s.

Fixed. Sleath56 (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Source archive

Should we archive all the source used in the article and all articles highly related to the topic? Mariogoods (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Went through the articles. Will require periodic updates since still is current event. robertsky (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Map in infobox

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

I note this has recently changed to a global one, but I really don't think we should be including suspected cases, especially where they turned out not to be coronavirus. Something like the useful map that the WHO situation reports has been including every day would be much better, with red circles proportional in size to the number of confirmed cases. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Take a look at the line plot above, which I’m proposing as a substitute for the horizontal bars (not typically the way this data should be presented). I’m thinking about a bubble map like you’re suggesting, interactive with data in a pop up, but will take awhile longer. JuanTamad (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jtamad: Sorry, I'm not sure which line plot you mean? Espresso Addict (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Item 18 above JuanTamad (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Treatment section

Can following information be added in the treatment section? Link: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1232923/coronavirus-cure-china-virus-sars-nhs-hiv-protease-inhibitor-nelfinavir-spt -- Dr. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The #Treatment Research section on this page seem like a deliberate stub to direct to the nCoV page, with only bullet updates on different vaccine research groups. Protease inhibitors seem like a temporary existing stop gap, so I'd say it's not appropriate for the section as it's structured currently. Sleath56 (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Suspected table

Have a suspected table by country and the number. Jacobayoub (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

bunny suit??

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

surely the doctor is wearing a Hazmat suit to deal with a medical hazard and NOT a bunny suit made for keeping dust out of electronics? Can someone verify and correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The terms are synonymous. kencf0618 (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

A bunny suit is a cleanroom suit. A cleanroom suit is not the same as a hazmat suit. Please adjust wording for clarification. --92.195.229.216 (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

When you follow your own link to bunny suit it goes to a differentiation page with both clean room and NBC suits, the latter of which would be used in this situation. 50.237.218.250 (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm wondering now what the Chinese calls theirs. And what's with the teal...? kencf0618 (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

International case : Finland

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Please move section and report about new international cases to 2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak_by_country_and_territory (talk, {template}). Yug (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC) A coronavirus case was detected in Rovaniemi, Finland: https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11181717 MaxPlays (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is a source in English: https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/finlands_first_coronavirus_case_confirmed_in_lapland/11182855 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HHTT1 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

It's been added --Colin dm (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that Confirmed cases and Death header at the top of the template missing, but if you try to edit it it's there, so i guess there's some bug causing it, hope can solve it Nickayane99 (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

International case : CMO confirms cases of coronavirus in England

Please move section and report about new international cases to 2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak_by_country_and_territory (talk, {template}). Yug (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC) http://www.gov.uk/government/news/cmo-confirms-cases-of-coronavirus-in-england Nickayane99 (talk) 10:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC) http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/coronavirus-outbreak-uk-newcastle-hospital-17664530

International case : Death in Malaysia

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Please move section and report about new international cases to 2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak_by_country_and_territory (talk, {template}). Yug (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/tripura-man-dies-of-coronavirus-in-malaysia-report/story-07kLEU6OV1jK8G2Y1k5BQK.html

Why is this case not in the statistic? Metron (talk) 13:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Because someone has to add it to {{2019-20_Wuhan_coronavirus_data/World}} ! :D It will come... Yug (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a fake story. https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2020/01/30/health-ministry-reports-about-coronavirus-death-in-m039sia-is-fake-news WWGB (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Intro animated gif wasn't updating for me

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Was it updating for you? Tried on two different browsers. Replaced with another image that was updated. Feel free to revert if you don't like it, or discuss further.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Does someone can clarify this bug ?? Otherwise we close this section. Yug (talk) 13:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thailand?

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Uhh can someone confirm the 1800+ cases in Thailand that someone put, or if that's just a troll. Thanks. SushiGod (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Troll news. Should we event archive such section ??? I'am in favor of deletion. Yug (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Overlap with Virus Article

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

I'm merging content from the virus article. See talk page. Moksha88 (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Moksha88:, I tried my best yesterday to revamp the article. Sections were a mess, with duplicated informations, 3 sections were overlapping each other in this main article alone. It's better now, but we must keep things tidy. Yes, there is duplication as well between 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak and Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) (virus). Notably the "Background > Genetics, reservoir, ..." and the "Charateristics" sections. These section must be in 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak, but stay SHORT. Hidden comments should direct editors to rather edit Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) (virus). This kind of thing. New editors need some clear hint so the needed clean up / tidy up is intuitive. I revamped the current sections, added {main|Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)}, but better hints can be added done. Yug (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yug Excellent, thank you. It does look better. Moksha88 (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok sure. Could I have a look at the poor references, so I know your expectations? Wuhan2019 (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Wuhan2019 and Moksha88: to be more explicit, "Background > Genetics, reservoir, ..." and the "Charateristics" sections can be in both articles. BUT!

• In 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak it must but stay SHORT, a summary pointing to...
• Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) (virus) where people can edit, add extensive and detailed contents.

The current situation is kind of fine. People with content and sources hould be directed to the later article (virus). Yug (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

PS: Wuhan2019... given your name.... I hesitated a LOT before to talk to you ! XD Yug (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Differences between fatality rate in epicentre City of Wuhan and overall fatality rate in China

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

According to the official figures released by the Health Commission of Hubei, as of 23:59, 29 Jan, the fatality rate of City Wuhan stood at 129/2261 ≈ 5.7% while the overall fatality rate of China is about 2.2%. This discrepancy, Jiang Rongmeng, an expert from National Health Commission, alluded during a live interview on CCTV-13 (see the footage at local time 10:30:50, CCTV-13 is the state run live news channel) on 30 Jan, might be due to mishandling of the outbreak initially by the local hospitals. He said "there was room for improvement" which implies Wuhan medical staff should have used better methods to contain the virus at early stages. Swoopin swallow (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

References

@Swoopin swallow: The spreading is still fresh. So each region (Wuhan > Hubei > China > Abroad) and their cases are at different stage of the epidemic and disease. Also, people abroad are active international travelers, likely in their 30-60, which are not the people dying of this coronavirus (the +65 and sicks are). So all is quite as expected so far. Yug (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The reported death rate is considerably less in the rest of China than in Hubei province. Hubei has 116 recovered and 204 died. This gives a death rate of 204/(204+116) = 64%. The rest of China has a 63 recovered and 9 died for a death rate of 9/(63+9)= 12.5%. Both of these numbers are beginning to be statistically meaningful samples. Can anyone find a reliable source that discusses this discrepancy and suggest reasons for it? I can speculate that those outside Hubei are well monitored and the death rate is more accurate, but that’s just my idea. Mike Young (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

New templates : {{2019-20_Wuhan_coronavirus_data/China}}

 Closed

Cases of 2019-nCoV in mainland China by provincial division ()

Type	Last Updated	South Central						East							North					Northeast			Southwest					Northwest
		Hubei	Hunan	Henan	Guangdong	Guangxi	Hainan	Shanghai	Zhejiang	Jiangsu	Shandong	Anhui	Jiangxi	Fujian	Beijing	Tianjin	Hebei	Shanxi	Inner Mongolia	Heilongjiang	Jilin	Liaoning	Chongqing	Sichuan	Yunnan	Guizhou	Tibet	Shaanxi	Gansu	Ningxia	Xinjiang	Qinghai	Imported	National
Current active	2020/06/29	0	0	0	4	0	0	26	1	1	0	0	0	5	317	1	10	0	0	0	0	6	3	12	0	0	0	10	21	0	0	0		418
Daily confirmed	2020/04/05				8			5	1		1				1				1	20				1									38	39
Daily deaths	2020/04/05	2																																2
Total confirmed		68135	1019	1276	1637	254	168	536	1264	651	780	990	937	350	587	180	327	138	118	524	98	142	579	559	184	147	1	256	139	75	76	18	951	81,708
Total recovery		63623	1015	1254	1625	252	162	383	1230	633	755	984	935	305	443	144	310	133	74	469	92	128	570	540	172	144	1	246	132	75	73	18	258	77,078
Total deaths	2020/06/29	4512	4	22	8	2	6	6	1	0	7	6	1	1	8	3	6	0	1	13	1	2	6	3	2	2	0	3	2	0	3	0		3,331
Population		59M	69M	96M	112M	49M	10M	24M	57M	80M	100M	63M	46M	39M	22M	16M	75M	37M	25M	38M	27M	44M	30M	83M	48M	36M	3M	38M	26M	7M	25M	6M		1.4B
Provincial Sources

New Confirmed Cases of COVID-19 in Mainland China by Province-Level Divisions ()

Date (CST)	South Central						East							North					Northeast			Southwest					Northwest									Additional Sources
	Hubei	Hunan	Henan	Guangdong	Guangxi	Hainan	Shanghai	Zhejiang	Jiangsu	Shandong	Anhui	Jiangxi	Fujian	Beijing	Tianjin	Hebei	Shanxi	Inner Mongolia	Heilongjiang	Jilin	Liaoning	Chongqing	Sichuan	Yunnan	Guizhou	Tibet	Shaanxi	Gansu	Ningxia	Xinjiang	Qinghai	National (confirmed)	Excluding Hubei	Wuhan, Hubei	Hubei: outside Wuhan
2020/01/11	41																															41		41
2020/01/12
2020/01/13
2020/01/14
2020/01/15
2020/01/16	4																															4		4
2020/01/17	17																															17		17
2020/01/18	59																															59		59
2020/01/19	77			1																												78	1	77
2020/01/20	72			13			2							5																		92	20	60	12
2020/01/21	105	1	1	12			7	5		1		2		5	2							5	2	1								149	44	105	0
2020/01/22	69	8	4	6	2	4	7	5	1	5	1	1	1	4	2	1	1			1	2	4	3		3		3		1			131	62	62	7
2020/01/23	105	15	4	21	11	4	4	33	8	3	14	4	4	12	1	1		1	4	2	2	18	10	1			2	2	1	2		259	154	70	35
2020/01/24	180	19	23	25	10	2	13	19	9	12	24	11	5	10	3	6	5	1	5	1	8	30	13	3	1		10	2	1	1		457	264	77	103
2020/01/25	323	26	51	20	10	12	7	42	13	18	21	18	19	15	2	5	3	5	6		5	18	16	6	1		7	3	1	1	1	688	365	46	277
2020/01/26	371	31	45	48	13	9	13	24	16	24	10	12	27	17	4	5	4	4	6	2	5	35	25	8	2		13	7	3	1	3	769	398	80	291
2020/01/27	1,291	43	40	42	5	7	13	45	23	24	36	24	17	12	9	15	7	2	9	2	5	22	21	7	2		11	5	4	5	2	1,771	480	892	399
2020/01/28	840	78	38	53	7	5	14	123	29	34	46	37	9	11	1	15	7	2	7	1	9	15	18	25			10	5	1	3		1,459	619	315	525
2020/01/29	1,032	56	72	70	20	3	21	132	30	24	48	53	19	20	3	17	8	3	6	5	3	18	34	19	3	1	7	2	5	1		1,736	704	356	676
2020/01/30	1,220	55	74	82	9	3	27	109	39	33	37	78	19	21	5	17	4	2	16		4	41	36	10	3		24	3	4	3	2	1,979	759	378	842
2020/01/31	1,347	67	70	127	13	8	41	62	34	28	60	46	24	24	5	14	8	3	21	3	20	41	30	11	14		14	6	5	1	1	2,101	754	576	771
2020/02/01	1,921	64	71	84	11	6	8	62	34	19	43	47	15	27	8	8	9	4	15	6	1	15	23	8	9		15	5	2	2	2	2,586	665	894	1,027
2020/02/02	2,103	58	73	79	16	8	26	63	35	34	68	58	20	29	11	9	10	7	26	8	9	50	23	15	8		12	11	3	4	2	2,827	724	1,033	1,070
2020/02/03	2,345	72	109	114	12	7	5	105	37	11	72	85	15	16	4	13	8	1	34	11	1	25	28	3	10		14	4	3	5	2	3,234	889	1,242	1,103
2020/02/04	3,156	68	89	73	11	11	25	66	33	28	50	72	11	25	9	9	7	7	35	12	7	29	19	5	8		23	2		3	2	3,887	731	1,967	1,189
2020/02/05	2,987	50	87	74	18	11	21	59	32	45	61	52	10	21	2	22	9	4	37	5	8	23	20	6	5		8	5	6	4	1	3,694	707	1,766	1,221
2020/02/06	2,447	61	63	74	4	11	15	52	35	36	74	61	9	23	10	14	6	4	36	6	5	22	23	7	6		11	5	3	3		3,129	682	1,501	946
2020/02/07	2,841	31	66	57	11	11	12	42	31	28	68	37	15	18	2	24	7	2	18	4	5	15	19	3	12		11	4	1	3		3,395	554	1,985	856
2020/02/08	2,060	35	53	45	12	6	11	15	29	28	46	41	11	11	2	11	12	2	26	9	6	20	23	2	9		13	8	1	3		2,567	507	1,378	682
2020/02/09	2,618	41	40	31	15	8	3	29	24	24	51	33	11	11	3	12	4	4	24	2	2	22	19	1	13		5	4	4	4		3,051	431	1,921	697
2020/02/10	2,097	33	32	26	5	6	7	25	23	27	30	32	6	5	7	21	3		29	1	1	18	12	8	18		6	3	4	6		2,478	381	1,552	545
2020/02/11	1,638	34	30	42	7	3	4	14	28	11	29	40	5	10	11	12	2	2	18	2	8	19	19	5	13		6		5	4		2,015	377	1,104	534
2020/02/12	1,508 12,289	22	34	22		12	7	14	27	9	21	28	7	14	6	14	2	1	17	1	2	13	15	1	4		4	1	6	4		1,820 14,109	312	1,072 11,451	436 838
2020/02/13	1,728 3,095	20	15	20	4		5	10	23	13	24	28	2	6	7	18		4	23	2	1	11	12	7	5		1	3	3	2		1,995 5,090	266	1,330 2,580	398 515
2020/02/14	1,282 1,138	13	28	33	9	5	8	7	11	11	16	12	4	3	1	8	1	3	7	2	2	8	7	6	3		2		3	5		1,503 2,640	220	1,001 922	281 216
2020/02/15	955 888	3	19	22	2		2	5	13	7	12	12	2	5	2	9	1	2	20	1	1	7	11	1	1		4			1		1,121 2,009	166	1,548	295
2020/02/16	1,933	2	15	6	1		3	4	9	4	11	5	3	1	2	1	1	2	12		1	7	14		2		4			4		2,048	115	1,690	243
2020/02/17	1,807	1	11	6	4	1	2	1	3	2	9	3	2	6	1	1	1	1	7			2	13	1				1		1		1,886	79	1,600	207
2020/02/18	1,693	1	5	3	2			1	2	1	4	1	1	6	3	4	1	2	6	1		2	6	1			2		1			1,749	56	1,660	33
2020/02/19	775	2	4	1	1	5		2		2	1	1		2	2	1			6	1		5	6	(-1)			3					673	45	615	160
2020/02/20	631	1	2	1	1		1	28		202	1			1	1	1			3			7	5	2								889	258	319	312
2020/02/21	366	2	3	6	3			2		2	1			3	2	1						5	1									397	31	314	52
2020/02/22	630	3	1	3			1			4					2	2			1			1										648	18	541	89
2020/02/23	398			3	2					1										2		2	1									409	11	348	50
2020/02/24	499			2	1								1	1			1					1	2									508	9	464	35
2020/02/25	401						1			1						1							2									406	5	370	31
2020/02/26	409	1	1				1						2	10		5							3						1			433	24	383	26
2020/02/27	318			1							1				1	1	1						4									327	9	313	5
2020/02/28	423	1		1										1															1			427	7	420	3
2020/02/29	570													2							1											573	3	565	5
2020/03/01	196			1				1		2				1															1			202	6	193	3
2020/03/02	114						1	7													3											125	11	111	3
2020/03/03	115													3															1			119	4	114	1
2020/03/04	134							2						1					1				1									134	5	134	3
2020/03/05	126			1			1							4														11				143	17	126	0
2020/03/06	74			1			3							4														17				99	25	74	0
2020/03/07	41													2														1				44	3	41	0
2020/03/08	36																											4				40	4	36	0
2020/03/09	17			1										1																		19	2	17	0
2020/03/10	13						2			1				6														1				24	11	13	0
2020/03/11	8		1	3																								2				15	7	8	0
2020/03/12	5						2							1																		8	3	5	0
2020/03/13	4						4							1														2				11	7	4	0
Total	67707	1018	1276	1352	252	168	342	1203	631	757	990	934	296	428	141	318	133	75	481	93	127	576	539	172	155	1	246	120	75	76	18	80813	12989	49,912	17,795
Date (CST)	Hubei	Hunan	Henan	Guangdong	Guangxi	Hainan	Shanghai	Zhejiang	Jiangsu	Shandong	Anhui	Jiangxi	Fujian	Beijing	Tianjin	Hebei	Shanxi	Inner Mongolia	Heilongjiang	Jilin	Liaoning	Chongqing	Sichuan	Yunnan	Guizhou	Tibet	Shaanxi	Gansu	Ningxia	Xinjiang	Qinghai	National (confirmed)	Excluding Hubei	Wuhan, Hubei	Hubei: outside Wuhan	Additional Sources
	South Central						East							North					Northeast			Southwest					Northwest
Provincial Sources
Notes: ^ The sum of the numbers may differ with the total mainland number, because not all province-level divisions report by the interval of 00:00-24:00. ^ When a cell contains two rows of numbers, the upper number is the number of cases confirmed with nucleic acid testing, and the lower number is that of clinical diagnosis per medical imaging features, as specified in the fifth pilot version of the national diagnostic guideline. Clinical diagnosis was used in Hubei exclusively during 12-18 Feb. This table keeps the two distinct for consistency; the sum of the two categories yields the reported total of Hubei. ^ On occasions, a number does not match the source for the day because cases were subtracted after verification the next day. An example is the 12 Feb data for Hubei (clinical), from which 1,043 cases were subtracted the next day. Hubei also subtracted 195 cases on 23 Feb for double counting. ^ For 15 Feb, Hubei did not release separate numbers for its city level divisions. ^ For 19 Feb, three provinces (Jiangxi, Henan, Yunnan) made corrections to their prior case counts by recording a reduction of 1 case each. ^ Since 19 Feb, clinical diagnoses have been excluded from the data as the sixth pilot version of the NHC guidelines removed the category. Case information:

New Deaths from COVID-19 in Mainland China by Province-Level Divisions ()

Date (CST)	South-Central							East							North					Northeast			Southwest					Northwest												Additional Sources
	Hubei	Hubei (clinical)	Hunan	Henan	Guangdong	Guangxi	Hainan	Shanghai	Zhejiang	Jiangsu	Shandong	Anhui	Jiangxi	Fujian	Beijing	Tianjin	Hebei	Shanxi	Inner Mongolia	Heilongjiang	Jilin	Liaoning	Chongqing	Sichuan	Yunnan	Guizhou	Tibet	Ningxia	Shaanxi	Gansu	Xinjiang	Qinghai	National (confirmed)	National (inclusive)	Excluding Hubei	Wuhan, Hubei	Wuhan, Hubei (clinical)	Hubei: outside Wuhan	Hubei: outside Wuhan (clinical)
2020/01/11	1																																1			1
2020/01/12
2020/01/13
2020/01/14
2020/01/15	1																																1			1
2020/01/16
2020/01/17
2020/01/18	1																																1			1
2020/01/19
2020/01/20	3																																3			3
2020/01/21	3																																3			3
2020/01/22	8																																8			8
2020/01/23	7																1																8		1	6		1
2020/01/24	15																			1													16		1	15		0
2020/01/25	13			1				1																									15		2	7		6
2020/01/26	24																																24		0	18		6
2020/01/27	24						1								1																		26		2	22		2
2020/01/28	25			1																													26		1	19		6
2020/01/29	37																							1									38		1	25		12
2020/01/30	42																			1													43		1	30		12
2020/01/31	45												1																				46		1	33		12
2020/02/01	45																																45		0	32		13
2020/02/02	56																						1										57		1	41		15
2020/02/03	64																																64		0	48		16
2020/02/04	65																																65		0	49		16
2020/02/05	70															1				1						1							73		3	52		18
2020/02/06	69			1	1		1														1												73		4	64		5
2020/02/07	81			1											1					2										1			86		5	67		14
2020/02/08	81		1	2		1					1	1					1			1													89		8	63		18
2020/02/09	91						1					2	1							1										1			97		6	73		18
2020/02/10	103			1								1			1	1				1													108		5	67		36
2020/02/11	94		1	1																			1										97		3	72		22
2020/02/12	107	27		2	1	1	1				1	1				1	1			1		1							1				119	146	10	82	26	25	1
2020/02/13	116	8		1								1								2			1										113	121	5	80	8	28	0
2020/02/14	139	34		2											1								1										109	143	4	77	30	28	4
2020/02/15	139		1																					2									142		3	110		29
2020/02/16	100			3	2																												105		5	76		24
2020/02/17	93		1	3													1																98		5	72		21
2020/02/18	132				1						1									1						1							136		4	116		16
2020/02/19	108							1			1			1			1								1				1				114		6	88		22
2020/02/20	115								1														1		1								118		3	99		16
2020/02/21	106							1									1														1		109		3	90		16
2020/02/22	96				1																												97		1	82		14
2020/02/23	149						1																										150		1	131		18
2020/02/29	34			1																													35		1	26		8
2020/03/01	42																																42		0	32		10
Total	2,803		4	22	7	2	5	3	1	0	6	6	1	1	8	3	6	0	0	13	1	1	6	3	2	2	0	1	2	0	3	0	2,912
Date (CST)	Hubei	Hubei (clinical)	Hunan	Henan	Guangdong	Guangxi	Hainan	Shanghai	Zhejiang	Jiangsu	Shandong	Anhui	Jiangxi	Fujian	Beijing	Tianjin	Hebei	Shanxi	Inner Mongolia	Heilongjiang	Jilin	Liaoning	Chongqing	Sichuan	Yunnan	Guizhou	Tibet	Ningxia	Shaanxi	Gansu	Xinjiang	Qinghai	National (confirmed)	National (inclusive)	Excluding Hubei	Wuhan, Hubei	Wuhan, Hubei (clinical)	Hubei: outside Wuhan	Hubei: outside Wuhan (clinical)	Additional Sources
	South-Central							East							North					Northeast			Southwest					Northwest
Provincial Sources

New Recoveries from COVID-19 in Mainland China by Province-Level Divisions ()

Date (CST)	South-Central						East							North					Northeast			Southwest					Northwest					National	Additional Sources
	Hubei	Hunan	Henan	Guangdong	Guangxi	Hainan	Shanghai	Zhejiang	Jiangsu	Jiangxi	Anhui	Shandong	Fujian	Beijing	Tianjin	Hebei	Shanxi	Inner Mongolia	Heilongjiang	Jilin	Liaoning	Chongqing	Sichuan	Yunnan	Guizhou	Tibet	Ningxia	Shaanxi	Gansu	Xinjiang	Qinghai
2020/01/11	2																															2
2020/01/12	4																															4
2020/01/13	1																															1
2020/01/14
2020/01/15	5																															5
2020/01/16
2020/01/17	4																															4
2020/01/18	5																															5
2020/01/19	4																															4
2020/01/20
2020/01/21	3																															3
2020/01/22
2020/01/23	3			2																												5
2020/01/24	1						1	1	1					1																		5
2020/01/25	10													1																		11
2020/01/26	2																															2
2020/01/27	3		1	2			2			1																						9
2020/01/28	33			1	2		1	2		2				2																		43
2020/01/29	10			1		1	1	1			2	1					1				1	1			1							21
2020/01/30	26	2	1	3			1	5	1	4	1	1								1			1									47
2020/01/31	50	1		1			4	6	3	2		1											2	1	1							72
2020/02/01	49	5	1	2			1	8	1	1	2	2		4				1	2			2		1								85
2020/02/02	80	8	10	2		3		13	1	8	2	1		3	1	3	1					4	9	1					3			147
2020/02/03	101	6	6	6	5			12	1	1	7	1	1	11								2	2	2			1	1	3			157
2020/02/04	125	13	21	12	3	1	2	15	5	8	6	6	6	1	1	1	2		2		1	5	9					1	1			262
2020/02/05	113	21	13	17	4	1	3	18	13	10	3	5	4	7		3	2	3	3	1	2	1	4		1			4	2		3	261
2020/02/06	184	35	14	19	3	3	10	17	12	8	11	13	4	2		9	6		1	2	1	9	10	2				5	3			387
2020/02/07	298	28	29	29		3	5	29	5	10	13	7	5	1		9	3		4		2	7	13	5			2	6				510
2020/02/08	324	40	34	28	1	4	11	46	8	17	12	12	4	3	2	5	6	1	1	1	1	8	10	5	1		10	3	3			600
2020/02/09	356	27	38	18		4	3	28	21	30	14	13	11	7		5	4		2	7	4	12	16					6	4			632
2020/02/10	427	27	29	38	12	0	4	50	12	25	15	8	4	4	4	6	1	0	12	1	0	15	6	1	3		1	5	5	0	0	716
2020/02/11	417	50	33	60	1	1	5	28	10	25	20	9	7	8	2	7	4	0	1	5	7	13	3	0	7	0	8	5	3	3	2	744
2020/02/12	802	49	27	43	2	7	4	48	37	18	20	18	8	12	1	6	3	1	3	4	3	23	8	3	3	1	2	6	7	0	4	1171
2020/02/13	690	40	55	48	2	3	5	40	6	17	38	13	5	11	10	15	3	0	6	3	2	26	12	4	8	0	0	7	8	3	2	1081
2020/02/14	912	37	45	54	5	8	28	42	23	23	32	28	7	18	11	17	2	0	11	0	7	24	10	5	5	0	3	4	5	0	0	1373
2020/02/15	849	41	42	50	6	1	34	28	30	29	34	25	11	8	5	14	8	1	11	3	3	32	12	7	4	0	6	16	5	5	2	1323
2020/02/16	1016	37	41	37	5	13	16	33	36	36	34	11	7	9	8	9	4	1	10	2	9	23	9	0	10	0	0	21	5	1	0	1425
2020/02/17	1223	34	67	57	7	7	21	44	37	35	27	18	7	8	1	14	3	0	5	4	2	18	27	5	19	0	2	5	4	0	0	1701
2020/02/18	1266	41	47	41	18	20	16	30	33	52	68	22	5	23	2	13	8	1	23	2	12	29	14	10	3	0	7	10	4	2	2	1824
Total	9398	542	554	571	76	80	178	544	296	362	361	215	96	144	48	136	61	9	97	36	57	254	177	52	66	1	42	105	65	14	15	14642
Date (CST)	Hubei	Hunan	Henan	Guangdong	Guangxi	Hainan	Shanghai	Zhejiang	Jiangsu	Jiangxi	Anhui	Shandong	Fujian	Beijing	Tianjin	Hebei	Shanxi	Inner Mongolia	Heilongjiang	Jilin	Liaoning	Chongqing	Sichuan	Yunnan	Guizhou	Tibet	Ningxia	Shaanxi	Gansu	Xinjiang	Qinghai	National	Additional Sources
	South-Central						East							North					Northeast			Southwest					Northwest
Provincial Sources

MAINLAND CHINA	Cases	Deaths	Notes	Links
Hubei province
(including Wuhan)	4,586	162	711 serious, 277 critical	Source
Zhejiang province	428	0	54 serious	Source
Guangdong province	354	0	37 serious, 13 critical	Source
Henan province	278	2	37 serious, 4 critical	Source
Hunan province	277	0	38 serious	Source
Anhui province	200	0		Source
Chongqing	182	0	18 serious, 4 critical	Source
Jiangxi province	162	0

Like this, Can anyone create a template like this, here the link for this source https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/01/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/ Nickayane99 (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nickayane99: We have {{2019-20_Wuhan_coronavirus_data/China_medical_cases_by_province}}, but you want something more like {{2019-20_Wuhan_coronavirus_data/World}} I guess. You can go for {{2019-20_Wuhan_coronavirus_data/China}} and create it hopefully. Yug (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nickayane99:  Done

Note: Having horizontal table such as Template:2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus data/China medical cases by province may be more practical to include in wikipedia article's sections elegantly. Yug (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

China map removal: Citation needed

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

@Yug: Rather than make bold accusations about the motives of other users as was done to me [1], I would like to ask the community to address a simple question: How many cases of the virus have there been in Arunachal Pradesh? What's the documentation on that one? Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: I did inspect the history and your summary edit, to decide to undo :

• removal #1 : Revision as of 2020-01-31T11:48:03 Geographyinitiative (→‎Geographic distribution: This map is 100% out of control, out of line and it can not be permitted on this page ever again. How many cases of the virus have there been in Arunachal Pradesh? What's the documentation on that one?)
• removal #2 : Revision as of 2020-01-31T12:19:06 Geographyinitiative (Removed map - see Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak)

The map likely requires a fix, not to be removed. Your removal based on data over the disputed region of Arunachal Pradesh sounds pretty much an Indian-nationalist move. If you aren't, then receive my apologizes. The section you refer to in your edit comment summary to justify the removal actually do not support removals, as far as I can see. A dozen of people have been discussing on how to improve it in order to keep it in the article, and found a consensus. Therefor it stays : don't unilaterally remove this map on which a dozen of editors contributed. Please show an acceptable rational for removing this map rather than fixing it, then only I will support removal. Yug (talk) 12:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Source data are accessible in {{2019-20_Wuhan_coronavirus_data/China_medical_cases_by_province}} and {{2019-20_Wuhan_coronavirus_data/World}}.

Trying to remove this figure a 3rd time via force without consensus would confirm an hidden agenda. Yug (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Yug: No no, you need citation for everything that's being presented to the eyes of the readers as of now. Non-negotiable. Arunachal Pradesh's infections need a source. I recommend fixing the map on Wikimedia Commons and then discussing adding it to this page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative:Ok, digging in I identified you are very unlikely to be an Indian nationalist (rather the opposite side actually XD). Anyway, yes, this source and data on Arunachal Pradesh is weird on this map. Yet, it doesn't justify to remove the 23+ other valid, sourced informations which are carried by the map. I went to commons, on the map's talkpage to support your request for map-correction. This is the normal process to take here. It's unfortunate, but the data on Arunachal Pradesh can stay few hours there... It's fine. Wikipedia (LIKE ALL MEDIAS!) sometime display errors. Our promise is to correct those asap when we are notified of an error. The correction process has started thanks to you. All good. We continue ! Yug (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Suspected cases - somewhat misleading

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

I think that the term suspected cases is somewhat misleading. For instance, Sweden has had suspected cases, but all suspected cases have been found negative. According to the National health authority in Sweden, a test is analysed within five hours. So to put Sweden permanetely as a place with suspected cases is misleading since our vigilance is high.

Or to put it differently. There ought to be a table of confirmed cases per nation. It could have (perhaps later) a column with last date of confirmed case.

Another table could be over nations where suspected cases have been reported and the date for the report. As long as there are no confirmed cases, the country could remain in the list.

213.67.241.199 (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think we should include "suspected cases" at all given the paucity of accurate information and expert consensus on any such numbers. We should stick to confirmed cases only, IMO. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it is essentially meaningless information and any attempt to collate the information will be incomplete and flawed, which strays into original research. If the WHO get involved and start publishing such information globally then it would be worth considering. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  21:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Please consider removing the reference to a "mortality rate" of less than 5% from the end of the section on Epidemiology : just imagine the expectations of some person just confirmed infected, then confronted with some "bad" estimate like that of 63,85 % given above in this discussion. Or add some hint to the bias - giving a much too optimistic impression here - inherent in fatality rate numbers during an expanding epidemy, as alluded to by https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_fatality_rate . Hal19 (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Removed Mike Young (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Recoveries

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Should we put back the recoveries column? Wuhan2019 (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

That would really help Mike Young (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree with Mike Young! Thank you for the feedback Wuhan2019 :) FranciscoMMartins (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Before this was removed I looked at the references used and they were few and of poor quality. This meant adding them up was too much Original Research for a WP article. I suggest this is not added back until this comes from a more reliable source covering all the countries, such as the WHO if and when they get more involved. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  21:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The spreadsheet that is ultimate sources of the statistics in this article can be seen here. This spreadsheet lists confirmed cases, deaths and recovered. It is linked from the Johns Hopkins site.

So the references used for the recovery are the same as those used for deaths and case numbers throughout this article.

The correct measure of the mortality is to divide the deaths by (deaths + recovered). I note that the recovered rate is smaller than we would like it to be and implies a much higher death rate than the 2-3% that people seem to obtain by dividing the number dead by the number with the disease. But doing that assumes that everyone who has the disease will recover. At the moment, the best (and indeed the only) source of data we have says that 187 people have recovered and 213 have died. Please can we discuss what we will do about this as I think this is a big deal.

My view is that we need a section on death rate to explain this. Does anyone know any reliable sources that have discussed this? Mike Young (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hoax and Misinformation

As there is increasing evidence of malicious actors and internet trolls spreading fake news and misinformation across countries about the coronavirus to induce panic or agenda-pushing, an expansive amount of RS have reported such occurrences. With that, it satisfies my reservations on WP:NOTADVOCACY to begin a section on "#Spread of misinformation on social media". While it does not necessarily fit under "#Reactions to prevention effort", I don't feel it appropriately deserves its own top level section as of yet. However, I am open to suggestions on its placement nonetheless. Sleath56 (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

There are always those that are after clicks and use click bait titles and other misinformation on trending events. This event is no different. I'd rather this article not have a section on false sensational articles to attract advertisement revenue. Would likely play into the hands of the trolls. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The citations as provided on the subject are all secondary RS. Sleath56 (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Wow this look great, simple and easy to wiki readers btw china medical cases by province template look complicated Nickayane99 (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Recovered cases on table

People are starting to be released from hospital (Canada Australia etc) can we put these on the table. 104.158.189.50 (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Treatment research: Content duplication

The 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak#Treatment_research section appears to largely duplicate the content of 2019-nCoV#Vaccine research (and to a lesser extent 2019-nCoV#Treatment) without providing any direct outbreak-related treatment guidance. The section has a prose notice, which may encourage content expansion. Should this section instead be reduced even more to a stub, leaving just the pointers to relevant 2019-nCoV sections and a brief two-sentence summary of the effort? Any original content could be moved directly into 2019-nCoV. - Wikmoz (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wikmoz: this article is on the outbreak, we only want short generalities over technicalities here, details should go to the virus article, in the relevant section. Editors with content and sources should be redirected there. (As discussed before) Yug (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Yug: Agreed. I'm proposing merging this content into the main disease article and leaving only pointer and a sentence or two. To discourage further content duplication. Happy to help move and deduplicate the content if given the ok. Wikmoz (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Yug: I was about to move the content but it looks like @MinnesotanUser: has prose-ified the section (and did an awesome job at it). I'll defer to you guys to leave as is or merge. Happy to help merge and remove from this topic if that's the decision.

The “Reactions to prevention efforts” section is not helpful.

To me it seems that it is not relevant who is congratulating or not-congratulating the CCP and its local offices in Wuhan; particularly when the infection is still growing at a rate so high that the official numbers are limited by the capacity of professionals to confirm new cases, rather than the actual rate of infection. Its only value at this point could be to prematurely congratulate the government in mainland China, which is likely to be a low priority for readers seeking information about the 2019-20 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak. Furthermore, it may be hard to control the impact that external interests have on the prominence, size, and form of the paragraphs. Given these points, I propose we ditch this section altogether. Aaron Muir Hamilton <aaron@correspondwith.me> (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTADVOCACY. We do not tailor an article on nebulous grounds of "low priority for readers seeking information", we report based on RS and the notability of the citations. Responses by WHO and political figures are fundamentally relevant material to include, irrespective of editorial views on RS POV. Sleath56 (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

By the way, about the 2019-20 US flu

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

CDC alerts 25,000 deaths in US caused by the Flu season for these 4 months. [2] Is there any enwiki pages describing about this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyuri1449 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes : Influenza. Work as usual, see the bottom row of {{Notable flu pandemics}}. Yug (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2020

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Please add Category:Public Health Emergency of International Concern to this article. This is literally on the Wikipedia front page. References: 1 and 2

Edit: this is already cited in the article itself too, so please add the category ^.

On 30 January, the outbreak was declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) by the World Health Organization (WHO), the sixth time that the measure has been invoked since the H1N1 pandemic in 2009.[45][46][47][48]

(citations taken directly from the page Public Health Emergency of International Concern) 69.191.241.61 (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree this topic is a Public Health Emergency of International Concern!

 Done --Yug (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Please change description and park name

Please someone can change description of "with private companies also independently closing their shops and tourist attractions such as Ikea and Disneyland Hong Kong." With with private companies also independently closing their shops and tourist attractions such as Ikea and Hong Kong Disneyland. The park official name is Hong Kong Disneyland, not Disneyland Hong Kong, because it would be incorrect, unlike Disneyland Paris which use that name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done: Removed custom company names in favor of actual Wikipedia titles. Links now display as: "IKEA and Hong Kong Disneyland" - Wikmoz (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

That's explain why they try to use Anti HIV drugs for coronavirus https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1234988/Coronavirus-cure-HIV-drugs-China-virus-infection-lopinavir-ritonavir-coronavirus-news Nickayane99 (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The above information is in the wrong section and the link is dead. 173.200.98.210 (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

TheGuardian reports donated masks in Hubei are distributed to private hospitals less in need of them

TheGuardian's live blog on coronavirus reports The Red Cross Society in Hubei has rerouted 36,000 donated medical grade face masks to two private hospitals, 12 times higher than that they sent to one of the hospitals hit by the virus the most. Those who need the protective supply the most are forced to improvise. Swoopin swallow (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

This is incredibly unfortunate and sad. Hopefully, the masks get rerouted quickly. Thank you for the well written summary and extensive references. I am not sure if this specific local controversy rises to the level of import to include in this article though other editors may disagree. Perhaps worth mentioning the overall Red Cross contribution under 2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak#International_responses > International aid with a sentence about the initial distribution not aligning with local facility needs? Wikmoz (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wikmoz The Wiki Chinese article has a running comment on this. A staff member from Red Cross society of Hubei told Hongxin News, these practices might be targeted donations from manufacturers to hospitals within the same business networks. Those companies make donations through Red Cross Society in exchange for favorable taxation arrangements. (湖北省紅十字會相关工作人员向红星新闻记者表示，企業可能会存在定向捐赠；通过向紅十字會捐赠，企業還可以產生税务上的优惠。) Swoopin swallow (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

References

International responses (International aid)

Just noticed that under 7.2 International responses: (International aid): first para: second sentence: there seems to be a close quotation mark missing after the word "future". Also, the quote starts with the word "likely", yet the only available source (https://triblive.com/local/pittsburgh-allegheny/pittsburgh-planning-aid-for-sister-city-of-wuhan-china-stricken-with-coronavirus/) does not include that word, so it should not be part of the verbatim quote. It currently reads: "likely face masks, rubber gloves and other material that could be hard to find in the future." Suggest moving the open quotes to come before the word "face", and also add the missing close quote after the word "future." SpookiePuppy (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed per suggested. Sleath56 (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Transmission of pathogens from human to human

I would add the sub-subject above, and possible cause of infection from bat to human with references. I could understand why some Chinese people eating bats as per the goals of medicinal and aphrodisiac benefits. However, I believe that now it's time to ask them to consider to stop eating the natural reservoirs of many types of pathogens - especially bats which is currently confirmed pathogens of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Please refer to the draft below and let us know your feedback
Please also note that eating habits of wildlife are still common in some countries. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

There are also concerns about potential infection case due to some countries people's eating habits of wildlife including bats as per the goals of medicinal and aphrodisiac benefits.

The virus isn't spread through eating animals. It's spread through contact with alive animals. Tsukide (talk) 05:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Please note that the possible case of infection by eating animals :It was not from my personal opinion but from the several international experts from this field about virus infection. Please also note that I've clarified my previous writing above (by removing unnecessary or unrelated part for this topic) Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Mortality rate

The mortality rate should stay removed from the table because when an epidemic is ongoing the mortality rate has a downwards bias by default. This is due to death occuring at the last phase of the infection. So for example as I write this 8000 people are infected. But the mortality rate is based on those who were infected weeks ago because death occurs chronologically much later. If there is a good counter argument against this removal we may dicuss it in this thread. Until then I think we shouldnt add the mortality rate before this epidemic ends or stabilizes for a few weeks. TheGroninger (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

How about adding it, with a note that it tends to change? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

It's completely meaningless at the moment. Wait until one or more reliable source start giving estimates, then quote them. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree. This topics comes again and again, but is currently meaningless. Only Wuhan city is a the beginning of having meaningful data on it, but the large number of recent and still active cases again blur it all. The topic of mortality rate should stay discrete and very cautious for all January and February 2020. AT LEAST. Yug (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It isn't meaningless, as the mortality rates can be calculated from the death rate and the recovery rate, ignoring those who are still ill. It's deaths/ (deaths + recovered). We have data on the recovery rate which comes directly from the Chinese sources that we are giving us the deaths and the newly confirmed cases. They are probably collecting it for that specific purpose. We have statistically meaningful samples of dead and recovered. That being said, the statistics say 213 dead and 222 recovered, giving a death rate of around 50%. But it's 9 dead to 81 recovered for cases outside Hubei (10%). This is probably a better statistic as things are fairly chaotic in Hubei and only the very worst cases are being admitted to hospital Mike Young (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

the disease started 1 dec. abouts. that is 2 months which is more than incubation time 5-6 days, plus onset of serious symptoms, another 5, and the time it took for people to start dieing. another 5 days or so. what is means is we are looking at somewhere over 60 death per 2000 admissions (which could still drop a little), and quite probably under 200. that is not precise math but if people want they could do that and come with an even closer estimate, just because you don't yet know something does not mean you know nothing about it. 212.187.57.195 (talk) 08:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

There's a lot of assumptions there, and we are not allowed to do original research (WP:OR). Look for trusted medical sources Mike Young (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Spanish case number out of date?

Spanish news this morning reported that the single case of coronavirus in La Gomera yesterday has now blossomed into 8 cases. Apparently a German expatriate community on La Gomera in touch with some Chinese woman, or on holiday in China, or similar. Can a Wikipedian fluent in Spanish please confirm and update the statistic? 31.4.128.25 (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

From what I gather from the internet, two tourists went on holiday to Germany and stayed with someone who was later confirmed to be infected, then there people who the two tourists were staying with in Spain had symptoms of the virus. I don't think that the other ones are confirmed, just suspected since due to illness. Tsukide (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but have you misspelled "there people" somehow? Perhaps you meant three people? And what about the Chinese connection? 31.4.158.10 (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Every newly established hospital got a Wikipedia article on it's own?

In my pov, it makes no sense to keep a single Wikipedia article for every hospital created in response to the outbreak. It was a mistake to create them in the first place. The article's text should be merged into this article and the 3 Wikipedia article's should be marked as a candidat for deletion.

• Huoshenshan Hospital
• Leishenshan Hospital
• Dabie Mountain Regional Medical Centre

--Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 12:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Da Vinci Nanjing: You can use WP:AFD to nominate articles for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I am against any removals as I think the articles can be built up more in the near future. Tsukide (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear Tsukide, I checked this page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Whether_to_create_standalone_pages
and the following convinced me, these 3 article's don't fullfill the notability criteria:

"..There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic. ..."
and
"... Does other information provide needed context? Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page..."
Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

It would be more productive for now to add all special facilities and/or logistics *built* for the epidemic into a single article.

2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus special facilities or something like that. Yug (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed . I think this is a really good idea. Could provide some overall context (1) as well as list more facilities faster without each requiring its own page and without bloating this section of 2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak#Specialty_hospitals. Perhaps keep "outbreak" in the title perhaps to keep it clear that it's the event name not the virus name. - Wikmoz (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

UAE confirmed cases

The confirmed cases in uae is 5 Pavithra2002 (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Suspected cases on map

It seems as though this article and the associated articles are removing references to "suspected" cases that turn out to be negative. That seems entirely reasonable. A short-lived suspicion doesn't have a lot of encyclopedic value.

However, it seems as though the country map isn't being updated when cases turn out to be negative. For example, places like Switzerland and Ivory Coast were removed from the suspected list but are still labeled that way on the map. If the map is going to indicate suspected cases (and I'm not sure it should, given the transient nature of suspicion), then I would say that the map should also remove countries if all their cases have come back negative. Dragons flight (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the map and the list should be aligned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pestilence Unchained (talk • contribs) 21:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I said above that the map should only indicate confirmed cases. If nothing else, it would be much easier to update, as countries should not move out of the category. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I updated the map to make the suspected cases match what is currently documented at 2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak_by_country_and_territory. That involved removing ~10 countries that are no longer listed as suspected and adding a couple that were missing. Dragons flight (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. I took the time to update File:2019-nCoV_Outbreak_World_Map.svg to make it match up with 2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak_by_country_and_territory. Mostly, that involved removing "suspicious" cases that had already been resolved in the negative, though it also involved adding in a few that weren't shown. However User:Eray08yigit reverted me and put back the version that included many out-of-date "suspicions". I'm not interested in getting involved in a revert war over a map, so can someone else look into it. Thank you. Dragons flight (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus death rate

If anyone looking for "death rate" from reliable source Here is the link: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/ very early estimate. Nickayane99 (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

In the transcript linked, I don't think the Director General is stating that the mortality rate is 2%, just that 2% of confirmed cases have died so far, with some outcomes as yet unknown. Correct me if I'm wrong (I've been skimming them), but I've not seen an indication of a rate given in the official WHO situation reports, so far. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

This method of estimation could give a severe underestimate of the death rate. It implicitly assumes that almost all of those who are still sick will recover.

The number of cases is doubling roughly once every three days. If most victims are lingering for about five doublings before dying, then the actual death rate may be about 65% (with wide error bars).

I conclude that the rate is much higher than 2%. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

True, if you compare the number of people who have been successfully cured with the casualties. AstatinePiggy (My User Page | Talk Page (because I mess up a lot) | Contributions) 03:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The Chinese government statistics (from which we are getting all our China data), have categories for Confirmed Cases, Deaths and Recovered. You can work out the death rate as deaths/(deaths+ recovered). This works out at about 65% as well in Hubei. But this may be because the situation in Hubei is chaotic and only the very worst of the cases are in hospital. Lots of people may be getting it mildly and recovering without going to hospital or making it to the official statistics. I think the best statistics will be for the rest of China excluding Hubei. Each province only has a few cases and I suspect that they are being well monitored. But altogether they add up to enough to make a statistically meaningful number. The provinces outside Hubei have had 9 death and 81 recoveries, thus 10% casualty rate. This may be nearer the truth. Mike Young (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Becasue we also don't have the asymptomatic numbers, we can't try to estimate the death rate. We should avoid WP:SYNTH and cite RS. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC).

Updating estimates of R0 from peer-reviewed journals

I suggest to update the estimates of R0 with the values that have been published in peer-reviewed journals (NEJM and Eurosurveillance) this week.

The section:

"There have been various estimates for the basic reproduction number, ranging from 2.13[94] to 3.11.[95]"

Could be changed as follows:

"The basic reproduction number of the virus has been estimated to be between 1.4 and 3.9."

The corresponding references are as follows:

Calthaus (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Whichever range is used, there should be consistency between the information on this page and the mention of 2019-nCoV in the chart on the dedicated page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number which also gives the R0: 1.4 - 3.9 SpookiePuppy (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 Note: Marking this closed. Edit requests like this need consensus, and on rapidly developing pages like this, if there is such consensus, it will likely get done without making an explicit request.

References

Paddington Station Scare

There's been a scare at Paddington Station, London. "Coronavirus scare at London’s Paddington Station after two people taken ill" https://metro.co.uk/2020/02/01/coronavirus-scare-londons-paddington-station-two-people-taken-12164691/ There's only limited news sources for this at the moment. SpookiePuppy (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

If confirmed case: Undoubtedly more direct RS will come out about it, in which case it can be obviously added.

If false scare: There's so many incidents coming out like this that unless there's support for a False Alert/Misinformation section, I'd say it's not relevant enough for the article as it's organized right now. Sleath56 (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Idea: Deaths chart?

Todays update has shown this disease is, unfortunately, likely not slowing down. A death chart would be a decent way to measure deaths and a quick glance of rough mortality rate by day.--Colin dm (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'd say hold off until if/when the disease becomes more global. Right now, the only deaths occurring are in China. Aqua817 (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'd like to see deaths graphed by age to see if it continues to be the elderly primarily affected. http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3047399/wuhan-virus-killing-mostly-elderly-those-previous-health

Good idea, but warn readers not to draw a conclusion from cumulative deaths / cases during rapid growth phase. There's a lag in case progression. Elsewhere 2-3% is quoted, but of the first 41 confirmed cases, 15% died. Deaths are currently running at over 15% of # confirmed cases 5 days earlier. 14-15% was also the SaRS fatality rate per WHO (from the most reliable data, i.e. longitudinal survival analysis of identified patients).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmcdonnell (talk • contribs) 19:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

It's worse if you take a look at the recoveries data. This comes from the same sources as the fatalities data. That's 187 recovered and 213 died. This gives a death rate of 212/(213+187) = 53%. These numbers are beginning to be a statistically meaningful sample. Mike Young (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Mike Young and with Aqua817. I believe it is very very important not to induce unecessary "anxieties", stress and most of all alarmism/panic. In closing remarks I vote for making a death chart but in a test page, first. FranciscoMMartins (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Very recent news sources/content from Xinhuanews.com

Hello!

I send you some links for some news posted recently on Xinhuanews.com [English]. Is anyone interested in using them or a couple as sources for new content on the article?

Is anyone interested in using them or a couple of them as sources for new content on the article?

Can you suggest/send us more sources on other news agencies from the P.R.C./Taiwan?

1. Chinese premier stresses ensuring medical supplies in fighting epidemic

"During video calls to medical supplies manufacturing enterprises, Li asked about their production and extended greetings to the employees who work during the holiday. He also stressed the importance of ensuring the supply of daily necessities for the public."

1. China to increase financial support for anti-virus campaign

"Pan said that the PBOC will provide relending funds of 300 billion yuan to national banks and local banks in the worst-hit regions, which will then grant credit support at favorable interest rates to key manufacturers of medical supplies and daily necessities."

1. Int'l community provides aid to China to support anti-epidemic efforts
2. Builldings illuminated with slogans to cheer up Wuhan
3. First batch of charter flights brings back 199 stranded Hubei residents
4. China's Anhui opens psychological service hotline

"Source: Xinhua| 2020-01-31 21:02:21|Editor: Xiaoxia|"In face of the outbreak of pneumonia caused by the novel coronavirus, Anhui Province has organized a psychological aid medical team and started a 24-hour hot line to help those affected by the epidemic. (Xinhua/Huang Bohan)"

1. Chinese prosecutors urged to toughen crackdown on epidemic-related crimes

"Crimes including fabricating coronavirus-related information that may lead to panic among the public, making up and spreading rumors about the virus, sabotaging the implementation of the law and endangering public security will be strictly cracked down upon to ensure the epidemic prevention and control work is conducted in an orderly way, the circular said. It also stressed harshly punishing illegal hunting of wildlife under state protection, as well as improving inspection and quarantine measures for fresh food and meat products. "

1. Chinese epidemiologist identifies ways to treat critically ill coronavirus patients

"China has found effective ways of treating critically ill patients who are affected by the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), renowned Chinese epidemiologist Li Lanjuan told Xinhua. [...] The "two balances" refer to maintaining water electrolytes, acid-base balance and micro-ecological balance, Li said. "The treatment of critically ill patients is of great significance. Only by lowering the mortality rate can we allay the fears of the public," she said.""

1. China Focus: More provinces extend business, school suspension for coronavirus control

"A growing number of Chinese provinces and cities including Heilongjiang, Shandong, Guizhou, Hebei, Hunan, Shanghai and Xi'an have taken similar measures by asking enterprises, except those involved in key sectors, not to resume their work earlier than at midnight on Feb. 9, in a move to reduce crowds and prevent the spread of the coronavirus outbreak."

"In the northwestern Chinese city of Xi'an, local authorities have asked enterprises to arrange their production flexibly, while employees were encouraged to work at home."

"According to the provincial government of central China's Hunan on Friday, primary and secondary schools and kindergartens shall not start their spring semesters earlier than Feb. 17, and colleges and universities shall not resume class earlier than Feb. 24."

"Local authorities also said that all kinds of schools (including training institutions) in Hunan are not allowed to organize any form of offline teaching, training or collective activities."

1. ::Workers make protective suits to help combat novel coronavirus

"Source: Xinhua| 2020-02-01 21:25:28|Editor: Xiaoxia"

"Workers make protective suits at a workshop of a company in Harbin, northeast China's Heilongjiang Province, Feb. 1, 2020. Resuming production on Jan. 26, the company's first batch of 400 protective suits has passed through acceptance check and will be put into use. (Photo by Zhang Tao/Xinhua)"

1. ::1st coronavirus-infected patient in Changsha cured
2. ::premier stresses containing source of infection
3. ::Chinese premier stresses ensuring medical supplies in fighting epidemic
4. ::China imposes no additional tariffs on coronavirus prevention supplies from U.S.
5. ::China grants tax preferences to import of donated supplies for virus control
6. ::Chinese city sacks 6 officials over poor performance in anti-coronavirus effort
7. ::Roundup: World leaders speak highly of, support China's anti-epidemic efforts
8. ::Chinese FM talks with New Zealand deputy PM over novel coronavirus epidemic

"Noting that World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has spoken highly of China's strong measures against the epidemic and expressed confidence in China's victory, Wang pointed out that the WHO believes that the Chinese actions have gone well beyond the requirements by the International Health Regulations and recommendations by the WHO, and that the WHO disfavors imposing travel or trade restrictions on China."

"Wang expressed his belief that New Zealand will fully respect WHO's important recommendations, maintain normal exchanges and economic and trade cooperation between the two countries, and firmly support China in preventing and controlling the epidemic."

"Peters said he understands and respects China's position and believes that it is necessary to maintain normal exchanges and personnel flows, adding that New Zealand will continue to communicate and coordinate with China to properly respond to the challenge of the epidemic."

1. ::Taiwan confirms 10th novel coronavirus pneumonia case
2. ::Interview: China sets new global standard in epidemic control, says former WHO chief
3. ::Economic Watch: China's manufacturing activities remain stable in January
4. ::Three drugs fairly effective on novel coronavirus at cellular level

"The three drugs are Remdesivir, Chloroquine and Ritonavir. They are now under relevant procedures to gain approval for clinical use, said Hubei Daily on Wednesday."

1. ::China's Hubei reports 1,032 new confirmed cases of novel coronavirus
2. ::Coronavirus prevention situation remains stable in 40,000 elderly care institutions: official
3. ::China sees more patients recover from novel coronavirus pneumonia
4. ::Commentary: In all-out coronavirus fight, China deserves credit, support
5. ::China reports over 2,600 deaths from infectious diseases in December

I'm still formating this list as of right now but I welcome any feedback! [DONE, finally!]

Any idea on how to better format this list, please?

FranciscoMMartins (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Please refer to the related WHO article below. Added https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2015/naming-new-diseases/en/ Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Please refer to the related article from WHO below.

https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2015/naming-new-diseases/en/ Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Gao Fu, the director of CDC China lied about infection of medical staff on 25 Jan?

The second paragraph in Cause:Spread section, "A super-spreader was reported to have infected 14 different members of medical staff. On 25 January 2020, Gao Fu, the head of Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, denied this claim according to an announcement made to the official Xinhua News Agency." However in the academic journal article by Gao (appearing as George F Gao) published by The Lancet one day before on 24 Jan, it was clearly stated "Unfortunately, 16 health-care workers, some of whom were working in the same ward, have been confirmed to be infected with 2019-nCoV to date, although the routes of transmission and the possible role of so-called super-spreaders remain to be clarified." Gao et al. don't know the role of the virus, but specifically called it "super spreader" in their paper. Swoopin swallow (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Actually, the citation in the Wikipedia article doesn't support what was written either. I have rewritten it so that it reflects what was published by Xinhua. Is the new text more acceptable to you? Tsukide (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your editing. But now the wording seems to show Gao dismissed a patient as a super-spreader because the patient was just moved around therefore was not medically qualified. Then what or who was the super-spreader in Gao's paper? There is an ongoing discussion on the internet among the Chinese that Gao should have disclosed what he wrote in the paper much earlier to the press so that decision makers could possibly have used what he knew by then to inform the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swoopin swallow (talk • contribs) 15:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I dont see the lie. 16 staff contaminated while treating the early 41 cases without being specially protected doesn't prove there was a super-spreader. The most obvious scenario is multiples transmission due to extremely close contacts.

Similarly, an academic article reported "there is evidence that human-to-human infection occured in mid-december", then Chinese social web erupted in fury accusing officials of lying to the population. When you check the article and phrasing, it just that searcher NOW now that several cluster existed in late December, no directly connected to the seafood market, so by logical deduction, we can conclude "there is evidence [multiple cluster in late December] that human-to-human infection occured in mid-December". 2019-nCoV is a brand new viral creature, understanding of its historical path and behavior is a work in progress. Wikipedia should in NO CASE push conspirationist narratives which discredit _unfairly_ medical officials and decision makers. Yug (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Just a reminder that wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, we should evaluate all material by the standards laid out at WP:RS, WP:BLP, and WP:UNDUE but I’m leery of going any further and treating medical professionals or party cadres as somehow sacrosanct. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. But Gao did mention in the paper "so-called super-spreaders", it seems there were not one but several of them. Then who were they if the guy dismissed as not being one was not one of them? Swoopin swallow (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Average incubation period

A Chinese study published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Jan. 30[7], has found the incubation period to be 5.2 days on average, but it varies greatly among patients. The Chinese team conducting the study said their findings support a 14-day medical observation period for people exposed to the pathogen.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2001316

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-incubation-period/#52 Nickayane99 (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

WHO also says "Current estimates of the incubation period range from 2-10 days, and these estimates will be refined as more data become available"[3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Added those details 2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak#Signs_and_symptoms Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect world political map

I will remove incorrect world political map, where Russian occupied territories of Georgia are shown as an independent states, as well as separatist enclaves in Moldova and Azerbaijan. Territorial integrity and sovereignty of Georgia, Moldova and Azerbaijan is recognized by many resolutions of UN (United Nations) Giorgi Mechurchle (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Put it back. This is not a politics article. It is more important for us to have health information by de-facto administrations, rather than by "recognised" entities. If you can replace it by a better map then propose it. I assume you are talking about File:2019-nCoV-outbreak-timeline.gif which as viewed in this article is small enough that you can hardly see the disputed regions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with Graeme Bartlett. We can deal with politics later after this outbreak is over, as soon as possible I hope. FranciscoMMartins (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

In general I would support listing a semi-recognized state if it has its own independent public health system as thats whats relevant for our purposes here. However I don’t think there is *any* use in having this argument over places with zero suspected or confirmed Wuhan coronavirus cases. Whats the point? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Leave it as is per Graeme Bartlett's point. Doubtless, if we revise the map per your desire Giorgi Mechurchle, others may notice similar 'faults' in the map to be further remediated. This article is so far removed from those controversies that it's a low concern to address at the current moment. Sleath56 (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm the author of the animated map. I've corrected borders to remove semi-recognized states. I've corrected the title as well adding "/region" after "country". I hope this will help. Metropolitan (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

That sounds good. When it comes to these semi-recognised regions with cases we can list them separately in the table, rather than treating them as parts of Russia or another country. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Log-linear vs. Linear plot (Cause section)

Log-linear plot of confirmed cases and deaths to 27 January with linear fits.

Strongly suggest epidemic remains in exponential growth.

The "deaths" line looks as if it could be better fitted by a curve. Mike Young (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Logarithm plot of confirmed cases and deaths indicates the epidemic is in an exponential phase.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Galerita (talk • contribs) 03:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Galerita (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Can we also add a note to the graph caption that confirmed cases almost double every two days?--وسام زقوت (talk) 11:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Is this slipping into WP:OR? Have reliable sources interpreted the data in this manner? Bondegezou (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Do we have any information that suggest that the amount of tests is not the cause of this ? 67.68.202.134 (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Further to the note request of this graph for:'cases doubling every two days', would it would be relevant and much more clear to simply toggle the graph for a user to view both STANDARD plot and LOG LINEAR axis plot? On initial viewing, it is difficult to grasp the exponential growth of this, and your average viewer will appreciate this RAW, extreme growth curve, and I think this is the reason for this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeeCeeNT (talk • contribs) 02:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. A standard plot is much more readable to the target audience than a log plot. The log plot does not convey the growth rate to the average reader. --92.195.229.216 (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The linear plot hardly conveys the exponential nature of a growth even to an expert. There is already a linear bar chart in the Epidemiology section.Cheater no1 (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Disagree I think this by far the most helpful plot I have seen on the progress of the disease. If you don't use a log graph you can't read any data except the last couple of the largest data set. Mike Young (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Depends I think that semi-log is better if the exponential trend line fits well, and linear is better if a linear trend line fits well. We should not limit the informativeness of the graph because someone may be used to linear graphs only. If we choose the semi-log graph, I suggest clearly commenting under it: I added a note about the exponential nature of the trend lines; and it will be nice if someone adds an accurate message like "The trend lines correspond to doubling the cases every N.NN days.". Currently, both neither the linear nor the exponential fitting looks absolutely convincing so sources commenting on the growth type will be helpful. Cheater no1 (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Question

I'm not 100% sure that this us the correct venue as it's not directly related to this page.

But, is ii accurate to call it an epidemic as has been done at 2019-20 Formula E season? Epidemic isn't mentioned in the article and I'm wondering why this is. Thanks,
SSSB (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC) (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)

State-Owned Caijing Magazine report that a lot of death cases classified as "normal pneumonia" and didn't count

http://www.rfi.fr/tw/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9C%8B/20200201-%E9%A9%9A%E6%9B%9D%E6%AD%A6%E6%BC%A2%E5%A4%A7%E9%87%8F%E6%AD%BB%E8%80%85%E8%A2%AB%E5%86%A0%E4%B9%8B%E4%BB%A5%E6%99%AE%E9%80%9A%E8%82%BA%E7%82%8E-%E6%9C%AA%E5%85%A5%E5%AE%98%E6%96%B9%E5%85%AC%E5%B8%83%E6%95%B8%E6%93%9A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.250.64.176 (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The original article (in Chinese) on sina.com has been deleted. It can be viewed via wayback machine. If true, the statistics of the outbreak released by the government has been significantly massaged in favor of those in power rather than those in beds in hospital. Swoopin swallow (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

References

This is a very interesting (and morbid) article. What it shows is

• Obviously the number who have died in Wuhan is severely under-reported
• It also explains the small number of recoveries in Wuhan (224 deaths to 175 cures as I write this) . More people been reported as dying than recovering in Wuhan (about a 55% death rate), whereas in the rest of China the number of recoveries is much larger than the number of deaths (it's about a 10% death rate). You don't get to the hospital in Wuhan unless you are very sick indeed. So a lot of the people who get to hospital die. Therefore those people who get mild symptoms and don't go are also not included in the statistics. The good news from all this is it means that the case fatality rate is probably a lot lower than the 55% calculated from deaths/(deaths+recoveries) in Wuhan.Mike Young (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Most of the "Evacuation of foreign citizens" section isn't relevant encyclopedic material

Maybe two-thirds should be cut. What do you think? --RaphaelQS (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The page is rapidly bloating. It is much less helpful than it was a few days ago when I first looked at it. Nothing has been cut, but so much has been added that many important facts are being submerged in a sea of trivia. You can't just read the article to find out about the disease any more. I say hive it off to a new page. Mike Young (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Period of contagiousness after recovery

The opening paragraph states: "There is evidence that it may be contagious before the onset of symptoms¹⁰ and even 14 days after recovery¹¹."

Regarding the second half of the sentence (claim that virus is contageous for 14 days after recovery), I don't see it supported by the citation. I've temporarily edited the sentence to read: "even several days after recovery".

I'm not a doctor but how I read it... the article mentions that the male individual felt better and went back to work on January 27. Then on January 29, a "follow-up qRT-PCR assay revealed a high viral load". That would indicate that the virus can be contageous for at least 2 days after full recovery... not 14 days. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Please cite the NEJM url as a reference. The reference is a letter to the editor of NEJM. The text of the letter is not available on pubmed, but the full text is publicly freely available on the NEJM website: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2001468

SailBelow (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Didn't even notice that on the initial edit. Generated the automatic citation. - Wikmoz (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah! Updated citation from the Letter to the /full/ Correspondence. - Wikmoz (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

It depends on the viability of the viral load. The PCR could have identified DNA from dead virus or from living virus. It's unknown which. See last sentence of second-to-last paragraph. If dead virus, then the patient might be considered fully recovered. If living virus, then patient is definitely still sick despite being asymptomatic at that point. For example, since the patient still harbors living virus, the patient could rebound into a symptomatic state.

SailBelow (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! My primary concern was the scary claim of extremely long post-recovery contagious period. Very concerned about medical misinformation in the top section. Further hedged the statement down to "possibly for several days after recovery". Will defer to MDs for further refinement or reinstatement of the 14 day claim. - Wikmoz (talk) 07:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Exact text was "The fact that asymptomatic persons are potential sources of 2019-nCoV infection may warrant a reassessment of transmission dynamics of the current outbreak. In this context, the detection of 2019-nCoV and a high sputum viral load in a convalescent patient (Patient 1) arouse concern about prolonged shedding of 2019-nCoV after recovery. Yet, the viability of 2019-nCoV detected on qRT-PCR in this patient remains to be proved by means of viral culture."

It is very tentative. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

New WHO report: 'Novel Coronavirus(2019-nCoV) Situation Report - 12: Highlights. World Health Organization. Published 1 February 2020.' states "Asymptomatic infection may be rare, and transmission from an asymptomatic person is very rare with other coronaviruses, as we have seen with Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus. Thus, transmission from asymptomatic cases is likely not a major driver of transmission..." - Wikmoz (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Should we cover the conspiracy theories revolving around this outbreak?

Considering the amount of dis/misinformation going around online, it might be worth either adding a section to this page (and/or the catchall List of conspiracy theories) on the fact that people (maliciously or not) are spreading rumors, primarily about the origin of the virus. I for one have seen plenty claim that the virus was made by the Chinese government - while we don't have clear information on how this epidemic occurred, this is very unlikely due to a number of factors.

Neglecting coverage might contribute to the spread of this dis/misinformation as fact. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 23:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but by following WP:RS. We are seeing RS coverage of how there are conspiracy theories going round: let's use them. We shouldn't go anywhere near sources promulgating these conspiracies as they're not reliable. Bondegezou (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• That's a given, since those sources pushing the conspiracy are usually from previously unreliable ones anyway. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 23:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Wow, if ever there was a case of Wikipedia being pretentious it is this misinformation section, may I ask, until the actual source of this virus is known how do you know that it is misinformation and not information? The numbers coming from CCP are taken as gospel while suggestions that contradict them are seen as "misinformation". Anything but the part about the nurse (as it at least contains some information) in this section is nothing but speculation and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.53.217.147 (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect incubation period at the beginning of the article

Right now it says 2 to 128 days. Really? I think it is more like 14 days. Somebody has been vandalizing the page, it seems.

See https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/about/symptoms.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6020:114:2C0A:F258:53D6:236E (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

It was originally at 10 days. The CDC is enough of a RS that I feel its appropriate to change it to 14 days.

Found the editor who made the claim. 1 Sleath56 (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Yah BMJ says 10 days[4] CDC says 14 days.[5]

Either will do I guess. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that after added a citation request for the very unlikely 128 day period, explaining why in the edit summary (though I hadn't seen this talk page section yet), I was reverted by FobTown with no explanation whatsoever. I am glad it is now fixed to something more reasonable and with a citation, but I wasn't impressed and I was under the belief that good-faith "citation needed" templates weren't supposed to ever be removed except by providing a citation or pointing to an existing one and perhaps making it clearer. I hope it was just an oversight during editing of the rest of the page. LjL (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Three new sources on Euronews (Portuguese Version)

Hi! I believe to have three more sources, that are reputable and may be helpful:

1. PT-PT: "Chineses queixam-se de discriminação por causa do coronavírus" EN: "Chinese people complain about discrimination due to the coronavirus"
2. PT-PT: "Coronavírus: China pede ajuda à UE para facilitar venda de material médico ; EN: Coronavirus: China asked for help to the EU to facilitate the sale of medical supplies"
3. PT-PT: "Coronavírus vai afetar o PIB da China" EN:"Coronavirus will effect China' GDP"

FranciscoMMartins (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Conflicting numbers of confirmed cases

This article is getting a bit bloated and ridiculous. There are four different sections with confirmed case counts and every one is different. The summary at the start needs to match the detailed chart and map and none of them point to the same sources. The sections that have confirmed counts as of the same, most recent date really should have matching and correct counts. As of now they do not. There needs to be ONE section (aside from the summary of the article at the beginning) where there’s ONE map and ONE chart and they need to have non conflicting data. Kjpmi (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Support! Source clean up needed. Stop adding sources. Focus on the fewer and better sources now. Example https://thelancet.com/coronavirus. Yug (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

We need to go with what some source says such as[6]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay so we have two main numbers...

This one here which regularly gets updated throughout the day[7]

And our own page here[8] which is a bit more uptodate (by a few hours) and uses some of the number from the first.

Which do people want to go with? I guess we can just reference ourselves for the total using WP:IAR and all that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay have changed the reference to our template so at least the reference supports the number in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The original or most official source is the Chinese National Health Commission, but it's updated only daily I think and requires digging through some text to find the numbers. JHU and I think HealthMap are using this site, a Chinese site, which seems to be updated throughout the day with data on new confirmations, so you can update as often as you want to. I've been using it for this line graph, which I've proposed as replacement for the horizontal bar graph and the semi-log graph. It's discussed in two previous sections (Alternative to the bar graph of confirmed cases, Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2020 : May I add this plot) where it has the full caption. JuanTamad (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Jtamad Agree https://ncov.dxy.cn/ncovh5/view/pneumonia is likely best for China. Not sure if it is the best for other regions of the world. They are a little old on Australia (9 rather than 10 cases)Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Jtamad with respect to the graph why just China and Taiwan? What about adding a sum of other countries? So three lines?

Rather than ROW the tag should say Taiwan. And maybe move the tags to below the image rather than beside it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The red line is China and Taiwan (the PRC reports Taiwan as if were part of PRC), the blue line is not Taiwan, it is all other countries. That's the way the data are provided. This caption now explains. The graph is also posted above in a different conversation with the full caption JuanTamad (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)