![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
How should we treat the "presumptive" confirmed in Canada? List it as confirmed or under suspected case? Afaik, a lab confirmed the case in Canada, while in order to be definite and official confirmation a second lab has to confirm the case? Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 03:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Should the lockdown of the 10 Chinese cities have its own page? This is unprecedented in history, with at least 32 million people cut off from the world. See https://www.voanews.com/science-health/least-10-chinese-cities-lockdown-830-confirmed-coronavirus-cases-across-country
I would think this is an extraordinary event which deserves a article of its own. Seloloving ( talk) 04:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
As the situation in Hubei becomes more complex I think having a page dedicated to lockdown would be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin dm ( talk • contribs) 04:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
User:嘉傑 and I have been changing Xi Jinping's title back and forth for several times (like this and this), so I think we'd better get this sorted in this thread. I prefer calling Xi a "Chinese President" while 嘉傑 prefers " General Secretary of the Communist Party of China" and "Chinese Communist Party general secretary."
I do understand being a "President" in China practically gives no power to the "President" himself, while being the General Secretary of the Communist Party is what actually makes Xi powerful. However, most English-languaged media (expect Chinese state-run ones) do prefer to call Xi a "President" instead of the Party's "General Secretary," as it would be confusing for most English readers without prior knowledge to how Chinese Communist's system works. People naturally expect the "President" is the head of a country, but not the "General Secretary."
-- Techyan( Talk) 13:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
China is a one-party communist state, similar to the Soviet Union. People should know Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, Gorbachev, and their positions. Recently, Cuba is another example that Raúl Castro is First Secretary and Miguel Díaz-Canel is President. Raúl Castro is the current supreme leader of Cuba, but not Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel.
According to the Constitution of the Communist Party of China, the meeting of the Political Bureau is convened by the General Secretary, not the President. The meeting decided to set up a leading group to oversee the work of prevention and control of the novel coronavirus outbreak under the Politburo Standing Committee, the highest decision body headed by the General Secretary.
We can use "President and General Secretary" instead of President or General Secretary individually.
Official news: Xi Jinping, general secretary of the CPC Central Committee, chaired the meeting. (People's Daily) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 嘉傑 ( talk • contribs) 02:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
-- 嘉傑 ( talk) 14:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment, Chinese state run media (well all media in China actually except HK where there is some independent media) almost exclusively refers to Xi as President in english as does most international media. A serious discussion needs to be had about this at some point, but this isnt the place to do it. I would note however that in Mandarin Chinese state run media doesn't refer to Xi as President unless its in a very specific context, the whole “President of China” as Xi's general styling exists for an international audience. User:嘉傑 also makes a very good point that there are specific situation in which there isn’t an argument and we must use General Secretary because thats the hat thats being worn for a specific purpose, but in general President of China is ok for now. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 23:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Can this be included? Source: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/3047813/china-coronavirus-hong-kong-medical-experts-call – NirvanaToday t@lk 20:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could we please make the footer on the table "Wuhan coronavirus outbreak by country" fixed by surrounding the fields by "!" so the sort function will not also sort the bottom "Total" line?
Maybe also add a total of the number of "Country/region"? This list has been growing and it would be helpful to see the total number of Countries with confirmed cases.
Thank you to our community of Registered Users. Cjager Cjager ( talk) 01:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Will it be pertinent to add information on Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory and Wuhan Institute of Virology and suspicion raised by relevant people in the field on possibility of a program gone wrong in one or both of these labs . Obviously with npov and reliable sources ? Source: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/24/virus-hit-wuhan-has-two-laboratories-linked-chines/ , https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/coronavirus-may-have-origins-in-chinas-biological-warfarelab-in-wuhan/1717828 , https://www.nature.com/news/inside-the-chinese-lab-poised-to-study-world-s-most-dangerous-pathogens-1.21487 ? I thought of taking an opinion upfront. Devopam ( talk) 07:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
"The Washington Times reported the link with China's biological weapons quoting an Israeli biological warfare expert."Additionally, the source of the virus apparently are wild animals sold at a Wuhan livestock market. Xenagoras ( talk) 10:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it's encyclopedic material. -- RaphaelQS ( talk) 09:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I think people enjoy reporting it minute-by-minute as if this is going to be the end of civilisation. Sure it's a bad virus that's killed a lot of people but it won't wipe out the whole planet so we don't need by-the-minute coverage of what every country is saying on it. In the last few weeks more people have died of Flu but there's no major outcry about that. 80.169.132.92 ( talk) 11:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Please change statement from "On 25 January, the number of laboratory-confirmed cases stood at 2,062, including 2,016 in Mainland China, seven in Thailand, six in Hong Kong, five in Macau, five in Australia, four in Malaysia, four in Singapore, three in France, three in Japan, three in South Korea, three in Taiwan, three in the United States, two in Vietnam, and one in Nepal." to "On 28 January, the number of laboratory-confirmed cases stood at 4,673, including 4,577 in Mainland China, 14 in Thailand, 8 in Hong Kong, 7 in Macau, five in Australia, four in Malaysia, 7 in Singapore, three in France, 7 in Japan, four in South Korea, 7 in Taiwan, five in the United States, two in Vietnam, and one in Nepal, Canada, Germany, Cambodia, and Sri Lanka." Because the old statement was outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 ( talk) 13:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Please help around. The right side is overcrowded. (I'am doing a part). Yug (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
TheGuardian.com ran a live blog on 27 Jan reported [1] that Chinese users on twitter (twitter is blocked in mainland however obviously some of them managed to squeeze through the Great Firewall of China) has spotted the Hubei governor Wang Xiaodong during live streaming of a press conference, misspoke the number of face masks produced in Hubei on no less than three occasions. It's not a quite edifying scene [2]. Some of the comments from Chinese users on twitter pointed out that for a province of 60 million people, 1.08 million masks produced in a whole year are only sufficient for 1/10 of the population of Wuhan (the capital, population of 11 million) to wear all the masks for a single afternoon. Swoopin swallow ( talk) 04:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Something in the Chronology section is causing horizontal scrolling. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
BTW Why is it removed? Nickayane99 ( talk) 14:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Lots of room for it in the article. Please restore ASAP. -- @ 137.69.117.204: 2020-01-28T16:29:21
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wuhan seafood market pneumonia. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 67.70.33.184 ( talk) 17:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This is really just for a one-letter typo I noticed. Under the photo captioned "People queuing outside a Wuhan pharmacists to buy face masks and medical supplies", the word "queing" should be spelled "queueing". I've been noticing a lot of minor typos and grammar issues lately on this article, so I guess just be careful y'all. Blank2nowhere ( talk) 02:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
The recovery numbers are actually shockingly low. So I don't think they reflect an intention to spread propaganda. I would definitely include those numbers and carefully track. Kim99 ( talk) 03:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are now 4 confirmed cases in UAE. Please update the table of confirmed cases. ( Source) Sesved ( talk) 10:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I need to update the number of cases Nannynann ( talk) 00:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Let's add a section on the chart for the people who have healed, as far as the information that we can find allows (perhaps provide an asterisk which states that the information about who's been healed has been collected given the most available information). We have a column for those who have been infected, those who have been killed, but what about those who have been healed? There is legitimate data out there that depicts this information, and I think that to include it in the chart would desensationalize the situation, by including a section for such occurrences alongside the causalities and the general afflicted. Or perhaps the healed column should be omitted, because this is a serious disease and people shouldn't sleep completely easy on it? People should read Wikipedia and not see any available information about those who have been healed, and this should spread a kind of pathos up the chain of command to whoever's job it is to find a cure or take the right precautions? I do not think that's the general function of Wikipedia, to spread ethical propaganda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YelloJello33 ( talk • contribs) 06:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah the "healed" category, you can call it something else if you think that the word "healed" is too abstract or something, but I was relaying the idea.
YelloJello33 ( talk) 19:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)YelloJello33
As someone who prefers for this article to be about providing legible information to the general public about an ongoing epidemic that could affect them, whereas the virus article is about discussion in terms of medical literature, does anyone else support the idea that the paragraph quoted should be moved to the virus article? Or further into the main body?
Chinese scientists were able to isolate a strain of the new coronavirus quickly, with the genetic sequence being made available for laboratories across the world to independently develop PCR tests that can confirm infection in a person.[28][29][30][31] Of the first 41 people confirmed by real-time PCR and next-generation sequencing to have been infected, two-thirds were found to have a link with the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, which also sold live animals.[32][33][34][35] The seventh member of the coronavirus family to infect humans, 2019-nCoV's genome sequence has been reported to be 75- to 80-percent identical to SARS-CoV, and more than 85-percent similar to several bat coronaviruses.[36][37] Whether this virus is of the same severity or lethality as SARS is unclear.[28][29][30][31]
Tsukide ( talk) 18:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Edited to insert a title. Tsukide ( talk) 18:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Can somebody remove Sweden from the map? [1] Znuddel ( talk) 04:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Article states that the virus is contagious during the incubation period, yet the citation given for this clearly states that more data are required in order to make a determination on that subject. 2001:56A:F975:3D00:DC0:D3FF:377:AE53 ( talk) 02:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Currently, the wiki pages says: "The incubation period (time from exposure to developing symptoms) of the virus is between 2 and 10 days and it remains contagious during this time.[5]" Bold is not true. Please correct. The cited reference says "Detailed epidemiological information from more people infected is needed to determine the infectious period of 2019-nCoV, in particular whether transmission can occur from asymptomatic individuals or during the incubation period." SailBelow ( talk) 06:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change - The incubation period (time from exposure to developing symptoms) of the virus is between 2 and 10 days and it remains contagious during this time. To - The incubation period (time from exposure to developing symptoms) of the virus is between 2 and 10 days and it might be contagious during this time 2600:1702:37F1:3F80:E416:604D:356D:8E7B ( talk) 02:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I think that there should be a row for the entirety of China, as recognised by the United Nations (incl. mainland, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan). This would include a total figure for all regions of the PRC. There could be sub-rows underneath China which detail the figures for the mainland, SARs and self-governing Taiwan. Thoughts? 07:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC) JMonkey2006 ( talk)
Country Confirmed Cases
China 1 995 Mainland China 1 982 Hong Kong 5 Macau 5 Taiwan 3 Thailand 7 Australia 4 Malaysia 4 Singapore 4
Please ignore display issues.
-- JMonkey2006 ( talk) 03:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Why was the table removed? Quvsn ( talk) 12:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Bring back the table!! GoofyNoah ( talk) 13:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
What happened to the table Nickayane99 ( talk) 14:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Can someone add "cases" and "deaths" labels to the top of the table? I can't because the page is "protected to prevent vandalism". Kr8gz ( talk) 10:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
The issue of including flags in the infobox describing which areas have been affected has led us into a situation with personal attacks on both sides with editors being blocked for edit warring. We need an RfC to resolve this issue and create a consensus.
Should the infobox in the article that provides numbers on areas that have been infected by the coronavirus include flags or not? Chess (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
File:2019-nCoV Outbreak World Map.svg
) depicting the global incidence of confirmed and suspected cases, which is far better a visual than any zoo of flags would ever be. CaradhrasAiguo (
leave language) 00:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.). MOS:INFOBOXFLAG is clear. Moreover, WP:SOVEREIGNFLAG and MOS:FLAGRELEVANCE also say we shouldn't be using the Macau or Hong Kong flags. We need very good reasons to deviate from the Manual of Style and some people liking little flags isn't a good reason. The claims that flags aid comprehension are explicitly contradicted by the Manual of Style (
they are unnecessarily distracting) and the Manual of Style, as a community-wide consensus document, clearly takes precedence over individual editors' personal opinions. This article has repeatedly run into geopolitical complications with disagreements over how to represent Taiwan vs. China or what map to use. Part of the reason for avoiding flag icons is because it complicate the geopolitics. Let's focus on medicine, not flags. I have reviewed every Wikipedia article in the outbreak categories and nearly all of them obey the Manual of Style on this matter. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Some editors above (Colin dm, Chess) raise the issue of what happens if the list of countries gets to 50-100. (Let's hope it doesn't.) If the list gets that long, it shouldn't be in the infobox. That would be unwieldy and violate MOS:INFOBOX. The infobox could just focus on numbers per continent at that point. If the list comes out of the infobox, MOS:INFOBOXFLAG clearly does not apply. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Chess argues that The easiest way to recognize countries at a glance is with flags
. I see no evidence for that. Most readers are not familiar with flags of all the countries of the world. Are most readers outside Taiwan familiar with the Taiwaness flag, or outside Vietnam familiar with the Vietnamese flag? Some flags are confusingly similar (Malaysia and US). The Manual of Style explicitly argues that many flags are unfamiliar and that they can be a distraction.
Bondegezou (
talk) 10:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Most readers are not familiar with flags of all the countries of the world. Are you really assume that the average readers are that dumb? Hddty ( talk) 15:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
no reader is familiar with every flag, and many flags differ only in minor details. If you disagree, debate the matter at MOS:FLAG, but we can't just set up our own WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Bondegezou ( talk) 17:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The list of countries has now been moved out of the infobox. Should this RfC be closed as now moot? There is a question over the use of flag icons in the table in the text, where we are still acting contrary to the Manual of Style, but in a less significant manner. That, however, can be discussed separately. Bondegezou ( talk) 12:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
https://www.reddit.com/r/China_Flu/comments/euvexx/current_status_of_outsidechina_patients/ Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 00:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi!
I found this information about 3M ramping up production worldwide to meet the demand due to 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak.
Accessible here: "3M sees coronavirus boosting demand for face masks, as China projected to return to growth"
What do you think about placing this information on the article?
FranciscoMMartins ( talk) 13:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak#Criticism What do you think of the criticism section? There was an edit to demote it from level 2 to level 4, in other words to bury it. I think the section is of much interest and should not be buried. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 17:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
"other words to bury it." Let's keep this within WP:GF.
It's wholly inadequate and there used to be a comment flag regarding its critically underdeveloped status before that was removed. On its own, as the criticism is wholly laid onto the Police and Government authorities, it fits under Domestic Response as I've appended unless criticism further develops past that Jan 20 declaration. Unless criticism reaches far more substantive degrees, which may become the case in the future, some Weibo commentators and an incident of withholding camera footage feels like WP:UNDUE to merit its own top level section. The governmental response under that heading along with the potential for insertion of contrary views, such as that by the WHO in praising transparency ( https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-who-idUSKBN1ZM1G9), will create a clumsy read under such a heading.
Reorganizing the section will keep it in line with cases such as:
Sleath56 ( talk) 18:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I first started this section and I will definitely expand it. It may not have a lot of content right now but it will certainly expand. Beyond censorship on the press and social media sites, there have been tons of criticisms on insufficient medical supplies and patients overhauling hospitals. Colin dm said information in this section seems to be scarce because here's China, and of course it would be scarce - but the truth is the exact opposite. Most criticisms are in Chinese and a surprising amount is from Chinese media. I suppose I'm the only Chinese speaker here so the real problem is, souces are already here but no one writes about it.
Censorship is important but for some reason, most western media have become too full of it. I suppose half of the NYT's coverages are about censorship and mismanagement from the central government's level instead of things like face masks shortages and skyrocketing food prices. I will keep working on Chinese sources in the coming days as foreign outlets seemed to have suffered from a kind of ridiculous-sounding difficulty, which is to send correspondents on-site - I can tell that the BBC failed from a video they made, and several have scaled back or moved to their regional headquarters in Beijing instead of staying in Wuhan, as the authorities locked the city and they probably don't want to die in China themselves. There are many quality journalism produced by Chinese media, especially after censorship eased these days.
Speaking of English sources, Caixin and Sixth Tone are good sources as they are relatively liberal, and they are subsidiaries of credible Chinese media, although no one heard of them. Xinhua is the go-to source for official stuff, Global Times is nationalist and conservative, China Daily is more neutral. CGTN remains close to the government yet its TV programs are relatively liberal as well. Be aware that official Chinese English-languaged media also use Xinhua's news pieces a lot. The South China Morning Post, despite having China in its name, is a Hong Kong-based newspaper, did a lot of good stories on China, and doesn't care about China's censorship. Plus, people in Hong Kong criticised their government a lot as well. These are all good sources to start with.
-- Techyan( Talk) 20:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
@Techyan: Appreciate the response and editorial initiative. My issues with the section remain nonetheless. As it is now, it is hard to claim the section maintains WP:NPOV as an top level section. One, while media criticism of authority actions should be absolutely documented here provided it passes WP:UNDUE. The caveat is that in an developing situation like this however, it’s easy to find plenty of voices with a variety of such allegations and concerns and WP:PROPORTION fall into mind here to not bloat such a section.
Titling criticism as a top level section bears validity if such views are largely predominant or unanimous. This is not generally the case in epidemic articles, as official response is rarely so inept it attracts universal condemnation throughout the whole process without any contrary views. As it stands, there are many RS that hold positive commentary on elements of the authorities conduct in the matter, in particular from voices of medical authority. Such RS include that by WHO, which is far more relevant for WP:RS/MC than any ordinary media allegations, such as I’ve provided here: 1. Additionally to demonstrate the point of contrary reactions are political commentary such as those by Germany, who approve of the authorities’ ‘rapid management.' and 'praised their transparency'. 2. With the existence of such RS/MC, it is inappropriate to dedicate a section wholly under the title of “Criticism”.
These situations are largely reactive, the meaning can be demonstrated through the new point you've added on the Wuhan festival is definitely of far greater merit than anything yet documented in the section. The criticism directed to that event is worthy of documentation here, but the subsequent governmental response in closing further festivals as the epidemic developed should also be narrated as a follow-through case. This makes for a very clumsy section if inserted into the current state.
The solution as often adopted by other associated epidemic pages as cited, has been to file such reactions under a “Response” section, often a top level section. This allows for the capacity to add RS/MC responses (whose addition would be a priority in any circumstance), like WHO’s which indeed have not been of criticism, to balance concerns of WP:UNDUE and also satisfy WP:NPOV.
I see two means by which this can be achieved:
Sleath56 ( talk) 06:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The second paragraph in the section is ignorant at best, and possibly with intentional conceal of information in itself. One most likely reason for observing infections outside China but not in other provinces within China is because between province travelers do not receive the same level of medical checks/control as between country boarder travelers do. In fact there was no body temperature motoring when you travel across provinces, just like traveling between states in the US or traveling between countries within Europe. Why did I say this second paragraph itself is intentionally concealing information? Because the above explanation was already given in a reference cited within the paragraph, yet it was not mentioned at all. And now even the reference has been deleted (reference link:
https://www.hk01.com/議事廳/424736/武漢肺炎-坊間調侃-愛國病毒-地方有否-瞞報-疫情)
193.54.67.94 (
talk) 10:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
References
@Ganesha811: Thanks for the edit summary explanation, but Talk is a better place for it. I've reverted the edit to unify the #Local Criticism section, as I believe it merits a discussion here beforehand. The weight of criticism has been largely focussed on the local response as of yet, so at the present moment, an independent section on that area should stand as it is substantive enough on its own. The reported increase of central censorship fits under Management#Domestic response as that area is already structured around the central authorities management tactics, including censorship, particularly per the extant opening paragraph of that section. The point about the tactics to skirt censorship is the only new element, so it's been incorporated there. Sleath56 ( talk) 14:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Location | Cases | Deaths | |
---|---|---|---|
![]() |
World [a] | 775,643,495 | 7,051,600 |
![]() |
European Union [b] | 185,666,273 | 1,261,748 |
![]() |
United States | 103,436,829 | 1,189,083 |
![]() |
China [c] | 99,361,338 | 122,248 |
![]() |
India | 45,040,074 | 533,619 |
![]() |
France | 38,997,490 | 168,091 |
![]() |
Germany | 38,437,756 | 174,979 |
![]() |
Brazil | 37,511,921 | 702,116 |
![]() |
South Korea | 34,571,873 | 35,934 |
![]() |
Japan | 33,803,572 | 74,694 |
![]() |
Italy | 26,727,644 | 197,081 |
![]() |
United Kingdom | 24,940,688 | 232,112 |
![]() |
Russia | 24,225,459 | 403,031 |
![]() |
Turkey | 17,004,714 | 101,419 |
![]() |
Spain | 13,980,340 | 121,852 |
![]() |
Australia | 11,861,161 | 25,236 |
![]() |
Vietnam | 11,624,000 | 43,206 |
![]() |
Argentina | 10,132,689 | 130,867 |
![]() |
Taiwan | 9,970,937 | 17,672 |
![]() |
Netherlands | 8,636,781 | 22,986 |
![]() |
Mexico | 7,709,747 | 335,011 |
![]() |
Iran | 7,627,863 | 146,837 |
![]() |
Indonesia | 6,829,120 | 162,058 |
![]() |
Poland | 6,663,580 | 120,713 |
![]() |
Colombia | 6,386,212 | 142,727 |
![]() |
Austria | 6,082,356 | 22,534 |
![]() |
Portugal | 5,649,830 | 28,324 |
![]() |
Greece | 5,641,241 | 39,035 |
![]() |
Ukraine | 5,531,787 | 109,920 |
![]() |
Chile | 5,400,569 | 62,715 |
![]() |
Malaysia | 5,288,841 | 37,351 |
![]() |
Belgium | 4,863,706 | 34,339 |
![]() |
Israel | 4,841,558 | 12,707 |
![]() |
Canada | 4,812,623 | 55,103 |
![]() |
Thailand | 4,789,165 | 34,665 |
![]() |
Czech Republic | 4,759,813 | 43,506 |
![]() |
Peru | 4,524,748 | 220,831 |
![]() |
Switzerland | 4,454,731 | 14,188 |
![]() |
Philippines | 4,140,383 | 66,864 |
![]() |
South Africa | 4,072,719 | 102,595 |
![]() |
Romania | 3,529,682 | 68,805 |
![]() |
Denmark | 3,435,018 | 9,667 |
![]() |
Singapore | 3,006,155 | 2,024 |
![]() |
Hong Kong | 2,876,106 | 13,466 |
![]() |
Sweden | 2,752,383 | 27,309 |
![]() |
New Zealand | 2,614,723 | 4,083 |
![]() |
Serbia | 2,583,470 | 18,057 |
![]() |
Iraq | 2,465,545 | 25,375 |
![]() |
Hungary | 2,230,453 | 49,051 |
![]() |
Bangladesh | 2,050,834 | 29,496 |
![]() |
Slovakia | 1,877,788 | 21,226 |
![]() |
Georgia | 1,863,101 | 17,150 |
![]() |
Jordan | 1,746,997 | 14,122 |
![]() |
Republic of Ireland | 1,738,493 | 9,637 |
![]() |
Pakistan | 1,580,631 | 30,656 |
![]() |
Norway | 1,508,485 | 5,732 |
![]() |
Kazakhstan | 1,504,370 | 19,072 |
![]() |
Finland | 1,499,712 | 11,466 |
![]() |
Lithuania | 1,366,800 | 9,806 |
![]() |
Slovenia | 1,356,013 | 10,062 |
![]() |
Bulgaria | 1,329,405 | 38,700 |
![]() |
Croatia | 1,317,144 | 18,752 |
![]() |
Morocco | 1,279,115 | 16,305 |
![]() |
Puerto Rico | 1,252,713 | 5,938 |
![]() |
Guatemala | 1,250,363 | 20,203 |
![]() |
Lebanon | 1,239,904 | 10,947 |
![]() |
Costa Rica | 1,230,653 | 9,368 |
![]() |
Bolivia | 1,212,144 | 22,387 |
![]() |
Tunisia | 1,153,361 | 29,423 |
![]() |
Cuba | 1,113,662 | 8,530 |
![]() |
Ecuador | 1,076,430 | 36,049 |
![]() |
United Arab Emirates | 1,067,030 | 2,349 |
![]() |
Panama | 1,044,375 | 8,706 |
![]() |
Uruguay | 1,041,263 | 7,679 |
![]() |
Mongolia | 1,011,489 | 2,136 |
![]() |
Nepal | 1,003,450 | 12,031 |
![]() |
Belarus | 994,037 | 7,118 |
![]() |
Latvia | 977,765 | 7,475 |
![]() |
Saudi Arabia | 841,469 | 9,646 |
![]() |
Azerbaijan | 835,468 | 10,353 |
![]() |
Paraguay | 735,759 | 19,880 |
![]() |
Palestine | 703,228 | 5,708 |
![]() |
Bahrain | 696,614 | 1,536 |
![]() |
Cyprus | 691,252 | 1,445 |
![]() |
Sri Lanka | 672,779 | 16,904 |
![]() |
Kuwait | 667,290 | 2,570 |
![]() |
Dominican Republic | 661,103 | 4,384 |
![]() |
Myanmar | 642,618 | 19,494 |
![]() |
Moldova | 635,749 | 12,239 |
![]() |
Estonia | 610,471 | 2,998 |
![]() |
Venezuela | 552,695 | 5,856 |
![]() |
Egypt | 516,023 | 24,830 |
![]() |
Qatar | 514,524 | 690 |
![]() |
Libya | 507,269 | 6,437 |
![]() |
Ethiopia | 501,172 | 7,574 |
![]() |
Réunion | 494,595 | 921 |
![]() |
Honduras | 472,804 | 11,114 |
![]() |
Armenia | 451,944 | 8,777 |
![]() |
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 403,644 | 16,388 |
![]() |
Oman | 399,449 | 4,628 |
![]() |
Luxembourg | 391,729 | 1,000 |
![]() |
North Macedonia | 350,606 | 9,977 |
![]() |
Zambia | 349,661 | 4,069 |
![]() |
Brunei | 345,096 | 178 |
![]() |
Kenya | 344,101 | 5,689 |
![]() |
Albania | 335,047 | 3,605 |
![]() |
Botswana | 330,650 | 2,801 |
![]() |
Mauritius | 327,305 | 1,070 |
![]() |
Kosovo | 274,279 | 3,212 |
![]() |
Algeria | 272,034 | 6,881 |
![]() |
Nigeria | 267,188 | 3,155 |
![]() |
Zimbabwe | 266,365 | 5,740 |
![]() |
Montenegro | 251,280 | 2,654 |
![]() |
Afghanistan | 235,214 | 7,998 |
![]() |
Mozambique | 233,825 | 2,252 |
![]() |
Martinique | 230,354 | 1,104 |
![]() |
Laos | 219,048 | 671 |
![]() |
Iceland | 210,013 | 186 |
![]() |
Guadeloupe | 203,235 | 1,021 |
![]() |
El Salvador | 201,878 | 4,230 |
![]() |
Trinidad and Tobago | 191,496 | 4,390 |
![]() |
Maldives | 186,694 | 316 |
![]() |
Uzbekistan | 175,081 | 1,016 |
![]() |
Namibia | 172,418 | 4,108 |
![]() |
Uganda | 172,152 | 3,632 |
![]() |
Ghana | 172,037 | 1,462 |
![]() |
Jamaica | 156,864 | 3,600 |
![]() |
Cambodia | 139,256 | 3,056 |
![]() |
Rwanda | 133,252 | 1,468 |
![]() |
Cameroon | 125,238 | 1,974 |
![]() |
Malta | 121,628 | 909 |
![]() |
Barbados | 110,786 | 593 |
![]() |
Angola | 107,468 | 1,937 |
![]() |
Democratic Republic of the Congo | 100,616 | 1,470 |
![]() |
French Guiana | 98,041 | 413 |
![]() |
Malawi | 89,168 | 2,686 |
![]() |
Senegal | 89,101 | 1,971 |
![]() |
Kyrgyzstan | 88,953 | 1,024 |
![]() |
Ivory Coast | 88,428 | 835 |
![]() |
Suriname | 82,497 | 1,405 |
![]() |
New Caledonia | 80,163 | 314 |
![]() |
French Polynesia | 79,309 | 650 |
![]() |
Eswatini | 75,356 | 1,427 |
![]() |
Guyana | 74,161 | 1,301 |
![]() |
Belize | 71,409 | 688 |
![]() |
Fiji | 69,047 | 885 |
![]() |
Madagascar | 68,552 | 1,427 |
![]() |
Jersey | 66,391 | 161 |
![]() |
Cabo Verde | 64,474 | 417 |
![]() |
Sudan | 63,993 | 5,046 |
![]() |
Mauritania | 63,866 | 997 |
![]() |
Bhutan | 62,697 | 21 |
![]() |
Syria | 57,423 | 3,163 |
![]() |
Burundi | 54,569 | 15 |
![]() |
Guam | 52,287 | 419 |
![]() |
Seychelles | 51,770 | 172 |
![]() |
Gabon | 49,051 | 307 |
![]() |
Andorra | 48,015 | 159 |
![]() |
Papua New Guinea | 46,864 | 670 |
![]() |
Curaçao | 45,883 | 305 |
![]() |
Aruba | 44,224 | 292 |
![]() |
Tanzania | 43,226 | 846 |
![]() |
Mayotte | 42,027 | 187 |
![]() |
Togo | 39,530 | 290 |
![]() |
Bahamas | 38,619 | 848 |
![]() |
Guinea | 38,572 | 468 |
![]() |
Isle of Man | 38,008 | 116 |
![]() |
Lesotho | 36,138 | 709 |
![]() |
Guernsey | 35,326 | 67 |
![]() |
Faroe Islands | 34,658 | 28 |
![]() |
Haiti | 34,298 | 860 |
![]() |
Mali | 33,164 | 743 |
![]() |
Cayman Islands | 31,472 | 37 |
![]() |
Saint Lucia | 30,257 | 410 |
![]() |
Benin | 28,036 | 163 |
![]() |
Somalia | 27,334 | 1,361 |
![]() |
Federated States of Micronesia | 26,460 | 65 |
![]() |
Solomon Islands | 25,954 | 199 |
![]() |
United States Virgin Islands | 25,389 | 132 |
![]() |
San Marino | 25,292 | 126 |
![]() |
Republic of the Congo | 25,220 | 389 |
![]() |
Timor-Leste | 23,460 | 138 |
![]() |
Burkina Faso | 22,129 | 400 |
![]() |
Liechtenstein | 21,578 | 89 |
![]() |
Gibraltar | 20,550 | 113 |
![]() |
Grenada | 19,693 | 238 |
![]() |
Bermuda | 18,860 | 165 |
![]() |
South Sudan | 18,823 | 147 |
![]() |
Tajikistan | 17,786 | 125 |
![]() |
Monaco | 17,181 | 67 |
![]() |
Equatorial Guinea | 17,130 | 183 |
![]() |
Samoa | 17,057 | 31 |
![]() |
Tonga | 16,966 | 12 |
![]() |
Marshall Islands | 16,248 | 17 |
![]() |
Nicaragua | 16,150 | 245 |
![]() |
Dominica | 16,047 | 74 |
![]() |
Djibouti | 15,690 | 189 |
![]() |
Central African Republic | 15,440 | 113 |
![]() |
Northern Mariana Islands | 14,702 | 41 |
![]() |
Gambia | 12,627 | 372 |
![]() |
Collectivity of Saint Martin | 12,324 | 46 |
![]() |
Vanuatu | 12,019 | 14 |
![]() |
Greenland | 11,971 | 21 |
![]() |
Yemen | 11,945 | 2,159 |
![]() |
Caribbean Netherlands | 11,922 | 41 |
![]() |
Sint Maarten | 11,051 | 92 |
![]() |
Eritrea | 10,189 | 103 |
![]() |
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines | 9,674 | 124 |
![]() |
Guinea-Bissau | 9,614 | 177 |
![]() |
Niger | 9,518 | 315 |
![]() |
Comoros | 9,109 | 160 |
![]() |
Antigua and Barbuda | 9,106 | 146 |
![]() |
American Samoa | 8,359 | 34 |
![]() |
Liberia | 7,930 | 294 |
![]() |
Sierra Leone | 7,836 | 125 |
![]() |
Chad | 7,702 | 194 |
![]() |
British Virgin Islands | 7,478 | 64 |
![]() |
Cook Islands | 7,327 | 2 |
![]() |
Sao Tome and Principe | 6,771 | 80 |
![]() |
Turks and Caicos Islands | 6,754 | 40 |
![]() |
Saint Kitts and Nevis | 6,607 | 46 |
![]() |
Palau | 6,366 | 10 |
![]() |
Saint Barthélemy | 5,507 | 5 |
![]() |
Nauru | 5,393 | 1 |
![]() |
Kiribati | 5,085 | 24 |
![]() |
Anguilla | 3,904 | 12 |
![]() |
Wallis and Futuna | 3,760 | 9 |
![]() |
Macau | 3,514 | 121 |
![]() |
Saint Pierre and Miquelon | 3,426 | 2 |
![]() |
Tuvalu | 2,943 | 1 |
![]() |
Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha | 2,166 | — |
![]() |
Falkland Islands | 1,923 | — |
![]() |
Montserrat | 1,403 | 8 |
![]() |
Niue | 1,074 | — |
![]() |
Tokelau | 80 | 0 |
![]() |
Vatican City | 26 | 0 |
![]() |
Pitcairn Islands | 4 | — |
![]() |
North Korea | 1 | 6 |
![]() |
Turkmenistan | 0 | 0 |
|
Please update {{ 2019_coronavirus_pandemic_data}} and {{ 2019 coronavirus pandemic map}} as needed.
Official statement by the Bavarian Ministry of Health:
https://www.stmgp.bayern.de/presse/bestaetigter-coronavirus-fall-in-bayern-infektionsschutzmaßnahmen-laufen/
77.183.92.215 (
talk) 23:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Acording to this: https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6, Ivory Coast seem to be infected. Can we list them to the template? Neutrinium 11:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Here's the link [2] for the news containing the info, would anyone kindly add it to the article? 200.233.220.204 ( talk) 15:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.233.220.204 ( talk) 15:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
The case reported in UAE is a case of an entire family of four members. According to our criteria of recording individuals, this counts as 4 cases, not 1. https://www.wam.ae/en/details/1395302819592 -- 137.132.213.135 ( talk) 10:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/newpage_09201.html Xinjapanpon ( talk) 14:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
References
The 2009 has {{
2009 swine flu}}. Let's go for {{
2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus}} {{
2019-nCoV}}. We indeed start to have enough sub-article to start such panel as well. And it's pretty sure we will need more sub-article in coming months.
{{2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus}}
Yug
(talk) 08:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, everyone!
I just wanted to tell you that I'm available to translate information from English>Portuguese and Portuguese>English [more slowly than EN>PT].
Also, I have been putting information and links about the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak on my portuguese user page, you may check it here and use it freely of course: Usuário(a):FranciscoMMartins/Rascunhos.
Because I have just registered my account yesterday I cannot edit this article, either in the English or Portuguese version. But I am indeed interested in collaborating with both Wikipedia communities :)
Keep up the good work and have a nice day! FranciscoMMartins ( talk) 13:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
The lead paragraph says the case fatality rate of this is 2.2% whereas the link to the John Hopkins website says (at the time of writing) that 132 have died and 110 have recovered. This looks like a case fatality rate of 55%. What’s going on here? Mike Young ( talk) 10:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC) CFR is deaths/confirmed. 146.88.44.13 ( talk) 10:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Problematic political wording in the second lede paragraph - "including in every province of China except Tibet". Last I heard, Tibet's political status was still a matter of controversy. My suggestion for rewording is not nearly as informative, but I will toss out as an alternative "almost entirely within greater China." And, if you do want a specific mention of Tibet, then add "Tibet is not currently affected." This avoids an outright declaration of Tibet as a province of China, but also does not negate it. (Viruses don't respect politics, but debatable political situations don't usually vanish because of viruses.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 ( talk) 19:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Suspected case in Denmark: https://www.bt.dk/samfund/dansk-patient-undersoeges-for-coronavirus-havde-vaeret-i-udbruddets-epicenter 188.228.48.155 ( talk) 18:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I found those :
Hi just reporting that Template of the 2019 coronavirus, in Geographic distribution section of the article is missing Confirmed cases and Death header at the top of the template. BigRed606 ( talk) 22:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
The way we currently calculate fatality rate is very wrong. We are using current death to the confirmed case count. Confirmed case aren't in same state of progress, somes of them could be infected since 1 day, other since 20 days.
Fatality rate should be calculated from people dead vs (dead+Recovered) but this would also give bad rate (63,85 % Fatality Rate for 106 / 166.). Actually, fatality rate can only be calculated if we have a good way to be sure of the total quantity of infected and quantity of death wich we can't have.
I suggest Fatality rate to be removed untill the epidemy is ended. -- Eric1212 ( talk) 18:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Data from total infected chart is not possible. Thailand has 1,000+ China has 7,000+ but the total written is only 7,792 76.78.225.140 ( talk) 01:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
In the Confirmed cases > Hong Kong section there is a video file from China News Service titled 'File:香港确诊两宗新型肺炎个案 机场火车站加强体温筛查.webm'. It's enough to take a glance at the lead of the China News Service article to see that it's a PRC state owned media company run by the United Front Work Department of the Chinese Communist Party. Why does Wikipedia relay propaganda content from a media outlet of an authoritarian party? I understand that the Creative Commons license is enticing enough to grab every piece of content from the Internet, but where is the critical approach? This is highly questionable, especially when Wikipedia is very critical about which US news sources it accepts are reliable/trusted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.87.212 ( talk) 08:27, 25 January 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
How should we treat the "presumptive" confirmed in Canada? List it as confirmed or under suspected case? Afaik, a lab confirmed the case in Canada, while in order to be definite and official confirmation a second lab has to confirm the case? Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 03:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Should the lockdown of the 10 Chinese cities have its own page? This is unprecedented in history, with at least 32 million people cut off from the world. See https://www.voanews.com/science-health/least-10-chinese-cities-lockdown-830-confirmed-coronavirus-cases-across-country
I would think this is an extraordinary event which deserves a article of its own. Seloloving ( talk) 04:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
As the situation in Hubei becomes more complex I think having a page dedicated to lockdown would be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin dm ( talk • contribs) 04:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
User:嘉傑 and I have been changing Xi Jinping's title back and forth for several times (like this and this), so I think we'd better get this sorted in this thread. I prefer calling Xi a "Chinese President" while 嘉傑 prefers " General Secretary of the Communist Party of China" and "Chinese Communist Party general secretary."
I do understand being a "President" in China practically gives no power to the "President" himself, while being the General Secretary of the Communist Party is what actually makes Xi powerful. However, most English-languaged media (expect Chinese state-run ones) do prefer to call Xi a "President" instead of the Party's "General Secretary," as it would be confusing for most English readers without prior knowledge to how Chinese Communist's system works. People naturally expect the "President" is the head of a country, but not the "General Secretary."
-- Techyan( Talk) 13:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
China is a one-party communist state, similar to the Soviet Union. People should know Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, Gorbachev, and their positions. Recently, Cuba is another example that Raúl Castro is First Secretary and Miguel Díaz-Canel is President. Raúl Castro is the current supreme leader of Cuba, but not Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel.
According to the Constitution of the Communist Party of China, the meeting of the Political Bureau is convened by the General Secretary, not the President. The meeting decided to set up a leading group to oversee the work of prevention and control of the novel coronavirus outbreak under the Politburo Standing Committee, the highest decision body headed by the General Secretary.
We can use "President and General Secretary" instead of President or General Secretary individually.
Official news: Xi Jinping, general secretary of the CPC Central Committee, chaired the meeting. (People's Daily) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 嘉傑 ( talk • contribs) 02:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
-- 嘉傑 ( talk) 14:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment, Chinese state run media (well all media in China actually except HK where there is some independent media) almost exclusively refers to Xi as President in english as does most international media. A serious discussion needs to be had about this at some point, but this isnt the place to do it. I would note however that in Mandarin Chinese state run media doesn't refer to Xi as President unless its in a very specific context, the whole “President of China” as Xi's general styling exists for an international audience. User:嘉傑 also makes a very good point that there are specific situation in which there isn’t an argument and we must use General Secretary because thats the hat thats being worn for a specific purpose, but in general President of China is ok for now. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 23:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Can this be included? Source: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/3047813/china-coronavirus-hong-kong-medical-experts-call – NirvanaToday t@lk 20:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could we please make the footer on the table "Wuhan coronavirus outbreak by country" fixed by surrounding the fields by "!" so the sort function will not also sort the bottom "Total" line?
Maybe also add a total of the number of "Country/region"? This list has been growing and it would be helpful to see the total number of Countries with confirmed cases.
Thank you to our community of Registered Users. Cjager Cjager ( talk) 01:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Will it be pertinent to add information on Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory and Wuhan Institute of Virology and suspicion raised by relevant people in the field on possibility of a program gone wrong in one or both of these labs . Obviously with npov and reliable sources ? Source: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/24/virus-hit-wuhan-has-two-laboratories-linked-chines/ , https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/coronavirus-may-have-origins-in-chinas-biological-warfarelab-in-wuhan/1717828 , https://www.nature.com/news/inside-the-chinese-lab-poised-to-study-world-s-most-dangerous-pathogens-1.21487 ? I thought of taking an opinion upfront. Devopam ( talk) 07:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
"The Washington Times reported the link with China's biological weapons quoting an Israeli biological warfare expert."Additionally, the source of the virus apparently are wild animals sold at a Wuhan livestock market. Xenagoras ( talk) 10:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it's encyclopedic material. -- RaphaelQS ( talk) 09:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I think people enjoy reporting it minute-by-minute as if this is going to be the end of civilisation. Sure it's a bad virus that's killed a lot of people but it won't wipe out the whole planet so we don't need by-the-minute coverage of what every country is saying on it. In the last few weeks more people have died of Flu but there's no major outcry about that. 80.169.132.92 ( talk) 11:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Please change statement from "On 25 January, the number of laboratory-confirmed cases stood at 2,062, including 2,016 in Mainland China, seven in Thailand, six in Hong Kong, five in Macau, five in Australia, four in Malaysia, four in Singapore, three in France, three in Japan, three in South Korea, three in Taiwan, three in the United States, two in Vietnam, and one in Nepal." to "On 28 January, the number of laboratory-confirmed cases stood at 4,673, including 4,577 in Mainland China, 14 in Thailand, 8 in Hong Kong, 7 in Macau, five in Australia, four in Malaysia, 7 in Singapore, three in France, 7 in Japan, four in South Korea, 7 in Taiwan, five in the United States, two in Vietnam, and one in Nepal, Canada, Germany, Cambodia, and Sri Lanka." Because the old statement was outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 ( talk) 13:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Please help around. The right side is overcrowded. (I'am doing a part). Yug (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
TheGuardian.com ran a live blog on 27 Jan reported [1] that Chinese users on twitter (twitter is blocked in mainland however obviously some of them managed to squeeze through the Great Firewall of China) has spotted the Hubei governor Wang Xiaodong during live streaming of a press conference, misspoke the number of face masks produced in Hubei on no less than three occasions. It's not a quite edifying scene [2]. Some of the comments from Chinese users on twitter pointed out that for a province of 60 million people, 1.08 million masks produced in a whole year are only sufficient for 1/10 of the population of Wuhan (the capital, population of 11 million) to wear all the masks for a single afternoon. Swoopin swallow ( talk) 04:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Something in the Chronology section is causing horizontal scrolling. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
BTW Why is it removed? Nickayane99 ( talk) 14:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Lots of room for it in the article. Please restore ASAP. -- @ 137.69.117.204: 2020-01-28T16:29:21
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wuhan seafood market pneumonia. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 67.70.33.184 ( talk) 17:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This is really just for a one-letter typo I noticed. Under the photo captioned "People queuing outside a Wuhan pharmacists to buy face masks and medical supplies", the word "queing" should be spelled "queueing". I've been noticing a lot of minor typos and grammar issues lately on this article, so I guess just be careful y'all. Blank2nowhere ( talk) 02:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
The recovery numbers are actually shockingly low. So I don't think they reflect an intention to spread propaganda. I would definitely include those numbers and carefully track. Kim99 ( talk) 03:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are now 4 confirmed cases in UAE. Please update the table of confirmed cases. ( Source) Sesved ( talk) 10:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I need to update the number of cases Nannynann ( talk) 00:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Let's add a section on the chart for the people who have healed, as far as the information that we can find allows (perhaps provide an asterisk which states that the information about who's been healed has been collected given the most available information). We have a column for those who have been infected, those who have been killed, but what about those who have been healed? There is legitimate data out there that depicts this information, and I think that to include it in the chart would desensationalize the situation, by including a section for such occurrences alongside the causalities and the general afflicted. Or perhaps the healed column should be omitted, because this is a serious disease and people shouldn't sleep completely easy on it? People should read Wikipedia and not see any available information about those who have been healed, and this should spread a kind of pathos up the chain of command to whoever's job it is to find a cure or take the right precautions? I do not think that's the general function of Wikipedia, to spread ethical propaganda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YelloJello33 ( talk • contribs) 06:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah the "healed" category, you can call it something else if you think that the word "healed" is too abstract or something, but I was relaying the idea.
YelloJello33 ( talk) 19:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)YelloJello33
As someone who prefers for this article to be about providing legible information to the general public about an ongoing epidemic that could affect them, whereas the virus article is about discussion in terms of medical literature, does anyone else support the idea that the paragraph quoted should be moved to the virus article? Or further into the main body?
Chinese scientists were able to isolate a strain of the new coronavirus quickly, with the genetic sequence being made available for laboratories across the world to independently develop PCR tests that can confirm infection in a person.[28][29][30][31] Of the first 41 people confirmed by real-time PCR and next-generation sequencing to have been infected, two-thirds were found to have a link with the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, which also sold live animals.[32][33][34][35] The seventh member of the coronavirus family to infect humans, 2019-nCoV's genome sequence has been reported to be 75- to 80-percent identical to SARS-CoV, and more than 85-percent similar to several bat coronaviruses.[36][37] Whether this virus is of the same severity or lethality as SARS is unclear.[28][29][30][31]
Tsukide ( talk) 18:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Edited to insert a title. Tsukide ( talk) 18:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Can somebody remove Sweden from the map? [1] Znuddel ( talk) 04:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Article states that the virus is contagious during the incubation period, yet the citation given for this clearly states that more data are required in order to make a determination on that subject. 2001:56A:F975:3D00:DC0:D3FF:377:AE53 ( talk) 02:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Currently, the wiki pages says: "The incubation period (time from exposure to developing symptoms) of the virus is between 2 and 10 days and it remains contagious during this time.[5]" Bold is not true. Please correct. The cited reference says "Detailed epidemiological information from more people infected is needed to determine the infectious period of 2019-nCoV, in particular whether transmission can occur from asymptomatic individuals or during the incubation period." SailBelow ( talk) 06:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change - The incubation period (time from exposure to developing symptoms) of the virus is between 2 and 10 days and it remains contagious during this time. To - The incubation period (time from exposure to developing symptoms) of the virus is between 2 and 10 days and it might be contagious during this time 2600:1702:37F1:3F80:E416:604D:356D:8E7B ( talk) 02:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I think that there should be a row for the entirety of China, as recognised by the United Nations (incl. mainland, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan). This would include a total figure for all regions of the PRC. There could be sub-rows underneath China which detail the figures for the mainland, SARs and self-governing Taiwan. Thoughts? 07:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC) JMonkey2006 ( talk)
Country Confirmed Cases
China 1 995 Mainland China 1 982 Hong Kong 5 Macau 5 Taiwan 3 Thailand 7 Australia 4 Malaysia 4 Singapore 4
Please ignore display issues.
-- JMonkey2006 ( talk) 03:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Why was the table removed? Quvsn ( talk) 12:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Bring back the table!! GoofyNoah ( talk) 13:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
What happened to the table Nickayane99 ( talk) 14:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Can someone add "cases" and "deaths" labels to the top of the table? I can't because the page is "protected to prevent vandalism". Kr8gz ( talk) 10:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
The issue of including flags in the infobox describing which areas have been affected has led us into a situation with personal attacks on both sides with editors being blocked for edit warring. We need an RfC to resolve this issue and create a consensus.
Should the infobox in the article that provides numbers on areas that have been infected by the coronavirus include flags or not? Chess (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
File:2019-nCoV Outbreak World Map.svg
) depicting the global incidence of confirmed and suspected cases, which is far better a visual than any zoo of flags would ever be. CaradhrasAiguo (
leave language) 00:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.). MOS:INFOBOXFLAG is clear. Moreover, WP:SOVEREIGNFLAG and MOS:FLAGRELEVANCE also say we shouldn't be using the Macau or Hong Kong flags. We need very good reasons to deviate from the Manual of Style and some people liking little flags isn't a good reason. The claims that flags aid comprehension are explicitly contradicted by the Manual of Style (
they are unnecessarily distracting) and the Manual of Style, as a community-wide consensus document, clearly takes precedence over individual editors' personal opinions. This article has repeatedly run into geopolitical complications with disagreements over how to represent Taiwan vs. China or what map to use. Part of the reason for avoiding flag icons is because it complicate the geopolitics. Let's focus on medicine, not flags. I have reviewed every Wikipedia article in the outbreak categories and nearly all of them obey the Manual of Style on this matter. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Some editors above (Colin dm, Chess) raise the issue of what happens if the list of countries gets to 50-100. (Let's hope it doesn't.) If the list gets that long, it shouldn't be in the infobox. That would be unwieldy and violate MOS:INFOBOX. The infobox could just focus on numbers per continent at that point. If the list comes out of the infobox, MOS:INFOBOXFLAG clearly does not apply. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Chess argues that The easiest way to recognize countries at a glance is with flags
. I see no evidence for that. Most readers are not familiar with flags of all the countries of the world. Are most readers outside Taiwan familiar with the Taiwaness flag, or outside Vietnam familiar with the Vietnamese flag? Some flags are confusingly similar (Malaysia and US). The Manual of Style explicitly argues that many flags are unfamiliar and that they can be a distraction.
Bondegezou (
talk) 10:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Most readers are not familiar with flags of all the countries of the world. Are you really assume that the average readers are that dumb? Hddty ( talk) 15:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
no reader is familiar with every flag, and many flags differ only in minor details. If you disagree, debate the matter at MOS:FLAG, but we can't just set up our own WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Bondegezou ( talk) 17:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The list of countries has now been moved out of the infobox. Should this RfC be closed as now moot? There is a question over the use of flag icons in the table in the text, where we are still acting contrary to the Manual of Style, but in a less significant manner. That, however, can be discussed separately. Bondegezou ( talk) 12:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
https://www.reddit.com/r/China_Flu/comments/euvexx/current_status_of_outsidechina_patients/ Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 00:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi!
I found this information about 3M ramping up production worldwide to meet the demand due to 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak.
Accessible here: "3M sees coronavirus boosting demand for face masks, as China projected to return to growth"
What do you think about placing this information on the article?
FranciscoMMartins ( talk) 13:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak#Criticism What do you think of the criticism section? There was an edit to demote it from level 2 to level 4, in other words to bury it. I think the section is of much interest and should not be buried. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 17:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
"other words to bury it." Let's keep this within WP:GF.
It's wholly inadequate and there used to be a comment flag regarding its critically underdeveloped status before that was removed. On its own, as the criticism is wholly laid onto the Police and Government authorities, it fits under Domestic Response as I've appended unless criticism further develops past that Jan 20 declaration. Unless criticism reaches far more substantive degrees, which may become the case in the future, some Weibo commentators and an incident of withholding camera footage feels like WP:UNDUE to merit its own top level section. The governmental response under that heading along with the potential for insertion of contrary views, such as that by the WHO in praising transparency ( https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-who-idUSKBN1ZM1G9), will create a clumsy read under such a heading.
Reorganizing the section will keep it in line with cases such as:
Sleath56 ( talk) 18:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I first started this section and I will definitely expand it. It may not have a lot of content right now but it will certainly expand. Beyond censorship on the press and social media sites, there have been tons of criticisms on insufficient medical supplies and patients overhauling hospitals. Colin dm said information in this section seems to be scarce because here's China, and of course it would be scarce - but the truth is the exact opposite. Most criticisms are in Chinese and a surprising amount is from Chinese media. I suppose I'm the only Chinese speaker here so the real problem is, souces are already here but no one writes about it.
Censorship is important but for some reason, most western media have become too full of it. I suppose half of the NYT's coverages are about censorship and mismanagement from the central government's level instead of things like face masks shortages and skyrocketing food prices. I will keep working on Chinese sources in the coming days as foreign outlets seemed to have suffered from a kind of ridiculous-sounding difficulty, which is to send correspondents on-site - I can tell that the BBC failed from a video they made, and several have scaled back or moved to their regional headquarters in Beijing instead of staying in Wuhan, as the authorities locked the city and they probably don't want to die in China themselves. There are many quality journalism produced by Chinese media, especially after censorship eased these days.
Speaking of English sources, Caixin and Sixth Tone are good sources as they are relatively liberal, and they are subsidiaries of credible Chinese media, although no one heard of them. Xinhua is the go-to source for official stuff, Global Times is nationalist and conservative, China Daily is more neutral. CGTN remains close to the government yet its TV programs are relatively liberal as well. Be aware that official Chinese English-languaged media also use Xinhua's news pieces a lot. The South China Morning Post, despite having China in its name, is a Hong Kong-based newspaper, did a lot of good stories on China, and doesn't care about China's censorship. Plus, people in Hong Kong criticised their government a lot as well. These are all good sources to start with.
-- Techyan( Talk) 20:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
@Techyan: Appreciate the response and editorial initiative. My issues with the section remain nonetheless. As it is now, it is hard to claim the section maintains WP:NPOV as an top level section. One, while media criticism of authority actions should be absolutely documented here provided it passes WP:UNDUE. The caveat is that in an developing situation like this however, it’s easy to find plenty of voices with a variety of such allegations and concerns and WP:PROPORTION fall into mind here to not bloat such a section.
Titling criticism as a top level section bears validity if such views are largely predominant or unanimous. This is not generally the case in epidemic articles, as official response is rarely so inept it attracts universal condemnation throughout the whole process without any contrary views. As it stands, there are many RS that hold positive commentary on elements of the authorities conduct in the matter, in particular from voices of medical authority. Such RS include that by WHO, which is far more relevant for WP:RS/MC than any ordinary media allegations, such as I’ve provided here: 1. Additionally to demonstrate the point of contrary reactions are political commentary such as those by Germany, who approve of the authorities’ ‘rapid management.' and 'praised their transparency'. 2. With the existence of such RS/MC, it is inappropriate to dedicate a section wholly under the title of “Criticism”.
These situations are largely reactive, the meaning can be demonstrated through the new point you've added on the Wuhan festival is definitely of far greater merit than anything yet documented in the section. The criticism directed to that event is worthy of documentation here, but the subsequent governmental response in closing further festivals as the epidemic developed should also be narrated as a follow-through case. This makes for a very clumsy section if inserted into the current state.
The solution as often adopted by other associated epidemic pages as cited, has been to file such reactions under a “Response” section, often a top level section. This allows for the capacity to add RS/MC responses (whose addition would be a priority in any circumstance), like WHO’s which indeed have not been of criticism, to balance concerns of WP:UNDUE and also satisfy WP:NPOV.
I see two means by which this can be achieved:
Sleath56 ( talk) 06:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The second paragraph in the section is ignorant at best, and possibly with intentional conceal of information in itself. One most likely reason for observing infections outside China but not in other provinces within China is because between province travelers do not receive the same level of medical checks/control as between country boarder travelers do. In fact there was no body temperature motoring when you travel across provinces, just like traveling between states in the US or traveling between countries within Europe. Why did I say this second paragraph itself is intentionally concealing information? Because the above explanation was already given in a reference cited within the paragraph, yet it was not mentioned at all. And now even the reference has been deleted (reference link:
https://www.hk01.com/議事廳/424736/武漢肺炎-坊間調侃-愛國病毒-地方有否-瞞報-疫情)
193.54.67.94 (
talk) 10:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
References
@Ganesha811: Thanks for the edit summary explanation, but Talk is a better place for it. I've reverted the edit to unify the #Local Criticism section, as I believe it merits a discussion here beforehand. The weight of criticism has been largely focussed on the local response as of yet, so at the present moment, an independent section on that area should stand as it is substantive enough on its own. The reported increase of central censorship fits under Management#Domestic response as that area is already structured around the central authorities management tactics, including censorship, particularly per the extant opening paragraph of that section. The point about the tactics to skirt censorship is the only new element, so it's been incorporated there. Sleath56 ( talk) 14:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Location | Cases | Deaths | |
---|---|---|---|
![]() |
World [a] | 775,643,495 | 7,051,600 |
![]() |
European Union [b] | 185,666,273 | 1,261,748 |
![]() |
United States | 103,436,829 | 1,189,083 |
![]() |
China [c] | 99,361,338 | 122,248 |
![]() |
India | 45,040,074 | 533,619 |
![]() |
France | 38,997,490 | 168,091 |
![]() |
Germany | 38,437,756 | 174,979 |
![]() |
Brazil | 37,511,921 | 702,116 |
![]() |
South Korea | 34,571,873 | 35,934 |
![]() |
Japan | 33,803,572 | 74,694 |
![]() |
Italy | 26,727,644 | 197,081 |
![]() |
United Kingdom | 24,940,688 | 232,112 |
![]() |
Russia | 24,225,459 | 403,031 |
![]() |
Turkey | 17,004,714 | 101,419 |
![]() |
Spain | 13,980,340 | 121,852 |
![]() |
Australia | 11,861,161 | 25,236 |
![]() |
Vietnam | 11,624,000 | 43,206 |
![]() |
Argentina | 10,132,689 | 130,867 |
![]() |
Taiwan | 9,970,937 | 17,672 |
![]() |
Netherlands | 8,636,781 | 22,986 |
![]() |
Mexico | 7,709,747 | 335,011 |
![]() |
Iran | 7,627,863 | 146,837 |
![]() |
Indonesia | 6,829,120 | 162,058 |
![]() |
Poland | 6,663,580 | 120,713 |
![]() |
Colombia | 6,386,212 | 142,727 |
![]() |
Austria | 6,082,356 | 22,534 |
![]() |
Portugal | 5,649,830 | 28,324 |
![]() |
Greece | 5,641,241 | 39,035 |
![]() |
Ukraine | 5,531,787 | 109,920 |
![]() |
Chile | 5,400,569 | 62,715 |
![]() |
Malaysia | 5,288,841 | 37,351 |
![]() |
Belgium | 4,863,706 | 34,339 |
![]() |
Israel | 4,841,558 | 12,707 |
![]() |
Canada | 4,812,623 | 55,103 |
![]() |
Thailand | 4,789,165 | 34,665 |
![]() |
Czech Republic | 4,759,813 | 43,506 |
![]() |
Peru | 4,524,748 | 220,831 |
![]() |
Switzerland | 4,454,731 | 14,188 |
![]() |
Philippines | 4,140,383 | 66,864 |
![]() |
South Africa | 4,072,719 | 102,595 |
![]() |
Romania | 3,529,682 | 68,805 |
![]() |
Denmark | 3,435,018 | 9,667 |
![]() |
Singapore | 3,006,155 | 2,024 |
![]() |
Hong Kong | 2,876,106 | 13,466 |
![]() |
Sweden | 2,752,383 | 27,309 |
![]() |
New Zealand | 2,614,723 | 4,083 |
![]() |
Serbia | 2,583,470 | 18,057 |
![]() |
Iraq | 2,465,545 | 25,375 |
![]() |
Hungary | 2,230,453 | 49,051 |
![]() |
Bangladesh | 2,050,834 | 29,496 |
![]() |
Slovakia | 1,877,788 | 21,226 |
![]() |
Georgia | 1,863,101 | 17,150 |
![]() |
Jordan | 1,746,997 | 14,122 |
![]() |
Republic of Ireland | 1,738,493 | 9,637 |
![]() |
Pakistan | 1,580,631 | 30,656 |
![]() |
Norway | 1,508,485 | 5,732 |
![]() |
Kazakhstan | 1,504,370 | 19,072 |
![]() |
Finland | 1,499,712 | 11,466 |
![]() |
Lithuania | 1,366,800 | 9,806 |
![]() |
Slovenia | 1,356,013 | 10,062 |
![]() |
Bulgaria | 1,329,405 | 38,700 |
![]() |
Croatia | 1,317,144 | 18,752 |
![]() |
Morocco | 1,279,115 | 16,305 |
![]() |
Puerto Rico | 1,252,713 | 5,938 |
![]() |
Guatemala | 1,250,363 | 20,203 |
![]() |
Lebanon | 1,239,904 | 10,947 |
![]() |
Costa Rica | 1,230,653 | 9,368 |
![]() |
Bolivia | 1,212,144 | 22,387 |
![]() |
Tunisia | 1,153,361 | 29,423 |
![]() |
Cuba | 1,113,662 | 8,530 |
![]() |
Ecuador | 1,076,430 | 36,049 |
![]() |
United Arab Emirates | 1,067,030 | 2,349 |
![]() |
Panama | 1,044,375 | 8,706 |
![]() |
Uruguay | 1,041,263 | 7,679 |
![]() |
Mongolia | 1,011,489 | 2,136 |
![]() |
Nepal | 1,003,450 | 12,031 |
![]() |
Belarus | 994,037 | 7,118 |
![]() |
Latvia | 977,765 | 7,475 |
![]() |
Saudi Arabia | 841,469 | 9,646 |
![]() |
Azerbaijan | 835,468 | 10,353 |
![]() |
Paraguay | 735,759 | 19,880 |
![]() |
Palestine | 703,228 | 5,708 |
![]() |
Bahrain | 696,614 | 1,536 |
![]() |
Cyprus | 691,252 | 1,445 |
![]() |
Sri Lanka | 672,779 | 16,904 |
![]() |
Kuwait | 667,290 | 2,570 |
![]() |
Dominican Republic | 661,103 | 4,384 |
![]() |
Myanmar | 642,618 | 19,494 |
![]() |
Moldova | 635,749 | 12,239 |
![]() |
Estonia | 610,471 | 2,998 |
![]() |
Venezuela | 552,695 | 5,856 |
![]() |
Egypt | 516,023 | 24,830 |
![]() |
Qatar | 514,524 | 690 |
![]() |
Libya | 507,269 | 6,437 |
![]() |
Ethiopia | 501,172 | 7,574 |
![]() |
Réunion | 494,595 | 921 |
![]() |
Honduras | 472,804 | 11,114 |
![]() |
Armenia | 451,944 | 8,777 |
![]() |
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 403,644 | 16,388 |
![]() |
Oman | 399,449 | 4,628 |
![]() |
Luxembourg | 391,729 | 1,000 |
![]() |
North Macedonia | 350,606 | 9,977 |
![]() |
Zambia | 349,661 | 4,069 |
![]() |
Brunei | 345,096 | 178 |
![]() |
Kenya | 344,101 | 5,689 |
![]() |
Albania | 335,047 | 3,605 |
![]() |
Botswana | 330,650 | 2,801 |
![]() |
Mauritius | 327,305 | 1,070 |
![]() |
Kosovo | 274,279 | 3,212 |
![]() |
Algeria | 272,034 | 6,881 |
![]() |
Nigeria | 267,188 | 3,155 |
![]() |
Zimbabwe | 266,365 | 5,740 |
![]() |
Montenegro | 251,280 | 2,654 |
![]() |
Afghanistan | 235,214 | 7,998 |
![]() |
Mozambique | 233,825 | 2,252 |
![]() |
Martinique | 230,354 | 1,104 |
![]() |
Laos | 219,048 | 671 |
![]() |
Iceland | 210,013 | 186 |
![]() |
Guadeloupe | 203,235 | 1,021 |
![]() |
El Salvador | 201,878 | 4,230 |
![]() |
Trinidad and Tobago | 191,496 | 4,390 |
![]() |
Maldives | 186,694 | 316 |
![]() |
Uzbekistan | 175,081 | 1,016 |
![]() |
Namibia | 172,418 | 4,108 |
![]() |
Uganda | 172,152 | 3,632 |
![]() |
Ghana | 172,037 | 1,462 |
![]() |
Jamaica | 156,864 | 3,600 |
![]() |
Cambodia | 139,256 | 3,056 |
![]() |
Rwanda | 133,252 | 1,468 |
![]() |
Cameroon | 125,238 | 1,974 |
![]() |
Malta | 121,628 | 909 |
![]() |
Barbados | 110,786 | 593 |
![]() |
Angola | 107,468 | 1,937 |
![]() |
Democratic Republic of the Congo | 100,616 | 1,470 |
![]() |
French Guiana | 98,041 | 413 |
![]() |
Malawi | 89,168 | 2,686 |
![]() |
Senegal | 89,101 | 1,971 |
![]() |
Kyrgyzstan | 88,953 | 1,024 |
![]() |
Ivory Coast | 88,428 | 835 |
![]() |
Suriname | 82,497 | 1,405 |
![]() |
New Caledonia | 80,163 | 314 |
![]() |
French Polynesia | 79,309 | 650 |
![]() |
Eswatini | 75,356 | 1,427 |
![]() |
Guyana | 74,161 | 1,301 |
![]() |
Belize | 71,409 | 688 |
![]() |
Fiji | 69,047 | 885 |
![]() |
Madagascar | 68,552 | 1,427 |
![]() |
Jersey | 66,391 | 161 |
![]() |
Cabo Verde | 64,474 | 417 |
![]() |
Sudan | 63,993 | 5,046 |
![]() |
Mauritania | 63,866 | 997 |
![]() |
Bhutan | 62,697 | 21 |
![]() |
Syria | 57,423 | 3,163 |
![]() |
Burundi | 54,569 | 15 |
![]() |
Guam | 52,287 | 419 |
![]() |
Seychelles | 51,770 | 172 |
![]() |
Gabon | 49,051 | 307 |
![]() |
Andorra | 48,015 | 159 |
![]() |
Papua New Guinea | 46,864 | 670 |
![]() |
Curaçao | 45,883 | 305 |
![]() |
Aruba | 44,224 | 292 |
![]() |
Tanzania | 43,226 | 846 |
![]() |
Mayotte | 42,027 | 187 |
![]() |
Togo | 39,530 | 290 |
![]() |
Bahamas | 38,619 | 848 |
![]() |
Guinea | 38,572 | 468 |
![]() |
Isle of Man | 38,008 | 116 |
![]() |
Lesotho | 36,138 | 709 |
![]() |
Guernsey | 35,326 | 67 |
![]() |
Faroe Islands | 34,658 | 28 |
![]() |
Haiti | 34,298 | 860 |
![]() |
Mali | 33,164 | 743 |
![]() |
Cayman Islands | 31,472 | 37 |
![]() |
Saint Lucia | 30,257 | 410 |
![]() |
Benin | 28,036 | 163 |
![]() |
Somalia | 27,334 | 1,361 |
![]() |
Federated States of Micronesia | 26,460 | 65 |
![]() |
Solomon Islands | 25,954 | 199 |
![]() |
United States Virgin Islands | 25,389 | 132 |
![]() |
San Marino | 25,292 | 126 |
![]() |
Republic of the Congo | 25,220 | 389 |
![]() |
Timor-Leste | 23,460 | 138 |
![]() |
Burkina Faso | 22,129 | 400 |
![]() |
Liechtenstein | 21,578 | 89 |
![]() |
Gibraltar | 20,550 | 113 |
![]() |
Grenada | 19,693 | 238 |
![]() |
Bermuda | 18,860 | 165 |
![]() |
South Sudan | 18,823 | 147 |
![]() |
Tajikistan | 17,786 | 125 |
![]() |
Monaco | 17,181 | 67 |
![]() |
Equatorial Guinea | 17,130 | 183 |
![]() |
Samoa | 17,057 | 31 |
![]() |
Tonga | 16,966 | 12 |
![]() |
Marshall Islands | 16,248 | 17 |
![]() |
Nicaragua | 16,150 | 245 |
![]() |
Dominica | 16,047 | 74 |
![]() |
Djibouti | 15,690 | 189 |
![]() |
Central African Republic | 15,440 | 113 |
![]() |
Northern Mariana Islands | 14,702 | 41 |
![]() |
Gambia | 12,627 | 372 |
![]() |
Collectivity of Saint Martin | 12,324 | 46 |
![]() |
Vanuatu | 12,019 | 14 |
![]() |
Greenland | 11,971 | 21 |
![]() |
Yemen | 11,945 | 2,159 |
![]() |
Caribbean Netherlands | 11,922 | 41 |
![]() |
Sint Maarten | 11,051 | 92 |
![]() |
Eritrea | 10,189 | 103 |
![]() |
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines | 9,674 | 124 |
![]() |
Guinea-Bissau | 9,614 | 177 |
![]() |
Niger | 9,518 | 315 |
![]() |
Comoros | 9,109 | 160 |
![]() |
Antigua and Barbuda | 9,106 | 146 |
![]() |
American Samoa | 8,359 | 34 |
![]() |
Liberia | 7,930 | 294 |
![]() |
Sierra Leone | 7,836 | 125 |
![]() |
Chad | 7,702 | 194 |
![]() |
British Virgin Islands | 7,478 | 64 |
![]() |
Cook Islands | 7,327 | 2 |
![]() |
Sao Tome and Principe | 6,771 | 80 |
![]() |
Turks and Caicos Islands | 6,754 | 40 |
![]() |
Saint Kitts and Nevis | 6,607 | 46 |
![]() |
Palau | 6,366 | 10 |
![]() |
Saint Barthélemy | 5,507 | 5 |
![]() |
Nauru | 5,393 | 1 |
![]() |
Kiribati | 5,085 | 24 |
![]() |
Anguilla | 3,904 | 12 |
![]() |
Wallis and Futuna | 3,760 | 9 |
![]() |
Macau | 3,514 | 121 |
![]() |
Saint Pierre and Miquelon | 3,426 | 2 |
![]() |
Tuvalu | 2,943 | 1 |
![]() |
Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha | 2,166 | — |
![]() |
Falkland Islands | 1,923 | — |
![]() |
Montserrat | 1,403 | 8 |
![]() |
Niue | 1,074 | — |
![]() |
Tokelau | 80 | 0 |
![]() |
Vatican City | 26 | 0 |
![]() |
Pitcairn Islands | 4 | — |
![]() |
North Korea | 1 | 6 |
![]() |
Turkmenistan | 0 | 0 |
|
Please update {{ 2019_coronavirus_pandemic_data}} and {{ 2019 coronavirus pandemic map}} as needed.
Official statement by the Bavarian Ministry of Health:
https://www.stmgp.bayern.de/presse/bestaetigter-coronavirus-fall-in-bayern-infektionsschutzmaßnahmen-laufen/
77.183.92.215 (
talk) 23:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Acording to this: https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6, Ivory Coast seem to be infected. Can we list them to the template? Neutrinium 11:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Here's the link [2] for the news containing the info, would anyone kindly add it to the article? 200.233.220.204 ( talk) 15:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.233.220.204 ( talk) 15:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
The case reported in UAE is a case of an entire family of four members. According to our criteria of recording individuals, this counts as 4 cases, not 1. https://www.wam.ae/en/details/1395302819592 -- 137.132.213.135 ( talk) 10:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/newpage_09201.html Xinjapanpon ( talk) 14:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
References
The 2009 has {{
2009 swine flu}}. Let's go for {{
2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus}} {{
2019-nCoV}}. We indeed start to have enough sub-article to start such panel as well. And it's pretty sure we will need more sub-article in coming months.
{{2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus}}
Yug
(talk) 08:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, everyone!
I just wanted to tell you that I'm available to translate information from English>Portuguese and Portuguese>English [more slowly than EN>PT].
Also, I have been putting information and links about the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak on my portuguese user page, you may check it here and use it freely of course: Usuário(a):FranciscoMMartins/Rascunhos.
Because I have just registered my account yesterday I cannot edit this article, either in the English or Portuguese version. But I am indeed interested in collaborating with both Wikipedia communities :)
Keep up the good work and have a nice day! FranciscoMMartins ( talk) 13:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
The lead paragraph says the case fatality rate of this is 2.2% whereas the link to the John Hopkins website says (at the time of writing) that 132 have died and 110 have recovered. This looks like a case fatality rate of 55%. What’s going on here? Mike Young ( talk) 10:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC) CFR is deaths/confirmed. 146.88.44.13 ( talk) 10:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Problematic political wording in the second lede paragraph - "including in every province of China except Tibet". Last I heard, Tibet's political status was still a matter of controversy. My suggestion for rewording is not nearly as informative, but I will toss out as an alternative "almost entirely within greater China." And, if you do want a specific mention of Tibet, then add "Tibet is not currently affected." This avoids an outright declaration of Tibet as a province of China, but also does not negate it. (Viruses don't respect politics, but debatable political situations don't usually vanish because of viruses.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 ( talk) 19:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Suspected case in Denmark: https://www.bt.dk/samfund/dansk-patient-undersoeges-for-coronavirus-havde-vaeret-i-udbruddets-epicenter 188.228.48.155 ( talk) 18:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I found those :
Hi just reporting that Template of the 2019 coronavirus, in Geographic distribution section of the article is missing Confirmed cases and Death header at the top of the template. BigRed606 ( talk) 22:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
The way we currently calculate fatality rate is very wrong. We are using current death to the confirmed case count. Confirmed case aren't in same state of progress, somes of them could be infected since 1 day, other since 20 days.
Fatality rate should be calculated from people dead vs (dead+Recovered) but this would also give bad rate (63,85 % Fatality Rate for 106 / 166.). Actually, fatality rate can only be calculated if we have a good way to be sure of the total quantity of infected and quantity of death wich we can't have.
I suggest Fatality rate to be removed untill the epidemy is ended. -- Eric1212 ( talk) 18:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Data from total infected chart is not possible. Thailand has 1,000+ China has 7,000+ but the total written is only 7,792 76.78.225.140 ( talk) 01:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
In the Confirmed cases > Hong Kong section there is a video file from China News Service titled 'File:香港确诊两宗新型肺炎个案 机场火车站加强体温筛查.webm'. It's enough to take a glance at the lead of the China News Service article to see that it's a PRC state owned media company run by the United Front Work Department of the Chinese Communist Party. Why does Wikipedia relay propaganda content from a media outlet of an authoritarian party? I understand that the Creative Commons license is enticing enough to grab every piece of content from the Internet, but where is the critical approach? This is highly questionable, especially when Wikipedia is very critical about which US news sources it accepts are reliable/trusted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.87.212 ( talk) 08:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)