![]() | 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 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
The captioned item in the infoboxes is not consistent at present, with that information in some country articles being plain wrong (for example for Bolivia); rather than fix all of these individually, I am wondering if someone could run a script to unify this? Thank you. -- CRau080 ( talk) 15:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Of interest...whilst checking through some references....ref 346- report 13 from Imperial cites Wikipedia several times. Whispyhistory ( talk) 15:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
My edit with a graph with cases divided by population was reverted, claiming that it was too US centric. I feel that the opposit is the case: Numbers should be shown in relation to the size of the population. It's not reasonable to compare a huge country such as the United States with a small country such as Spain. -- Traut ( talk) 06:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Here's the matching image for the deaths section --
Traut (
talk)
07:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Since I just have all the data around, you may see the same death rate data on my User:Traut, when shifted to the same starting condition -- Traut ( talk) 21:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I have three thoughts on this.
68.96.208.77 ( talk) 00:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC) Constructive Feedback
Thanks for all the helpful feedback. I'll think about the label problem. Currently it's just the same order as given within the table on the article page - by total case numbers. It's easy to resort by rates instead, but then labels would be in different orders for both charts. I'll try to insert the charts now... -- Traut ( talk) 09:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
It might be interesting now to define a color palette for the most interesting countries in order to use the same color within each chart here. -- Traut ( talk) 10:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I have reordered the labels, have taken new colors and have adjusted the picture size to 5x7". I'll add the colors to my discussion page and encourage others to use the same color scheme. -- Traut ( talk) 07:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
A clause was added a few days ago to the sentence "More than XXX,XXX people have recovered" which stated "although there may be a chance of reinfection". After a few iterations, my latest edit which stated "although there have been instances of people testing positive after recovery" was reverted by User:Sdkb (reason: WP:UNDUE for lead). I also saw a news article which stated that WHO stated that there was [ Evidence' Yet That Recovered COVID-19 Patients Are Immune]. I think that this is an important topic, so I wish to establish a consensus on this: should we add a clause to the lead about a chance of reinfection or relapse, instances of testing positive after recovery, or there being no evidence that recovered COVID patients are immune in the lead? sam1370 ( talk) 05:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
After I added Template: R unprintworthy to the 2019-20 Coronavirus pandemic redirect (since the capitalization was appearing at the top of the search results instead of the regular article) the normal article gets ranked below all the "2019-20 coronavirus pandemic in X" ones. Is there any way to make this page rank top in the search suggestions? sam1370 ( talk) 04:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
The article is in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded and many of the citations are thus no longer visible. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 11:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm surprised this hasn't been included yet. Many suicide hotlines are reporting massive upticks [1] [2] [3] [4] (the Disaster Distress helpline saw an 891% increase in calls in March 2020) in the amount of calls amid the pandemic and the necessary social distancing and quarantining, resulting from economic fears, virus fears and underlying depression and anxiety and feelings of isolation and separation. [5] This has also resulted in the rise of teletherapy.
The National Suicide Prevention Hotline has adjusted "#BeThe1To" to provide coping tips for individuals and loved ones amid the pandemic [6]. The CDC has provided similar tips as well. [7]
Individuals with anxiety disorders such as obsessive-compulsive disorder [8] [9] and post-traumatic stress disorder [10] are of a greater concern. Ghoul flesh • talk 22:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Why was data for Reunion (France) deleted from the table of countries/territories? At last count, if I remember correctly, it had close to 500 cases and 1 death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 ( talk) 07:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
It looks like the US deaths are wrong? 535,625 is way too high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloftus2 ( talk • contribs) 20:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
What does "certain medical procedures" signify? Seems rather ambiguous to me. MattSucci ( talk) 04:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
People can catch COVID-19 from others who have the virus. The disease spreads primarily from person to person through small droplets from the nose or mouth, which are expelled when a person with COVID-19 coughs, sneezes, or speaks. These droplets are relatively heavy, do not travel far and quickly sink to the ground. People can catch COVID-19 if they breathe in these droplets from a person infected with the virus. This is why it is important to stay at least 1 metre (3 feet) away from others. These droplets can land on objects and surfaces around the person such as tables, doorknobs and handrails. People can become infected by touching these objects or surfaces, then touching their eyes, nose or mouth. This is why it is important to wash your hands regularly with soap and water or clean with alcohol-based hand rub.-- Almaty ( talk) 11:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
But in healthcare facilities we make sure that healthcare workers use standard droplet precautions with the exception of when they are doing an aerosol-generating procedure and then we recommend airborne precautionsp. 8. In that 16 March 2020 press conference, Dr van Kerkhove responded to a question about one (frustratingly unnamed) study about how long the virus remains in the air specifically for aerosolizing procedures in medical facilities. She emphasized that the WHO stands by standard droplet precautions for all other situations. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 22:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
the map is from a while ago, and it is probably outdated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firestar9990 ( talk • contribs) 18:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
New Zealands cases are way out of date Username900122 ( talk) 15:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I heard there's a correlation of strokes to infection.. is this true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slinkyw ( talk • contribs) 00:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I am certainly not averse to covering the xenophobia that has arisen from the pandemic, but the length of the current section on it (which recently had a level 4 sub-heading added to it) strikes me as just too long. It's much longer than the comparable nearby sections on the environment and misinformation, and nearly as long as the culture section, which has a far bigger scope. The {{ Very long section}} tag I added was recently removed by Pancho507. Do you all think the section needs some streamlining? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 18:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The article should better contrast & explain how countries differed in their reactions to the pandemic & how that affected the incidence of infection. How & why did S Korea recover from being one of the worst-affected countries whilst in many other countries the pandemic worsened? Jim Michael ( talk) 06:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2019-20 China pneumonia outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata stay at home 🏠 wash your hands 👋 to protect from COVID-19 😷 10:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect China pneumonia outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata stay at home 🏠 wash your hands 👋 to protect from COVID-19 😷 10:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Controversies related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata stay at home 🏠 wash your hands 👋 to protect from COVID-19 😷 10:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Controversies related to 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata stay at home 🏠 wash your hands 👋 to protect from COVID-19 😷 10:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Controversies related to the 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata stay at home 🏠 wash your hands 👋 to protect from COVID-19 😷 10:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Controversies related to 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata stay at home 🏠 wash your hands 👋 to protect from COVID-19 😷 10:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Controversies related to the 2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata stay at home 🏠 wash your hands 👋 to protect from COVID-19 😷 10:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Controversies related to the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata stay at home 🏠 wash your hands 👋 to protect from COVID-19 😷 10:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2019-2020 coronavirus 2019 pandemic. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata stay at home 🏠 wash your hands 👋 to protect from COVID-19 😷 10:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, the explanatory footnote at the end of the first sentence was removed on 22 April by User:Brandmeister. The footnote stated "In summary, this article is about the coronavirus pandemic, which is caused by the disease COVID-19, which is caused by the virus SARS-CoV-2. [1]"
His reason for removing the footnote was "redundant, the title and links define the scope". I disagree with this; I originally added the footnote because when I first read the introductory sentence, I was confused by the wording and had to click on the disease and virus articles to understand the meaning. This may be confusing to others too, as I don't believe the actual full name of the virus (coronavirus disease 2019) or disease (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) is that well-known -- most news articles that I see with a coronavirus google search simply refer to it as "coronavirus" or "covid-19". I'd like to get consensus on this -- should we reinstate the explanatory footnote? sam1370 ( talk) 23:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Then we should copy edit the first paragraph to enhance comprehension for the average Wikipedia visitor. After all, it is our job to do everything we can to boost understanding; it is not the reader's job to decipher our meaning. (If it's the reader's job to decipher my writing, nhetuyo hsuodltnimdn edhpicngihits uljmbe. Don't you agree?)
Here's my suggested copy edit:
The 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic is a widespread epidemic of the respiratory disease COVID-19 (an acronym for “ coronavirus disease 2019”). The scientific name for the coronavirus is "SARS-CoV-2" (an acronym for “ severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2”). SARS-CoV-2 (the virus) causes COVID-19 (the disease), which began to infect humans in 2019, and reached pandemic proportions during 2020. The outbreak was identified in ....
- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 12:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
References
I propose removing the mention of xenophobia and discrimination from the intro. I don't want to downplay the incidents, but there is already a section in the article. Right now it has the same weight in the intro as the recession caused by the virus, which in my opinion is much more relevant. Vpab15 ( talk) 17:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Asia section starts with As of 16th April. This is over 2 weeks old. It is also incorrect as there were 3 asian countries with no reported cases - North Korea is missed. Dhristhadyumana ( talk) 06:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't appear plausible that 9 countries (all of which are thousands of miles away from Wuhan) each have more cases than China. Jim Michael ( talk) 14:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
This talk page is not a forum for general discussion.CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 15:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Figure 4 shows the fraction with each outcome by age, drawn only from the cases before Jan 15 for which most have complete data. To put a lower bound on the confirmed-case-fatality-ratio (confirmed-CFR) for this first month of cases, we assume the censored cases, almost all of whom are outside Hubei, will eventually recover, and the model shown extrapolates the confirmed-CFR to younger ages based on that assumption.Considering the update is referring to an updated IFR (with a ridiculously wide 95% confidence interval), and that section is referring to pre-15 Jan outcomes, your inference that China's tests stop ramping up after this source was published on February 4. It became clear the virus was out of Wuhan as well. involves too many logical jumps. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 18:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
This topic has been discussed over and over. Please, WP:NOFORUM. Unless there is some particular source and change to be discussed, this is not going anywhere. -- MarioGom ( talk) 18:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Confirmed cases: 3,273,972 Active cases: 2,010,732 Deaths: 231,458 Recoveries: 1,031,782 [1]
References
Taking a brief glance at them, some of the graphs/charts/maps in the cases and deaths sections seem redundant to each other (or to ones in the infobox or history section). Should we be removing some of them? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 07:05, 30 April 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. |
You need to remove any and all information provided by WHO...given their repeated and proven lies on behalf of protecting the Chinese government. You should also remove any references to President Trump "claiming" China lied about the virus...given that this is also completely and inarguably proven fact. 76.72.63.16 ( talk) 03:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Not done
{{ edit semi-protected}} USA deaths according to current CDC (Center for Disease Control) site are stated as 37,308, nowhere near the incorrect 68,040 currently listed. Source: CDC.gov site [1] Paulieweb ( talk) 20:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
For any observer of Tajikistan its Coronavirus positive status was quite obvious a month ago due to large amounts of doctors being quarantined in various hospitals mostly across the north of the country. In any case the Tajik government has now officially certified that the country does indeed have Covid-19. This means the map needs to be updated. The source of this information can be found in Russian in Asia Plus's article here: https://asiaplustj.info/ru/news/tajikistan/security/20200430/v-tadzhikistane-ofitsialno-priznali-koronavirus-v-strane-est Zaharous ( talk) 11:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The template that they placed at the top of the page is against policy. Current COVID-19 consensus is invalid, they can have consensus over there, but it is local consensus and should not be binding on any page until it has gone through
WP:PROPOSAL. From
WP:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Advice_pages, An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay.
Please ecourage members of the wikiproject to continue to write essays, but not impose them as Current COVID consensus or the like, because they are only essays, per wikipeida policy . -- Almaty ( talk) 13:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
(aside from the current 'Duration' subsection)might it be a good idea to insert a section/subsection towards the end which indicates which way this thing might go?...I was looking through "Covid-19's future: small outbreaks, monster wave, or ongoing crisis". STAT. 1 May 2020. Retrieved 2 May 2020.which offers three possible scenarios, 1 a larger infection in the fall(U.S.), 2. a continuation thru 2022/ or until theres a vaccine 3 a smaller but continuing version of the present. Of course, better references than this one would be needed....however the 3 'scenario' graphs, with proper referencing, may not be a bad idea IMO -- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 01:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Hasn't gone through the full approval process of the FDA but they have approved it for emergency use. It has the following wording
it is reasonable to believe that the known and potential benefits of RDV outweigh the known and potential risks of the drug for the treatment of patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19
. So this is an specific, approved antiviral treatment to use our wording, and therefore the lead is now incorrect. What are others thoughts? --
Almaty (
talk)
This text ", though the CDC says that hand sanitizers are less effective than hand washing, in part due to the higher margin for error (wiping sanitizer off too early, not using enough, etc). [1]" the source is not about COVID.
It says "Soap and water are more effective than hand sanitizers at removing certain kinds of germs, like Cryptosporidium, norovirus, and Clostridium difficile1-5" and would be fine in those articles. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
References
Done
I can't edit this page, seeing as it's protected and I'm on my IP address rather than a custom made account, so can someone fix the two typo in the "Epidemiology" section in the word "comparative" and "coronaviruses" in this sentence: "A comarative sequence analysis of different coronoviruses found no evidence that COVID-19 was made in a laboratory."? 2600:1702:10A0:6DA0:71B1:8FB6:2531:3BE4 ( talk) 21:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I think it is the right time to start this section, even though just a few countries are beginning to do this, this will soon start to become a major topic throughout the world and it is best to start this section when it is still an early topic of discussion. This section can include general examples of reopening strategies used throughout the world, risks and problems associated with reopening, as well as some specific examples of countries reopening. Maybe even WHO recommendations on reopening when they come around to making them or the fact that currently they are cautioning against reopening. One interesting question that can be touched on in this section is what constitutes the "end" of an epidemic in a given country? Which nations have already declared that their epidemic has ended, and what criteria are they using? If done well, I envision a similar section on each nation's 2020 coronavirus pandemic page with more specific information for each specific country, state, or region. -- Beezer137 ( talk) 05:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
header refactored 19:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC) for clarity
I notice an interesting difference in the lead in this article and
coronavirus disease 2019. There, a clause in the first paragraph of the intro reads The disease was first identified in December 2019 in
Wuhan, the capital of China's
Hubei province
, whereas here we just use The outbreak was identified in
Wuhan, China, in December 2019.
A while back, it read The outbreak was identified in
Wuhan,
Hubei, China, in December 2019.
The difference seems a little backwards, since we shouldn't have more on the origin at the disease article than the pandemic article. So: what phrasing should we use at each? {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
17:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Nunavut needs to be grey on the map again. Their single case was a false positive. Source CBC News: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/covid-19-nunavut-false-positive-1.5554545 Basser g ( talk) 00:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I am sure most will agree that transclusion of sections is very detrimental for updating this article and is something we should be discouraging if we want editors to get involved here on this article. Wondering if we should take the time to just write the sections so they are not repetitive in nature and flow as one article. Lucky we dont have to many sections with this yet and I think It should be discouraged and fixed. I do remember us having a guideline or an essay on the merits and disadvantages of this but I cant find it (anyone remember the name of the essay?).-- Moxy 🍁 15:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Schools might go back to school on May 25th 203.218.207.118 ( talk) 00:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
The title of this article is different from other pandemics and epidemics. There is no year included in the title. So the title should be '2019-2020 COVID-19 pandemic'. The previous title '2019-20 Coronavirus pandemic' was better. -- Wester ( talk) 20:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Hey User:Sdkb, since you reverted my edit including the sentence in the part of the article excerpted from the disease lead, I'd like to reopen the discussion (and hopefully get a few more opinions than just me and you as well). Personally, I believe that the fact that people who recover from the pandemic are not immune is an important thing that should be included in the lead, since I think it would be a common misconception considering the common characteristic among many diseases that recovering from them grants you immunity. sam1370 ( talk) 05:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to establish a consensus on what name (if any) should be included in "The COVID-19 pandemic, also known as..." in the lead.
I think there are three immediately obvious options:
1. Nothing, remove the clause entirely, because "COVID-19 pandemic" is accurate unlike many of the common names
2. "...also known as the coronavirus pandemic" because it is just as common, if not more, than the COVID-19 pandemic and because regardless of it's in accuracy (naming a pandemic after the virus instead of the disease) it is often called that (currently on the page as of time of writing)
3. "...also known as the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic", to help with the transition between the old name and the new. sam1370 ( talk | contribs) 02:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
There are few citation errors that I have found. It would be great if someone fixes those. Thanks, Luke Kern Choi 5 ( talk) 15:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Citation 706 says this... Cite error: The named reference no_covid was invoked but never defined (see the help page). Possibly an error about nickname??? Luke Kern Choi 5 ( talk) 13:57, 5 May 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.
No historian is going to refer to as COVID-19. It's called Coronavirus Pandemic-- 128.114.255.218 ( talk) 23:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Original agency sources are preferable to Yahoo News quoting them. Currently the source for "it was later discovered that a person near Paris tested positive for the virus on 27 December 2019 after retesting old samples" is https://www.yahoo.com/news/retesting-samples-french-hospital-discovers-153353216.html. It should be replaced with https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-france-idUSKBN22G20L which is what appears at /info/en/?search=COVID-19_pandemic_in_France#cite_note-Reut4520-29. At the moment I'm being prevented from changing the URL. Mcljlm ( talk) 10:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
As a reader, each of my subsequent visits to various COVID-19 pandemic related articles bemuse me more.
If there were no human individual & group failures, then how did the decease spread ? If failures at multiple levels contributed spread of decease where is adequate Wikipedia coverage?
People and groups not following expected precautions on various pretexts- whether for secular or non secular reasons does not seem to to be adequately covered. Whether it is half-heartedness of W.H.O. in issuing timely advisories; to governments, to groups, to individuals; not following advisories. Failures are at multiple level and media seems to have if not enough minimal coverage of the criticism of human failures in giving pandemic proportions to the decease .
My contention is Wikipedians do not seem to cover criticism, as I said each of my visit I find refrain, avoidance, curtailment, window dressing and at places undeclared censorship that criticism does not get wider attention. On side note many times I find Wikipedia consensus more of a democratic process than logical process which tends to indirectly compromise on neutrality.
Most of 'impact' articles & sections are unidirectional, how the COVID-19 pandemic affected 'So and so' but hardly any mention of the 'so and so' were likely contributors to spread of pandemic and many not taking seriously and flouting public health wise very important advisories.
Is not main article COVID-19 pandemic indirectly connected to sub topic article? and talk page of main article does not want to entertain failure of neutrality in subtopic article than how does main article remains neutral?
As a Wikipedia editor my present focus is some other topics, still I attempted to give minor coverage to criticism part, but as a reader and frank reviewer I find information gaps on above mentioned topics.
Thanks and greetings
Bookku ( talk) 02:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, centralized discussion is @ Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#Is_coverage_really_'neutral'_enough?_specially_in_article_leads_&_'impact'_articles_&_sections thanks.
Bookku ( talk) 04:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Doc James: - just removing redundancy and following the WHO faq predominantly. I like explaining it to people that the surfaces are the small droplets, its the same method. And as I was saying during our dispute, the surfaces are not as important in WHO's opinion anymore.
WOuld appreciate a discussion of this as opposed to a complete rewrite! Thanks James. -- Almaty ( talk) 15:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
this article should be renamed simply "coronavirus pandemic" this isnt a science journal. the intricacies and details are described within the article. no historian is going to refer to this disease as COVID-19 i assure you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.114.255.226 ( talk) 05:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Does the leading first sentence need an inline citation to a reference with the information? The text in the first sentence is not in the following inline citation, but I suppose it is the main article. If so, this could be used, but I couldn't find a WHO one. Whispyhistory ( talk) 19:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Say how much 5 trillion rials equals in the Iran section (USD, Euro) 68.96.114.42 ( talk) 19:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't know why it isn't working atm, I think it's because of the somewhat-recent massive title-change and maybe something about the title of target-page isn't quite right or whatever. Can we please try to figure out what's wrong with the code and stop manually archiving? It will be almost impossible to keep up with the sheer volume of posts here by archiving manually... Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 02:10, 8 May 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.
COVID-19 pandemic → 2019–20 COVID-19 pandemic... what if there was another one? 2019–20 COVID-19 pandemic would make it easy to distinguish from, say... 2027–28 COVID-19 pandemic. On the other hand, COVID-19 pandemic and 2027–28 COVID-19 pandemic would make it very confusing, right? Stay COVID free, 🐔 Chic dat Chicken Database 12:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
The references section takes up nearly half the scroll length of this article. I think this may be discouraging to readers, since they may not realize they're making as much progress as they actually are (e.g. "I've already read a lot, but the scroll bar says I'm only a third done!"). An interesting solution I noticed at the Vietnamese Wikipedia is to turn the references section into a scroll box, similar to what we're already doing with the main cases table. It's a little ugly there since there's no light border on the top/bottom, but that could be fixed here. Would this be desirable? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 08:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
It was a lot of work getting the one scroll box to work. Not sure we need one for the references... Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
It would be good to have section on health experts concerns about how severe floods affect severity of illness and how it gets transmitted, measures to deal with it that are in place or planned on. At least in the usa, and probably elswhere too, a lot of floods could happen later this year. Rich ( talk)
As we finally passed final name "COVID-19 pandemic" for this article and first step on improving page with correct info. We still need the move requests controlled meaning no one should doing it for next 30 days. This is to prevent "opposed" move disruption on the COVID-19 pandemic page. Regice2020 ( talk) 03:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
*We should wait to see if any issue occurs. Not sure we need a moratorium currently.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
07:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Added COVID-19_pandemic#Criticism section here [18]. I was surprised no section, I suppose eventually there is an article for this, but for now can be a placeholder. If there is already and article, please let me know as it then should be crosslinked. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 18:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I moved the section out of the entry; in addition to the issue mentioned above, it's not at all clear that the three quite disparate news stories cited (and poorly summarized: e.g., in the first sentence, who censored what? and in the second sense, whose COVI-19 response was questioned?) are WP:DUE a place in this already overlong top-level global summary article as opposed to the three(!) more relevant articles, to wit Media coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic, COVID-19 pandemic on social media, and Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on journalism. -sche ( talk) 02:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
... changing all instances of {{nbsp}} to ? If it's to improve page loading speed then I believe there are other more effective ways to do this (notably, by actually reducing article size by removing extraneous content...)? 107.190.33.254 ( talk) 20:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Whoever did it is [still] laughing his ass off. ( Settle down, kids.) -- Brogo13 ( talk) 10:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:POVSPLIT and WP:PRESERVE putting this here
The scientific consensus is that COVID-19 has a natural origin. [1] [2]
This is a POV fork and doesnt belong on this article. This type of WP:MEDRS statement in wikivoice needs to be left on the medical article Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, which btw doesnt support this POV. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 19:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
References
The history section jumps from late January to where the United States is the center of the pandemic. Europe was the center of the pandemic at some point. This should at least be mentioned. The U.S got it from Europe? How, if there were no cases in Europe? But we know there were. The article just doesn't say it, at least there.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
On 31 January 2020, Italy had its first confirmed cases, two tourists from China.[500] As of 13 March 2020 the WHO considered Europe the active centre of the pandemic.[501] On 19 March 2020, Italy overtook China as the country with the most deaths.[502] By 26 March, the United States had overtaken China and Italy with the highest number of confirmed cases in the world.Not sure if that's a recent addition or not. The history section focuses too much on the early history; that part should be trimmed. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 03:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello.
Would the following information be useful to incorporate into the article, if it has not been cited previously?
Help to do so would be appreciated if it is deemed acceptable
David A ( talk) 15:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
In addition, has it been mentioned that the United Nations think that the global shutdowns could cause 265 million people to starve?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52373888
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/un-warns-biblical-famines-due-coronavirus/
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/22/africa/coronavirus-famine-un-warning-intl/index.html
David A ( talk) 15:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay it says "To estimate the model parameters, we used a survey that showed that 2.5% of the population in the Stockholm region were infected between March 27 and April 3." So did they do antibody tests and find that 26% of people had antibodies? Does not look like it. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
So is somebody experienced willing to insert the United Nations mass-starvation projections into the article? David A ( talk) 06:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
We need reliable sources to provide something like 80 million (1% of 8 billion people) overall (including 4 million confirmed cases) were exposed and/or infected by COVID-19 from Dec 2019-May 2020, especially be in mind the pandemic's place of origin Wuhan has 11 million people in a country like China with 1.4 billion people. 2605:E000:100D:C571:7D82:A683:E434:DB3D ( talk) 00:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I still think that it seems extremely important for us to collaborate to find and include references to all reliable studies that indicate a much lower mortality rate than the initial WHO estimates. It could help us to avoid a global depression and mass-starvation: [23] [24] [25] David A ( talk) 06:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
We’re building consensus right now. I will not respond further to this user’s inexplicable attitude and fingerpointing. I’ve made my point. This person is just systematically trying to have it their way. EelamStyleZ ( talk) 18:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The subject of this RfC is if we should keep or delete the sub-section on censorship. At the time of this RfC, the subjection contains the content below, however the content is not the subject of this RfC, as that would conflate the issue. This RfC is limited to whether or not a subsection is DUE or not. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 08:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
---Censorship--- " The Guardian said censorship of coronavirus facts began during the early phase of the pandemic in China. [1] The UK's Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies criticized the UK government for censoring a report it drafted that questioned the UK's COVID-19 response, with Steve Reicher calling the response " Stalinist". [2] The Washington Post wrote about YouTube's and Facebook's censorship of the film Plandemic, which featured Judy Mikovits's criticism of the pandemic response. [3]"
References
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |name-list-format=
(
help)
Specifically to this example, I think coverage of alleged Chinese censorship is a reasonable thing to have somewhere, but as I say, it just sticks out as clumsy in a general "Censorship" section. In specific coverage of China somewhere might be a better place for it?
Then on to the Plandemic thing. It's alleged censorship of a conspiracy theory nutjob making obviously false accusations and allegations, and it's one step away from "censorship" at the core of the pandemic itself. If we include "censorship" of anything anyone says about any aspect of the pandemic, or of anything people say about anything other people say, we'd be opening up an already very long article to potentially huge amounts of disjointed and distracting material. Another thing is that "Censorship" is a very loaded term, and we'd be appearing to judge the decisions made by Facebook et al to not offer a platform for it. Is it protecting people from dangerous lunacy, or is it censorship? Is it some of both? Is it for us to judge by applying a single label? Am I talking to much? Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 08:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Thinking about the main image which is sourced from
here, I cannot see consent of the patient subjects of the image to be used in this way so visibly.
The image use policy states Because of the expectation of privacy, the consent of the subject should normally be sought before uploading any photograph featuring an identifiable individual that has been taken in a private place,
...examples of private places include Any medical facility
. I support replacing it with another image, perhaps one of the many from the US military
such as this with clear consent --
Almaty (
talk)
03:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This page may be
too long to read and navigate comfortably. (May 2020) |
This tag was added. I am not seeing discussion here. The world count of the text is 18,000. What section should be cut? Recommendation is to keep text under 100 kb / 20,000 words. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Can be one third of the size -- Almaty ( talk) 08:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I support the main epidemic curve, the cases per million map and the ten most affected countries semi log plot, the rest can be on sub pages and removed from this page. -- Almaty ( talk) 08:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Quite repetitive section and probably a fair bit too much detail. -- Almaty ( talk) 08:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
This can be mostly spun out to sub articles, reads like a public health textbook at present. -- Almaty ( talk) 08:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
It has a few expert opinions. I think we can say what the WHO said and that expert opinion varies and we simply do not know how long the pandemic will last. -- Almaty ( talk) 08:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The WHO said on 11 March 2020 the pandemic could be controlled. The Imperial College study led by Neil Ferguson stated that physical distancing and other measures will be required "until a vaccine becomes available". William Schaffner of Vanderbilt University said because the coronavirus is "so readily transmissible", it "might turn into a seasonal disease, making a comeback every year".-sche ( talk) 16:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
This can be summarized with China - 5 sentences. United States - 5 sentences. Italy, Iran, UK, Spain, 4 sentences. Every other country 3 sentences. -- Almaty ( talk) 08:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Cut the section, with a wikilink and one sentence -- Almaty ( talk) 08:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I'd happily give any of these a try if supported in advance. -- Almaty ( talk) 08:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Recommendation is to keep text under 100 kb / 20,000 words? Per WP:PAGESIZE
A page of about 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 4,000 to 10,000 words- so about half the current page size. -- Almaty ( talk) 11:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Just to throw a spanner in the works of my own contributions, would appreciate any other thoughts or experts help in synthesizing these kind of opinions that are becoming more common. Reading between the lines of the evolution of the WHO, ECDC and CDC FAQs, I think the distinction between "airborne transmission" and "respiratory droplet transmission" is being mentioned less often. To rethink, do we need to give the possibility of airborne transmission its due weight as a valid minority view? -- Almaty ( talk) 09:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
"Children With Kawasaki-Like Disease Positive for COVID-19". Medscape. Retrieved 11 May 2020. and today Jacobs, Andrew; Sandoval, Edgar (9 May 2020). "Mysterious Coronavirus Illness Claims 3 Children in New York". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 May 2020....3 dead /73 cases, rather like a syndrome...-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 02:49, 11 May 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 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
The captioned item in the infoboxes is not consistent at present, with that information in some country articles being plain wrong (for example for Bolivia); rather than fix all of these individually, I am wondering if someone could run a script to unify this? Thank you. -- CRau080 ( talk) 15:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Of interest...whilst checking through some references....ref 346- report 13 from Imperial cites Wikipedia several times. Whispyhistory ( talk) 15:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
My edit with a graph with cases divided by population was reverted, claiming that it was too US centric. I feel that the opposit is the case: Numbers should be shown in relation to the size of the population. It's not reasonable to compare a huge country such as the United States with a small country such as Spain. -- Traut ( talk) 06:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Here's the matching image for the deaths section --
Traut (
talk)
07:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Since I just have all the data around, you may see the same death rate data on my User:Traut, when shifted to the same starting condition -- Traut ( talk) 21:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I have three thoughts on this.
68.96.208.77 ( talk) 00:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC) Constructive Feedback
Thanks for all the helpful feedback. I'll think about the label problem. Currently it's just the same order as given within the table on the article page - by total case numbers. It's easy to resort by rates instead, but then labels would be in different orders for both charts. I'll try to insert the charts now... -- Traut ( talk) 09:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
It might be interesting now to define a color palette for the most interesting countries in order to use the same color within each chart here. -- Traut ( talk) 10:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I have reordered the labels, have taken new colors and have adjusted the picture size to 5x7". I'll add the colors to my discussion page and encourage others to use the same color scheme. -- Traut ( talk) 07:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
A clause was added a few days ago to the sentence "More than XXX,XXX people have recovered" which stated "although there may be a chance of reinfection". After a few iterations, my latest edit which stated "although there have been instances of people testing positive after recovery" was reverted by User:Sdkb (reason: WP:UNDUE for lead). I also saw a news article which stated that WHO stated that there was [ Evidence' Yet That Recovered COVID-19 Patients Are Immune]. I think that this is an important topic, so I wish to establish a consensus on this: should we add a clause to the lead about a chance of reinfection or relapse, instances of testing positive after recovery, or there being no evidence that recovered COVID patients are immune in the lead? sam1370 ( talk) 05:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
After I added Template: R unprintworthy to the 2019-20 Coronavirus pandemic redirect (since the capitalization was appearing at the top of the search results instead of the regular article) the normal article gets ranked below all the "2019-20 coronavirus pandemic in X" ones. Is there any way to make this page rank top in the search suggestions? sam1370 ( talk) 04:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
The article is in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded and many of the citations are thus no longer visible. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 11:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm surprised this hasn't been included yet. Many suicide hotlines are reporting massive upticks [1] [2] [3] [4] (the Disaster Distress helpline saw an 891% increase in calls in March 2020) in the amount of calls amid the pandemic and the necessary social distancing and quarantining, resulting from economic fears, virus fears and underlying depression and anxiety and feelings of isolation and separation. [5] This has also resulted in the rise of teletherapy.
The National Suicide Prevention Hotline has adjusted "#BeThe1To" to provide coping tips for individuals and loved ones amid the pandemic [6]. The CDC has provided similar tips as well. [7]
Individuals with anxiety disorders such as obsessive-compulsive disorder [8] [9] and post-traumatic stress disorder [10] are of a greater concern. Ghoul flesh • talk 22:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Why was data for Reunion (France) deleted from the table of countries/territories? At last count, if I remember correctly, it had close to 500 cases and 1 death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 ( talk) 07:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
It looks like the US deaths are wrong? 535,625 is way too high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloftus2 ( talk • contribs) 20:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
What does "certain medical procedures" signify? Seems rather ambiguous to me. MattSucci ( talk) 04:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
People can catch COVID-19 from others who have the virus. The disease spreads primarily from person to person through small droplets from the nose or mouth, which are expelled when a person with COVID-19 coughs, sneezes, or speaks. These droplets are relatively heavy, do not travel far and quickly sink to the ground. People can catch COVID-19 if they breathe in these droplets from a person infected with the virus. This is why it is important to stay at least 1 metre (3 feet) away from others. These droplets can land on objects and surfaces around the person such as tables, doorknobs and handrails. People can become infected by touching these objects or surfaces, then touching their eyes, nose or mouth. This is why it is important to wash your hands regularly with soap and water or clean with alcohol-based hand rub.-- Almaty ( talk) 11:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
But in healthcare facilities we make sure that healthcare workers use standard droplet precautions with the exception of when they are doing an aerosol-generating procedure and then we recommend airborne precautionsp. 8. In that 16 March 2020 press conference, Dr van Kerkhove responded to a question about one (frustratingly unnamed) study about how long the virus remains in the air specifically for aerosolizing procedures in medical facilities. She emphasized that the WHO stands by standard droplet precautions for all other situations. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 22:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
the map is from a while ago, and it is probably outdated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firestar9990 ( talk • contribs) 18:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
New Zealands cases are way out of date Username900122 ( talk) 15:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I heard there's a correlation of strokes to infection.. is this true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slinkyw ( talk • contribs) 00:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I am certainly not averse to covering the xenophobia that has arisen from the pandemic, but the length of the current section on it (which recently had a level 4 sub-heading added to it) strikes me as just too long. It's much longer than the comparable nearby sections on the environment and misinformation, and nearly as long as the culture section, which has a far bigger scope. The {{ Very long section}} tag I added was recently removed by Pancho507. Do you all think the section needs some streamlining? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 18:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The article should better contrast & explain how countries differed in their reactions to the pandemic & how that affected the incidence of infection. How & why did S Korea recover from being one of the worst-affected countries whilst in many other countries the pandemic worsened? Jim Michael ( talk) 06:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2019-20 China pneumonia outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata stay at home 🏠 wash your hands 👋 to protect from COVID-19 😷 10:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect China pneumonia outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata stay at home 🏠 wash your hands 👋 to protect from COVID-19 😷 10:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Controversies related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata stay at home 🏠 wash your hands 👋 to protect from COVID-19 😷 10:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Controversies related to 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata stay at home 🏠 wash your hands 👋 to protect from COVID-19 😷 10:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Controversies related to the 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata stay at home 🏠 wash your hands 👋 to protect from COVID-19 😷 10:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Controversies related to 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata stay at home 🏠 wash your hands 👋 to protect from COVID-19 😷 10:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Controversies related to the 2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata stay at home 🏠 wash your hands 👋 to protect from COVID-19 😷 10:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Controversies related to the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata stay at home 🏠 wash your hands 👋 to protect from COVID-19 😷 10:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2019-2020 coronavirus 2019 pandemic. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata stay at home 🏠 wash your hands 👋 to protect from COVID-19 😷 10:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, the explanatory footnote at the end of the first sentence was removed on 22 April by User:Brandmeister. The footnote stated "In summary, this article is about the coronavirus pandemic, which is caused by the disease COVID-19, which is caused by the virus SARS-CoV-2. [1]"
His reason for removing the footnote was "redundant, the title and links define the scope". I disagree with this; I originally added the footnote because when I first read the introductory sentence, I was confused by the wording and had to click on the disease and virus articles to understand the meaning. This may be confusing to others too, as I don't believe the actual full name of the virus (coronavirus disease 2019) or disease (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) is that well-known -- most news articles that I see with a coronavirus google search simply refer to it as "coronavirus" or "covid-19". I'd like to get consensus on this -- should we reinstate the explanatory footnote? sam1370 ( talk) 23:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Then we should copy edit the first paragraph to enhance comprehension for the average Wikipedia visitor. After all, it is our job to do everything we can to boost understanding; it is not the reader's job to decipher our meaning. (If it's the reader's job to decipher my writing, nhetuyo hsuodltnimdn edhpicngihits uljmbe. Don't you agree?)
Here's my suggested copy edit:
The 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic is a widespread epidemic of the respiratory disease COVID-19 (an acronym for “ coronavirus disease 2019”). The scientific name for the coronavirus is "SARS-CoV-2" (an acronym for “ severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2”). SARS-CoV-2 (the virus) causes COVID-19 (the disease), which began to infect humans in 2019, and reached pandemic proportions during 2020. The outbreak was identified in ....
- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 12:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
References
I propose removing the mention of xenophobia and discrimination from the intro. I don't want to downplay the incidents, but there is already a section in the article. Right now it has the same weight in the intro as the recession caused by the virus, which in my opinion is much more relevant. Vpab15 ( talk) 17:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Asia section starts with As of 16th April. This is over 2 weeks old. It is also incorrect as there were 3 asian countries with no reported cases - North Korea is missed. Dhristhadyumana ( talk) 06:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't appear plausible that 9 countries (all of which are thousands of miles away from Wuhan) each have more cases than China. Jim Michael ( talk) 14:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
This talk page is not a forum for general discussion.CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 15:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Figure 4 shows the fraction with each outcome by age, drawn only from the cases before Jan 15 for which most have complete data. To put a lower bound on the confirmed-case-fatality-ratio (confirmed-CFR) for this first month of cases, we assume the censored cases, almost all of whom are outside Hubei, will eventually recover, and the model shown extrapolates the confirmed-CFR to younger ages based on that assumption.Considering the update is referring to an updated IFR (with a ridiculously wide 95% confidence interval), and that section is referring to pre-15 Jan outcomes, your inference that China's tests stop ramping up after this source was published on February 4. It became clear the virus was out of Wuhan as well. involves too many logical jumps. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 18:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
This topic has been discussed over and over. Please, WP:NOFORUM. Unless there is some particular source and change to be discussed, this is not going anywhere. -- MarioGom ( talk) 18:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Confirmed cases: 3,273,972 Active cases: 2,010,732 Deaths: 231,458 Recoveries: 1,031,782 [1]
References
Taking a brief glance at them, some of the graphs/charts/maps in the cases and deaths sections seem redundant to each other (or to ones in the infobox or history section). Should we be removing some of them? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 07:05, 30 April 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. |
You need to remove any and all information provided by WHO...given their repeated and proven lies on behalf of protecting the Chinese government. You should also remove any references to President Trump "claiming" China lied about the virus...given that this is also completely and inarguably proven fact. 76.72.63.16 ( talk) 03:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Not done
{{ edit semi-protected}} USA deaths according to current CDC (Center for Disease Control) site are stated as 37,308, nowhere near the incorrect 68,040 currently listed. Source: CDC.gov site [1] Paulieweb ( talk) 20:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
For any observer of Tajikistan its Coronavirus positive status was quite obvious a month ago due to large amounts of doctors being quarantined in various hospitals mostly across the north of the country. In any case the Tajik government has now officially certified that the country does indeed have Covid-19. This means the map needs to be updated. The source of this information can be found in Russian in Asia Plus's article here: https://asiaplustj.info/ru/news/tajikistan/security/20200430/v-tadzhikistane-ofitsialno-priznali-koronavirus-v-strane-est Zaharous ( talk) 11:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The template that they placed at the top of the page is against policy. Current COVID-19 consensus is invalid, they can have consensus over there, but it is local consensus and should not be binding on any page until it has gone through
WP:PROPOSAL. From
WP:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Advice_pages, An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay.
Please ecourage members of the wikiproject to continue to write essays, but not impose them as Current COVID consensus or the like, because they are only essays, per wikipeida policy . -- Almaty ( talk) 13:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
(aside from the current 'Duration' subsection)might it be a good idea to insert a section/subsection towards the end which indicates which way this thing might go?...I was looking through "Covid-19's future: small outbreaks, monster wave, or ongoing crisis". STAT. 1 May 2020. Retrieved 2 May 2020.which offers three possible scenarios, 1 a larger infection in the fall(U.S.), 2. a continuation thru 2022/ or until theres a vaccine 3 a smaller but continuing version of the present. Of course, better references than this one would be needed....however the 3 'scenario' graphs, with proper referencing, may not be a bad idea IMO -- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 01:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Hasn't gone through the full approval process of the FDA but they have approved it for emergency use. It has the following wording
it is reasonable to believe that the known and potential benefits of RDV outweigh the known and potential risks of the drug for the treatment of patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19
. So this is an specific, approved antiviral treatment to use our wording, and therefore the lead is now incorrect. What are others thoughts? --
Almaty (
talk)
This text ", though the CDC says that hand sanitizers are less effective than hand washing, in part due to the higher margin for error (wiping sanitizer off too early, not using enough, etc). [1]" the source is not about COVID.
It says "Soap and water are more effective than hand sanitizers at removing certain kinds of germs, like Cryptosporidium, norovirus, and Clostridium difficile1-5" and would be fine in those articles. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
References
Done
I can't edit this page, seeing as it's protected and I'm on my IP address rather than a custom made account, so can someone fix the two typo in the "Epidemiology" section in the word "comparative" and "coronaviruses" in this sentence: "A comarative sequence analysis of different coronoviruses found no evidence that COVID-19 was made in a laboratory."? 2600:1702:10A0:6DA0:71B1:8FB6:2531:3BE4 ( talk) 21:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I think it is the right time to start this section, even though just a few countries are beginning to do this, this will soon start to become a major topic throughout the world and it is best to start this section when it is still an early topic of discussion. This section can include general examples of reopening strategies used throughout the world, risks and problems associated with reopening, as well as some specific examples of countries reopening. Maybe even WHO recommendations on reopening when they come around to making them or the fact that currently they are cautioning against reopening. One interesting question that can be touched on in this section is what constitutes the "end" of an epidemic in a given country? Which nations have already declared that their epidemic has ended, and what criteria are they using? If done well, I envision a similar section on each nation's 2020 coronavirus pandemic page with more specific information for each specific country, state, or region. -- Beezer137 ( talk) 05:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
header refactored 19:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC) for clarity
I notice an interesting difference in the lead in this article and
coronavirus disease 2019. There, a clause in the first paragraph of the intro reads The disease was first identified in December 2019 in
Wuhan, the capital of China's
Hubei province
, whereas here we just use The outbreak was identified in
Wuhan, China, in December 2019.
A while back, it read The outbreak was identified in
Wuhan,
Hubei, China, in December 2019.
The difference seems a little backwards, since we shouldn't have more on the origin at the disease article than the pandemic article. So: what phrasing should we use at each? {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
17:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Nunavut needs to be grey on the map again. Their single case was a false positive. Source CBC News: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/covid-19-nunavut-false-positive-1.5554545 Basser g ( talk) 00:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I am sure most will agree that transclusion of sections is very detrimental for updating this article and is something we should be discouraging if we want editors to get involved here on this article. Wondering if we should take the time to just write the sections so they are not repetitive in nature and flow as one article. Lucky we dont have to many sections with this yet and I think It should be discouraged and fixed. I do remember us having a guideline or an essay on the merits and disadvantages of this but I cant find it (anyone remember the name of the essay?).-- Moxy 🍁 15:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Schools might go back to school on May 25th 203.218.207.118 ( talk) 00:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
The title of this article is different from other pandemics and epidemics. There is no year included in the title. So the title should be '2019-2020 COVID-19 pandemic'. The previous title '2019-20 Coronavirus pandemic' was better. -- Wester ( talk) 20:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Hey User:Sdkb, since you reverted my edit including the sentence in the part of the article excerpted from the disease lead, I'd like to reopen the discussion (and hopefully get a few more opinions than just me and you as well). Personally, I believe that the fact that people who recover from the pandemic are not immune is an important thing that should be included in the lead, since I think it would be a common misconception considering the common characteristic among many diseases that recovering from them grants you immunity. sam1370 ( talk) 05:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to establish a consensus on what name (if any) should be included in "The COVID-19 pandemic, also known as..." in the lead.
I think there are three immediately obvious options:
1. Nothing, remove the clause entirely, because "COVID-19 pandemic" is accurate unlike many of the common names
2. "...also known as the coronavirus pandemic" because it is just as common, if not more, than the COVID-19 pandemic and because regardless of it's in accuracy (naming a pandemic after the virus instead of the disease) it is often called that (currently on the page as of time of writing)
3. "...also known as the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic", to help with the transition between the old name and the new. sam1370 ( talk | contribs) 02:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
There are few citation errors that I have found. It would be great if someone fixes those. Thanks, Luke Kern Choi 5 ( talk) 15:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Citation 706 says this... Cite error: The named reference no_covid was invoked but never defined (see the help page). Possibly an error about nickname??? Luke Kern Choi 5 ( talk) 13:57, 5 May 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.
No historian is going to refer to as COVID-19. It's called Coronavirus Pandemic-- 128.114.255.218 ( talk) 23:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Original agency sources are preferable to Yahoo News quoting them. Currently the source for "it was later discovered that a person near Paris tested positive for the virus on 27 December 2019 after retesting old samples" is https://www.yahoo.com/news/retesting-samples-french-hospital-discovers-153353216.html. It should be replaced with https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-france-idUSKBN22G20L which is what appears at /info/en/?search=COVID-19_pandemic_in_France#cite_note-Reut4520-29. At the moment I'm being prevented from changing the URL. Mcljlm ( talk) 10:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
As a reader, each of my subsequent visits to various COVID-19 pandemic related articles bemuse me more.
If there were no human individual & group failures, then how did the decease spread ? If failures at multiple levels contributed spread of decease where is adequate Wikipedia coverage?
People and groups not following expected precautions on various pretexts- whether for secular or non secular reasons does not seem to to be adequately covered. Whether it is half-heartedness of W.H.O. in issuing timely advisories; to governments, to groups, to individuals; not following advisories. Failures are at multiple level and media seems to have if not enough minimal coverage of the criticism of human failures in giving pandemic proportions to the decease .
My contention is Wikipedians do not seem to cover criticism, as I said each of my visit I find refrain, avoidance, curtailment, window dressing and at places undeclared censorship that criticism does not get wider attention. On side note many times I find Wikipedia consensus more of a democratic process than logical process which tends to indirectly compromise on neutrality.
Most of 'impact' articles & sections are unidirectional, how the COVID-19 pandemic affected 'So and so' but hardly any mention of the 'so and so' were likely contributors to spread of pandemic and many not taking seriously and flouting public health wise very important advisories.
Is not main article COVID-19 pandemic indirectly connected to sub topic article? and talk page of main article does not want to entertain failure of neutrality in subtopic article than how does main article remains neutral?
As a Wikipedia editor my present focus is some other topics, still I attempted to give minor coverage to criticism part, but as a reader and frank reviewer I find information gaps on above mentioned topics.
Thanks and greetings
Bookku ( talk) 02:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, centralized discussion is @ Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#Is_coverage_really_'neutral'_enough?_specially_in_article_leads_&_'impact'_articles_&_sections thanks.
Bookku ( talk) 04:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Doc James: - just removing redundancy and following the WHO faq predominantly. I like explaining it to people that the surfaces are the small droplets, its the same method. And as I was saying during our dispute, the surfaces are not as important in WHO's opinion anymore.
WOuld appreciate a discussion of this as opposed to a complete rewrite! Thanks James. -- Almaty ( talk) 15:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
this article should be renamed simply "coronavirus pandemic" this isnt a science journal. the intricacies and details are described within the article. no historian is going to refer to this disease as COVID-19 i assure you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.114.255.226 ( talk) 05:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Does the leading first sentence need an inline citation to a reference with the information? The text in the first sentence is not in the following inline citation, but I suppose it is the main article. If so, this could be used, but I couldn't find a WHO one. Whispyhistory ( talk) 19:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Say how much 5 trillion rials equals in the Iran section (USD, Euro) 68.96.114.42 ( talk) 19:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't know why it isn't working atm, I think it's because of the somewhat-recent massive title-change and maybe something about the title of target-page isn't quite right or whatever. Can we please try to figure out what's wrong with the code and stop manually archiving? It will be almost impossible to keep up with the sheer volume of posts here by archiving manually... Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 02:10, 8 May 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.
COVID-19 pandemic → 2019–20 COVID-19 pandemic... what if there was another one? 2019–20 COVID-19 pandemic would make it easy to distinguish from, say... 2027–28 COVID-19 pandemic. On the other hand, COVID-19 pandemic and 2027–28 COVID-19 pandemic would make it very confusing, right? Stay COVID free, 🐔 Chic dat Chicken Database 12:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
The references section takes up nearly half the scroll length of this article. I think this may be discouraging to readers, since they may not realize they're making as much progress as they actually are (e.g. "I've already read a lot, but the scroll bar says I'm only a third done!"). An interesting solution I noticed at the Vietnamese Wikipedia is to turn the references section into a scroll box, similar to what we're already doing with the main cases table. It's a little ugly there since there's no light border on the top/bottom, but that could be fixed here. Would this be desirable? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 08:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
It was a lot of work getting the one scroll box to work. Not sure we need one for the references... Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
It would be good to have section on health experts concerns about how severe floods affect severity of illness and how it gets transmitted, measures to deal with it that are in place or planned on. At least in the usa, and probably elswhere too, a lot of floods could happen later this year. Rich ( talk)
As we finally passed final name "COVID-19 pandemic" for this article and first step on improving page with correct info. We still need the move requests controlled meaning no one should doing it for next 30 days. This is to prevent "opposed" move disruption on the COVID-19 pandemic page. Regice2020 ( talk) 03:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
*We should wait to see if any issue occurs. Not sure we need a moratorium currently.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
07:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Added COVID-19_pandemic#Criticism section here [18]. I was surprised no section, I suppose eventually there is an article for this, but for now can be a placeholder. If there is already and article, please let me know as it then should be crosslinked. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 18:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I moved the section out of the entry; in addition to the issue mentioned above, it's not at all clear that the three quite disparate news stories cited (and poorly summarized: e.g., in the first sentence, who censored what? and in the second sense, whose COVI-19 response was questioned?) are WP:DUE a place in this already overlong top-level global summary article as opposed to the three(!) more relevant articles, to wit Media coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic, COVID-19 pandemic on social media, and Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on journalism. -sche ( talk) 02:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
... changing all instances of {{nbsp}} to ? If it's to improve page loading speed then I believe there are other more effective ways to do this (notably, by actually reducing article size by removing extraneous content...)? 107.190.33.254 ( talk) 20:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Whoever did it is [still] laughing his ass off. ( Settle down, kids.) -- Brogo13 ( talk) 10:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:POVSPLIT and WP:PRESERVE putting this here
The scientific consensus is that COVID-19 has a natural origin. [1] [2]
This is a POV fork and doesnt belong on this article. This type of WP:MEDRS statement in wikivoice needs to be left on the medical article Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, which btw doesnt support this POV. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 19:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
References
The history section jumps from late January to where the United States is the center of the pandemic. Europe was the center of the pandemic at some point. This should at least be mentioned. The U.S got it from Europe? How, if there were no cases in Europe? But we know there were. The article just doesn't say it, at least there.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
On 31 January 2020, Italy had its first confirmed cases, two tourists from China.[500] As of 13 March 2020 the WHO considered Europe the active centre of the pandemic.[501] On 19 March 2020, Italy overtook China as the country with the most deaths.[502] By 26 March, the United States had overtaken China and Italy with the highest number of confirmed cases in the world.Not sure if that's a recent addition or not. The history section focuses too much on the early history; that part should be trimmed. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 03:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello.
Would the following information be useful to incorporate into the article, if it has not been cited previously?
Help to do so would be appreciated if it is deemed acceptable
David A ( talk) 15:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
In addition, has it been mentioned that the United Nations think that the global shutdowns could cause 265 million people to starve?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52373888
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/un-warns-biblical-famines-due-coronavirus/
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/22/africa/coronavirus-famine-un-warning-intl/index.html
David A ( talk) 15:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay it says "To estimate the model parameters, we used a survey that showed that 2.5% of the population in the Stockholm region were infected between March 27 and April 3." So did they do antibody tests and find that 26% of people had antibodies? Does not look like it. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
So is somebody experienced willing to insert the United Nations mass-starvation projections into the article? David A ( talk) 06:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
We need reliable sources to provide something like 80 million (1% of 8 billion people) overall (including 4 million confirmed cases) were exposed and/or infected by COVID-19 from Dec 2019-May 2020, especially be in mind the pandemic's place of origin Wuhan has 11 million people in a country like China with 1.4 billion people. 2605:E000:100D:C571:7D82:A683:E434:DB3D ( talk) 00:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I still think that it seems extremely important for us to collaborate to find and include references to all reliable studies that indicate a much lower mortality rate than the initial WHO estimates. It could help us to avoid a global depression and mass-starvation: [23] [24] [25] David A ( talk) 06:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
We’re building consensus right now. I will not respond further to this user’s inexplicable attitude and fingerpointing. I’ve made my point. This person is just systematically trying to have it their way. EelamStyleZ ( talk) 18:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The subject of this RfC is if we should keep or delete the sub-section on censorship. At the time of this RfC, the subjection contains the content below, however the content is not the subject of this RfC, as that would conflate the issue. This RfC is limited to whether or not a subsection is DUE or not. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 08:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
---Censorship--- " The Guardian said censorship of coronavirus facts began during the early phase of the pandemic in China. [1] The UK's Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies criticized the UK government for censoring a report it drafted that questioned the UK's COVID-19 response, with Steve Reicher calling the response " Stalinist". [2] The Washington Post wrote about YouTube's and Facebook's censorship of the film Plandemic, which featured Judy Mikovits's criticism of the pandemic response. [3]"
References
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |name-list-format=
(
help)
Specifically to this example, I think coverage of alleged Chinese censorship is a reasonable thing to have somewhere, but as I say, it just sticks out as clumsy in a general "Censorship" section. In specific coverage of China somewhere might be a better place for it?
Then on to the Plandemic thing. It's alleged censorship of a conspiracy theory nutjob making obviously false accusations and allegations, and it's one step away from "censorship" at the core of the pandemic itself. If we include "censorship" of anything anyone says about any aspect of the pandemic, or of anything people say about anything other people say, we'd be opening up an already very long article to potentially huge amounts of disjointed and distracting material. Another thing is that "Censorship" is a very loaded term, and we'd be appearing to judge the decisions made by Facebook et al to not offer a platform for it. Is it protecting people from dangerous lunacy, or is it censorship? Is it some of both? Is it for us to judge by applying a single label? Am I talking to much? Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 08:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Thinking about the main image which is sourced from
here, I cannot see consent of the patient subjects of the image to be used in this way so visibly.
The image use policy states Because of the expectation of privacy, the consent of the subject should normally be sought before uploading any photograph featuring an identifiable individual that has been taken in a private place,
...examples of private places include Any medical facility
. I support replacing it with another image, perhaps one of the many from the US military
such as this with clear consent --
Almaty (
talk)
03:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This page may be
too long to read and navigate comfortably. (May 2020) |
This tag was added. I am not seeing discussion here. The world count of the text is 18,000. What section should be cut? Recommendation is to keep text under 100 kb / 20,000 words. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Can be one third of the size -- Almaty ( talk) 08:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I support the main epidemic curve, the cases per million map and the ten most affected countries semi log plot, the rest can be on sub pages and removed from this page. -- Almaty ( talk) 08:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Quite repetitive section and probably a fair bit too much detail. -- Almaty ( talk) 08:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
This can be mostly spun out to sub articles, reads like a public health textbook at present. -- Almaty ( talk) 08:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
It has a few expert opinions. I think we can say what the WHO said and that expert opinion varies and we simply do not know how long the pandemic will last. -- Almaty ( talk) 08:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The WHO said on 11 March 2020 the pandemic could be controlled. The Imperial College study led by Neil Ferguson stated that physical distancing and other measures will be required "until a vaccine becomes available". William Schaffner of Vanderbilt University said because the coronavirus is "so readily transmissible", it "might turn into a seasonal disease, making a comeback every year".-sche ( talk) 16:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
This can be summarized with China - 5 sentences. United States - 5 sentences. Italy, Iran, UK, Spain, 4 sentences. Every other country 3 sentences. -- Almaty ( talk) 08:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Cut the section, with a wikilink and one sentence -- Almaty ( talk) 08:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I'd happily give any of these a try if supported in advance. -- Almaty ( talk) 08:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Recommendation is to keep text under 100 kb / 20,000 words? Per WP:PAGESIZE
A page of about 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 4,000 to 10,000 words- so about half the current page size. -- Almaty ( talk) 11:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Just to throw a spanner in the works of my own contributions, would appreciate any other thoughts or experts help in synthesizing these kind of opinions that are becoming more common. Reading between the lines of the evolution of the WHO, ECDC and CDC FAQs, I think the distinction between "airborne transmission" and "respiratory droplet transmission" is being mentioned less often. To rethink, do we need to give the possibility of airborne transmission its due weight as a valid minority view? -- Almaty ( talk) 09:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
"Children With Kawasaki-Like Disease Positive for COVID-19". Medscape. Retrieved 11 May 2020. and today Jacobs, Andrew; Sandoval, Edgar (9 May 2020). "Mysterious Coronavirus Illness Claims 3 Children in New York". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 May 2020....3 dead /73 cases, rather like a syndrome...-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 02:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)