![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
In the intitial phase of an epidemic, D/(D+R) is a known over-estimator, and D/C is a known under-estimator. See for example, https://medicalsciences.stackexchange.com/questions/21001/what-is-a-sophisticated-estimate-of-the-2019-ncov-fatality-rate . As is suggested in that link, I suggest a timecourse graph be added to the page. The graph would show the timecourse curves for the estimators D/C and D/(D+R), as well as annotated individual data points, such as (x,y) = (Jan 22, 18%) (that data point is for the first 41 cases as of Jan 22nd as detailed in the Jan 24th case-review paper in The Lancet) SailBelow ( talk) 18:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
@ SailBelow: Data was generated using the error function (erf), a 20% probability of death and a time delay for recovery compared to death (these parameter values were chosen to make the different plots easy to visualise - as opposed to a more realistic 2% probability of death).
See new discussion in Talk:Timeline_of_the_2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak_in_February_2020#About_the_case_statistics_section_size,_let's_try_to_reduce_the_size_of_the_templates_used robertsky ( talk) 07:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in December 2019 – January 2020 → Timeline of the COVID-19 outbreak in December 2019 – January 2020 – Virus has an official name by WHO 70.21.192.44 ( talk) 21:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2019 novel coronavirus which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 23:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
@AAAAA @TheRightKindOfDoctor - Sorry I haven't been keeping up.
One issue with D/(D+R) is that there seems to be a rule of thumb (for diseases in general) that the average time between illness onset and death is much shorter than the average time between illness onset and recovery. Suppose average death is at day 7, and average recovery is at day 12 (both numbers are fictitious). The offset is 5 days.
So perhaps the D/(D+R) calculation ought to incorporate an offset. For example use D on day N, and use R on day N+offset. For 2019nCoV, the offset is unknown. Could be 10 days, 2 days, 0 days, or -4 days.
I propose this question: is there an offset which stabilizes D/(D+R) trend? Is there an offset that makes the trend a (more or less) flat line?
SailBelow ( talk) 04:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
With its templates, this page is so big that it exceeds the capabilities of the Wikimedia software.
Specifically, it's "Post-expand include size" is larger than 2MB, causing templates near the end of the page to not be expanded. This means references don't show up.
The most straightforward thing to do is to either reduce the number of templates that are used or to split the article. The most logical split would be by time.
For technical details, see the explaination at the top of Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 06:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
A better way to show the number of cases would be a graph. The tables are huge and take up almost a full page. -- Colin dm ( talk) 16:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
The charts and table were the whole reason I kept checking this page daily. Please reinstate! Where else can I get the same data equally accessible? Henrik.levkowetz ( talk) 18:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I only came here to see the current table. A chart is __USELESS__. I'd like to see the numbers, in a table, like you removed. It's actually useful information, a chart is not at all useful. You've made this worthless by removing the tables and numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.136.167.204 ( talk) 18:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 22:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 22:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Read: 18 January. After the first 41 laboratory-confirmed cases on January 2 Chinese officials announced no new cases for the next 16 days, then reported 17 additional laboratory-confirmed cases. This brought the number of laboratory-confirmed cases in China to 62.
How come we have 41 added with 17 equals 62? 116.118.3.27 ( talk) 04:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I've created WikiProject COVID-19 as a temporary or permanent WikiProject and invite editors to use this space for discussing ways to improve coverage of the ongoing 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Please bring your ideas to the project/talk page. Stay safe, --- Another Believer ( Talk) 16:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I've created WikiProject COVID-19 as a temporary or permanent WikiProject and invite editors to use this space for discussing ways to improve coverage of the ongoing 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Please bring your ideas to the project/talk page. Stay safe, --- Another Believer ( Talk) 16:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Our timeline currently states, 26 December On 26 December 2019, a laboratory identified the coronavirus from the sample collected on 24 December as to be most closely related to a bat SARS-like coronavirus.[18]
Ref 18 takes me here
[2], where I can see that a sample was taken on the 24th, but I am given no confirmation of when sequencing occurred. Additional information including sample accession number, author, and a title don't help, as there's no journal given and I can't find an article title by this name (if one is being referenced).
According to the New England Journal of Medicine [3], the Chinese CDC completed gene sequencing one week later, on 3 January 2020. The article also states that the CCDC announced a novel CoV as the cause of the outbreak on 8 January, and released the genome on 10 January.
Based on this information I'm removing our entry for 26 December, unless we can find sources demonstrating that something specific happened on this date. - Darouet ( talk) 15:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
That reference was reference 19 you clicked. 18 was a Caixin article [7] titled 独家|新冠病毒基因测序溯源:警报是何时拉响的 which does seem to support the assertions that you edited out. 2604:2D80:520D:5E00:31B9:E23A:DD5B:260F ( talk) 22:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
On December 22, this patient's condition worsened and he entered the ICU, where doctors used various antibiotics to treat him ineffectively. Wuhan City Center Hospital respiratory medicine chief physician Professor Zhao Su told Caixin reporters, December 24, a deputy chief physician of the Department of Respiratory Medicine to this patient for bronchoscopic sampling, and then sent the patient's alveolar lavage fluid samples to a third-party testing institution Guangzhou Weizuan Genetic Technology Co... Generally, gene sequencing companies are supposed to feed back test results three days later, on December 27, but Microfar Gene did not give a written report. "They just called to inform us that it was a new coronavirus"... On February 21, 2020, the genetic testing information of this case was disclosed in an article on WeChat's "Weifeng Gene"... [According to the article] On December 27, the lab assembled the near-complete viral genome sequence, and the data were also shared with the Institute of Pathogenesis of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences. "It was basically confirmed that this patient's sample did indeed contain a novel virus similar to Bat SARS like coronavirus."
The second referenced source (
[9]) mentions the company as Vision Medicals
, not Visual Medicals
. --
MarioGom (
talk)
14:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Using the China morning post as a source does not substantiate credible documentation. There is not a single reference to said case in Chinese record where they specifically state the first case was December 8, 2019. [1] Furthermore even the world entities such as the Lancet corroborate only the December 8, 2019 reference. [2] The claim of the case in November specifically bears its origin within a Chinese ministers Lijian Zhao attempt to put the blame on the USA and insinuate they brought the virus to China and parroted the same day in the China morning post. There is "Zero" recognized medical history by any world recognized entity for said case. Wikipedia needs to be a factual record not a propaganda page. Hardrocker11969 ( talk) 13:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC) I want to add here for you all writing on this page that if you want to say something about November make it November 2017 when the Wuhan Institute on Virology was studying these same bats related to todays Corona virus and the specific genome that allows for person to person transmission. [3]
References
Is this WP:DUEWEIGHT for the beginning of the timeline? A single report from an anonymous source that has been denied by the corresponding authority does not look appropriate to start the timeline about the pandemic:
According to anonymous US military sources quoted by ABC News in April 2020, a November intelligence report by the US military's National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI) "warn[ed] that a contagion was sweeping through China’s Wuhan region, changing the patterns of life and business and posing a threat to the population". [1] The authenticity of this claim has been called into question because no concrete date was provided for the alleged NCMI report. Asked about the November warning on ABC's This Week, Defense Secretary Mark Esper told Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos: "I can't recall, George. But we have many people who watch this closely." On April 8, Colonel R. Shane Day, Director of the NCMI stated: "in the interest of transparency during this current public health crisis, we can confirm that media reporting about the existence/release of a National Center for Medical Intelligence Coronavirus-related product/assessment in November of 2019 is not correct. No such NCMI product exists."
-- MarioGom ( talk) 22:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |last1=
has generic name (
help)
My Chinese language skill is not so good, but it would seem that the patient referred is described, in the article from January 4, as having 重症肺炎, severe acute pneumonia and not 新冠肺炎, covid-19. In the article from January 14 the diagnose is said to be 过敏性紫癜, Henoch–Schönlein_purpura, which is severe, but his condition is bettering. The storyline of the two Chinese articles evolve around an engaged doctor taken seriously ill and transferred to intensive care, consequencing a very huge medical bill. Also his father and his wife are doctors. 87.49.146.68 ( talk) 07:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Update: No results when searching both articles for 新冠肺炎 'covid-19', 新型冠状病毒 'new coronary virus' and 冠状 'coronary/crown-shaped' 87.49.146.68 ( talk) 08:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Several quotes from President Trump are seeded throughout the timeline that serve only to cast a negative spin on the president; no other leader is treated this way. No other world leader leader is quoted with full sentences; but rather one, two, and three word snippets removed from all context. Even the W.H.O. mistakes and misstatements are omitted, and only positive statements are included.
There are several attributions of "United States government" where it is more accurate to use a "President Trump" attribution.
Tangentially, the entire timeline would benefit from being a dot-list outline instead of full prose; if this were done, the oddly slanted quotes would stand out plainly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeniedInformation ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
With no opposition, a split will be shortly carried through.
I think this article is getting rather crowded. It has recently reached 300KB in size with new information coming in at a fast rate. It is already 10 times the size of the average article, I don't think it's a good idea to keep expanding. I think it would be beneficial if the information present in the article be broken into two. I propose we split this article at the yar line and have two articles that cover the events of November/December and January respectively:
What do you guys think? --
Diriector_Doc┝
Talk
Contribs━━━┥
19:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
After over a week with no opposition, I took the liberty of starting two drafts of how the pages might look:
Let me know what you guys think. --
Diriector_Doc┝
Talk
Contribs━━━┥
19:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
This discussion has been open for a while now with no opposition. I'm going to leave it open for a few more days and if there are no further concerns, I will go ahead and implement the proposed split. --
Diriector_Doc┝
Talk
Contribs━━━┥
01:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
The sources on the 17 november case are not trustful at all. ScmPost is not a reliable primary source on the epidemic, and the guardian source literally says "The data obtained by the Post, which the Guardian has not been able to verify [...]". For now what is reliable is that there is a (non-market) pneumonia on 1 Dec and a few others in the next weeks. I'm not saying the 17 Nov part should be deleted but I think we should add a mention that this is a plausible rumor and that there will be without doubt more scientific papers about those early cases in a short time. Reuns ( talk) 21:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
According to SCMP's Mar 13 report, this first patient was the earliest documented patient confirmed to have Covid-19. This may not be the ‘patient zero’ who has yet to be confirmed. The Nov 17 disease contracted date was a trace-back by the reporter herself who has examined some government data directly. She also referred to a Lancet report which most likely is the one published January 24, 2020 "Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China". In the report, the first patient having symptom onset was Dec 1st. (Fig 1B of the report). This corroborated with SCMP's report since the duration from contracting the virus to onset of symptom can be up to 14 days. This patient was not linked to the Seafood Market and was most likely admitted to hospital around Dec 16-18 according to Lancet and SCMP. Given the Lancet report has been peer-reviewed and SCMP's reporter Josephine Ma is an experienced China hand with first-hand access to Government data, I think the information provided are reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dihorse ( talk • contribs) 08:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
SCMP is often saying nonsense, no idea why you think "Josephine Ma" is trustful when in the same time you are referring to scientific papers based on many official reports and written by the CDC as well as the ICU team of Wuhan's hospital. Reuns ( talk) 08:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
According to the government data seen by the Post, a 55 year-old from Hubei province could have been the first person to have contracted Covid-19 on November 17. From that date onwards, one to five new cases were reported each day. By December 15, the total number of infections stood at 27
The first case in the U.S. is listed under both the 20th & 21st. It would seem that the 20th date is based on a misleading/inaccurate NYT timeline that bundles the first case in the U.S. with the first case in other countries. The documentation from the CDC, WHO, and even the article linked by the NYT show that the first case was on the 21st. Yaakovaryeh ( talk) 21:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
This will be a bit talkative. I have looked over the beginning of the article and on impulse began to rephrase some of the paragraphs, probably as much for getting a grip on what had been going on - it's been years since I have followed the media. But I like texts, and that is my angle on the article. Concretely, what has me puzzled, is the section structure. I can vaguely understand different sorts of phenomena - the pandemic , talking about the pandemic (news reports), scientific engagements in the pandemic (those peer-revieved academic articles), government policies related to the pandemic, actual 'reallife' events that relates to the pandemic, however also actual 'reallife' reactions to talking about or to scientific engagements in or to government policies related to the pandemic. I think all these things have found their way into the article, and perhaps rightly so. But where does that leave the reader? (My usual interest is medieval and ancient history)
Maybe I'm just too impatient, and the article will over time settle to something else. But I turn to suggest an alternative section arrangement,
I hope to read some inspiring comments! The thing is, what I had in mind with rephrasing paragraphs, got me stuck with quite a lot of rearranging. This discussion is not about a forecomming edit. My plan is to ..get through at least some of the Chinese language sources, like the article from Caixin of 26 February.. and that might take awhile. Good luck with the writing out there. Sechinsic ( talk) 17:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
In the intitial phase of an epidemic, D/(D+R) is a known over-estimator, and D/C is a known under-estimator. See for example, https://medicalsciences.stackexchange.com/questions/21001/what-is-a-sophisticated-estimate-of-the-2019-ncov-fatality-rate . As is suggested in that link, I suggest a timecourse graph be added to the page. The graph would show the timecourse curves for the estimators D/C and D/(D+R), as well as annotated individual data points, such as (x,y) = (Jan 22, 18%) (that data point is for the first 41 cases as of Jan 22nd as detailed in the Jan 24th case-review paper in The Lancet) SailBelow ( talk) 18:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
@ SailBelow: Data was generated using the error function (erf), a 20% probability of death and a time delay for recovery compared to death (these parameter values were chosen to make the different plots easy to visualise - as opposed to a more realistic 2% probability of death).
See new discussion in Talk:Timeline_of_the_2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak_in_February_2020#About_the_case_statistics_section_size,_let's_try_to_reduce_the_size_of_the_templates_used robertsky ( talk) 07:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in December 2019 – January 2020 → Timeline of the COVID-19 outbreak in December 2019 – January 2020 – Virus has an official name by WHO 70.21.192.44 ( talk) 21:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2019 novel coronavirus which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 23:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
@AAAAA @TheRightKindOfDoctor - Sorry I haven't been keeping up.
One issue with D/(D+R) is that there seems to be a rule of thumb (for diseases in general) that the average time between illness onset and death is much shorter than the average time between illness onset and recovery. Suppose average death is at day 7, and average recovery is at day 12 (both numbers are fictitious). The offset is 5 days.
So perhaps the D/(D+R) calculation ought to incorporate an offset. For example use D on day N, and use R on day N+offset. For 2019nCoV, the offset is unknown. Could be 10 days, 2 days, 0 days, or -4 days.
I propose this question: is there an offset which stabilizes D/(D+R) trend? Is there an offset that makes the trend a (more or less) flat line?
SailBelow ( talk) 04:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
With its templates, this page is so big that it exceeds the capabilities of the Wikimedia software.
Specifically, it's "Post-expand include size" is larger than 2MB, causing templates near the end of the page to not be expanded. This means references don't show up.
The most straightforward thing to do is to either reduce the number of templates that are used or to split the article. The most logical split would be by time.
For technical details, see the explaination at the top of Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 06:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
A better way to show the number of cases would be a graph. The tables are huge and take up almost a full page. -- Colin dm ( talk) 16:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
The charts and table were the whole reason I kept checking this page daily. Please reinstate! Where else can I get the same data equally accessible? Henrik.levkowetz ( talk) 18:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I only came here to see the current table. A chart is __USELESS__. I'd like to see the numbers, in a table, like you removed. It's actually useful information, a chart is not at all useful. You've made this worthless by removing the tables and numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.136.167.204 ( talk) 18:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 22:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 22:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Read: 18 January. After the first 41 laboratory-confirmed cases on January 2 Chinese officials announced no new cases for the next 16 days, then reported 17 additional laboratory-confirmed cases. This brought the number of laboratory-confirmed cases in China to 62.
How come we have 41 added with 17 equals 62? 116.118.3.27 ( talk) 04:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I've created WikiProject COVID-19 as a temporary or permanent WikiProject and invite editors to use this space for discussing ways to improve coverage of the ongoing 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Please bring your ideas to the project/talk page. Stay safe, --- Another Believer ( Talk) 16:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I've created WikiProject COVID-19 as a temporary or permanent WikiProject and invite editors to use this space for discussing ways to improve coverage of the ongoing 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Please bring your ideas to the project/talk page. Stay safe, --- Another Believer ( Talk) 16:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Our timeline currently states, 26 December On 26 December 2019, a laboratory identified the coronavirus from the sample collected on 24 December as to be most closely related to a bat SARS-like coronavirus.[18]
Ref 18 takes me here
[2], where I can see that a sample was taken on the 24th, but I am given no confirmation of when sequencing occurred. Additional information including sample accession number, author, and a title don't help, as there's no journal given and I can't find an article title by this name (if one is being referenced).
According to the New England Journal of Medicine [3], the Chinese CDC completed gene sequencing one week later, on 3 January 2020. The article also states that the CCDC announced a novel CoV as the cause of the outbreak on 8 January, and released the genome on 10 January.
Based on this information I'm removing our entry for 26 December, unless we can find sources demonstrating that something specific happened on this date. - Darouet ( talk) 15:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
That reference was reference 19 you clicked. 18 was a Caixin article [7] titled 独家|新冠病毒基因测序溯源:警报是何时拉响的 which does seem to support the assertions that you edited out. 2604:2D80:520D:5E00:31B9:E23A:DD5B:260F ( talk) 22:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
On December 22, this patient's condition worsened and he entered the ICU, where doctors used various antibiotics to treat him ineffectively. Wuhan City Center Hospital respiratory medicine chief physician Professor Zhao Su told Caixin reporters, December 24, a deputy chief physician of the Department of Respiratory Medicine to this patient for bronchoscopic sampling, and then sent the patient's alveolar lavage fluid samples to a third-party testing institution Guangzhou Weizuan Genetic Technology Co... Generally, gene sequencing companies are supposed to feed back test results three days later, on December 27, but Microfar Gene did not give a written report. "They just called to inform us that it was a new coronavirus"... On February 21, 2020, the genetic testing information of this case was disclosed in an article on WeChat's "Weifeng Gene"... [According to the article] On December 27, the lab assembled the near-complete viral genome sequence, and the data were also shared with the Institute of Pathogenesis of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences. "It was basically confirmed that this patient's sample did indeed contain a novel virus similar to Bat SARS like coronavirus."
The second referenced source (
[9]) mentions the company as Vision Medicals
, not Visual Medicals
. --
MarioGom (
talk)
14:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Using the China morning post as a source does not substantiate credible documentation. There is not a single reference to said case in Chinese record where they specifically state the first case was December 8, 2019. [1] Furthermore even the world entities such as the Lancet corroborate only the December 8, 2019 reference. [2] The claim of the case in November specifically bears its origin within a Chinese ministers Lijian Zhao attempt to put the blame on the USA and insinuate they brought the virus to China and parroted the same day in the China morning post. There is "Zero" recognized medical history by any world recognized entity for said case. Wikipedia needs to be a factual record not a propaganda page. Hardrocker11969 ( talk) 13:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC) I want to add here for you all writing on this page that if you want to say something about November make it November 2017 when the Wuhan Institute on Virology was studying these same bats related to todays Corona virus and the specific genome that allows for person to person transmission. [3]
References
Is this WP:DUEWEIGHT for the beginning of the timeline? A single report from an anonymous source that has been denied by the corresponding authority does not look appropriate to start the timeline about the pandemic:
According to anonymous US military sources quoted by ABC News in April 2020, a November intelligence report by the US military's National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI) "warn[ed] that a contagion was sweeping through China’s Wuhan region, changing the patterns of life and business and posing a threat to the population". [1] The authenticity of this claim has been called into question because no concrete date was provided for the alleged NCMI report. Asked about the November warning on ABC's This Week, Defense Secretary Mark Esper told Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos: "I can't recall, George. But we have many people who watch this closely." On April 8, Colonel R. Shane Day, Director of the NCMI stated: "in the interest of transparency during this current public health crisis, we can confirm that media reporting about the existence/release of a National Center for Medical Intelligence Coronavirus-related product/assessment in November of 2019 is not correct. No such NCMI product exists."
-- MarioGom ( talk) 22:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |last1=
has generic name (
help)
My Chinese language skill is not so good, but it would seem that the patient referred is described, in the article from January 4, as having 重症肺炎, severe acute pneumonia and not 新冠肺炎, covid-19. In the article from January 14 the diagnose is said to be 过敏性紫癜, Henoch–Schönlein_purpura, which is severe, but his condition is bettering. The storyline of the two Chinese articles evolve around an engaged doctor taken seriously ill and transferred to intensive care, consequencing a very huge medical bill. Also his father and his wife are doctors. 87.49.146.68 ( talk) 07:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Update: No results when searching both articles for 新冠肺炎 'covid-19', 新型冠状病毒 'new coronary virus' and 冠状 'coronary/crown-shaped' 87.49.146.68 ( talk) 08:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Several quotes from President Trump are seeded throughout the timeline that serve only to cast a negative spin on the president; no other leader is treated this way. No other world leader leader is quoted with full sentences; but rather one, two, and three word snippets removed from all context. Even the W.H.O. mistakes and misstatements are omitted, and only positive statements are included.
There are several attributions of "United States government" where it is more accurate to use a "President Trump" attribution.
Tangentially, the entire timeline would benefit from being a dot-list outline instead of full prose; if this were done, the oddly slanted quotes would stand out plainly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeniedInformation ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
With no opposition, a split will be shortly carried through.
I think this article is getting rather crowded. It has recently reached 300KB in size with new information coming in at a fast rate. It is already 10 times the size of the average article, I don't think it's a good idea to keep expanding. I think it would be beneficial if the information present in the article be broken into two. I propose we split this article at the yar line and have two articles that cover the events of November/December and January respectively:
What do you guys think? --
Diriector_Doc┝
Talk
Contribs━━━┥
19:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
After over a week with no opposition, I took the liberty of starting two drafts of how the pages might look:
Let me know what you guys think. --
Diriector_Doc┝
Talk
Contribs━━━┥
19:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
This discussion has been open for a while now with no opposition. I'm going to leave it open for a few more days and if there are no further concerns, I will go ahead and implement the proposed split. --
Diriector_Doc┝
Talk
Contribs━━━┥
01:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
The sources on the 17 november case are not trustful at all. ScmPost is not a reliable primary source on the epidemic, and the guardian source literally says "The data obtained by the Post, which the Guardian has not been able to verify [...]". For now what is reliable is that there is a (non-market) pneumonia on 1 Dec and a few others in the next weeks. I'm not saying the 17 Nov part should be deleted but I think we should add a mention that this is a plausible rumor and that there will be without doubt more scientific papers about those early cases in a short time. Reuns ( talk) 21:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
According to SCMP's Mar 13 report, this first patient was the earliest documented patient confirmed to have Covid-19. This may not be the ‘patient zero’ who has yet to be confirmed. The Nov 17 disease contracted date was a trace-back by the reporter herself who has examined some government data directly. She also referred to a Lancet report which most likely is the one published January 24, 2020 "Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China". In the report, the first patient having symptom onset was Dec 1st. (Fig 1B of the report). This corroborated with SCMP's report since the duration from contracting the virus to onset of symptom can be up to 14 days. This patient was not linked to the Seafood Market and was most likely admitted to hospital around Dec 16-18 according to Lancet and SCMP. Given the Lancet report has been peer-reviewed and SCMP's reporter Josephine Ma is an experienced China hand with first-hand access to Government data, I think the information provided are reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dihorse ( talk • contribs) 08:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
SCMP is often saying nonsense, no idea why you think "Josephine Ma" is trustful when in the same time you are referring to scientific papers based on many official reports and written by the CDC as well as the ICU team of Wuhan's hospital. Reuns ( talk) 08:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
According to the government data seen by the Post, a 55 year-old from Hubei province could have been the first person to have contracted Covid-19 on November 17. From that date onwards, one to five new cases were reported each day. By December 15, the total number of infections stood at 27
The first case in the U.S. is listed under both the 20th & 21st. It would seem that the 20th date is based on a misleading/inaccurate NYT timeline that bundles the first case in the U.S. with the first case in other countries. The documentation from the CDC, WHO, and even the article linked by the NYT show that the first case was on the 21st. Yaakovaryeh ( talk) 21:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
This will be a bit talkative. I have looked over the beginning of the article and on impulse began to rephrase some of the paragraphs, probably as much for getting a grip on what had been going on - it's been years since I have followed the media. But I like texts, and that is my angle on the article. Concretely, what has me puzzled, is the section structure. I can vaguely understand different sorts of phenomena - the pandemic , talking about the pandemic (news reports), scientific engagements in the pandemic (those peer-revieved academic articles), government policies related to the pandemic, actual 'reallife' events that relates to the pandemic, however also actual 'reallife' reactions to talking about or to scientific engagements in or to government policies related to the pandemic. I think all these things have found their way into the article, and perhaps rightly so. But where does that leave the reader? (My usual interest is medieval and ancient history)
Maybe I'm just too impatient, and the article will over time settle to something else. But I turn to suggest an alternative section arrangement,
I hope to read some inspiring comments! The thing is, what I had in mind with rephrasing paragraphs, got me stuck with quite a lot of rearranging. This discussion is not about a forecomming edit. My plan is to ..get through at least some of the Chinese language sources, like the article from Caixin of 26 February.. and that might take awhile. Good luck with the writing out there. Sechinsic ( talk) 17:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)