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

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Adding all-cause deaths for Q2

I have removed the recently added all-cause deaths for Q2. I believe this is all too likely to mislead the general reader, by showing no comparison to effect of the flu. The chart is possibly accurate (I have not double checked), but I think it is misleading. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

In the context of this article, COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom, comparison of deaths each year in Q2 to reveal the scale of excess deaths during that period is more relevant (and no more or less misleading than any other data) than the recently-added comparison of deaths for year-to-date. The comparison with deaths from flu would certainly be of interest; for this, deaths by year in Q1 (or preferably 'the flu season', however that might be defined) would be of interest (I shall be happy to extract the Q1 numbers from the data at mortality.org), together with a note as to which years the flu was considered a more significant hazard. I see for example (tho' I have not checked the details) at 2009 swine flu pandemic in the United Kingdom a suggestion of 3 UK deaths from Swine Flu, among ~7500 cases, in April-July 2009. However I note that there is no reference in this article to such comparison at the moment. Rather than remove the y-t-d bar charts pending a presumed pending expansion to compare with flu, I have added the Q2 chart which gives us something with which to compare flu effects. Yadsalohcin (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

What the all-week chart does is that it shows the impact of the covid epidemic on all-week mortality; all-week mortality includes flu and other causes. By contrast, by selecting only particular a quarter, the causes of all-week mortality that usually do not occur in Q2 are excluded, and an impression is created of a large impact that is then brought to no relation to other month-seasonal infuences such as flu. One problem is that, for covid, it is fairly easy to determine the baseline to compare against when determining excess deaths since Q2 is very often free from excess death; by contrast, this is much harder to do for flu since Q1 is very often featuring peak excess death caused by flu. By pooling Q1 and Q2 together, we get a fair comparison as for causes that peak both in Q1 and Q2, except that Q4 from previous year is missing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

As for "[...] Q2 chart which gives us something with which to compare flu effects": How does Q2 chart help us compare the covid effects to flu effects, and what is the result of that comparison? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Lumping the Covid and flu numbers together tells us what? Please clarify your comparison with flu. Some numbers would be good. If we wish to refer to comparisons with flu in the article, we should go ahead and do so and thus explain inclusion of the all-week mortality bar chart. Otherwise it misleadingly underplays the effects of Covid-19, and Covid-19 is the subject of the article. How big an increase is required over what period to constitute a 'large impact'? Is 49% extra over a quarter significant? Wouldn't it be good to include a Q1 barchart too, as Q1 must be close to matching 'the flu season'? Then we would have an impression of the scale of effect of flu on mortality. Yadsalohcin (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

All-week mortality lets the reader compare different years and see how various years impacted by flu compare to the year impacted by covid. The comparison now available is visual, not numerical, but can be easily made numerical from the data in the chart. For instance, the reader can note that 2019 was a relatively low year with its 337070 deaths in weeks 1-33, and that year 2020's 398425 is 18% higher; at the same time, the reader can note that 2018 was a more flu-impacted year with its 357833 deaths in weeks 1-33, and that year 2020's 398425 is 11% higher.

That said, I have realized that the Q2 chart is better at revealing the excess deaths proper, exactly because Q2 is free from such month-seasonal impacts such as flu. I still fear that the Q2 chart is going to mislead, but I now do see a justification for readding it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know how large the contributions to mortality might be in a given year for any given health condition- e.g. are there refs that the 6% higher value for 2018 compared with 2019 was specifically to do with flu? I shall re-add the Q2 barchart (as you say, there are fewer seasonal effects in that period of the year, but I don't see how it will mislead...) and work one up for Q1. Yadsalohcin (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

More as an academic note, let me put the key idea in a different way: some people like me want to see a comparison of all-cause deaths, and I do not see why they should not. But comparing Q2 is not really all-cause, only nominally so, since some causes peak in Q4 and Q1. Flu is an example of a cause that is thought to peak in Q4 and Q1, but for the purpose of the analysis, the concern is not really with flu in particular but rather than no cause is artificially excluded by restricting the comparison to Q2. Again, the Q2 comparison can stay to reveal pure excess deaths better, but the all-week (as far as available in 2020) comparisons are an attempt at true all-cause comparison. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Continuing our thread of academic interest in All-cause deaths and those related to a specific condition, I note from an archived HPA source that to week 44 of 2009, 214 deaths had been seen in the UK 'with' Swine flu, among a total number of deaths of the order of 360,000. We might therefore anticipate that flu deaths are likely to be lost in the general variability of mortality, even for that headline-hitting pandemic flu event. Looking at the data for Scotland from the mortality.org statistics, as it includes the year 2009, one can see that all-cause deaths, weeks 1-30, for 2009 were given at mortality.org as 32103 and lay between the values for the adjacent years (the sequence ran 32481, 32103, 31477); by week 44 from the HPA ref there had been 38 deaths 'with' Swine flu. With differences between years in the weeks 1-30 mortality.org figures running ca. 400-600, a difference in the order of 40 will be lost in the variability. As the swine flu reached the UK outside the usual season for flu, its mortality numbers were mercifully small and do not show a large effect in the All-cause total. This is also seen in the graph of weekly deaths at Figure 11 of the HPA ref: Estimated weekly all-cause death registrations in England and Wales, 2009/10 season, where 'observed' numbers run very close to 'expected' and well within the 95% bounds. It would be interesting to see comparisons for other pandemic flus in the UK. A quick search gave me a couple of refs for the US case which must give us a hint... as of mid-March [2020], between 29,000 and 59,000 have died due to influenza illnesses (cf. Covid-19 in the US to date, ~190,000 deaths) and even by May, US Covid-19 deaths at 62,000 had exceeded the upper estimate for US flu deaths that season. Yadsalohcin (talk) 07:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

As for "We might therefore anticipate that flu deaths are likely to be lost in the general variability of mortality": not at all. "Swine flu" is not your typical flu but rather flu that had very little impact. A comparison to Swine flu specifically is invalid for the purpose of assessing the usual fall and winter excess mortality caused by flu.

A relevant non-scientific link:

• Coronavirus: How to understand the death toll, bbc.com

  "When it comes to flu, experts track what are called excess deaths. During recent winters, there have been about 17,000 excess deaths a year, Public Health England says."

--Dan Polansky (talk) 09:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou for this. It is apparent from the figures above that Swine Flu's bark (headline news status) was worse than its bite (mortality), but it is good to have your confirmation of this. So, the bbc link states that 2015 was 'the deadliest flu outbreak' in recent years, so, just as per the graph they began in April, a graph (which can now be continued on into August) showing average weekly deaths (preferably excluding 2015 and 2020), and the weekly numbers for 2015 and 2020, should give us a reasonable impression of the 'excess-excess' numbers for respectively a bad flu year and a year in which Covid has found its way to the UK ('excess-excess' because the comparison will be between all deaths averaged over years with ordinary flu excess deaths and the 'severe year case' of 2015 with severe flu excess deaths). It will be interesting to compare with the 17,000 figure. Data available from mortality.org, for now I propose to begin at the start of the year and abandon Autumn numbers, but including Autumn could be a later exercise. I'll get on to it asap... Yadsalohcin (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hand picking 2015 comes dangerously close to original research, I think; better plot a series of recent years, e.g. 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020. The last chart in Wikiversity:COVID-19/All-cause deaths/England and Wales suggests 2017/2018 was the worst recent season in terms of all-cause deaths in England and Wales. That is to say, better plot something like the chart "All-cause daily deaths 2015–2020" I did in COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden#Excess mortality, which plots 2015-2020. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hospitalization data

Does anyone have fresh hospitalization data? What we have from https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-hospital-activity/ ends a couple of weeks ago; this data is for England and we have to be careful not to mix it with data that is totals for UK or even England and Wales. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I used the '1. Total reported admissions to hospital and diagnoses in hospital' from one of the spreadsheets at the www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-hospital-activity source to generate a fresh graph for Aug and Sept but now I find that this seems inconsistent with their other spreadsheet. It is at least more nearly current. Yadsalohcin (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

See the note on the page above the first graph: 'admissions' vs. 'admissions... and diagnoses in hospital'. I would comment that a factor of three between the numbers calculated these two ways in early August seems surprising- but then it could be explained if a lot of the 'diagnoses in hospital' result from attendance at A and E with what already looks suspiciously like Covid-19(?) Citation needed. Yadsalohcin (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2020

After: “They highlighted the virtues of countries which did not go into lockdowns or had a much more lenient general approach to the virus such as Sweden.[220]”

Add:

“However, there has also been academic criticism of the Government’s handling of COVID-19 from the perspective of democracy, governance and human rights.”

With a footnote reference to:

“Stephen Thomson, Eric C Ip, ‘COVID-19 Emergency Measures and the Impending Authoritarian Pandemic’ (2020) Journal of Law and the Biosciences https://academic.oup.com/jlb/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jlb/lsaa064/5912724 Oxford University Press 81.110.222.213 (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I'm not certain whether that reference to one academic article is enough to support stating that there's been "academic criticism", which is quite a broad statement. I'm not sure how other editors feel, but I would suggest that more references be found to show that there's been widespread 'criticism'; or, if that reference were to be used, changing the sentence to specify who is criticising. In this case, Stephen Thomson and Eric C Ip. Seagull123 Φ 21:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Case number for 3rd of October

Dear all,

I suspect that today’s case number is an error. The 12k number may have been created in error by accidentally double-counting yesterday’s number. I would recommend that all references to it are removed from the page until the problem can be solved. Please could you do this for me? Thank you. 95.148.142.37 (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Ps, I wish to state here that I suspect that this error originated from the government website. So, please consider that, and also keep an eye on it, just in case a correction is issued.

From the BBC website:

The UK has announced more than 10,000 daily coronavirus cases for the first time since mass testing began. There were 12,872 new cases, while a further 49 people have died within 28 days of testing positive for Covid-19. However, the government said a technical issue meant previously-unannounced cases from the past week had been added to the day's total. It comes after data released this week suggested infections may be increasing more slowly than in previous weeks. This data was based on weekly testing among a sample of people in the community to get an idea of how many people in England have the virus at any time. But the government also closely watches the daily number of positive cases, as it provides the most up-to-date snapshot. However, it published a cautionary message on its "data dashboard", explaining that the totals reported over the coming days would include some cases from the previous week, "increasing the number of cases reported". Jopal22 (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Point taken! I will allow the number to stand, but could someone append an explanatory note to the article? Thank you. 95.148.142.37 (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Fife missing from local authority area map

At the top of the page, the map of cases per local authority doesn’t include Fife, it shows it as being in the sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.254.153.0 (talk) 09:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

New pages

I have now moved content from the overlong section on the government response to British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic (which was previously named Government of the United Kingdom's financial response to the COVID-19 pandemic), and Criticism of the British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic (a completely new page). This follows a previous discussion on this talk page. Andysmith248 (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Some of the content is now duplicated between those pages and this one. Probably needs cleanup on both and decisions of what belongs where BlackholeWA (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think the government response section on this page could be rewritten so the same content isn't carried over at the new page. There is no longer any crossover between the criticism page and this page. Andysmith248 (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

By 'new page' I meant British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The section does need work done on it here, but it'd take time and effort for an editor to do. Andysmith248 (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• This would be a blatant WP:POVFORK falling afoul of many WP:PAGs including NPOV. Have blanked and redirected back here. Note this incident is being discussed at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 08:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn, Criticism of the British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic copied what was already here under the 'Criticism of the government response' section. There was consensus to create a page about criticism previously on this talk page, because as mentioned there is a lot of information and views that are worthy of being heard. The article had sourced information that has gone and not been returned to this page, which is now devoid of the criticisms or a link to access them. I think there is coverage of criticisms that warrants the page's existence. It should have remained, but been improved by adding suitably weighed positive rebuttals to the criticisms as the guidelines say. But for now, there was content on that page that should probably be returned to this page. Andysmith248 (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Criticism sections are very bad, articles even worse - and piling up negative criticism in an article is a flat-out violation of NPOV, which is not subject to being overturned by "consensus". I have no objection to any "lost" material being returned here, but WP:CRITS offers some sage advice on avoiding NPOV problems. Alexbrn (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I voted in support of the creation of this page when it was previously discussion on the talk page of this page. Mostly on the basis of the main page already being too long and therefore the need to split out content. I don't necessary think a criticism page is the best idea but I believe there was content on that page (that has now been deleted) which needs to be included somewhere on Wikipedia. Maybe a better solution would have been to merge the criticism page into Government of the United Kingdom's financial response to the COVID-19 pandemic which I fully support needing its own page. Either way I don't think the blanket deletion of information without replacing it somewhere is going to be usefulTracland (talk)

A criticism page balanced out with supportive views has potential to exist, but for the time being I will return the content not to this page but to the page you gave a link to. Criticism has to be covered somewhere and can't just be wiped away. Andysmith248 (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

All-cause hospital bed occupancy

Do we have a source for all-cause hospital bed occupancy for the UK, daily or weekly? That is, what is, on a daily or weekly basis, the number of people currently hospitalized in a hospital, regardless of whether covid-positive, flu-positive and the like? It is vital that this statistic is all-cause, not restricted to covid-positive. This is not admissions; this is the number of beds occupied on the day, whether resulting from admissions on that day or admissions on previous days. This number is increased by admissions and decreased by releases.

One can also ask the question the other way around: what is the number of free beds on daily or weekly basis? The information provided by this question may differ from the occupancy question: one can increase bed capacity and with it the free beds. Therefore, the question of bed occupancy is valuable on its own. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

"Compulsory" mask wearing with exemptions?

The article currently says in two places that mask wearing is compulsory in certain contexts. However, it neglects that some people are exempt for medical reasons, and so mask wearing is not compulsory for all. Should these exemptions be mentioned each time the word compulsory is used? Awoma (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I would think not - a mention the first time it's covered should be sufficient? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that's needed, unless I'm reading it wrong: England made face masks compulsory on all public transport on June 15, while new regulations made it compulsory to wear face coverings in most indoor shops and public spaces on July 24. Exemptions are mentioned right after the July 24 bit. In other words, it sounds like England either relaxed their stance on face masks in general, or distinctly separated the two situations (public transport versus indoor spaces). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2020

ADD to timeline for September:

September 1 -- primary and secondary schools in England reopen for the new fall term, with PM Boris Johnson promising they will not be locked down again. Sept. 25 -- Government's Test and Trace app for smartphones is launched. 81.100.172.179 (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article - (and there is no such thing as a "fall term" in the UK in any case) - Arjayay (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Devolution and funding

The introduction includes this sentence:

'Health care in the United Kingdom is a devolved matter, with England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales each having their own systems of publicly funded healthcare, funded by and accountable to separate governments and parliaments, together with smaller private sector and voluntary provision.'

I'm not sure if the phrase "funded by... separate parliaments" is fully accurate as though the specifics of funding on things like health are controlled by the devolved administrations the overall spending on devoted matters in Wales, Scotland and Northern England is pegged to he amount spent in England via the Barnett formula.

Sorry I meant northern Ireland🙄 Llewee (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the last sentence of the Lead paragraph, I agree. It currently reads "Health care in the United Kingdom is a devolved matter, with England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales each having their own systems of publicly funded healthcare, funded by and accountable to separate governments and parliaments, together with smaller private sector and voluntary provision." I suggest inserting the words "devolved block grants via the Barnett formula" after "funded by". The new sentence would then read: "Health care in the United Kingdom is a devolved matter, with England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales each having their own systems of publicly funded healthcare, funded by devolved block grants via the Barnett formula and accountable to separate governments and parliaments, together with smaller private sector and voluntary provision." This relies on the third source (https://academic.oup.com/bmb/article/118/1/16/1744498) I know this insert is a little long-winded, so it could perhaps be shortened. SpookiePuppy (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay that seems sensible, I will change it now. Llewee (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Llewee for making the edit. It looks good and seems to have settled well. SpookiePuppy (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Add significant date: 4th July

On 4 July, places started to open up; pubs, cafes and restaurants, hairdressers and barbers, museums and libraries, theme parks and cinemas, hotels and campsites – as long as they could open safely. Group meetings at places of worship also became possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhwood1 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the suggested passage on the easing of restrictions should be added, however the source provided [1] predates the development described. (The Guardian article is dated 24 June.) Ideally, a source from 4 July should be used, or perhaps a source dated a day or two later. There is a Gov.uk source, dated 4 July, which would cover the claim for the easing of restrictions at places of worship [2], but an additional source would be required to cover the easing of restrictions at the other venues, perhaps the Guardian one would suffice if both of these sources are used side by side. SpookiePuppy (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

References

"Sage advisers used Wikipedia entries to model first Covid lockdown"

• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/11/19/sage-advisers-used-wikipedia-entries-model-first-covid-lockdown/

---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: if it's not already listed at WP:PRESS 20, you may want to add it there. Seagull123 Φ 18:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Tiering

It would be really useful if we could have a map that showed the tiering system that has recently been applied in the UK. Is anyone aware if one of these has already been produced, perhaps for another page? AndrewRT(Talk) 15:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

PINGing @Crep171166, who created two UK restriction boundary maps on Commons (here and here) who may be able to help. Seagull123 Φ 18:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @Seagull123 and AndrewRT: thanks for that. There is an even better map on the COVID-19 tier regulations in England article, created by @Rcsprinter123, if that helps? Thanks. -- Crep1711 (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Crep1711 and Rcsprinter123, I imagine if that could be combined with Scotland's 5-tier system, that would be what @AndrewRT is looking for? Seagull123 Φ 17:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all for this. The underlying issue I guess is that most of the substance of the COVID response is delegated, which leaves very little substantial non-duplicative up-to-date content in this particular article. Perhaps a solution is to restructure this article to make it a more explicit pointer to the sub-articles where the content is? AndrewRT(Talk) 15:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: File:UK Government COVID-19 Winter Plan.pdf uploaded to Commons

Just as a note to editors, I've just uploaded the Government's "COVID-19 Winter Plan" to Commons (under the OGL3 licence), here: File:UK Government COVID-19 Winter Plan.pdf. This may be of use/interest to editors here. Seagull123 Φ 18:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Would that be the Scottish Government's? Or has the English Government become the default? John Jones (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Vaccination strategy

The UK government has published a very good independent report from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation that outlines their up-to-date recommendations on priority groups for vaccination.

• "Priority groups for coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination: advice from the JCVI". GOV.UK. 2 December 2020. Retrieved 4 December 2020.

The report has a number of good quality references and a comprehensive summary of the background to the pandemic. There should be plenty of usable content in there to update UK-COVID-related articles. --RexxS (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment - cases change metrics

Please take part in discussion here: Project COVID-19, Medical cases charts - change type — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kohraa Mondel (talk • contribs) 22:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Row over image use

As can be seen on the article's history, myself and @John Jones: have had an argument over imagery in the timeline. He wishes to illustrate information about travel restrictions introduced on the Wales-England border in November with this image. I argue that this is inaccurate as the image is from several months earlier when no travel restrictions were in place. I have tried to remove the image whilst giving my reasoning on multiple occasions but he has reverted it. Any third opinions on the issue would be helpful. Llewee (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Invitation given over at WT:COVID-19#Discussion at Talk:COVID-19 in the United Kingdom § Row over image use. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I recommend asking yourselves, "does the addition of the image improve the article?" It rarely matters what the provenance of an image is for that purpose, as long as it doesn't inherently mislead the reader. It remains true that Welsh COVID rules apply, so I don't think it falls foul of that. Of course, if its purpose is to illustrate the paragraph about travel restrictions, then an image showing some sort of border checks would be more useful. Considering that there are a lot of images in the article, and there is already a video illustrating the point, you may wish to consider whether the image adds anything to the article (and why the caption repeats exactly what is seen in the image - which group of readers benefit from that?) --RexxS (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I would estimate that ONLY 5% of what has been announced at the UK's (sic) / England's daily press briefings are relevant to the other 3 countries. Yet this article is full of statements which are untrue, and relevant only to England (using 'UK' rather than 'England'). Over the last few months I have said this over and over, yet the problem persists. For most users, this article is treated as if England = the UK! Take a look at the infobox map on COVID-19 pandemic in England, which goes back to June! yet above this thread, an editor calls for a new map on the new levels for England only. No interest at all in asking for a map on Scotland!

No one wants to use the term 'England', as it is a pin in their UK ego. Removing stuff about Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, has been done over and over until all that remains is a tainted and incorrect Empire view that what comes out of Boris' mouth is relevant to the whole of the disunited kingdom! The article is not neutral, it is biased. There is a political attempt to NOT use the term 'England', to shy away from it. Boris and co do that all the time at their announcements - he prefers to be seen as Prime Minister of the Uk rather than the head of a small part of it (as far as Covid is concerned), called England - as does the BBC and the Daily Mail! All 3 governments have commented that this misinformation has happened and is extremely dangerous, lawyers are preparing to sue... Wikipedia should be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, what is pertinent to England only and what is relevant to the whole of the uk. England is not synonymous with UK. This image (Welsh rules) is essential for readers to realize that Covid-19 was fought not at an UK level, but by 4 countries, individually. The Lighthouse Labs is UK, the vaccination will be UK, but that's about it. Please list any others!

In fact, the only information on this article should be what is common to all 4 nations (the 5% mentioned); everything else should be taken to each individual nation's article. It's called decolonisation. John Jones (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

User:John Jones, can I ask that you respect WP:LISTGAP and WP:NOTFORUM, please? It is helpful to keep comments on this talk page concentrated on the issue of improving the article. As well as the topic of what is common between the four nations, there is also a legitimate reader interest in comparing and contrasting the differences between them, and that belongs far more in this article than in the individual articles.

We are hamstrung by the systemic press bias toward England because we depend so strongly on sources for our content, and I would like to see some means of addressing that. On the other hand, there are sources that cover issues concerning all of the UK, such as the vaccination strategy, and bodies that serve the whole of the UK, such as the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.

Returning to the proximate dispute, I was hoping that you might address the point I raised about whether the image adds something to the paragraph about travel restrictions when immediately above it, we have a video of Mark Drakeford announcing that English visitors cannot travel to Wales. --RexxS (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@John Jones: You make it utterly impossible to have a proper discussion. I'm from the valleys myself and have worked on improving the Covid 19 in Wales page as well as coverage of Wales in this article. The use of this image is a separate issue, I have tried to explain my reasons for wanting to remove it but you don't respond you only wrant and have made quite clear at this point that you're trying to push a political agenda. Llewee (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: I've just read WP:LISTGAP and WP:NOTFORUM, and I'm unsure as to which parts are you referring to. Can I ask you to respect WP:BIAS: can you not see that my comments illustrate the bias in this article, and are therefore a sincere attempt at improving the article? You recognize the 'systemic press bias toward England', and mention that you would like to address that imbalance. How, therefore are you going to proceed to do that? Until that issue is addressed the imbalance remains, and I shall tag this article accordingly.

I'm surprised you mention the vaccination being all-UK related, as I had already said that. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is part of the European system of approval - the decision as to whether Wales opts for MHRA in January remains to be seen. Imho it is far too reliant on industry, and not fully independent. But, good call! Carry on listing any others please. Maybe a separate article is needed to fully explain this.

@Llewee: if you think that an imbalance, a bias (pro-England = UK) is acceptable, then you are pushing a very political English unionist agenda. By the way, where you come from is irrelevant! Regarding your comment that I don't respond - please read my detailed notes on each edit I made. I shall return to this on your Talk page later. In the mean time, I've deleted the video in question, as both of you believe that there is a conflict between both. I see no conflict: the addition of the image + video improve the article, making it slightly more balanced. John Jones (talk) 08:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@John Jones: LISTGAP: Look at your penultimate edit in this thread and you'll see that you left a bunch of your indented comments with gaps between them. That is very unkind to visually impaired readers who use a screen reader and I'm asking you to respect the injunction not to do that.

NOTFORUM: "bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article" I sincerely hope that you don't think the second paragraph of your penultimate post bears any resemblance to a discussion on how to improve the article. Look at these examples:

"a pin in their UK ego"
"a tainted and incorrect Empire view that what comes out of Boris' mouth is relevant to the whole of the disunited kingdom"
"Boris and co do that all the time at their announcements - he prefers to be seen as Prime Minister of the Uk rather than the head of a small part of it (as far as Covid is concerned), called England"

That's nothing more than a collection of your personal rants, and has no bearing on how to improve the article.

BIAS: show me the diff of where I've not respected WP:BIAS, or retract that petulant smear. Accusing another editor of bias is serious and you're going to have to back it up or withdraw it. If you don't, then you can be assured that I'll seek an uninvolved admin to sanction your behaviour.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is not part of the European system of approval, but an executive agency sponsored by the Department of Health and Social Care in the United Kingdom. There is no question of any part of the UK "opting for MHRA in January"; it is an independent body responsible for regulation of medicines, medical devices and blood components for transfusion in the UK, and Brexit has no bearing on its legal status. --RexxS (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:BIAS - I've shown several times that there is bias in this article. it's around 80% England! I said: 'The article is not neutral, it is biased. You agreed that the article contained systemic press bias toward England ... and said 'and I would like to see some means of addressing that.' Now that you have acknowledge that there is bias in the article, we need to fix it. I ask you and all other editors to remove the bias in the article. There are quite a few relevant notes in WP:BIAS under 'Nature of Wikipedia's bias', which includes:

'perspective bias in articles'

'The size of articles is often based on the interest that English-speaking Wikipedians have in the subject (which to some extent is based on the involvement of their nations). '

'Articles where the article name can mean several different things...'

We all need to respect WP:BIAS.

I then said: 'can you not see that my comments illustrate the bias in this article, and are therefore a sincere attempt at improving the article? You recognize the 'systemic press bias toward England', and mention that you would like to address that imbalance. How, therefore are you going to proceed to do that? ' I still await an answer. If an editor agrees that there is 'systemic press bias toward England' in an article, and allows it to remain, then WP:BIAS has not been respected.

'Accusing another editor of bias' - no! The bias is in the article: read what I've written again! But you are aware of the bias in the article and have acknowledge that fact. I now look forward in redress, so that we have a balanced, neutral, impartial and unbiased article. If an editor chooses to ignore a bias or an imbalance in an article, then that editor goes against the chore values of Wikipedia.

Department of Health and Social Care - we'll see! You say it's 'not part of the European system of approval'. Please therefore correct the English Wikipedia article, which says, 'As part of the European system of approval, the MHRA or other national bodies...' And also www.gov.uk which says 'On completion of the UK's departure from the European Union in January 2021, the MHRA becomes a stand-alone body.' I suggested creating a list of all-UK Covid related stuff (sorry, 'matters') and so far, we still have only two. John Jones (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

What about if as a alternative option I bring back the Welsh government video you deleted this morning to illustrate the travel restrictions and move the image up to the June section of the timeline? Llewee (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Excellent! Unless @RexxS: doesn't object? John Jones (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@John Jones: I certainly won't object to a sensible change that both of you can agree on. --RexxS (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@John Jones: OK, thank you, I will change it now. Llewee (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC) LISTGAP - interesting; thanks. WP:NOTFORUM - that's hyperobole, using day-to-day common words (as you use words like 'you left a bunch of your indented comments'), but possibly ott.

age

First immunsied person is 90 not 91. Sort it out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.6.42 (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The opening paragraph

@Llewee and SpookiePuppy: Until October, the intro read:

 'Health care in the United Kingdom is a devolved matter, with England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales each having their own systems of publicly funded healthcare, funded by and accountable to separate governments and parliaments, together with smaller private sector and voluntary provision.'

And following a discussion on the Talk page by two editors, was changed to the present draft, due to the following argument by User Llewee:

'... and health are controlled by the devolved administrations the overall spending on devoted (sic) matters in Wales, Scotland and Northern England (sic) is pegged to he (sic) amount spent in England via the Barnett formula'

This is totally incorrect. There's no such thing as 'devoted matters'. More importantly, funding in Wales is not 'pegged to the amount spent in England'. Third: the way the 4 governments are funded (eg taxes raised, shared through a formula...) is irrelevant to the opening paragraph on a pandemic!

SpookiePuppy then quotes a part of what is said on the Institute for Government's website, but not the following - very relevant - part:

The figure is calculated against all UK government spend, and is not ringfenced to any particular devolved policy area (such as health) so the devolved administrations can choose how to spend it. This means that increases in spending on the NHS in England do not automatically lead to similar increases in health budgets in the other nations.

The sum of all knowledge next time, please! I move that the wording be changed to:

There has been variation in the outbreak's severity in each of the four nations. Health care in the United Kingdom is a devolved matter, with England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales each having their own systems of publicly funded healthcare, separate governments and parliaments, together with smaller private sector and voluntary provision. 

Only a part of the information was provided by the two users. I wonder why? John Jones (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@John Jones: Please refrain from implying I'm attempting to manipulate information especially given the extent to which you clearly come to wikipedia with your own worldview in mind. Apologies for my typo, a devolved matter is a matter under the control of the devolved governments some issues (ie policing and justice in Wales' case) are outside their control. I am aware money is not ringfenced to any particular issue but the devolved governments are in no way independent in their funding matters as if the amount of money spent in England on issues that are devolved in other parts of the UK goes up or down then the level of funding for the devolved administrations will increase or decrease. I therefore asked for the change as the previous wording seemed a little inaccurate especially as the potential effect of funding cuts during the 2010s had become part the debate around the UK's coronavirus response.

In relation to your suggested wording to imply that the four countries of the UK have completely "separate governments and parliaments" with no specific reference to healthcare is a little misleading as not all matters are devolved, people in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have representatives in the house of commons of the United Kingdom and the UK parliament ultimately has the authority to give and remove powers from the devolved administrations. I propose that alternative wording that would remove references to the Barnett formula and provide even greater than now would be:

Health care in the United Kingdom is a devolved matter, with England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales each having their own systems of publicly funded healthcare, the former of which is the direct responsibility of the UK Government whilst the rest are a matter for the devolved administrations in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales respectively, together with smaller private sector and voluntary provision. 

Llewee (talk) 11:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

As far as health is concerned, all 4 governments have absolute control, Llewee. The UK Government has not once over-ruled any other government, in health or any other matter, therefore what you say is irrelevant. We all come to Wikipedia with our own 'worldview' (I'd say prejudice), even those who condone the status quo. Nowhere does John Jones state that 'the devolved governments are in no way independent in their funding matters'; that's a false accusation! However, I don't understand everything you say as your grammar is rather unusual and fragmented eg 'I am aware money is not ringfenced...' and 'and provide even greater than now would be...' (what?) Llewee - Funding cuts has nothing to do with health. I agree with John Jones's wording. Cell Danwydd (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

A. His wording doesn't specify health. As I stated in my first response.

B. I wasn't accusing him of saying that the devolved governments were independent in funding matters I was explaining why I changed the previous wording.

C. I did struggle to find the best way of wording it but the full quote is 'I am aware money is not ringfenced to any particular issue' meaning I know the money the devolved administrations receive through the barnett formula can be spent on whatever they want regardless of how money is spent in England.

D. Sorry that was a typo I meant 'greater clarity'.

E. Funding cuts clearly do effect healthcare as funding cuts tend to mean less funding for health. Llewee (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The original talk section Devolution and funding has now been archived, but the discussion was opened on 10 October 2020. I then responded on 14 October and Llewee updated the Talk page on 27 October, which was over 2 weeks later. No other editors had responded to that specific thread. I don't think it's our fault that no-one else chose to get involved at that point, and perhaps 17 days is not enough time for a proper discussion to evolve. I personally felt that it was long enough for a discussion to develop about the paragraph of text under consideration. Either way, I fully accept that just 2 editors could never achieve proper consensus, and this (consensus) is something at the heart of what Wikipedia is.

I am slightly disappointed at the rhetorical question being posed by John Jones: "Only a part of the information was provided by the two users. I wonder why?" For my part, there was no hidden agenda in only making reference to the first section. I think there are important implications of funds not being ringfenced, etc. but space has to be considered along with the main theme of the article. Now that the discussion has been reopened, we will have to see if we can achieve more of a consensus. Personally, I think that the original paragraph - as it was on 10 October, really did needed some clarification, which was all I was trying to do.

Further down the article, there's a subsection UK and devolved government responses which is perhaps the best place for the more detailed wording in John Jones's proposal. In a wider sense, I fully accept the thrust of the concerns discussed elsewhere that for this page to genuinely be a page about the pandemic in the United Kingdom, it must properly reflect the home nations, and this is something I will be keeping in mind. SpookiePuppy (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@John Jones, Cell Danwydd, Llewee, and SpookiePuppy: Thanks both. I see that we're all going in the same direction. I've added 'health' in my revised wording. Funding cuts clearly do effect every part of life, including health, retail, culture, education etc. To answer your last point (E): tax is raised in Wales, sent to London, creamed off the top (HS2 (5 billion of Welsh money to subsidise English railway system), renovating Grade 1 listed Westminster, pay Queen and family's costs, military spend (Wales pays twice the Republic of Ireland) etc etc), then divided acc. to Barnett family formula. I don't think this is relevant in an article on a virus, do you?. I therefore suggest:

There has been variation in the outbreak's severity in each of the four nations. Health in the United Kingdom is a devolved matter, with England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales each having their own systems of publicly funded healthcare, separate governments and parliaments, together with smaller private sector and voluntary provision.

Llywelyn2000 (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree Cell Danwydd (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with John Jones's proposed wording to replace the last 2 sentences of the lead section. SpookiePuppy (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all. Let's wait a while, for others to comment. John Jones (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Potential for article on the vaccination programme?

Hi, just a question - is there any potential for an article on the evolving COVID-19 vaccination programme? E.g. COVID-19 vaccination programme in the United Kingdom or such like? The start of the programme became a notable event, and I am sure many other milestones and developments will notable down the line. It has been said elsewhere that this subject can be covered within the general pandemic/timeline articles, but I just think this will develop a niche of it's own (if it hasn't already), in a similar vane to the the NHS Test and Trace article. After all, the COVID-19 vaccination programme has been said to be the biggest such programme ever in the UK? There is already a bank of official documents building up on the Gov.uk website to draw from. Lots of potential questions from an inquiring public I would say - what, where, when, who, etc. The only other thing - I am a newbie with no published articles so wondered if anyone with experience would take on this challenge. As said, I don't even know if there is scope for a potential article, let alone know where to start in producing one - so just 'floating' this! Apologies if I have missed any existing (draft) article? Thanks for your time. -- Crep1711 (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this could (and soon should) have an article. There are quite a few regulars here who could chip in and help. Why not make this your first new article? You could start with a few ideas in your sandbox, then move to a new page when you're happy. It doesn't need to be perfect, or even remotely complete, so long as you make sure that you have reliable sources for everything. Try it; it won't be your last! MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Ps As a new user you'll be able to create a new page like any other editor, but you may find it doesn't appear in search results immediately as it will need to be quickly reviewed (essentially just to check it's not spam or nonsense like so many attempts at new pages are, sadly). There's a whole group of new page reviewers who work on that, and there's nothing special you need to do. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I would agree for a separate article too, on the basis that it looks like we will have at least two (possibly three) vaccines, and all that information would then bloat this article somewhat. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks both, for your replies; especially @MichaelMaggs: for your vote of confidence/encouragement. I will make a start in my user sandbox subpage later, after work. Again, happy for others to edit there or zip one out elsewhere. Thanks. --Crep1711 (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Great to hear. Just ask if there's anything you need help with (formatting citations is fun!) You'll have seen things about 'submitting your article for review' aka uploading it to draft space for general community comments before creating a proper new page. That's an entirely optional extra step which is sometimes used where the subject matter is only marginally notable and the editor wants to make sure the article isn't going to be deleted straight away. That shouldn't be a problem here, as there are lots of sources and the article is pretty obviously needed. The extra step can take some time, too, and this is fairly time-sensitive. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@MichaelMaggs: Many thanks for that tip too.--Crep1711 (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I have now done a chunk of work on this here: User:Crep171166/sandbox/COVID-19 vaccination programme in the United Kingdom, but needs expanding. I will continue later today. Thanks. --Crep1711 (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Crep171166 Looks good to me so far, though I do have some observations (sorry).

• I think the stub tag can be removed, although it is not yet assessed, and won't be until it is in mainspace, it is way beyond stub status.
• I would say that the word centre in Vaccination Centers is changed to British English as this is about the United Kingdom. If it was a worldwide article, then Centers may be preferable.
• The Times and The Yorkshire Post report that 138,000 people were vaccinated in the first week; 108,000 in England, 7,897 in Wales, 4,000 in Northern Ireland and 18,000 in Scotland. You may want this information, you may not, that is really up to you. I have given a cite direct from the newspaper, so there will be no need to change any access dates, as it does not need one. They both have the same breakdown, but the Yorkshire Post gives an unrounded figure of 137,897.

To be honest, I don't want to mess with the article, because I think it's a good job. Regards.The joy of all things (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

This is great - really good work. Looks like you didn't need any help :) You could put it up now as a live page, and I'm sure you'll see people helping to contribute to it. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Wow, thanks so much @The joy of all things and MichaelMaggs: for your pointers and very kind comments! I will have a bit more of a tweak over lunch and see if I can't 'get it out there' too. Much appreciated guys. --Crep1711 (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

References