![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
ArchiveĀ 25 | ArchiveĀ 26 | ArchiveĀ 27 | ArchiveĀ 28 | ArchiveĀ 29 | ArchiveĀ 30 | ā | ArchiveĀ 35 |
China's number of cases hasn't increased in over 3 days now. I'd say this is highly unlikely. According to a lot of news outlets, the Chinese government seems to be lying about the numbers. https://www.tweaktown.com/news/71531/scientists-claim-china-is-lying-about-total-coronavirus-covid-19-cases/index.html https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1250786/coronavirus-proof-china-government-cover-up-wechat-censor-keywords-xi-jinping-spt
Shouldn't China's number at least have this added: dubious ā discussĀ ? Or an extra section could be devoted to elaborate. Aquatic Ambiance ( talk) 14:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
MarioGom and I have noted the fact that the "urns" story that Ozzie10aaaa and Jaedglass are citing is itself being used in extremely flimsy extrapolation to fuel a BS conspiracy theory. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 18:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
References
Several times over the last month, a hatnote with a link to Coronavirus Ā§Ā Outbreaks has been added to this topic. The current notice reads:
To me, the notes seem unnecessary. The guidance provided in WP:HAT is not crystal clear though. I think the 0.1% of users who are actually looking for information on other coronavirus outbreaks will be able to easily find their way to MERS or SARS or the Coronavirus topic. Perhaps we could instead include a link to Coronavirus Ā§Ā Outbreaks in the See also section? I could be wrong though so interested to hear other opinions.
Alternatively, perhaps we could just redirect "Coronavirus outbreak" directly to Coronavirus Ā§Ā Outbreaks. Does anyone have any stats on the actual percentage of page visitors that arrive via this redirect? - Wikmoz ( talk) 08:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. ā Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
This page has broken templates and inclusions which may be seen by viewing Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. This page has reached its limit.
To fix, you have the following options:
I have left the template,
Template:2019ā20 coronavirus pandemic at the bottom and it will only show as a direct link unless the transclusion problem is cleared up. That is acceptable in the meantime since the reader can still click on it to navigate the other sets of articles.
Ā āĀ
Berean Hunter
(talk)
14:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
This change [12] by User:Ahecht
Changed it from multiple columns on wide screens to one column and in my opinion makes it harder to read. Is there another solution that returns multi column? Doc James ( talk Ā· contribs Ā· email) 15:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
<references>...</references>
tag is responsive, and will adjust the number of columns automatically based on window width. The references should show up two columns if your screen is over ~1100 pixels wide, and in three if its over ~1500 pixels wide (I just took
this screenshot on a 1920px wide monitor using Chrome). If you want fixed narrower columns, instead of the responsive layout, this can be replicated by replacing <references>
with {{refbegin|30em}}<references responsive="0">
and </references>
with </references>{{refend}}
. --
Ahecht (
TALKAlthough the content of the Transmission section is good, the structure is poor. Paras 1,2, and 4 deal with droplets, para 3 mentions feces and severity of symptoms.
I propose revision as follows:
How does that sound? Robertpedley ( talk) 09:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
also asymptomatic needs a section. Do u know what this ample research is from prof Macintyre?ā Almaty ( talk) 14:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I support a reorganisation and also removing the technical terms respiratory droplets and airborne, whilst including de-emphasised exhalation (as part of the main method). Although you, doc james, and I know what weāre talking about, the a world sure doesnāt.
It is primarily spread via small droplets produced during coughing, sneezing, and talking. The virus can also be transmitted via breathing, but only during close contact, and not over large distances.
please see this WHO tweet and also the twitter replies as to how confused the world is by our current wording. ā Almaty ( talk) 09:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
OK - here's my first draft.
Notes:
1) I have only used existing cited sources - CDC reviewed 4 March, WHO revised 28 March, ECDC updated 31 March. Some of these are more recently updated versions than currently appear in the page. I've left the citations out of the text below.
2) None of the sources give talkng or breathing as a source of droplets.
3) There's currently a detailed paragraph on disinfecting surfaces - I propose to move this into the "Prevention & Control" section.
Research is ongoing into the transmission of COVID-19. There is consensus that COVID-19 is mainly transmitted from one person to another through respiratory droplets produced by a person with symptoms, for example by coughing or sneezing. There may be a risk of transmission in this way from people who are infected but do not yet display COVID-19 symptoms. These droplets then come into contact, either directly or indirectly, with another personās mouth, nose, or eyes.
Respiratory droplets may remain in the air between 1 and 2 metres (3.3 to 6.6 feet) under normal circumstances and directly cause infection if they come into contact with another person. In order to avoid infection, minimum physical distancing of 1 metre is recommended by WHO and ECDC, while CDC recommends 2 metres.
Respiratory droplets may also cause infection if they land on objects which are subsequently touched by an uninfected person, and then transferred to that personās mouth, nose or eyes. The virus can survive in this way for hours or possibly days.
While there are concerns it may spread by feces, this risk is believed to be low. Some medical procedures such as intubation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) may increase the likelihood of airborne spread.
Robertpedley ( talk) 21:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
In the latest World Health Organization recommendations for COVID-19, health care personnel and other staff are advised to maintain a 3-foot distance away from a person showing symptoms of disease, such as coughing and sneezing. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a 6-foot separation. However, these distances are based on estimates of range that have not considered the possible presence of a high-momentum cloud carrying the droplets long distances. Given the turbulent puff cloud dynamic model, recommendations for separations of 3 to 6 feet may underestimate the distance, timescale, and persistence over which the cloud and its pathogenic payload travel, thus generating an underappreciated potential exposure range for a health care worker. Peak exhalation speeds can reach up to 33 to 100 feet per second, creating a cloud that can span approximately 23 to 27 feet. [1] Givingbacktosociety ( talk) 04:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
References
is it reasonable to summarise the sources of the WHO ECDC and CDC as they stand today with the following two sentences:
The virus is primarily spread via small droplets produced during coughing, sneezing, and talking. It can also be transmitted via breathing, but only during close contact, and not over large distances. ā Almaty ( talk) 05:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
The WHO states " The main way the disease spreads is through respiratory droplets expelled by someone who is coughing."
So have added "talk" to the first sentence since that is now supported as one of the main methods. Happy to restore the prior version if anyone disagrees. Doc James ( talk Ā· contribs Ā· email) 23:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Loh, Ne-Hooi Will; Tan, Yanni; Taculod, Juvel H.; etĀ al. (18 March 2020). "The Impact of High-Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) on Coughing Distance: Implications on Its Use During the Novel Coronavirus Disease Outbreak". Canadian Journal of Anesthesia. doi: 10.1007/s12630-020-01634-3. PMCĀ 7090637. PMIDĀ 32189218.
Bourouiba, Lydia (26 March 2020). "Turbulent Gas Clouds and Respiratory Pathogen Emissions: Potential Implications for Reducing Transmission of COVID-19". JAMA. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4756. PMIDĀ 32215590.
And both studies specifically reference Coronavirus making this pertinent to our article. FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 20:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
What do people think of
Versus
Doc James ( talk Ā· contribs Ā· email) 23:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
References
Wondering what people think of
Rather than
In the lead? Would this address the concerns about using the technical term "airborne"? Doc James ( talk Ā· contribs Ā· email) 16:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
References
WHO2020QA
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).According to current evidence, COVID-19 virus is primarily transmitted between people through respiratory droplets and contact routes.
These droplets are too heavy to hang in the air. They quickly fall on floors or sufaces.
The sentence:
These small droplets may also be produced during breathing, but rapidly fall to the ground [...]
suggests that only droplets produced during breathing rapidly fall to the ground. The problem is that such a phenomenon contradicts the laws of physics because droplets produced during breathing are smaller then those appearing during coughing, sneezing, or talking. And the smaller the droplet, the slower it falls. In addition to this, droplets below 200 microns can drift considerable distance, unless they are smaller then 100 Ī¼m because then they tend to completely dry out before settling on a surface. Of course when humidity rises that process slows down and stops when humidity reaches 100%. Anyway, if you get too close to someone, you may inhale their droplets before they dry out. If the droplets are free from the coronavirus, you are in good luck. Otherwise, you had better have your mask on. 85.193.250.200 ( talk) 14:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Information to be added (I'm not sure where to add it): On 5th April, 2020, some Pastors worldwide arranged Palm Sunday congregations defying the ban on mass gatherings and have been arrested for the same. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
References
Souniel Yadav ( talk) 16:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello D.M. from Ukraine, I've moved the discussion to the appropriate talk page. See my response there. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx contrib talk page 18:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
On Feb 17, 2020, Fauci called the coronavirus risk "minuscule" and said wearing a mask was not necessary. On March 30, 2020, WHO said there was no evidence wearing a mask helped, and that was echoed on March 31, 2020 by the Surgeon General. A few days later, the CDC recommended masks.
Jeremy Howard (entrepreneur), research scientist at the University of San Francisco, made the statement: "What we now know, or strongly guess, is that if eighty percent of people in a community wear a face mask, any kind of cloth cover, it can actually stop the virus in its tracks." and "each person wearing a single mask has a value of four to six thousand dollars due to the huge impact it has on transmission." [13] starting about 4:30. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 02:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Research supported by Nobel prize-winning virologist Harold Varmus tells us that placing a layer of cloth in front of a person's face stops 99% of the droplets.Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
If you wish to help update the number of coronavirus cases, please go over to Template:Cases in 2019ā20 coronavirus pandemic and use Edit source. Currently I think there have only been about 6 people who have edited and updated the page so far, so hopefully this post will help more people update it as new information comes in.
Update: If you want to update the number of territories affected, go to Template:Territories affected by the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic.
Sam1370 ( talk) 00:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Despite Dr. Fauci saying he wanted long randomized tests, others urged more testing of HCQ given the emergency situation. Didier Raoult, MD, PhD found HCQ useful, as did Stephen Smith, MD of the Smith Center for Infectious Diseases. Questions were also raised as to whether HCQ could help as a preventative measure to help health care workers remain coronavirus-free. āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 ( talk) 01:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
And Coronavirus will be one of the topics people judge Wikipedia by. Either theyāll say, Wikipedia did okay I guess, with disappointment in their voice. Or theyāll say, Wikipedia actually did really good.
It will be so much better to have the second and thatās what we should strive for!
Okay, we currently have all these references thrown in āReferencesā where itās very hard to update, for example, when WHO or CDC gives a later date, and itās very hard to delete one we know longer need.
The second paragraph of our lead begins: āThe virus is mainly spread during close contact[c] and by small droplets produced when those infected cough, sneeze or talk. . . ā Important stuff on the spread, and yet seems to be buried in . .
{{Excerpt|Coronavirus disease 2019|fragment=Spread . .
Wow.
This makes it harder to update stuff thatās likely to change. I say, we embrace our unprecedented circumstances, which are unprecedented at least in degree. We embrace the challenge of both a fast-changing factual situation and the fact that many editors are interested and want to pitch in and help out.
Yes, we certainly can learn something new. But then weāre asked to learn all these tables and templates. Yes, people often take ownership of such, but what if people get sick or just get busy at work. FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 20:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2019ā20_coronavirus_pandemic&diff=949649438&oldid=949646277
@
Sdkb: in fairness I should tell you that I changed back your edit back of 17:16 6 April.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2019ā20_coronavirus_pandemic&diff=949469834&oldid=949469120
My thinking is that we need to keep things readily available to update and change as new information comes out.
FriendlyRiverOtter (
talk)
18:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
fragment
parameter makes excerpts difficult to understand and implement. I always disliked fragments, they suck. I recommend the
Template:Excerpt be used just for transcluding entire lead sections of subarticles into sections of this article, such as for example in
2019ā20 coronavirus pandemic#Education. Check the wikitext there, I think it's nature (and benefits) should be clear to any editor.
Sophivorus (
talk)
19:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Also make a bar graph of united states new infections per day, with overlay bars of the number of tests performed per day. Testing capacity has reached or is nearing capacity and it will make it look as if daily new infections is constant when in fact it is increasing. In reality tests performed per day will be constant and the backlog of tests (to process) will be increasing. The time to receive test results is also increasing due to the backlog of tests (to process) increasing.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/03/next-covid-19-testing-crisis/609193/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/04/americas-covid-19-testing-has-stalled-and-thats-a-big-problem/ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/health/coronavirus-testing-us.html āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by Josecansecoder ( talk ā¢ contribs) 03:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Why is (mainland) written after China in the list of countries? Meanwhile every other country has an explanation in the notes section. It's not France (mainland) or Netherlands (mainland). The explanation that it's just the mainland of theses countries should be consistent and kept in the notes section, no? 50.101.52.133 ( talk) 13:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
France (mainland)(the term is Metropolitan France anyway),
Netherlands (mainland)etc. The move request failed, time to move on from this total non-issue. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 16:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
About "flush eating disease" really happened in 2010
https://apic.org/monthly_alerts/get-the-facts-about-necrotizing-fasciitis-the-flesh-eating-disease/
About "pneumonia like disease" really happened in 2020
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sylvia-browne-coronavirus/ Please open this link for the above books page , the paragraph one really happened in 2010, the paragraph 2 rally happened in 2020 , its is really a mystery.
Please start discussion about this issue
( Yshari ( talk) 16:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC))
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
for the sake of factual correctness and professionalism, may i suggest saying COVID-19 in the title, although, yes, the year does technically provide specification, the current title appears as if stating that "coronavirus" is the name of the virus, thus reinforcing said problematic misnomer
it may also be a good idea to change "pandemic" to a more professional and factual equivalent with, yknow, some actual stats behind it āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by AllieTheLilac ( talk ā¢ contribs) 23:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
{see top of page, 'no moves' until end of month/April 26, thank you--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
01:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC))
Moving the treatments to another page, then moving from that page to another page, then from that page to another page ... means that nobody can get any information about treatments. This critical information has been lost in the bowels of Wikipedia.
You guys are idiots. People are dying and you are more worried about editorially "correct" Wikipedia articles rather than making it as easy as possible for people to find information about cures. If putting cure information in this article directly saves even one life, then it belongs in this article. What might have been "right" a month ago, maybe not be right NOW. Any information that can save even one life needs to be as easy as possible for people to find the information. Playing editor Gods, in this case, could literally cause somebody to die that did not need to die. Do you editor Gods really want that on your conscience?
Combination treatment of the following 5 items has shown almost 100% success with patients who are just starting to have the symptoms of shortness of breathe, either at a doctor's office or right when they get the hospital. Preventing people from having to go to the hospital in the first place or worse, being put on a ventiltor, will reserve much needed ventilators for people who this treatment does not show signs or working or have other conditions that make this treatment not the appropriate choice.
In the above section, can we add the repeated mention of SARS-COV2 as Chinese virus by Donald Trump as a form of racism? āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitaphul ( talk ā¢ contribs) 05:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so under which section should we mention this fact? I mean I still think this is racism. Check out the following article: [1] Sitaphul ( talk) 05:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Sitaphul 05:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
U.S. president Donald Trump has faced criticism for referring to the coronavirus as the "Chinese Virus", a term considered by some critics to be racist and anti-Chinese.That wording is fine, and any proposed significant changes to it should be discussed and consensus reached before being implemented. {{u| Sdkb}}āÆ talk 05:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
References
Perhaps finding an accurate number for the amount of students currently enrolled and comparing it to the number on the UNESCO site would work Sam1370 ( talk) 07:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
There is still the number of total students affected on the site, so doing some arithmetic should allow us to get the correct number Sam1370 ( talk) 07:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb Thanks for the info. Sorry ā should have looked over the UNESCO article more carefully the first time, then I would have realized it only applied to nationwide learners and the information would have been updated correctly the first time. Sam1370 ( talk) 09:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
This number was previously reported as 97% on this page, and 98% on the impact of coronavirus page. I donāt know where these figures came from, so in an earlier edit I corrected the data using information from the original UNESCO source. However, I reread the UNESCO page and it said that this 91.3% figure only corresponded to the number of nationwide learners and not the learners in total. If you find a way to get accurate information on this topic please reply immediately.
Sam1370 ( talk) 07:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
The article states that 60 to 70% people need to get infected and survive the disease in order for the community to reach herd immunity. In reality it is "get infected and survive, or get vaccinated". (The percentage depends on R0). The alternative of vaccination should be mentioned.
-- Stefanhanoi ( talk) 22:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
āāāā
@ Stefanhanoi:, @ MiasmaEternal: and @ CRGreathouse: should we cover vaccination the same time we talk about herd immunity, and if so, how? FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 03:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. ā Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2019-20 Coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ā LaundryPizza03 ( d cĢ) 20:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
The current count is 223 countries/territories + 4 ships. This should be reflected both in the stats box and in the info box at the top. āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 ( talk) 23:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Forgive me if this has been brought up before, but does it not seem out of touch to anyone else that the infobox photomontage (which is otherwise excellent) has no photo from the country with by far the highest number of cases? Perhaps a photo from the U.S. placed further down in the article could be substituted in, if appropriate? (This wouldnāt be at the expense of any of the images already there, of course.)
Food for thought. ā RedSoxFan274 (talk ~contribs) 12:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should we stop the use of excerpts which take material from Coronavirus disease 2019 and copies that same material into 2019ā20 coronavirus pandemic?
For example, the second paragraph of 2019ā20 coronavirus pandemic uses . . . . Excerpt|Coronavirus disease 2019|fragment=Spread|nohat=y . . . . , with double braces at both ends. 14:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
āāāāāā-
@ Liz: @ Doc James: @ Juxlos: @ Brandmeister: @ Sdkb: @ Sophivorus:
Iāve started this RfC (Request for Comment), and as persons who have previously commented, you are each hereby invitedĀ :-) as are other interested persons. FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 14:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
fragment
parameter (the only example you mention, and the only using the fragment
parameter, coincidentally) but I also mentioned that plain uses, such as the one at
2019ā20 coronavirus pandemic#Education are much easier to understand and implement, which no one replied to or seems to acknowledge. So for now I stand my ground: I agree about stopping the use of complicated excerpts with the fragment
parameter, but not about stopping the use of plain excerpts, since they seem to me overly useful and simple enough.
Sophivorus (
talk)
15:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Various sources reports that cats can be infected with the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. I think there should be a section about this as virus spreads between species! ā Vilnisr T | C 06:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
See alsonotice leading to a smaller article focusing on COVID-19's effects on pets and animals above it and add more content in there. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx contrib talk page 18:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
There are some reports that there could be connection between an outbreak in Wuhan and spike of pneumonia in Siberia in late 2019 after a blast at the Russian viral laboratory Vektor in mid September 2019.
Back on 19 September 2019 Dr Filippa Lentzos, an expert in biological threats and a senior research fellow at King's College London, said that while the Russian story was āconsistentā, she would not be surprised if more details later emerged because of the countryās track record. (Sarah Newey. Russian lab blast: smallpox facility passed WHO biosecurity inspection in January. The Telegraph. 19 September 2019)
signed Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 19:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
The territories affected by coronavirus as reported by Worldometer conflicts with the number of territories affected we have on the page 2019ā20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory. Since one links to the other on this page, which do you all think we should use? Sam1370 ( talk) 19:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
China's number of cases hasn't increased in over a week now. I'd say this is highly unlikely. According to a lot of news outlets, the Chinese government seems to be lying about the numbers. https://www.tweaktown.com/news/71531/scientists-claim-china-is-lying-about-total-coronavirus-covid-19-cases/index.html https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1250786/coronavirus-proof-china-government-cover-up-wechat-censor-keywords-xi-jinping-spt
Shouldn't China's numbers at least have this added: [dubious ā discuss]Ā ? Or an extra section could be devoted to elaborate. I already added this info and it was archived, but I can't find it anymore. Besides it's not solved yet. Aquatic Ambiance ( talk) 09:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Wondering peoples thoughts? The script can be edited easily and the video updated easily. Doc James ( talk Ā· contribs Ā· email) 20:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Regarding āfirst fewā sentences, the discussion was mainly on just the first two.
And instead of ānot generally airborne,ā weāve currently decided to go with the phrase āare not generally spread through air over large distances.ā FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk)
![]() | This
edit request to
2019ā20 coronavirus pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Website requesting to edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Coronavirus_disease_2019&gettingStartedReturn=true#Prevention Subtitle: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Coronavirus_disease_2019&gettingStartedReturn=true#Prevention
Sentence requesting to edit:"According to the WHO, the use of masks is recommended only if a person is coughing or sneezing or when one is taking care of someone with a suspected infection."
What to replace it with: "With the continuum of maintaining the 6-feet social distancing, the CDC is additionally advising the use of simple cloth face coverings to slow the spread of the virus and help people who may have the virus and not know it from transmitting it to other individuals."
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover.html Aspencer0522 ( talk) 16:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
The table under Epidemiology has been replaced by the map showing total cases. The table was MUCH more easier to understand the number of cases country-wise than the map. I don't see the need for the map to appear again as it is available in the infobox too. Any chance we can bring it back? Thundermage117 ( talk) 15:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To change name to 2019-20 Covid-19 pandemic Vonwin ( talk) 00:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone cite this? https://www.tagesschau.de/regional/nordrheinwestfalen/corona-studie-heinsberg-101.html It is a study in Germany that considers the lethality of the covid-19 as low as 0.37%. Thank you. -- 83.38.50.205 ( talk) 18:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
There is increasing scientific opinion of Hydroxychloroquine as an emerging antidote against SARS-COV-2. So, should we mention that? Also, I think we should distinguish 'cases' into 'active cases' and 'recovered cases' instead of vaguely using the term cases . Sitaphul ( talk) 06:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Sitaphul
The mainstream media has reported cases of coronavirus in animals. It's important enough for this article to have a section about it. Jim Michael ( talk) 00:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Please find the best permanent reliable source for date of origin. Changing dates periodically seems nonliable to some readers. The Supermind ( talk) 17:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi. The stats of India are a little off than the provided source [17]. I would have updated it myself, but I dont know the template name, and because of the mediawiki software update, i am unable to edit sections on mobile. Kindly edit as soon as possible. āusernamekiran (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
It was first identified in December 2019 per CDC and WHO. Doc James ( talk Ā· contribs Ā· email) 23:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Serious mistake in the pandemic date- "17 November 2020-ongoing", obviously should be "17 November 2019-ongoing".
NEEDS TO BE URGENTLY FIXED! I can't edit because the article is locked. āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.226.14.95 ( talk) 10:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The problem still exists that there is changing date of origin, Dec 1 to Dec 2019. The Dec 1 the true one. Please do not change periodically that seemingly vandalize the article. The Supermind ( talk) 17:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The sentence about xenophobia and racism related to the pandemic keeps getting edited back and forth by me and other users, so I believe it's appropriate to create an RfC about it. The current formatting of the sentence is "Misinformation and conspiracy theories about the virus have spread online as well as xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people, people of Asian descent, and others from hotspots.", added by me.
Three versions of the sentence have been included lately:
So I am asking, which the three versions is the most appropriate and neutral. It's also worth asking, if the word "Asians" should specify "East Asians", considering Asian is quite a wide term, at least in most usages. -- Tiiliskivi ( talk) 11:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Misinformation and conspiracy theories about the virus have spread online and there have been incidents of xenophobia and racism against Chinese and other East and Southeast Asian people.I think the "and there have been incidents of" was better, for the reason you mentioned that xenophobia hasn't just been online. The "others from hotspots" was language I added to consolidate after someone else added a full sentence about discrimination against Europeans, which was way too much in my view. At that point, I used "against Chinese people, other Asians, and others" but it was subsequently changed by someone who reasonably objected that "Asians" was too broad a category, given that there hasn't been significant discrimination against e.g. Indians (it had also been that way at some prior point, so yeah, lots of back and forth, and thanks for opening a forum for discussion about this). There is also room for discussion about "Asian" vs. "Asian descent" vs. "Asian descent or appearance". It gets tricky. I support option 2 since most of the incidents have been against Asian people, so that should be noted, but not to the total exclusion of incidents against others. {{u| Sdkb}}āÆ talk 11:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm separating out this question since it's distinct from the main one asked in the RfC above. We have a whole bunch of possible alternatives:
Any of these alternatives could also be used without the clause specifically about Chinese people. What do you all think is the proper balance between precision and conciseness here? {{u| Sdkb}}āÆ talk 18:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
{{u| Sdkb}}āÆ talk 18:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)"Asian" should be changed to "East Asian and Southeast Asian". So far only Asians that have East Asian features are facing discrimination (that includes many Southeast Asians). Some Indians (South Asians), like the incident in Israel, have faced discrimination but that's only because of their East Asian features. Most Indians with typical South Asian features aren't facing discrimination, neither are Central Asians or Southeast Asians like Malays, Indonesians or East Timorese who mostly have typical Southeast Asian features.
āā User:Sapah3
@ Sdkb: - May I suggest "...and there have beenĀ incidents of xenophobia and discriminationĀ against Chinese and those perceived as being Chinese, as well as against people from emergent hotspots around the globe." Iswearius ( talk) 12:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I prefer #3 but without the āChinese people,ā this is one of those things that gets really complicated though... By Chinese people we generally mean all people of Chinese descent, but what should we say when we have a case like Taiwan or Singapore where people of Chinese descent are discriminating against people of Chinese national origin? If the context is generalized global racism/xenophobia/etc then we should be as broad as possible because from news reports it seems like people from Vietnam, South Korea, etc are being just as victimized in countries like the USA, UK, South Africa, etc as those from China. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 15:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Seen in this article as something that should be seen "as a test run for all the diseases that will be unleashed in the decades ahead by warming. The virus is a terrifying harbinger of future pandemics that will be brought about if climate change continues to so deeply destabilize the natural world: scrambling ecosystems, collapsing habitats, rewiring wildlife, and rewriting the rules that have governed all life on this planet for all of human history." [73] If there are more sources discussing this aspect I thought this source might be useful - this isn't an article I edit however. Doug Weller talk 14:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Whoever is changing the period where discussions without comment are archived absolutely needs to stop, or at least have the decency to bring it up for discussion first. We've survived fine with 24hrs for many weeks, and that's the firmly established status quo at this point. If you really think it needs to be less (or more), make an argument for that, don't just do it unilaterally, deleting the hidden comment telling you not to do so. I've had to unarchive way too many still-active discussions, which is a pain. {{u| Sdkb}}āÆ talk 20:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
This sentence was added to the intro sometime in the past day: Due to reduced travel and closures of heavy industry, there has been a decrease in air pollution and carbon emissions, which has had a beneficial effect on the environment.
Is it important enough to stay there? (And anyone feel like writing a
Impact of the 2019ā20 coronavirus pandemic on the environment article?) {{u|
Sdkb}}āÆ
talk
07:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
In India, a species of Malabar Civet that hasn't been spotted for a very long time, was seen walking down a street in the middle of the virus. Sitaphul ( talk) āPreceding undated comment added 06:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
ArchiveĀ 25 | ArchiveĀ 26 | ArchiveĀ 27 | ArchiveĀ 28 | ArchiveĀ 29 | ArchiveĀ 30 | ā | ArchiveĀ 35 |
China's number of cases hasn't increased in over 3 days now. I'd say this is highly unlikely. According to a lot of news outlets, the Chinese government seems to be lying about the numbers. https://www.tweaktown.com/news/71531/scientists-claim-china-is-lying-about-total-coronavirus-covid-19-cases/index.html https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1250786/coronavirus-proof-china-government-cover-up-wechat-censor-keywords-xi-jinping-spt
Shouldn't China's number at least have this added: dubious ā discussĀ ? Or an extra section could be devoted to elaborate. Aquatic Ambiance ( talk) 14:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
MarioGom and I have noted the fact that the "urns" story that Ozzie10aaaa and Jaedglass are citing is itself being used in extremely flimsy extrapolation to fuel a BS conspiracy theory. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 18:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
References
Several times over the last month, a hatnote with a link to Coronavirus Ā§Ā Outbreaks has been added to this topic. The current notice reads:
To me, the notes seem unnecessary. The guidance provided in WP:HAT is not crystal clear though. I think the 0.1% of users who are actually looking for information on other coronavirus outbreaks will be able to easily find their way to MERS or SARS or the Coronavirus topic. Perhaps we could instead include a link to Coronavirus Ā§Ā Outbreaks in the See also section? I could be wrong though so interested to hear other opinions.
Alternatively, perhaps we could just redirect "Coronavirus outbreak" directly to Coronavirus Ā§Ā Outbreaks. Does anyone have any stats on the actual percentage of page visitors that arrive via this redirect? - Wikmoz ( talk) 08:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. ā Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
This page has broken templates and inclusions which may be seen by viewing Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. This page has reached its limit.
To fix, you have the following options:
I have left the template,
Template:2019ā20 coronavirus pandemic at the bottom and it will only show as a direct link unless the transclusion problem is cleared up. That is acceptable in the meantime since the reader can still click on it to navigate the other sets of articles.
Ā āĀ
Berean Hunter
(talk)
14:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
This change [12] by User:Ahecht
Changed it from multiple columns on wide screens to one column and in my opinion makes it harder to read. Is there another solution that returns multi column? Doc James ( talk Ā· contribs Ā· email) 15:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
<references>...</references>
tag is responsive, and will adjust the number of columns automatically based on window width. The references should show up two columns if your screen is over ~1100 pixels wide, and in three if its over ~1500 pixels wide (I just took
this screenshot on a 1920px wide monitor using Chrome). If you want fixed narrower columns, instead of the responsive layout, this can be replicated by replacing <references>
with {{refbegin|30em}}<references responsive="0">
and </references>
with </references>{{refend}}
. --
Ahecht (
TALKAlthough the content of the Transmission section is good, the structure is poor. Paras 1,2, and 4 deal with droplets, para 3 mentions feces and severity of symptoms.
I propose revision as follows:
How does that sound? Robertpedley ( talk) 09:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
also asymptomatic needs a section. Do u know what this ample research is from prof Macintyre?ā Almaty ( talk) 14:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I support a reorganisation and also removing the technical terms respiratory droplets and airborne, whilst including de-emphasised exhalation (as part of the main method). Although you, doc james, and I know what weāre talking about, the a world sure doesnāt.
It is primarily spread via small droplets produced during coughing, sneezing, and talking. The virus can also be transmitted via breathing, but only during close contact, and not over large distances.
please see this WHO tweet and also the twitter replies as to how confused the world is by our current wording. ā Almaty ( talk) 09:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
OK - here's my first draft.
Notes:
1) I have only used existing cited sources - CDC reviewed 4 March, WHO revised 28 March, ECDC updated 31 March. Some of these are more recently updated versions than currently appear in the page. I've left the citations out of the text below.
2) None of the sources give talkng or breathing as a source of droplets.
3) There's currently a detailed paragraph on disinfecting surfaces - I propose to move this into the "Prevention & Control" section.
Research is ongoing into the transmission of COVID-19. There is consensus that COVID-19 is mainly transmitted from one person to another through respiratory droplets produced by a person with symptoms, for example by coughing or sneezing. There may be a risk of transmission in this way from people who are infected but do not yet display COVID-19 symptoms. These droplets then come into contact, either directly or indirectly, with another personās mouth, nose, or eyes.
Respiratory droplets may remain in the air between 1 and 2 metres (3.3 to 6.6 feet) under normal circumstances and directly cause infection if they come into contact with another person. In order to avoid infection, minimum physical distancing of 1 metre is recommended by WHO and ECDC, while CDC recommends 2 metres.
Respiratory droplets may also cause infection if they land on objects which are subsequently touched by an uninfected person, and then transferred to that personās mouth, nose or eyes. The virus can survive in this way for hours or possibly days.
While there are concerns it may spread by feces, this risk is believed to be low. Some medical procedures such as intubation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) may increase the likelihood of airborne spread.
Robertpedley ( talk) 21:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
In the latest World Health Organization recommendations for COVID-19, health care personnel and other staff are advised to maintain a 3-foot distance away from a person showing symptoms of disease, such as coughing and sneezing. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a 6-foot separation. However, these distances are based on estimates of range that have not considered the possible presence of a high-momentum cloud carrying the droplets long distances. Given the turbulent puff cloud dynamic model, recommendations for separations of 3 to 6 feet may underestimate the distance, timescale, and persistence over which the cloud and its pathogenic payload travel, thus generating an underappreciated potential exposure range for a health care worker. Peak exhalation speeds can reach up to 33 to 100 feet per second, creating a cloud that can span approximately 23 to 27 feet. [1] Givingbacktosociety ( talk) 04:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
References
is it reasonable to summarise the sources of the WHO ECDC and CDC as they stand today with the following two sentences:
The virus is primarily spread via small droplets produced during coughing, sneezing, and talking. It can also be transmitted via breathing, but only during close contact, and not over large distances. ā Almaty ( talk) 05:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
The WHO states " The main way the disease spreads is through respiratory droplets expelled by someone who is coughing."
So have added "talk" to the first sentence since that is now supported as one of the main methods. Happy to restore the prior version if anyone disagrees. Doc James ( talk Ā· contribs Ā· email) 23:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Loh, Ne-Hooi Will; Tan, Yanni; Taculod, Juvel H.; etĀ al. (18 March 2020). "The Impact of High-Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) on Coughing Distance: Implications on Its Use During the Novel Coronavirus Disease Outbreak". Canadian Journal of Anesthesia. doi: 10.1007/s12630-020-01634-3. PMCĀ 7090637. PMIDĀ 32189218.
Bourouiba, Lydia (26 March 2020). "Turbulent Gas Clouds and Respiratory Pathogen Emissions: Potential Implications for Reducing Transmission of COVID-19". JAMA. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4756. PMIDĀ 32215590.
And both studies specifically reference Coronavirus making this pertinent to our article. FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 20:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
What do people think of
Versus
Doc James ( talk Ā· contribs Ā· email) 23:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
References
Wondering what people think of
Rather than
In the lead? Would this address the concerns about using the technical term "airborne"? Doc James ( talk Ā· contribs Ā· email) 16:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
References
WHO2020QA
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).According to current evidence, COVID-19 virus is primarily transmitted between people through respiratory droplets and contact routes.
These droplets are too heavy to hang in the air. They quickly fall on floors or sufaces.
The sentence:
These small droplets may also be produced during breathing, but rapidly fall to the ground [...]
suggests that only droplets produced during breathing rapidly fall to the ground. The problem is that such a phenomenon contradicts the laws of physics because droplets produced during breathing are smaller then those appearing during coughing, sneezing, or talking. And the smaller the droplet, the slower it falls. In addition to this, droplets below 200 microns can drift considerable distance, unless they are smaller then 100 Ī¼m because then they tend to completely dry out before settling on a surface. Of course when humidity rises that process slows down and stops when humidity reaches 100%. Anyway, if you get too close to someone, you may inhale their droplets before they dry out. If the droplets are free from the coronavirus, you are in good luck. Otherwise, you had better have your mask on. 85.193.250.200 ( talk) 14:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Information to be added (I'm not sure where to add it): On 5th April, 2020, some Pastors worldwide arranged Palm Sunday congregations defying the ban on mass gatherings and have been arrested for the same. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
References
Souniel Yadav ( talk) 16:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello D.M. from Ukraine, I've moved the discussion to the appropriate talk page. See my response there. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx contrib talk page 18:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
On Feb 17, 2020, Fauci called the coronavirus risk "minuscule" and said wearing a mask was not necessary. On March 30, 2020, WHO said there was no evidence wearing a mask helped, and that was echoed on March 31, 2020 by the Surgeon General. A few days later, the CDC recommended masks.
Jeremy Howard (entrepreneur), research scientist at the University of San Francisco, made the statement: "What we now know, or strongly guess, is that if eighty percent of people in a community wear a face mask, any kind of cloth cover, it can actually stop the virus in its tracks." and "each person wearing a single mask has a value of four to six thousand dollars due to the huge impact it has on transmission." [13] starting about 4:30. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 02:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Research supported by Nobel prize-winning virologist Harold Varmus tells us that placing a layer of cloth in front of a person's face stops 99% of the droplets.Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
If you wish to help update the number of coronavirus cases, please go over to Template:Cases in 2019ā20 coronavirus pandemic and use Edit source. Currently I think there have only been about 6 people who have edited and updated the page so far, so hopefully this post will help more people update it as new information comes in.
Update: If you want to update the number of territories affected, go to Template:Territories affected by the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic.
Sam1370 ( talk) 00:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Despite Dr. Fauci saying he wanted long randomized tests, others urged more testing of HCQ given the emergency situation. Didier Raoult, MD, PhD found HCQ useful, as did Stephen Smith, MD of the Smith Center for Infectious Diseases. Questions were also raised as to whether HCQ could help as a preventative measure to help health care workers remain coronavirus-free. āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 ( talk) 01:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
And Coronavirus will be one of the topics people judge Wikipedia by. Either theyāll say, Wikipedia did okay I guess, with disappointment in their voice. Or theyāll say, Wikipedia actually did really good.
It will be so much better to have the second and thatās what we should strive for!
Okay, we currently have all these references thrown in āReferencesā where itās very hard to update, for example, when WHO or CDC gives a later date, and itās very hard to delete one we know longer need.
The second paragraph of our lead begins: āThe virus is mainly spread during close contact[c] and by small droplets produced when those infected cough, sneeze or talk. . . ā Important stuff on the spread, and yet seems to be buried in . .
{{Excerpt|Coronavirus disease 2019|fragment=Spread . .
Wow.
This makes it harder to update stuff thatās likely to change. I say, we embrace our unprecedented circumstances, which are unprecedented at least in degree. We embrace the challenge of both a fast-changing factual situation and the fact that many editors are interested and want to pitch in and help out.
Yes, we certainly can learn something new. But then weāre asked to learn all these tables and templates. Yes, people often take ownership of such, but what if people get sick or just get busy at work. FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 20:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2019ā20_coronavirus_pandemic&diff=949649438&oldid=949646277
@
Sdkb: in fairness I should tell you that I changed back your edit back of 17:16 6 April.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2019ā20_coronavirus_pandemic&diff=949469834&oldid=949469120
My thinking is that we need to keep things readily available to update and change as new information comes out.
FriendlyRiverOtter (
talk)
18:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
fragment
parameter makes excerpts difficult to understand and implement. I always disliked fragments, they suck. I recommend the
Template:Excerpt be used just for transcluding entire lead sections of subarticles into sections of this article, such as for example in
2019ā20 coronavirus pandemic#Education. Check the wikitext there, I think it's nature (and benefits) should be clear to any editor.
Sophivorus (
talk)
19:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Also make a bar graph of united states new infections per day, with overlay bars of the number of tests performed per day. Testing capacity has reached or is nearing capacity and it will make it look as if daily new infections is constant when in fact it is increasing. In reality tests performed per day will be constant and the backlog of tests (to process) will be increasing. The time to receive test results is also increasing due to the backlog of tests (to process) increasing.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/03/next-covid-19-testing-crisis/609193/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/04/americas-covid-19-testing-has-stalled-and-thats-a-big-problem/ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/health/coronavirus-testing-us.html āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by Josecansecoder ( talk ā¢ contribs) 03:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Why is (mainland) written after China in the list of countries? Meanwhile every other country has an explanation in the notes section. It's not France (mainland) or Netherlands (mainland). The explanation that it's just the mainland of theses countries should be consistent and kept in the notes section, no? 50.101.52.133 ( talk) 13:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
France (mainland)(the term is Metropolitan France anyway),
Netherlands (mainland)etc. The move request failed, time to move on from this total non-issue. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 16:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
About "flush eating disease" really happened in 2010
https://apic.org/monthly_alerts/get-the-facts-about-necrotizing-fasciitis-the-flesh-eating-disease/
About "pneumonia like disease" really happened in 2020
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sylvia-browne-coronavirus/ Please open this link for the above books page , the paragraph one really happened in 2010, the paragraph 2 rally happened in 2020 , its is really a mystery.
Please start discussion about this issue
( Yshari ( talk) 16:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC))
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
for the sake of factual correctness and professionalism, may i suggest saying COVID-19 in the title, although, yes, the year does technically provide specification, the current title appears as if stating that "coronavirus" is the name of the virus, thus reinforcing said problematic misnomer
it may also be a good idea to change "pandemic" to a more professional and factual equivalent with, yknow, some actual stats behind it āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by AllieTheLilac ( talk ā¢ contribs) 23:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
{see top of page, 'no moves' until end of month/April 26, thank you--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
01:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC))
Moving the treatments to another page, then moving from that page to another page, then from that page to another page ... means that nobody can get any information about treatments. This critical information has been lost in the bowels of Wikipedia.
You guys are idiots. People are dying and you are more worried about editorially "correct" Wikipedia articles rather than making it as easy as possible for people to find information about cures. If putting cure information in this article directly saves even one life, then it belongs in this article. What might have been "right" a month ago, maybe not be right NOW. Any information that can save even one life needs to be as easy as possible for people to find the information. Playing editor Gods, in this case, could literally cause somebody to die that did not need to die. Do you editor Gods really want that on your conscience?
Combination treatment of the following 5 items has shown almost 100% success with patients who are just starting to have the symptoms of shortness of breathe, either at a doctor's office or right when they get the hospital. Preventing people from having to go to the hospital in the first place or worse, being put on a ventiltor, will reserve much needed ventilators for people who this treatment does not show signs or working or have other conditions that make this treatment not the appropriate choice.
In the above section, can we add the repeated mention of SARS-COV2 as Chinese virus by Donald Trump as a form of racism? āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitaphul ( talk ā¢ contribs) 05:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so under which section should we mention this fact? I mean I still think this is racism. Check out the following article: [1] Sitaphul ( talk) 05:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Sitaphul 05:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
U.S. president Donald Trump has faced criticism for referring to the coronavirus as the "Chinese Virus", a term considered by some critics to be racist and anti-Chinese.That wording is fine, and any proposed significant changes to it should be discussed and consensus reached before being implemented. {{u| Sdkb}}āÆ talk 05:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
References
Perhaps finding an accurate number for the amount of students currently enrolled and comparing it to the number on the UNESCO site would work Sam1370 ( talk) 07:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
There is still the number of total students affected on the site, so doing some arithmetic should allow us to get the correct number Sam1370 ( talk) 07:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb Thanks for the info. Sorry ā should have looked over the UNESCO article more carefully the first time, then I would have realized it only applied to nationwide learners and the information would have been updated correctly the first time. Sam1370 ( talk) 09:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
This number was previously reported as 97% on this page, and 98% on the impact of coronavirus page. I donāt know where these figures came from, so in an earlier edit I corrected the data using information from the original UNESCO source. However, I reread the UNESCO page and it said that this 91.3% figure only corresponded to the number of nationwide learners and not the learners in total. If you find a way to get accurate information on this topic please reply immediately.
Sam1370 ( talk) 07:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
The article states that 60 to 70% people need to get infected and survive the disease in order for the community to reach herd immunity. In reality it is "get infected and survive, or get vaccinated". (The percentage depends on R0). The alternative of vaccination should be mentioned.
-- Stefanhanoi ( talk) 22:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
āāāā
@ Stefanhanoi:, @ MiasmaEternal: and @ CRGreathouse: should we cover vaccination the same time we talk about herd immunity, and if so, how? FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 03:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. ā Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2019-20 Coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ā LaundryPizza03 ( d cĢ) 20:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
The current count is 223 countries/territories + 4 ships. This should be reflected both in the stats box and in the info box at the top. āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 ( talk) 23:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Forgive me if this has been brought up before, but does it not seem out of touch to anyone else that the infobox photomontage (which is otherwise excellent) has no photo from the country with by far the highest number of cases? Perhaps a photo from the U.S. placed further down in the article could be substituted in, if appropriate? (This wouldnāt be at the expense of any of the images already there, of course.)
Food for thought. ā RedSoxFan274 (talk ~contribs) 12:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should we stop the use of excerpts which take material from Coronavirus disease 2019 and copies that same material into 2019ā20 coronavirus pandemic?
For example, the second paragraph of 2019ā20 coronavirus pandemic uses . . . . Excerpt|Coronavirus disease 2019|fragment=Spread|nohat=y . . . . , with double braces at both ends. 14:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
āāāāāā-
@ Liz: @ Doc James: @ Juxlos: @ Brandmeister: @ Sdkb: @ Sophivorus:
Iāve started this RfC (Request for Comment), and as persons who have previously commented, you are each hereby invitedĀ :-) as are other interested persons. FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 14:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
fragment
parameter (the only example you mention, and the only using the fragment
parameter, coincidentally) but I also mentioned that plain uses, such as the one at
2019ā20 coronavirus pandemic#Education are much easier to understand and implement, which no one replied to or seems to acknowledge. So for now I stand my ground: I agree about stopping the use of complicated excerpts with the fragment
parameter, but not about stopping the use of plain excerpts, since they seem to me overly useful and simple enough.
Sophivorus (
talk)
15:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Various sources reports that cats can be infected with the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. I think there should be a section about this as virus spreads between species! ā Vilnisr T | C 06:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
See alsonotice leading to a smaller article focusing on COVID-19's effects on pets and animals above it and add more content in there. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx contrib talk page 18:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
There are some reports that there could be connection between an outbreak in Wuhan and spike of pneumonia in Siberia in late 2019 after a blast at the Russian viral laboratory Vektor in mid September 2019.
Back on 19 September 2019 Dr Filippa Lentzos, an expert in biological threats and a senior research fellow at King's College London, said that while the Russian story was āconsistentā, she would not be surprised if more details later emerged because of the countryās track record. (Sarah Newey. Russian lab blast: smallpox facility passed WHO biosecurity inspection in January. The Telegraph. 19 September 2019)
signed Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 19:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
The territories affected by coronavirus as reported by Worldometer conflicts with the number of territories affected we have on the page 2019ā20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory. Since one links to the other on this page, which do you all think we should use? Sam1370 ( talk) 19:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
China's number of cases hasn't increased in over a week now. I'd say this is highly unlikely. According to a lot of news outlets, the Chinese government seems to be lying about the numbers. https://www.tweaktown.com/news/71531/scientists-claim-china-is-lying-about-total-coronavirus-covid-19-cases/index.html https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1250786/coronavirus-proof-china-government-cover-up-wechat-censor-keywords-xi-jinping-spt
Shouldn't China's numbers at least have this added: [dubious ā discuss]Ā ? Or an extra section could be devoted to elaborate. I already added this info and it was archived, but I can't find it anymore. Besides it's not solved yet. Aquatic Ambiance ( talk) 09:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Wondering peoples thoughts? The script can be edited easily and the video updated easily. Doc James ( talk Ā· contribs Ā· email) 20:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Regarding āfirst fewā sentences, the discussion was mainly on just the first two.
And instead of ānot generally airborne,ā weāve currently decided to go with the phrase āare not generally spread through air over large distances.ā FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk)
![]() | This
edit request to
2019ā20 coronavirus pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Website requesting to edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Coronavirus_disease_2019&gettingStartedReturn=true#Prevention Subtitle: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Coronavirus_disease_2019&gettingStartedReturn=true#Prevention
Sentence requesting to edit:"According to the WHO, the use of masks is recommended only if a person is coughing or sneezing or when one is taking care of someone with a suspected infection."
What to replace it with: "With the continuum of maintaining the 6-feet social distancing, the CDC is additionally advising the use of simple cloth face coverings to slow the spread of the virus and help people who may have the virus and not know it from transmitting it to other individuals."
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover.html Aspencer0522 ( talk) 16:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
The table under Epidemiology has been replaced by the map showing total cases. The table was MUCH more easier to understand the number of cases country-wise than the map. I don't see the need for the map to appear again as it is available in the infobox too. Any chance we can bring it back? Thundermage117 ( talk) 15:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To change name to 2019-20 Covid-19 pandemic Vonwin ( talk) 00:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone cite this? https://www.tagesschau.de/regional/nordrheinwestfalen/corona-studie-heinsberg-101.html It is a study in Germany that considers the lethality of the covid-19 as low as 0.37%. Thank you. -- 83.38.50.205 ( talk) 18:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
There is increasing scientific opinion of Hydroxychloroquine as an emerging antidote against SARS-COV-2. So, should we mention that? Also, I think we should distinguish 'cases' into 'active cases' and 'recovered cases' instead of vaguely using the term cases . Sitaphul ( talk) 06:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Sitaphul
The mainstream media has reported cases of coronavirus in animals. It's important enough for this article to have a section about it. Jim Michael ( talk) 00:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Please find the best permanent reliable source for date of origin. Changing dates periodically seems nonliable to some readers. The Supermind ( talk) 17:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi. The stats of India are a little off than the provided source [17]. I would have updated it myself, but I dont know the template name, and because of the mediawiki software update, i am unable to edit sections on mobile. Kindly edit as soon as possible. āusernamekiran (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
It was first identified in December 2019 per CDC and WHO. Doc James ( talk Ā· contribs Ā· email) 23:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Serious mistake in the pandemic date- "17 November 2020-ongoing", obviously should be "17 November 2019-ongoing".
NEEDS TO BE URGENTLY FIXED! I can't edit because the article is locked. āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.226.14.95 ( talk) 10:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The problem still exists that there is changing date of origin, Dec 1 to Dec 2019. The Dec 1 the true one. Please do not change periodically that seemingly vandalize the article. The Supermind ( talk) 17:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The sentence about xenophobia and racism related to the pandemic keeps getting edited back and forth by me and other users, so I believe it's appropriate to create an RfC about it. The current formatting of the sentence is "Misinformation and conspiracy theories about the virus have spread online as well as xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people, people of Asian descent, and others from hotspots.", added by me.
Three versions of the sentence have been included lately:
So I am asking, which the three versions is the most appropriate and neutral. It's also worth asking, if the word "Asians" should specify "East Asians", considering Asian is quite a wide term, at least in most usages. -- Tiiliskivi ( talk) 11:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Misinformation and conspiracy theories about the virus have spread online and there have been incidents of xenophobia and racism against Chinese and other East and Southeast Asian people.I think the "and there have been incidents of" was better, for the reason you mentioned that xenophobia hasn't just been online. The "others from hotspots" was language I added to consolidate after someone else added a full sentence about discrimination against Europeans, which was way too much in my view. At that point, I used "against Chinese people, other Asians, and others" but it was subsequently changed by someone who reasonably objected that "Asians" was too broad a category, given that there hasn't been significant discrimination against e.g. Indians (it had also been that way at some prior point, so yeah, lots of back and forth, and thanks for opening a forum for discussion about this). There is also room for discussion about "Asian" vs. "Asian descent" vs. "Asian descent or appearance". It gets tricky. I support option 2 since most of the incidents have been against Asian people, so that should be noted, but not to the total exclusion of incidents against others. {{u| Sdkb}}āÆ talk 11:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm separating out this question since it's distinct from the main one asked in the RfC above. We have a whole bunch of possible alternatives:
Any of these alternatives could also be used without the clause specifically about Chinese people. What do you all think is the proper balance between precision and conciseness here? {{u| Sdkb}}āÆ talk 18:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
{{u| Sdkb}}āÆ talk 18:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)"Asian" should be changed to "East Asian and Southeast Asian". So far only Asians that have East Asian features are facing discrimination (that includes many Southeast Asians). Some Indians (South Asians), like the incident in Israel, have faced discrimination but that's only because of their East Asian features. Most Indians with typical South Asian features aren't facing discrimination, neither are Central Asians or Southeast Asians like Malays, Indonesians or East Timorese who mostly have typical Southeast Asian features.
āā User:Sapah3
@ Sdkb: - May I suggest "...and there have beenĀ incidents of xenophobia and discriminationĀ against Chinese and those perceived as being Chinese, as well as against people from emergent hotspots around the globe." Iswearius ( talk) 12:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I prefer #3 but without the āChinese people,ā this is one of those things that gets really complicated though... By Chinese people we generally mean all people of Chinese descent, but what should we say when we have a case like Taiwan or Singapore where people of Chinese descent are discriminating against people of Chinese national origin? If the context is generalized global racism/xenophobia/etc then we should be as broad as possible because from news reports it seems like people from Vietnam, South Korea, etc are being just as victimized in countries like the USA, UK, South Africa, etc as those from China. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 15:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Seen in this article as something that should be seen "as a test run for all the diseases that will be unleashed in the decades ahead by warming. The virus is a terrifying harbinger of future pandemics that will be brought about if climate change continues to so deeply destabilize the natural world: scrambling ecosystems, collapsing habitats, rewiring wildlife, and rewriting the rules that have governed all life on this planet for all of human history." [73] If there are more sources discussing this aspect I thought this source might be useful - this isn't an article I edit however. Doug Weller talk 14:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Whoever is changing the period where discussions without comment are archived absolutely needs to stop, or at least have the decency to bring it up for discussion first. We've survived fine with 24hrs for many weeks, and that's the firmly established status quo at this point. If you really think it needs to be less (or more), make an argument for that, don't just do it unilaterally, deleting the hidden comment telling you not to do so. I've had to unarchive way too many still-active discussions, which is a pain. {{u| Sdkb}}āÆ talk 20:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
This sentence was added to the intro sometime in the past day: Due to reduced travel and closures of heavy industry, there has been a decrease in air pollution and carbon emissions, which has had a beneficial effect on the environment.
Is it important enough to stay there? (And anyone feel like writing a
Impact of the 2019ā20 coronavirus pandemic on the environment article?) {{u|
Sdkb}}āÆ
talk
07:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
In India, a species of Malabar Civet that hasn't been spotted for a very long time, was seen walking down a street in the middle of the virus. Sitaphul ( talk) āPreceding undated comment added 06:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)