![]() | 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 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, the Ministry of Health has confirmed 38 new cases in Dominican Republic, bringing the total number to 72. Can you make the change in the table? Sources: https://elnuevodiario.com.do/salud-publica-confirma-38-nuevos-casos-de-coronavirus-en-rd-suman-72/ Thank you 186.149.179.120 ( talk) 15:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Please note, there is a static URL link to this page from a Central Notice ( meta:MediaWiki:Centralnotice-Programmatic translations 2020-covid-article-link) please do not move the page without consideration for this. — xaosflux Talk 02:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Only 400 new cases in two weeks in a population sink of nearly 1.4 billion? This is a test to see how much BS the world will swallow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:444:380:8C00:2872:122F:AC8B:AB0D ( talk) 17:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
|}
We have surprassed the 4 percentage of fatality rate, sadly this most important data sometimes was in the article (I mean the overall fatality rate), but it is now deleted. We are now at 7893/194515=4.05 percentage. 87.97.82.243 ( talk) 18:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
The per capita map has adopted a new level: 1-10/100 million. Unfortunately the colour chosen (cream) wipes out national boundaries, making it impossible to know where one country begins and another ends. This is especially seen in Africa. Please choose a colour which is different from the border colour - or else, choose a different colour for borders! One not in the black/red/cream/white spectrum! Ptilinopus ( talk) 00:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Nothing was said about any recoveries in Poland yet and the Minister of Health didn’t say that there was a recovery in Poland or nobody yet knows about that. Hi poland ( talk) 10:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
There is not 6 deaths in Poland there is still 5. Hi poland ( talk) 13:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Australia states will be lockdown like NSW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.208.242 ( talk) 13:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Wikipedians: I came to this article to simply read and became alarmed when I read the following sentence: "Droplets stay suspended in the air for only a short time in air at 65% relative humidity (RH) and 21 to 23 °C (70 to 73 °F),[224] but may stay viable and contagious on a metal, cardboard, glass or plastic surface.[225][226][227] "
The reference is titled " Coronavirus can persist in air for hours and on surfaces for days: study", yet is joined improperly to the statement "Droplets stay suspended in the air for only a short time in air" as if it supports the statement. It says the opposite; the van Dormalen article reported worldwide and summarized in the Gene Emery article in Reuters, says the droplets remain infectious in the air for up to three hours. This is a serious error as it misinforms people about COVID-19 transmission.
Transmission is the heart of this article and the one section people will want to read. I understand this to be a good faith edit; 3 hours is quite a short time to be at Disneyland, but quite a long time for infectious particles to remain in the air. This study has been reported worldwide to the extent that people on the streets have heard about it. This finding means it is plausible that someone can potentially sneeze in a room in a public arena, walk out, have someone else walk in and become infected, hours later.
I began to look at every link to see whether the article says what the citation claims it is saying. There are too many errors not to do a re-write. There is a citation error that creates a misquote of the Appendix summary article, which never refers to the studies' findings as being a "short time", and another error by joining these two independent clauses with a comma, when the articles do not say what the citation says they do.
I separated the two clauses with a period. I checked the references, and confirmed using a word processor that the van Doremalen article has a summary ( the Emery article, with a bare URL), and a [ preprint from March 13. However, van Doremalen The New England Journal of Medicine article itself with the actual study that found the 3-hour aerosol viability was not here. So I added it.
I added a blockquote for the finding (van Dormalen) summarized by Emery, "The tests show that when the virus is carried by the droplets released when someone coughs or sneezes, it remains viable, or able to still infect people, in aerosols for at least three hours." I left the period inside the quotation mark, because this is a quote from America, as per MOS. This is an easy summary to help readers get the main point.
I added context about how the study was done. Until this study, behavior on surface was uncertain. The second part of the original sentence, saying it "may" stay viable is vague. The Appendix summary shows the data, and the findings need to be reported. I changed a citation error caused that misquoted the Gene Emery summary in Reuters (17 March 2020).
I summarized the findings of the study on viability tested different environments (air, copper, cardboard, stainless steel, and plastic). Added references from CNN and NIH. I made several changes to references (name order, wls, etc). I took out the bare URL and created a link for the Appendix (technical details) page. I then wove material up from the bottom, where there had been two subjects in a single paragraph. I moved one to incorporate into the news about the two SARS viruses' similarities. The other stated it was thought the virus lives on surfaces like other coronaviruses but it wasn't known. This was mis-referenced to material that does not say that. I moved it to join another reference where it is an accurate citation. Also, the material on the two viruses now makes the point that they both may be super-spreaders, which is important to include.
Tying two sentences together (which have their own references) with a comma requires scrutiny that the statement is accurate. I encourage you keep all edits, especially on this global pandemic page, crisp and clean and closely tied to their source. If anyone makes a good faith edit hoping to make the language more friendly by using a comma in this way, I suggest you treat it instantly as an error and undo.
I do these kinds of complicated edits in my word processor. Other editors therefore will not see the step-by-step process with edit summaries, that is why I am leaving this summary report. Thank you for your time in reading these explanatory notes. I preserved all that I was able. Here is a permanent link to the page on March 21, 2020 the time of my edit.
Having not seen this article before (I came here to read it, not to put on my editor's cap), I thank all editors who have been working hard to write it in such a short period of time. It is a remarkable effort, and the visuals in particular, including diagrams, are exceptional. Al Leluia81 ( talk) 07:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I think that in the list with the cases for every country you should include the TRNC into the Cypriot cases as the North Cyprus is not recognized from any country in the world but Turkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dim.vas.nikol ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
It says "The case fatality rate of COVID-19 (that is, the fatality rate among the subset of infected individuals with symptoms)".
I am not an expert on the definition of CFR, but shouldn't it be something like "The case fatality rate of COVID-19 (that is, the fatality rate among the subset of infected individuals who have been diagnosed)".
An infected person without symptoms could be diagnosed (an asymptomatic "case"), and conversely an infected person who shows symptoms might not be diagnosed if medical care is not sought (probably mild symptoms, not-life-threatening).
(Also, I wonder, does a false positive diagnosis count as a "case" (included in the denominator)? Or an error in CFR?)
-- Slieredna ( talk) 07:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I would appreciate if someone wrote an article about the fist and palm salute, and link to it in the caption, because it's not uniquely Taiwanese. It has a history dating back to the Western Zhou [8] Verkanto ( talk) 14:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
In this edit, User:Da Vinci Nanjing reinstated for the second time content to the Epidemiology section that I removed because it is medical content that does not comply with WP:MEDRS and does not belong in the health section of this article. (It probably doesn't belong in the German article either, unless there is a section for political opinion that is not medical content.) This is edit warring. I thought discretionary sanctions were in place on these articles? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
That is still problematical because it ignores the likelihood of herd immunity being achieved through vaccination as it is with measles. Because the mean transmission rate of SARS-CoV-2 is probably between 2 and 3, it follows that it requires a population immunity fraction around 60% to 70% for infections to no longer sustain themselves. That much is accurate, but if immunity were to be achieved by infection alone, we would be possibly be looking at hundreds of millions of fatalities worldwide, and it seems unlikely that any government would be willing to sustain as much as 2%–3% of its population dying from the virus. Unfortunately, I'm having problems finding top-quality sources that discuss the issues around SARS-CoV-2 and herd immunity. The best I can find so far is National Geographic, which gives a decent explanation and a balanced overview. Nevertheless, it's still short of what I'd want for a MEDRS source. My advice would be to remove that paragraph for the moment, pending a quality review article or a statement from WHO or similar to use as a source. -- RexxS ( talk) 23:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)"Official sources in Germany and the UK estimate that 60-70 % of the population will become infected before effective herd immunity can be achieved. [1] [2] [3]
References
Which is better and for which reasons? JHU has erroneous data for both Austria and Italy. I'm certainly not an expert, but I think consensus should be arrived at here before someone unilaterally decides on the JHU site. MattSucci ( talk) 09:11, 21 March 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.
Some commentators have called the pandemic the biggest global event since World War II. [1] [2]was added to the end of the intro.
References
The global socioeconomic impact of the pandemic has been compared by some commentators to such events as World War II, yet another example of implementation on this page without consensus, is significantly worse. The pandemic in its current state has caused nowhere near the socioeconomic disruption of WW2. I'm going to just take out the sentence. RaphaelQS, "most significant" would have been better than "biggest", but "significant" is still a vague term. Sdkb ( talk) 04:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following text in: Impacts/Environment section. Add the text as a new paragraph, after the last sentence in the Environment section.
As a consequence of the unprecedented use of disposable face masks, significant numbers are entering the natural environment and in particular, to rivers and seawater. In some cases, the masks have been washed onto beaches where they are accumulating. This accumulation has been reported on beaches in Hong Kong and is expected to add to the worldwide burden of plastic waste and the detrimental effects of this waste to marine life. [1] AntC55 ( talk) 02:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
zimbabwe has 3 cases 41.246.30.236 ( talk) 11:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The country that the corona virus will be more is sirlanka because they don't good facilities and there are more countries can't name them it could be Iran too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.107.17.162 ( talk) 22:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
India has done a lot of contributions in this pandemic, Plz include them too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardaat Singh Baath ( talk • contribs) 21:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
In lithuania there's 69 people sick, 1 severe case, 1 dead now. You can check in the 'Epidemiology' section of the main page by pressing on lithuania. There are many refferences. Lukeris14 ( talk) 06:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
There was a calculation error in yesterday's Pakistani figures. Kindly update as per government's official watch center here-- 119.160.119.159 ( talk) 08:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
"The virus primarily spreads between people via respiratory droplets, produced during coughing or sneezing."
WHO says " The main way the disease spreads is through respiratory droplets expelled by someone who is coughing."
I think this summary is perfectly fine. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
"It may also be spread from touching contaminated surfaces and than touching ones face"
"than" should be changed to "then". I don't have a wikipedia account, so I'm suggesting here due to the semi-protected nature of the page.
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
touching contaminated surfaces and than touching ones face.
touching contaminated surfaces and then touching one's face. Kempu2015 ( talk) 18:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The amount of attention being devoted to this article is immense, and as might be expected, it's making this talk page really unwieldy and unorganized. Even with the 24hr archiving, there are still tons of duplicate discussions being opened up, making it difficult to centralize discussion on discrete topics like the maps. I'd like to use this thread as a space for proposing solutions to get things under control. Some ideas:
I'm sure there are more ideas that aren't occurring to me, but the basic gist is that experienced editors should be more aggressive about cleaning up this talk page than we normally would be for one with a more normal level of activity. Also, I should note that for the related issue of the edit history of the article itself also being extremely unwieldy, I requested that we add a line to the edit notice encouraging better edit summary usage. Cheers, Sdkb ( talk) 04:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
people don’t refactor like they used to, strikethroughs aren’t necessary, one can summarise — Almaty ( talk) 11:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I think the problem is none of the header notices, which provide a lot of info, show for mobile users. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 03:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Copying a comment I made below following yet another instance where we were having a discussion, only to realize that someone (we don't know who) had gone straight to editing the article itself: [There is] a concerning phenomenon with this article, where editors trying to engage on the talk page are being steamrolled by editors completely disregarding the talk page/established processes for consensus and making major edits to the article with poor edit summaries. There is simply such a flood of edits to the page that any given edit is not being given adequate scrutiny unless someone notices the change through reading the article itself. This is the exact opposite of the incentive structure we want, and I think it's leading to a decline in the article quality. Sdkb ( talk) 06:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I just added a notice to the top of this talk page encouraging editors to consider contributing to one of the sub-articles instead (scroll up and look for the notice with the orange stop sign to read it). Should this be added as another edit notice when people edit the article directly, or should we add a line to the main edit notice for the article stating the point in brief and linking to the template? Sdkb ( talk) 18:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
like the one at Donald Trump. This may prevent unnecessary discussions that have been repeatedly been discussed over and over again. Interstellarity ( talk) 22:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
When I play the slideshow, I couldn't drag the map freely. The map slideshow encounter technique error and should be removed or replace by new one. The Supermind ( talk) 13:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
This is a reference that I want to put into the main paragraph, https://dx.doi.org/10.7326/M20-0504 -- we know with good confidence that the onset is really around 5 days, and that the vast majority of covid-19 symptoms will appear within that 14 day quarantine, subject to caveats as stated in the paper. -- HappyCamper 11:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The info box lists by cases detected which is ridiculous since it is dependent on the capacity and policy of each country and is in no way indicative of the gravity of the situation. It leads to perverse results such as Germany appearing above Iran when Germany has among the lowest number of deaths in Western Europe. Php2000 ( talk) 16:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
To quote NSW Health,
There is no need to bulk-buy products at supermarkets including toilet paper, paracetamol and canned food. It is prudent for households to have a small stock of non-perishable groceries to cover the event that in the coming months the household has been asked to self-isolate for 14 days. However, it’s important to note the role of family and friends in supporting those in isolation and also to note that online grocery delivery services are now available in most areas of NSW.
so there is rational reason to stock 14 days of non perishables. —
Almaty (
talk)
04:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
It seems churlish of talksters here not argue for the semantics of the word panic without reference to its wikipedia page - the page exists ! The precision called for here is, like so many words in the English language, open to the interpretation of its metaphoric root, and we must resist the pedantic. Indeed, the differentiation of the roots of panic and pandemic bear scrutiny rather nicely. There might be a better word whose mythic etymology resides in a biblical story for example - loaves and fishes perhaps? The Old Testament abounds with possibilities, but the insipid exegesis demonstrated here amounts to rather barren expatiation. Domskitect ( talk) 13:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Almaty, you've changed the intro to link to bulk buying instead. That page is not relevant; it refers specifically to buying large quantities so that they can at a reduced price, which is not what's going to happen here. I'm going to revert, as I don't see consensus here to change away from panic buying. Sdkb ( talk) 19:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
References
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Givingbacktosociety ( talk • contribs)
I removed the table you added Axelcabrera100, because it needs better sourcing to be included. The information is certainly interesting, but it is also not properly sourced, and you've clearly calculated the ratios yourself (with far too many significant figures). I'm copying your suggestion here below so that others can see it, and potentially use the data to bring it up to snuff.
The case fatality Rate is the ratio between the total number of deaths divied into the total amount of COVID-19 cases. Until the 19th March 2020 the rank of Case fatality Rate of the ten countries with the most cases of COVID-19 in the world are the fallowing: Johns hopkins coronavirus resource center
Country | Total cases COVID-19 | Deaths | Case fatality Rate (CFR) |
---|---|---|---|
![]() |
80880 | 3213 | 3,972551929 |
![]() |
31506 | 2503 | 7,944518504 |
![]() |
16169 | 988 | 6,110458284 |
![]() |
11825 | 533 | 4,507399577 |
![]() |
8413 | 84 | 0,998454772 |
![]() |
9367 | 26 | 0,277570193 |
![]() |
5423 | 175 | 3,226996128 |
![]() |
9454 | 155 | 1,639517664 |
![]() |
4164 | 43 | 1,032660903 |
![]() |
1543 | 36 | 2,333117304 |
Best, Carl Fredrik talk 16:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Can a comment be added under this table, acknowledging the big range in case fatality rate, and that this may be related to big differences in how much testing countries have done with - for example - South Korea and Germany doing far more testing than other countries, and showing far lower fatality rates. This is a very important topic, that needs to be explained. There are lots of current news articles about this. For example: https://www.pmlive.com/pharma_news/german_coronavirus_infections_climb_but_deaths_remain_low_1329617?fbclid=IwAR1htLdvxuXXfzX4s4UVYsafboaLlBEf2PdwTrPK8Baczxoi-1_kWOZpxXc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surfingdan ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Please, please do not remove this table. This is an incredibly important topic, which needs to be acknowledged and ideally explained - i.e. that countries are reporting such widely different case fatality rates. It's also a topic that is getting a lot of news coverage. For example: https://www.ft.com/content/c0755b30-69bb-11ea-800d-da70cff6e4d3 and https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/why-does-germany-have-low-coronavirus-death-rate/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surfingdan ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
See
Case fatality rate. Also see
https://www.cebm.net/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/, which appears to be presently being kept updated with info from
https://www.cebm.net/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/ the Confirmed Cases and Deaths by Country, Territory, or Conveyance table at
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)
06:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Can mention at least be made in the text that there is a very wide range in reported case fatality rates across countries, from 0.27% to 10%. [1] This is a critically important topic, as these are numbers that governments are reporting and referring to, to make policy decisions right now. Also, as the table has now been removed, mention of that table needs to be removed from the text. Thanks Surfingdan ( talk) 09:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
After the current text that "The crude mortality ratio (reported deaths divided by reported cases) is 3 to 4% per the World Health Organization as of 6 March 2020.[220] However, the reported rate varies by country, age, and other health problems.[221]" I feel that caveats also need to be added that there is a big risk of "sample bias" [2] in reported numbers of cases and death ratios, and that fatality rates will likely decrease over time, as has been the case in other pandemics, such as Swine Flu [3]. Firstly, some governments have openly admitted that they have focused testing mostly on the seriously ill [4], and yet it has been known for some time - including by the WHO - that most people who contract the disease have only mild symptoms [5]. This means that (as mentioned above in the epidemiology section) numbers of cases may be underestimated - which in turn means that mortality ratios will be over-estimated (as they are simply deaths divided by cases). Secondly, countries that have done the most testing - notably Germany - are reporting far lower fatality rates [6]. Thirdly, a very similar situation was observed with Swine Flu - there was a wide variation across countries in initial fatality rate estimates (0.1% to 5%) [7], these then decreased over time, and the final WHO estimate ending up being 5 times less than the lowest initial estimate (0.02%) [8]. Fourthly, this has already been recorded in China, where initial very high case fatality rates (17.3% - for people with symptoms 1 - 10 January) decreased massively to just 0.7% (for those with symptom onset after 1 February) [9]. There is thus a very big risk that current mortality (or fatality) rate estimates are currently being over-estimated in most countries, and it is likely they will decrease significantly in future when more testing has been undertaken, especially of those with only mild symptoms. Surfingdan ( talk) 21:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, shouldn't the article have a "Current event template"
![]() | This article documents a
current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be
unreliable. The
latest updates to this article
may not reflect the most current information. |
as the pandemic is ongoing? 80.0.45.128 ( talk) 23:50, 21 March 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 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, the Ministry of Health has confirmed 38 new cases in Dominican Republic, bringing the total number to 72. Can you make the change in the table? Sources: https://elnuevodiario.com.do/salud-publica-confirma-38-nuevos-casos-de-coronavirus-en-rd-suman-72/ Thank you 186.149.179.120 ( talk) 15:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Please note, there is a static URL link to this page from a Central Notice ( meta:MediaWiki:Centralnotice-Programmatic translations 2020-covid-article-link) please do not move the page without consideration for this. — xaosflux Talk 02:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Only 400 new cases in two weeks in a population sink of nearly 1.4 billion? This is a test to see how much BS the world will swallow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:444:380:8C00:2872:122F:AC8B:AB0D ( talk) 17:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
|}
We have surprassed the 4 percentage of fatality rate, sadly this most important data sometimes was in the article (I mean the overall fatality rate), but it is now deleted. We are now at 7893/194515=4.05 percentage. 87.97.82.243 ( talk) 18:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
The per capita map has adopted a new level: 1-10/100 million. Unfortunately the colour chosen (cream) wipes out national boundaries, making it impossible to know where one country begins and another ends. This is especially seen in Africa. Please choose a colour which is different from the border colour - or else, choose a different colour for borders! One not in the black/red/cream/white spectrum! Ptilinopus ( talk) 00:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Nothing was said about any recoveries in Poland yet and the Minister of Health didn’t say that there was a recovery in Poland or nobody yet knows about that. Hi poland ( talk) 10:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
There is not 6 deaths in Poland there is still 5. Hi poland ( talk) 13:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Australia states will be lockdown like NSW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.208.242 ( talk) 13:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Wikipedians: I came to this article to simply read and became alarmed when I read the following sentence: "Droplets stay suspended in the air for only a short time in air at 65% relative humidity (RH) and 21 to 23 °C (70 to 73 °F),[224] but may stay viable and contagious on a metal, cardboard, glass or plastic surface.[225][226][227] "
The reference is titled " Coronavirus can persist in air for hours and on surfaces for days: study", yet is joined improperly to the statement "Droplets stay suspended in the air for only a short time in air" as if it supports the statement. It says the opposite; the van Dormalen article reported worldwide and summarized in the Gene Emery article in Reuters, says the droplets remain infectious in the air for up to three hours. This is a serious error as it misinforms people about COVID-19 transmission.
Transmission is the heart of this article and the one section people will want to read. I understand this to be a good faith edit; 3 hours is quite a short time to be at Disneyland, but quite a long time for infectious particles to remain in the air. This study has been reported worldwide to the extent that people on the streets have heard about it. This finding means it is plausible that someone can potentially sneeze in a room in a public arena, walk out, have someone else walk in and become infected, hours later.
I began to look at every link to see whether the article says what the citation claims it is saying. There are too many errors not to do a re-write. There is a citation error that creates a misquote of the Appendix summary article, which never refers to the studies' findings as being a "short time", and another error by joining these two independent clauses with a comma, when the articles do not say what the citation says they do.
I separated the two clauses with a period. I checked the references, and confirmed using a word processor that the van Doremalen article has a summary ( the Emery article, with a bare URL), and a [ preprint from March 13. However, van Doremalen The New England Journal of Medicine article itself with the actual study that found the 3-hour aerosol viability was not here. So I added it.
I added a blockquote for the finding (van Dormalen) summarized by Emery, "The tests show that when the virus is carried by the droplets released when someone coughs or sneezes, it remains viable, or able to still infect people, in aerosols for at least three hours." I left the period inside the quotation mark, because this is a quote from America, as per MOS. This is an easy summary to help readers get the main point.
I added context about how the study was done. Until this study, behavior on surface was uncertain. The second part of the original sentence, saying it "may" stay viable is vague. The Appendix summary shows the data, and the findings need to be reported. I changed a citation error caused that misquoted the Gene Emery summary in Reuters (17 March 2020).
I summarized the findings of the study on viability tested different environments (air, copper, cardboard, stainless steel, and plastic). Added references from CNN and NIH. I made several changes to references (name order, wls, etc). I took out the bare URL and created a link for the Appendix (technical details) page. I then wove material up from the bottom, where there had been two subjects in a single paragraph. I moved one to incorporate into the news about the two SARS viruses' similarities. The other stated it was thought the virus lives on surfaces like other coronaviruses but it wasn't known. This was mis-referenced to material that does not say that. I moved it to join another reference where it is an accurate citation. Also, the material on the two viruses now makes the point that they both may be super-spreaders, which is important to include.
Tying two sentences together (which have their own references) with a comma requires scrutiny that the statement is accurate. I encourage you keep all edits, especially on this global pandemic page, crisp and clean and closely tied to their source. If anyone makes a good faith edit hoping to make the language more friendly by using a comma in this way, I suggest you treat it instantly as an error and undo.
I do these kinds of complicated edits in my word processor. Other editors therefore will not see the step-by-step process with edit summaries, that is why I am leaving this summary report. Thank you for your time in reading these explanatory notes. I preserved all that I was able. Here is a permanent link to the page on March 21, 2020 the time of my edit.
Having not seen this article before (I came here to read it, not to put on my editor's cap), I thank all editors who have been working hard to write it in such a short period of time. It is a remarkable effort, and the visuals in particular, including diagrams, are exceptional. Al Leluia81 ( talk) 07:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I think that in the list with the cases for every country you should include the TRNC into the Cypriot cases as the North Cyprus is not recognized from any country in the world but Turkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dim.vas.nikol ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
It says "The case fatality rate of COVID-19 (that is, the fatality rate among the subset of infected individuals with symptoms)".
I am not an expert on the definition of CFR, but shouldn't it be something like "The case fatality rate of COVID-19 (that is, the fatality rate among the subset of infected individuals who have been diagnosed)".
An infected person without symptoms could be diagnosed (an asymptomatic "case"), and conversely an infected person who shows symptoms might not be diagnosed if medical care is not sought (probably mild symptoms, not-life-threatening).
(Also, I wonder, does a false positive diagnosis count as a "case" (included in the denominator)? Or an error in CFR?)
-- Slieredna ( talk) 07:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I would appreciate if someone wrote an article about the fist and palm salute, and link to it in the caption, because it's not uniquely Taiwanese. It has a history dating back to the Western Zhou [8] Verkanto ( talk) 14:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
In this edit, User:Da Vinci Nanjing reinstated for the second time content to the Epidemiology section that I removed because it is medical content that does not comply with WP:MEDRS and does not belong in the health section of this article. (It probably doesn't belong in the German article either, unless there is a section for political opinion that is not medical content.) This is edit warring. I thought discretionary sanctions were in place on these articles? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
That is still problematical because it ignores the likelihood of herd immunity being achieved through vaccination as it is with measles. Because the mean transmission rate of SARS-CoV-2 is probably between 2 and 3, it follows that it requires a population immunity fraction around 60% to 70% for infections to no longer sustain themselves. That much is accurate, but if immunity were to be achieved by infection alone, we would be possibly be looking at hundreds of millions of fatalities worldwide, and it seems unlikely that any government would be willing to sustain as much as 2%–3% of its population dying from the virus. Unfortunately, I'm having problems finding top-quality sources that discuss the issues around SARS-CoV-2 and herd immunity. The best I can find so far is National Geographic, which gives a decent explanation and a balanced overview. Nevertheless, it's still short of what I'd want for a MEDRS source. My advice would be to remove that paragraph for the moment, pending a quality review article or a statement from WHO or similar to use as a source. -- RexxS ( talk) 23:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)"Official sources in Germany and the UK estimate that 60-70 % of the population will become infected before effective herd immunity can be achieved. [1] [2] [3]
References
Which is better and for which reasons? JHU has erroneous data for both Austria and Italy. I'm certainly not an expert, but I think consensus should be arrived at here before someone unilaterally decides on the JHU site. MattSucci ( talk) 09:11, 21 March 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.
Some commentators have called the pandemic the biggest global event since World War II. [1] [2]was added to the end of the intro.
References
The global socioeconomic impact of the pandemic has been compared by some commentators to such events as World War II, yet another example of implementation on this page without consensus, is significantly worse. The pandemic in its current state has caused nowhere near the socioeconomic disruption of WW2. I'm going to just take out the sentence. RaphaelQS, "most significant" would have been better than "biggest", but "significant" is still a vague term. Sdkb ( talk) 04:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following text in: Impacts/Environment section. Add the text as a new paragraph, after the last sentence in the Environment section.
As a consequence of the unprecedented use of disposable face masks, significant numbers are entering the natural environment and in particular, to rivers and seawater. In some cases, the masks have been washed onto beaches where they are accumulating. This accumulation has been reported on beaches in Hong Kong and is expected to add to the worldwide burden of plastic waste and the detrimental effects of this waste to marine life. [1] AntC55 ( talk) 02:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
zimbabwe has 3 cases 41.246.30.236 ( talk) 11:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The country that the corona virus will be more is sirlanka because they don't good facilities and there are more countries can't name them it could be Iran too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.107.17.162 ( talk) 22:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
India has done a lot of contributions in this pandemic, Plz include them too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardaat Singh Baath ( talk • contribs) 21:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
In lithuania there's 69 people sick, 1 severe case, 1 dead now. You can check in the 'Epidemiology' section of the main page by pressing on lithuania. There are many refferences. Lukeris14 ( talk) 06:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
There was a calculation error in yesterday's Pakistani figures. Kindly update as per government's official watch center here-- 119.160.119.159 ( talk) 08:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
"The virus primarily spreads between people via respiratory droplets, produced during coughing or sneezing."
WHO says " The main way the disease spreads is through respiratory droplets expelled by someone who is coughing."
I think this summary is perfectly fine. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
"It may also be spread from touching contaminated surfaces and than touching ones face"
"than" should be changed to "then". I don't have a wikipedia account, so I'm suggesting here due to the semi-protected nature of the page.
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
touching contaminated surfaces and than touching ones face.
touching contaminated surfaces and then touching one's face. Kempu2015 ( talk) 18:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The amount of attention being devoted to this article is immense, and as might be expected, it's making this talk page really unwieldy and unorganized. Even with the 24hr archiving, there are still tons of duplicate discussions being opened up, making it difficult to centralize discussion on discrete topics like the maps. I'd like to use this thread as a space for proposing solutions to get things under control. Some ideas:
I'm sure there are more ideas that aren't occurring to me, but the basic gist is that experienced editors should be more aggressive about cleaning up this talk page than we normally would be for one with a more normal level of activity. Also, I should note that for the related issue of the edit history of the article itself also being extremely unwieldy, I requested that we add a line to the edit notice encouraging better edit summary usage. Cheers, Sdkb ( talk) 04:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
people don’t refactor like they used to, strikethroughs aren’t necessary, one can summarise — Almaty ( talk) 11:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I think the problem is none of the header notices, which provide a lot of info, show for mobile users. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 03:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Copying a comment I made below following yet another instance where we were having a discussion, only to realize that someone (we don't know who) had gone straight to editing the article itself: [There is] a concerning phenomenon with this article, where editors trying to engage on the talk page are being steamrolled by editors completely disregarding the talk page/established processes for consensus and making major edits to the article with poor edit summaries. There is simply such a flood of edits to the page that any given edit is not being given adequate scrutiny unless someone notices the change through reading the article itself. This is the exact opposite of the incentive structure we want, and I think it's leading to a decline in the article quality. Sdkb ( talk) 06:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I just added a notice to the top of this talk page encouraging editors to consider contributing to one of the sub-articles instead (scroll up and look for the notice with the orange stop sign to read it). Should this be added as another edit notice when people edit the article directly, or should we add a line to the main edit notice for the article stating the point in brief and linking to the template? Sdkb ( talk) 18:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
like the one at Donald Trump. This may prevent unnecessary discussions that have been repeatedly been discussed over and over again. Interstellarity ( talk) 22:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
When I play the slideshow, I couldn't drag the map freely. The map slideshow encounter technique error and should be removed or replace by new one. The Supermind ( talk) 13:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
This is a reference that I want to put into the main paragraph, https://dx.doi.org/10.7326/M20-0504 -- we know with good confidence that the onset is really around 5 days, and that the vast majority of covid-19 symptoms will appear within that 14 day quarantine, subject to caveats as stated in the paper. -- HappyCamper 11:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The info box lists by cases detected which is ridiculous since it is dependent on the capacity and policy of each country and is in no way indicative of the gravity of the situation. It leads to perverse results such as Germany appearing above Iran when Germany has among the lowest number of deaths in Western Europe. Php2000 ( talk) 16:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
To quote NSW Health,
There is no need to bulk-buy products at supermarkets including toilet paper, paracetamol and canned food. It is prudent for households to have a small stock of non-perishable groceries to cover the event that in the coming months the household has been asked to self-isolate for 14 days. However, it’s important to note the role of family and friends in supporting those in isolation and also to note that online grocery delivery services are now available in most areas of NSW.
so there is rational reason to stock 14 days of non perishables. —
Almaty (
talk)
04:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
It seems churlish of talksters here not argue for the semantics of the word panic without reference to its wikipedia page - the page exists ! The precision called for here is, like so many words in the English language, open to the interpretation of its metaphoric root, and we must resist the pedantic. Indeed, the differentiation of the roots of panic and pandemic bear scrutiny rather nicely. There might be a better word whose mythic etymology resides in a biblical story for example - loaves and fishes perhaps? The Old Testament abounds with possibilities, but the insipid exegesis demonstrated here amounts to rather barren expatiation. Domskitect ( talk) 13:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Almaty, you've changed the intro to link to bulk buying instead. That page is not relevant; it refers specifically to buying large quantities so that they can at a reduced price, which is not what's going to happen here. I'm going to revert, as I don't see consensus here to change away from panic buying. Sdkb ( talk) 19:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
References
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Givingbacktosociety ( talk • contribs)
I removed the table you added Axelcabrera100, because it needs better sourcing to be included. The information is certainly interesting, but it is also not properly sourced, and you've clearly calculated the ratios yourself (with far too many significant figures). I'm copying your suggestion here below so that others can see it, and potentially use the data to bring it up to snuff.
The case fatality Rate is the ratio between the total number of deaths divied into the total amount of COVID-19 cases. Until the 19th March 2020 the rank of Case fatality Rate of the ten countries with the most cases of COVID-19 in the world are the fallowing: Johns hopkins coronavirus resource center
Country | Total cases COVID-19 | Deaths | Case fatality Rate (CFR) |
---|---|---|---|
![]() |
80880 | 3213 | 3,972551929 |
![]() |
31506 | 2503 | 7,944518504 |
![]() |
16169 | 988 | 6,110458284 |
![]() |
11825 | 533 | 4,507399577 |
![]() |
8413 | 84 | 0,998454772 |
![]() |
9367 | 26 | 0,277570193 |
![]() |
5423 | 175 | 3,226996128 |
![]() |
9454 | 155 | 1,639517664 |
![]() |
4164 | 43 | 1,032660903 |
![]() |
1543 | 36 | 2,333117304 |
Best, Carl Fredrik talk 16:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Can a comment be added under this table, acknowledging the big range in case fatality rate, and that this may be related to big differences in how much testing countries have done with - for example - South Korea and Germany doing far more testing than other countries, and showing far lower fatality rates. This is a very important topic, that needs to be explained. There are lots of current news articles about this. For example: https://www.pmlive.com/pharma_news/german_coronavirus_infections_climb_but_deaths_remain_low_1329617?fbclid=IwAR1htLdvxuXXfzX4s4UVYsafboaLlBEf2PdwTrPK8Baczxoi-1_kWOZpxXc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surfingdan ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Please, please do not remove this table. This is an incredibly important topic, which needs to be acknowledged and ideally explained - i.e. that countries are reporting such widely different case fatality rates. It's also a topic that is getting a lot of news coverage. For example: https://www.ft.com/content/c0755b30-69bb-11ea-800d-da70cff6e4d3 and https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/why-does-germany-have-low-coronavirus-death-rate/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surfingdan ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
See
Case fatality rate. Also see
https://www.cebm.net/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/, which appears to be presently being kept updated with info from
https://www.cebm.net/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/ the Confirmed Cases and Deaths by Country, Territory, or Conveyance table at
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)
06:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Can mention at least be made in the text that there is a very wide range in reported case fatality rates across countries, from 0.27% to 10%. [1] This is a critically important topic, as these are numbers that governments are reporting and referring to, to make policy decisions right now. Also, as the table has now been removed, mention of that table needs to be removed from the text. Thanks Surfingdan ( talk) 09:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
After the current text that "The crude mortality ratio (reported deaths divided by reported cases) is 3 to 4% per the World Health Organization as of 6 March 2020.[220] However, the reported rate varies by country, age, and other health problems.[221]" I feel that caveats also need to be added that there is a big risk of "sample bias" [2] in reported numbers of cases and death ratios, and that fatality rates will likely decrease over time, as has been the case in other pandemics, such as Swine Flu [3]. Firstly, some governments have openly admitted that they have focused testing mostly on the seriously ill [4], and yet it has been known for some time - including by the WHO - that most people who contract the disease have only mild symptoms [5]. This means that (as mentioned above in the epidemiology section) numbers of cases may be underestimated - which in turn means that mortality ratios will be over-estimated (as they are simply deaths divided by cases). Secondly, countries that have done the most testing - notably Germany - are reporting far lower fatality rates [6]. Thirdly, a very similar situation was observed with Swine Flu - there was a wide variation across countries in initial fatality rate estimates (0.1% to 5%) [7], these then decreased over time, and the final WHO estimate ending up being 5 times less than the lowest initial estimate (0.02%) [8]. Fourthly, this has already been recorded in China, where initial very high case fatality rates (17.3% - for people with symptoms 1 - 10 January) decreased massively to just 0.7% (for those with symptom onset after 1 February) [9]. There is thus a very big risk that current mortality (or fatality) rate estimates are currently being over-estimated in most countries, and it is likely they will decrease significantly in future when more testing has been undertaken, especially of those with only mild symptoms. Surfingdan ( talk) 21:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, shouldn't the article have a "Current event template"
![]() | This article documents a
current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be
unreliable. The
latest updates to this article
may not reflect the most current information. |
as the pandemic is ongoing? 80.0.45.128 ( talk) 23:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)