![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
We already include the growth in the "2019 coronavirus bar data" for China. As most cases are in China this will be no different than that and thus not needed IMO. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I think there needs to be mentions of immediate economic impacts. Starzoner ( talk) 16:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The lead obviously should be a summary.
"The first death outside China was reported in the Philippines, where a 44-year-old male from Wuhan died on 1 February."
IMO is better than
"The first death outside China was reported in the Philippines, where a 44-year-old male from Wuhan confirmed to have contracted the coronavirus, Streptococcus pneumoniae and influenza B died on 1 February."
Secondary bacterial infection following viral pneumonia often occurs before death but it is the viral pneumonia that results in the bacterial pneumonia. Not enough room in the lead to mention all that. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree, this is better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pestilence Unchained ( talk • contribs) 06:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Why is there advertisement for a flu vaccine in the vaccine research section? This has no relevance to the Coronavirus. Can someone please take it out? 165.120.218.229 ( talk) 19:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The animated map stops at 2/2, not 2/4 or 2/5 as is claimed. Also, the infected totals do not match, in the Casualties section it says 27,606 but in the "2019–20 nCoV outbreak by country" section it lists 28,266 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yummycheetos ( talk • contribs) 00:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
The current animated map, uploaded on 6 Feb, runs until 5 Feb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pestilence Unchained ( talk • contribs) 06:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Can we add this section on the article? I have noticed taht Japanese and Korean discriminated by the issues of coronavirus outbreak. Koreans in US discriminated over coronavirus [ [3]] 03:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Using the numbers supplied in the bar chart for the 6 February, 2020, the change from the previlus day is 13%, not 11%. Factrules ( talk) 03:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the section of Domestic responses,
Can we add this article to the Domestic responses? as it would proves the significance about difficulties to cure of
Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV).
* This Chinese doctor tried to save lives, but was silenced. Now he has coronavirus [
[4]] [
[5]]
* Coronavirus ‘whistleblower’ tried to warn the world about virus before contracting it himself [
[6]]
Goodtiming8871 (
talk)
21:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I added the name of the Doctor, text, and 2 refs. Geraldshields11 ( talk) 14:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
In December 2019, Dr. Li Wenliang at Wuhan Central Hospital noticed 7 suspicious cases, which looked like SARS, from the Huanan Seafood Market. [1] [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraldshields11 ( talk • contribs) 14:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
References
Nickayane99 ( talk) 07:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I created red link about Japan during the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. This article was only found in Chinese and not in English. Because it is interesting to give more in-depth information about the impact in Japan. I suggested that Japan section can be split into own article based of one on Chinese Wikipedia 2019新型冠狀病毒日本疫情 I suggest this will be same for Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. Any thoughts? Because it's epidemic in Japan have more notable to have it's own article, while Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macau doesn't have more attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.224.32 ( talk) 10:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion these two short paragraphs in the lead could go together. With the first bit being the WHO declaration of a PHEIC and the section bit being context and the WHO declaration of an infodemic. Wondering others thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
References
:3
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This is notable . Pangolins identified as possible host https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-pangolins/china-scientists-identify-pangolin-as-possible-coronavirus-host-idUSKBN2010XA, https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/02/07/world/asia/07reuters-china-health-pangolins.html Victor Grigas ( talk) 14:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, I am new to Wikipedia. However, I hope that i would make good use of this The UK Newspaper has made an announcement 2 hours ago that North Korea has became the 29th country to have a reported case of the novel coronavirus. I request that in the section where the countries or territories with reported cases are included, we should add North Korea as the 29th country. Thank you. The source is - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-7978247/North-Korea-29th-country-record-coronavirus-suspected-patient-struck-Denmark.html Pilotplayer ( talk) 14:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
This is neither a notable incident to be its own subsection nor organizable under #Reactions. "This is clearly a conspiracy theory unless official WHO and CDC verdict determines otherwise." is obviously more than just "yeah... needs a bit more than you don't like it." @Quenreerer
Since neither the CDC nor WHO numbers nor RS/MC reflect the claims by those who claim Tencent's numbers nor have RS repeated reports on it after the initial coverage, this is a textbook example of WP:TINFOILHAT so can you explain why "you like it?" Sleath56 ( talk) 19:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Daily mail maybe unreliable but the original source is Taiwan News, you should not remove that section. 5.75.7.57 ( talk) 17:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
I just wanted to explain that I won't be putting into action some of the suggestions I made, at least in the next couple days (and I didn't just want to wordlessly rescind on my commitments, as has often otherwise been the case here...). My priority right now is going to be putting some time into at least basic pandemic preparations (Food and water stockpile, touching base with family and friends; the DHS - not anyone I usually like - has some pretty sound seeming advice). Footnote - though it's not going to be hitting here in Europe anytime soon, obviously. I wish all of you good luck, and hope that we come out of it as a society with a turn to the better (not worse).
Kind regards Sean Heron ( talk) 23:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
P.S. If this is going to be deleted for "not-soapbox", or "not-a-forum" - so be it.
P.P.S. If I had the time, or alternatively, when I get back to doing stuff here, I'd suggest a
Wikiproject:2019-20 Coronavirus Outbreak, or some similiar venue to discuss eg how best to distribute the dearth of information onto different article pages, and perhaps outlines of what should be in those pages.
Eg - there is
this article describing the outbreak just in China, which, though a machine translation, and therefore severely lacking in the language department, seems at first glance to have a pretty nice overall flow and balance. Perhaps it would make sense to split our page here into a description of the international situation (see also the
suggestion on Japan above), and push the China specific stuff to the article I referenced, and then keep this page here for "merely" an overview of what has happened/ is happening? Just a thought.
Information on travel restrictions is now divided across several topics with varying degrees of detail and accuracy. The bulk of the content now resides in 2020 Hubei lockdowns:
2020 Hubei lockdowns § Reactions and measures outside Mainland China
I'd propose creating a new topic 2019-nCoV international travel restrictions and containment to: a) consolidate editing of rapidly-developing content, b) ensure accuracy and currency of content, c) make this content more discoverable, and d) reduce reference bloat in this topic.
In that topic, it could also be helpful to add a summary of passenger screening methods and some historical context for outbreak containment. Seems to be in line with Wikipedia:Article_size#Splitting_an_article.
Related note: There is discussion on Talk:2020 Hubei lockdowns to generalize the title since China lockdowns have extended beyond Hubei. Another option would be to use this topic for the above mentioned purpose and migrate the Hubei content into Mainland China during the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak § Hubei lockdowns.
- Wikmoz ( talk) 00:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
This isn't a death from coronavirus, but I'm sure this article could be integrated into the article. I'll add a short sentence concerning the death, which some of you may expand on. — Melofors T C 03:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Currently, the number of Japanese cases on the chart is 35, but there are sources ( Here) that suggest the count is actually 45, due to cases aboard the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship. Should the wikipedia chart be updated to reflect this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbeck640 ( talk • contribs) 02:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
The number of cases in Japan includes 20 people from a cruise ship, which is not reflected in the government’s official count.<<== Nickayane99 ( talk) 03:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
As of 2010, 7 February 2020 (UTC) the chart labeled "2019–20 nCoV outbreak by country and territory" still shows "Diamond Princess" as a separate location. These cases should be consolidated with the country Japan case totals (accounting for any duplication) as the ship is in Japanese territory and being managed exclusively the the government of Japan. Jtreyes ( talk) 20:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I suggest indicating it as 25 (+61) rather than the present 25 (86), which basically counts the 25 Japanese cases twice. Menah the Great ( talk) 14:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
The ship is registered in the United Kingdom. Should the patients be counted as a subset of the UK's count since it is legally British territory? Jaxjaxlexie ( talk) 07:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
WHO counts them as in transit - as they are in Japanese waters this makes sense to put in brackets and in Japan. Once taken ashore they are in Japan though - just as happens with those flown out of China and then identified.
At the moment there is a graph with "Confirmed cases (orange), deaths (red) and recoveries (blue)". It is misleading to draw a graph like that, since confirmed cases includes deaths and recoveries. So the same people are being countered under different colours. It would be better to have a graph of "Deaths (red), recoveries (blue), and confirmed cases (all)". (This is assuming that confirmed cases is defined as number of people ever confirmed to have the virus, as in /info/en/?search=Timeline_of_the_SARS_outbreak#/media/File:2003_Probable_cases_of_SARS_-_Worldwide.svg.) CSMR ( talk) 12:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok, here me out. If we change the colors of the infections from orange to red, and deaths to black. It may actually be more easy to read. This is entirely cosmetic and is 100% not needed. Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannelsluc ( talk • contribs) 15:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Since I don't really know how to use wikis for editing and will probably break the page, I did find https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/new-coronavirus-outbreak-affects-tourism-in-canada-as-confirmed-cases-in-china-climb basically the first person is recovering at home and is discharged from the hospital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:9620:365F:2138:65CF:E9F5:612D ( talk) 00:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I apologise for a slice of dyslexia. Golly gosh. Factrules ( talk) 04:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add a section that tracks the rate of growth outside of China. On the 29th there were 83 cases. 11 days later, there are over 300. The number of cases outside of China has doubled, twice in 10 days. This seems important. Thank you. 50.43.46.87 ( talk) 15:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Where it says 1000-9999, the 9 is hanging off the box a little bit. Looks a bit weird, so if anyone can fix it, that would be great. Dannelsluc ( talk) 19:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Should he be counted as an "American death"? It's so weird to consider any non-American American citizens "Americans" in the first place, but his death on Chinese soil complicates matters even further. Link.-- Adûnâi ( talk) 15:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Plagues do not care about citizenship. What matters is the location of the patient: where they acquired the disease, potential transmission, and care of the patient.
First, see the disclaimers above at Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak#Percent growth - @ Chrisvls and Doc James: made several relevant warnings there.
In the first table at
Template:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data/China medical cases by province, the number of new confirmed cases in PRC outside of Hubei has been stable at about 700-800 for 8 days. This is linear growth in the total number of confirmed cases, it's clearly not exponential growth. Unless these data are badly wrong (e.g. underreported, which seems unlikely outside of Hubei, where the hospital/medical system is not under the same crazy pressure), it seems quite likely that the epidemic has been contained become non-accelerating outside of Hubei: the linear growth is presumably a mix of local transmissions from the past few weeks and some Hubei-beyond-Hubei transmissions that get through the controls. So to me, this is good news.
However:
If someone could find a source that uses the equivalent of the data that we have here (2020-01-20 to 2020-02-05: 1 20 44 70 184 272 352 416 459 603 703 760 816 608 813 835 731 707), then of course that could be used on these Wikipedia pages. (Easy fast plot: paste the list of values into tr ' ' '\n' |nl -ba |graph -TX -m0 -S 16 in a terminal; this presumes that you have plotutils installed.) Boud ( talk) 14:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC) (terminology edit with strike; see below)
We could in principle make a graph and show it without interpretation. Boud ( talk) 14:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
"The cruise ship Diamond Princess is currently quarantined in Japanese waters and managed by the Japanese government. However WHO classifies the cases as "Cases on an international conveyance" and distinguishes them from Japan, although some sources include the cases in the Japanese count."
"although some sources include the cases in the Japanese count"
What are "some sources"?
Citation needed!-- Econ2018 ( talk) 13:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Are the infected World Dream passengers included in the Hong Kong figure? If so, should they be broken out like those on the Diamond Princess?
—WWoods (
talk)
21:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that there isn't a section on treatment, perhaps that can be added together with recovery of patients (if there are any notable ones). There is a section on vaccine development, but treatment with antiviral drugs is only mentioned in passing. I read that there is some success with such drugs, also some mixed results. Hzh ( talk) 10:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I have had a request to remove the images of Putin and Trump from the article, with reason given that the article is not political. Rather than just changing the page, I would like to hear if others think it is a good idea to keep or remove the images. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 04:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@FobTown: Not sure what you're trying to do with transplanting information from other sections. Calling a section #Propaganda is not NPOV. As #Censorship is a government tactic being used, it's been placed under management for relevancy. You're welcome to suggest alternatives here, but as your first edit to create such a section was reverted, this needs to be established in Talk first. Sleath56 ( talk) 01:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Instead of claiming
wp:undue how about just letting it grow and move it to own page, and trim and summarize?
Daniel.Cardenas (
talk)
06:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Support “2019-20 Novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV outbreak” or the proposed title rather than any title using “Wuhan”. Any list of the diseases where the WHO-adopted name uses a location simply makes WHO’s current position (to avoid using places in the common name of new diseases) clearly the wise position. (Who wants to go see the Ebola River next spring?)
I support being part of the group of media outlets and content publishers who follow WHO’s lead rather than part of the group who perpetuates a problematic convention.
I likewise oppose dropping “outbreak” from this page title. There is a page for the virus itself already, and this page is about the current outbreak. Should it become a pandemic, there can be a new discussion and the page can be moved to a title that reflects that new consensus.
Mkettleson (
talk)
15:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Support — I googled “novel coronavirus outbreak” and no wikipedia article made the first page of results, although multiple WHO and CDC articles did. This article should be findable on search engines by folks using the WHO naming convention. Mkettleson ( talk) 02:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. Along this whole crisis I've been watching efforts to wash this epidemic and one of the worse actions is that transmission rate graphic just below the total number. Every single epidemiologist is stating that the numbers are being kept artificially down and anything that is catering to that is just bad intel. And can we protect this article once and for all? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:F446:F601:E54C:48F5:879E:D778 ( talk) 14:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Every single epidemiologist is stating that the numbers are being kept artificially downSources, or it did not happen. You may spare us of your nakedly racist conspiracy theories. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 15:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
being kept artificially down(which you have not provided any reliable sourcing for) is a far more extreme claim than this "best guess". CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 00:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The graphic was merely tracking the daily changes in the chart (entitled: "2019–20 nCoV outbreak by country and territory") that preceded it. If the data in the graphic was invalid, then so is the chart. The chart data is taken from this site: https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/02/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/ The graphic was a very useful tool for tracking changes in the rate of growth. Perhaps a caveat regarding the source of the data would have been better than removal. If we aren't using China's numbers, then whose should be used? 67.69.69.198 ( talk) 01:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
References
How are people recovering if there is no vaccine or medical drug available for this virus yet. I'm really confused — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.119.185.38 ( talk) 18:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
The mortality rate for this coronavirus is below 10%, and people do have an immune system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pestilence Unchained ( talk • contribs) 09:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
DailyNK reports that according to internal sources, five people in the Sinuiju area have died from disease with symptoms similar to those of NCoV. The reports are unconfirmed, is this worth mentioning somehow? - ☣ Tourbillon A ? 22:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
So about one week ago, Japanese numbers of infected showed it as a sum of two numbers like this 94(26+68) with a sidenote stating Japanese divides infected into non-symptomatic and symphonic, however, this sidenote is gone now, leaving people confused about why there is this addition next to the number of infected — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathcounter ( talk • contribs) 11:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Can the article please be edited to remove incorrect references to "the coronavirus". It is often wrongly treated in the general media as though the virus is called "Corona", so that we would erroneously talk about a "Corona virus and a Measles virus".
The summary is that "coronavirus" should be used grammatically in the same way as "influenza" or "measles".
CORRECT: "There has been an outbreak of coronavirus/influenza."
INCORRECT: "There has been an outbreak of the coronavirus/influenza."
INCORRECT: "There has been an outbreak of the corona virus."
INCORRECT: "There has been an outbreak of corona."
CORRECT: "There has been a coronavirus/measles outbreak."
CORRECT: "Many people are concerned about the coronavirus/measles outbreak." (Used attributively.)
CORRECT: "The influenza/measles virus is quite contagious."
CORRECT: "The coronavirus virus is quite contagious." (Although it sounds sounds weird.)
Inserting "novel" doesn't change the above rules.
Current examples of incorrect grammar in the article include:
And so on.
Exception: incorrect grammar (or spelling) within quotations should generally be retained. For example:
"US President Donald Trump thanked Chinese President Xi Jinping "on behalf of the American People" on 24 January 2020 on Twitter, stating that "China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency" and declaring that "It will all work out well."[391]" (Emphasis added.)
Other options are to edit the text explicitly, or to add a note:
"stating that "China has been working very hard to contain coronavirus.""
or
"stating that "China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus
sic.""
—DIV ( 1.129.110.141 ( talk) 07:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC))
The result of the move request was: speedy/snow close. Another RM proposing exactly the same new title was closed literally a few hours ago. ( closed by non-admin page mover) feminist ( talk) 13:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak → 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak – Current page title is disturbing to remain and there are 2 highly known sources refer this virus as Novel coronavirus. [1] [2] Regice2020 ( talk) 08:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
References
_
Persistence of coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces and its inactivation with biocidal agents
Can someone add the information please?
We therefore reviewed the literature on all available information about the persistence of human and veterinary coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces as well as inactivation strategies with biocidal agents used for chemical disinfection, e.g. in healthcare facilities. The analysis of 22 studies reveals that human coronaviruses such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) coronavirus, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronavirus or endemic human coronaviruses (HCoV) can persist on inanimate surfaces like metal, glass or plastic for up to 9 days, but can be efficiently inactivated by surface disinfection procedures with 62-71% ethanol, 0.5% hydrogen peroxide or 0.1% sodium hypochlorite within 1 minute. Other biocidal agents such as 0.05-0.2% benzalkonium chloride or 0.02% chlorhexidine digluconate are less effective. As no specific therapies are available for 2019-nCoV, early containment and prevention of further spread will be crucial to stop the ongoing outbreak and to control this novel infectious thread.
https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/S0195-6701(20)30046-3/fulltext
-- 80.187.106.5 ( talk) 12:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
We already include the growth in the "2019 coronavirus bar data" for China. As most cases are in China this will be no different than that and thus not needed IMO. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I think there needs to be mentions of immediate economic impacts. Starzoner ( talk) 16:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The lead obviously should be a summary.
"The first death outside China was reported in the Philippines, where a 44-year-old male from Wuhan died on 1 February."
IMO is better than
"The first death outside China was reported in the Philippines, where a 44-year-old male from Wuhan confirmed to have contracted the coronavirus, Streptococcus pneumoniae and influenza B died on 1 February."
Secondary bacterial infection following viral pneumonia often occurs before death but it is the viral pneumonia that results in the bacterial pneumonia. Not enough room in the lead to mention all that. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree, this is better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pestilence Unchained ( talk • contribs) 06:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Why is there advertisement for a flu vaccine in the vaccine research section? This has no relevance to the Coronavirus. Can someone please take it out? 165.120.218.229 ( talk) 19:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The animated map stops at 2/2, not 2/4 or 2/5 as is claimed. Also, the infected totals do not match, in the Casualties section it says 27,606 but in the "2019–20 nCoV outbreak by country" section it lists 28,266 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yummycheetos ( talk • contribs) 00:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
The current animated map, uploaded on 6 Feb, runs until 5 Feb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pestilence Unchained ( talk • contribs) 06:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Can we add this section on the article? I have noticed taht Japanese and Korean discriminated by the issues of coronavirus outbreak. Koreans in US discriminated over coronavirus [ [3]] 03:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Using the numbers supplied in the bar chart for the 6 February, 2020, the change from the previlus day is 13%, not 11%. Factrules ( talk) 03:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the section of Domestic responses,
Can we add this article to the Domestic responses? as it would proves the significance about difficulties to cure of
Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV).
* This Chinese doctor tried to save lives, but was silenced. Now he has coronavirus [
[4]] [
[5]]
* Coronavirus ‘whistleblower’ tried to warn the world about virus before contracting it himself [
[6]]
Goodtiming8871 (
talk)
21:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I added the name of the Doctor, text, and 2 refs. Geraldshields11 ( talk) 14:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
In December 2019, Dr. Li Wenliang at Wuhan Central Hospital noticed 7 suspicious cases, which looked like SARS, from the Huanan Seafood Market. [1] [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraldshields11 ( talk • contribs) 14:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
References
Nickayane99 ( talk) 07:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I created red link about Japan during the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. This article was only found in Chinese and not in English. Because it is interesting to give more in-depth information about the impact in Japan. I suggested that Japan section can be split into own article based of one on Chinese Wikipedia 2019新型冠狀病毒日本疫情 I suggest this will be same for Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. Any thoughts? Because it's epidemic in Japan have more notable to have it's own article, while Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macau doesn't have more attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.224.32 ( talk) 10:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion these two short paragraphs in the lead could go together. With the first bit being the WHO declaration of a PHEIC and the section bit being context and the WHO declaration of an infodemic. Wondering others thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
References
:3
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This is notable . Pangolins identified as possible host https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-pangolins/china-scientists-identify-pangolin-as-possible-coronavirus-host-idUSKBN2010XA, https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/02/07/world/asia/07reuters-china-health-pangolins.html Victor Grigas ( talk) 14:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, I am new to Wikipedia. However, I hope that i would make good use of this The UK Newspaper has made an announcement 2 hours ago that North Korea has became the 29th country to have a reported case of the novel coronavirus. I request that in the section where the countries or territories with reported cases are included, we should add North Korea as the 29th country. Thank you. The source is - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-7978247/North-Korea-29th-country-record-coronavirus-suspected-patient-struck-Denmark.html Pilotplayer ( talk) 14:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
This is neither a notable incident to be its own subsection nor organizable under #Reactions. "This is clearly a conspiracy theory unless official WHO and CDC verdict determines otherwise." is obviously more than just "yeah... needs a bit more than you don't like it." @Quenreerer
Since neither the CDC nor WHO numbers nor RS/MC reflect the claims by those who claim Tencent's numbers nor have RS repeated reports on it after the initial coverage, this is a textbook example of WP:TINFOILHAT so can you explain why "you like it?" Sleath56 ( talk) 19:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Daily mail maybe unreliable but the original source is Taiwan News, you should not remove that section. 5.75.7.57 ( talk) 17:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
I just wanted to explain that I won't be putting into action some of the suggestions I made, at least in the next couple days (and I didn't just want to wordlessly rescind on my commitments, as has often otherwise been the case here...). My priority right now is going to be putting some time into at least basic pandemic preparations (Food and water stockpile, touching base with family and friends; the DHS - not anyone I usually like - has some pretty sound seeming advice). Footnote - though it's not going to be hitting here in Europe anytime soon, obviously. I wish all of you good luck, and hope that we come out of it as a society with a turn to the better (not worse).
Kind regards Sean Heron ( talk) 23:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
P.S. If this is going to be deleted for "not-soapbox", or "not-a-forum" - so be it.
P.P.S. If I had the time, or alternatively, when I get back to doing stuff here, I'd suggest a
Wikiproject:2019-20 Coronavirus Outbreak, or some similiar venue to discuss eg how best to distribute the dearth of information onto different article pages, and perhaps outlines of what should be in those pages.
Eg - there is
this article describing the outbreak just in China, which, though a machine translation, and therefore severely lacking in the language department, seems at first glance to have a pretty nice overall flow and balance. Perhaps it would make sense to split our page here into a description of the international situation (see also the
suggestion on Japan above), and push the China specific stuff to the article I referenced, and then keep this page here for "merely" an overview of what has happened/ is happening? Just a thought.
Information on travel restrictions is now divided across several topics with varying degrees of detail and accuracy. The bulk of the content now resides in 2020 Hubei lockdowns:
2020 Hubei lockdowns § Reactions and measures outside Mainland China
I'd propose creating a new topic 2019-nCoV international travel restrictions and containment to: a) consolidate editing of rapidly-developing content, b) ensure accuracy and currency of content, c) make this content more discoverable, and d) reduce reference bloat in this topic.
In that topic, it could also be helpful to add a summary of passenger screening methods and some historical context for outbreak containment. Seems to be in line with Wikipedia:Article_size#Splitting_an_article.
Related note: There is discussion on Talk:2020 Hubei lockdowns to generalize the title since China lockdowns have extended beyond Hubei. Another option would be to use this topic for the above mentioned purpose and migrate the Hubei content into Mainland China during the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak § Hubei lockdowns.
- Wikmoz ( talk) 00:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
This isn't a death from coronavirus, but I'm sure this article could be integrated into the article. I'll add a short sentence concerning the death, which some of you may expand on. — Melofors T C 03:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Currently, the number of Japanese cases on the chart is 35, but there are sources ( Here) that suggest the count is actually 45, due to cases aboard the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship. Should the wikipedia chart be updated to reflect this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbeck640 ( talk • contribs) 02:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
The number of cases in Japan includes 20 people from a cruise ship, which is not reflected in the government’s official count.<<== Nickayane99 ( talk) 03:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
As of 2010, 7 February 2020 (UTC) the chart labeled "2019–20 nCoV outbreak by country and territory" still shows "Diamond Princess" as a separate location. These cases should be consolidated with the country Japan case totals (accounting for any duplication) as the ship is in Japanese territory and being managed exclusively the the government of Japan. Jtreyes ( talk) 20:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I suggest indicating it as 25 (+61) rather than the present 25 (86), which basically counts the 25 Japanese cases twice. Menah the Great ( talk) 14:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
The ship is registered in the United Kingdom. Should the patients be counted as a subset of the UK's count since it is legally British territory? Jaxjaxlexie ( talk) 07:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
WHO counts them as in transit - as they are in Japanese waters this makes sense to put in brackets and in Japan. Once taken ashore they are in Japan though - just as happens with those flown out of China and then identified.
At the moment there is a graph with "Confirmed cases (orange), deaths (red) and recoveries (blue)". It is misleading to draw a graph like that, since confirmed cases includes deaths and recoveries. So the same people are being countered under different colours. It would be better to have a graph of "Deaths (red), recoveries (blue), and confirmed cases (all)". (This is assuming that confirmed cases is defined as number of people ever confirmed to have the virus, as in /info/en/?search=Timeline_of_the_SARS_outbreak#/media/File:2003_Probable_cases_of_SARS_-_Worldwide.svg.) CSMR ( talk) 12:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok, here me out. If we change the colors of the infections from orange to red, and deaths to black. It may actually be more easy to read. This is entirely cosmetic and is 100% not needed. Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannelsluc ( talk • contribs) 15:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Since I don't really know how to use wikis for editing and will probably break the page, I did find https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/new-coronavirus-outbreak-affects-tourism-in-canada-as-confirmed-cases-in-china-climb basically the first person is recovering at home and is discharged from the hospital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:9620:365F:2138:65CF:E9F5:612D ( talk) 00:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I apologise for a slice of dyslexia. Golly gosh. Factrules ( talk) 04:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add a section that tracks the rate of growth outside of China. On the 29th there were 83 cases. 11 days later, there are over 300. The number of cases outside of China has doubled, twice in 10 days. This seems important. Thank you. 50.43.46.87 ( talk) 15:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Where it says 1000-9999, the 9 is hanging off the box a little bit. Looks a bit weird, so if anyone can fix it, that would be great. Dannelsluc ( talk) 19:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Should he be counted as an "American death"? It's so weird to consider any non-American American citizens "Americans" in the first place, but his death on Chinese soil complicates matters even further. Link.-- Adûnâi ( talk) 15:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Plagues do not care about citizenship. What matters is the location of the patient: where they acquired the disease, potential transmission, and care of the patient.
First, see the disclaimers above at Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak#Percent growth - @ Chrisvls and Doc James: made several relevant warnings there.
In the first table at
Template:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data/China medical cases by province, the number of new confirmed cases in PRC outside of Hubei has been stable at about 700-800 for 8 days. This is linear growth in the total number of confirmed cases, it's clearly not exponential growth. Unless these data are badly wrong (e.g. underreported, which seems unlikely outside of Hubei, where the hospital/medical system is not under the same crazy pressure), it seems quite likely that the epidemic has been contained become non-accelerating outside of Hubei: the linear growth is presumably a mix of local transmissions from the past few weeks and some Hubei-beyond-Hubei transmissions that get through the controls. So to me, this is good news.
However:
If someone could find a source that uses the equivalent of the data that we have here (2020-01-20 to 2020-02-05: 1 20 44 70 184 272 352 416 459 603 703 760 816 608 813 835 731 707), then of course that could be used on these Wikipedia pages. (Easy fast plot: paste the list of values into tr ' ' '\n' |nl -ba |graph -TX -m0 -S 16 in a terminal; this presumes that you have plotutils installed.) Boud ( talk) 14:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC) (terminology edit with strike; see below)
We could in principle make a graph and show it without interpretation. Boud ( talk) 14:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
"The cruise ship Diamond Princess is currently quarantined in Japanese waters and managed by the Japanese government. However WHO classifies the cases as "Cases on an international conveyance" and distinguishes them from Japan, although some sources include the cases in the Japanese count."
"although some sources include the cases in the Japanese count"
What are "some sources"?
Citation needed!-- Econ2018 ( talk) 13:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Are the infected World Dream passengers included in the Hong Kong figure? If so, should they be broken out like those on the Diamond Princess?
—WWoods (
talk)
21:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that there isn't a section on treatment, perhaps that can be added together with recovery of patients (if there are any notable ones). There is a section on vaccine development, but treatment with antiviral drugs is only mentioned in passing. I read that there is some success with such drugs, also some mixed results. Hzh ( talk) 10:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I have had a request to remove the images of Putin and Trump from the article, with reason given that the article is not political. Rather than just changing the page, I would like to hear if others think it is a good idea to keep or remove the images. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 04:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@FobTown: Not sure what you're trying to do with transplanting information from other sections. Calling a section #Propaganda is not NPOV. As #Censorship is a government tactic being used, it's been placed under management for relevancy. You're welcome to suggest alternatives here, but as your first edit to create such a section was reverted, this needs to be established in Talk first. Sleath56 ( talk) 01:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Instead of claiming
wp:undue how about just letting it grow and move it to own page, and trim and summarize?
Daniel.Cardenas (
talk)
06:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Support “2019-20 Novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV outbreak” or the proposed title rather than any title using “Wuhan”. Any list of the diseases where the WHO-adopted name uses a location simply makes WHO’s current position (to avoid using places in the common name of new diseases) clearly the wise position. (Who wants to go see the Ebola River next spring?)
I support being part of the group of media outlets and content publishers who follow WHO’s lead rather than part of the group who perpetuates a problematic convention.
I likewise oppose dropping “outbreak” from this page title. There is a page for the virus itself already, and this page is about the current outbreak. Should it become a pandemic, there can be a new discussion and the page can be moved to a title that reflects that new consensus.
Mkettleson (
talk)
15:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Support — I googled “novel coronavirus outbreak” and no wikipedia article made the first page of results, although multiple WHO and CDC articles did. This article should be findable on search engines by folks using the WHO naming convention. Mkettleson ( talk) 02:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. Along this whole crisis I've been watching efforts to wash this epidemic and one of the worse actions is that transmission rate graphic just below the total number. Every single epidemiologist is stating that the numbers are being kept artificially down and anything that is catering to that is just bad intel. And can we protect this article once and for all? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:F446:F601:E54C:48F5:879E:D778 ( talk) 14:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Every single epidemiologist is stating that the numbers are being kept artificially downSources, or it did not happen. You may spare us of your nakedly racist conspiracy theories. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 15:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
being kept artificially down(which you have not provided any reliable sourcing for) is a far more extreme claim than this "best guess". CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 00:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The graphic was merely tracking the daily changes in the chart (entitled: "2019–20 nCoV outbreak by country and territory") that preceded it. If the data in the graphic was invalid, then so is the chart. The chart data is taken from this site: https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/02/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/ The graphic was a very useful tool for tracking changes in the rate of growth. Perhaps a caveat regarding the source of the data would have been better than removal. If we aren't using China's numbers, then whose should be used? 67.69.69.198 ( talk) 01:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
References
How are people recovering if there is no vaccine or medical drug available for this virus yet. I'm really confused — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.119.185.38 ( talk) 18:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
The mortality rate for this coronavirus is below 10%, and people do have an immune system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pestilence Unchained ( talk • contribs) 09:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
DailyNK reports that according to internal sources, five people in the Sinuiju area have died from disease with symptoms similar to those of NCoV. The reports are unconfirmed, is this worth mentioning somehow? - ☣ Tourbillon A ? 22:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
So about one week ago, Japanese numbers of infected showed it as a sum of two numbers like this 94(26+68) with a sidenote stating Japanese divides infected into non-symptomatic and symphonic, however, this sidenote is gone now, leaving people confused about why there is this addition next to the number of infected — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathcounter ( talk • contribs) 11:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Can the article please be edited to remove incorrect references to "the coronavirus". It is often wrongly treated in the general media as though the virus is called "Corona", so that we would erroneously talk about a "Corona virus and a Measles virus".
The summary is that "coronavirus" should be used grammatically in the same way as "influenza" or "measles".
CORRECT: "There has been an outbreak of coronavirus/influenza."
INCORRECT: "There has been an outbreak of the coronavirus/influenza."
INCORRECT: "There has been an outbreak of the corona virus."
INCORRECT: "There has been an outbreak of corona."
CORRECT: "There has been a coronavirus/measles outbreak."
CORRECT: "Many people are concerned about the coronavirus/measles outbreak." (Used attributively.)
CORRECT: "The influenza/measles virus is quite contagious."
CORRECT: "The coronavirus virus is quite contagious." (Although it sounds sounds weird.)
Inserting "novel" doesn't change the above rules.
Current examples of incorrect grammar in the article include:
And so on.
Exception: incorrect grammar (or spelling) within quotations should generally be retained. For example:
"US President Donald Trump thanked Chinese President Xi Jinping "on behalf of the American People" on 24 January 2020 on Twitter, stating that "China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency" and declaring that "It will all work out well."[391]" (Emphasis added.)
Other options are to edit the text explicitly, or to add a note:
"stating that "China has been working very hard to contain coronavirus.""
or
"stating that "China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus
sic.""
—DIV ( 1.129.110.141 ( talk) 07:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC))
The result of the move request was: speedy/snow close. Another RM proposing exactly the same new title was closed literally a few hours ago. ( closed by non-admin page mover) feminist ( talk) 13:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak → 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak – Current page title is disturbing to remain and there are 2 highly known sources refer this virus as Novel coronavirus. [1] [2] Regice2020 ( talk) 08:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
References
_
Persistence of coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces and its inactivation with biocidal agents
Can someone add the information please?
We therefore reviewed the literature on all available information about the persistence of human and veterinary coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces as well as inactivation strategies with biocidal agents used for chemical disinfection, e.g. in healthcare facilities. The analysis of 22 studies reveals that human coronaviruses such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) coronavirus, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronavirus or endemic human coronaviruses (HCoV) can persist on inanimate surfaces like metal, glass or plastic for up to 9 days, but can be efficiently inactivated by surface disinfection procedures with 62-71% ethanol, 0.5% hydrogen peroxide or 0.1% sodium hypochlorite within 1 minute. Other biocidal agents such as 0.05-0.2% benzalkonium chloride or 0.02% chlorhexidine digluconate are less effective. As no specific therapies are available for 2019-nCoV, early containment and prevention of further spread will be crucial to stop the ongoing outbreak and to control this novel infectious thread.
https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/S0195-6701(20)30046-3/fulltext
-- 80.187.106.5 ( talk) 12:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)