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 |
I keep seeing an illustration of the projected change in the number of cases when social distancing is used. One would be very useful here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
20 (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.
The article refers to deaths due to polio. I hadn't realized it was that dangerous, unless of course you fall off the pony. E Eng 05:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, the little movies or animations are done very well, congratulations. Could you make them in a way that they do not move unless the reader clicks on them? They are extremely distracting while I read. Kind regards, Ziko ( talk) 20:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I've wikilinked this article from the intro sections of Coronavirus disease 2019 and 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic, so this page should be getting additional views. I've added a pageviews tracker above so we can see. Sdkb ( talk) 19:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Social media is starting to pass this around and the gaussian doens't match what they are seeing in the mainstream news reports. Media show the exponential because it is number of cases, a count. The gaussian is number of cases per unit of time, a RATE. Inherently hard to understand. Total cases is what the media report and this ... which is a NIFTY ANIMATION by the way ... should match. Why are you showing it? No one without a background in functions & distributions is going to understand how the two relate to each other. Understanding is key to effecting change. If they don't understand it they won't get engaged. Easy to "flatten" the exponential and animate it in exactly the same way. Please make this simple change! THANK YOU.
Here is an example: The COVID-19 tracker at Johns Hopkins university. Just like almost every other virus information cite in the universe, it uses an exponential (see bottom right of window) TheyoungmanandtheC ( talk) 01:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop ( talk) My advice would be simply create the same animation for the exponential, and put it top of article with suitable brief explanation. Explaining the connection is a mathematical exercise that may ... or may not ... be of interest to sophisticated readers coming here for info about "flatten the curve". If I had to guess I'd say NOT because if someone really wants to understand differentiation & integration of functions there are other great articles for that. This page is more like general reader who wants quick understanding of what the CDC is talking about. And maybe grab that animation to send all over the social media landscape. Now if CDC is getting it wrong too and talking about rates not counts, then we're stuck. :) Thanks for listening. TheyoungmanandtheC ( talk) 05:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
OK I've thought about this some more, and maybe RATE really is what you want. If it's rate that overwhelms the healthcare system. So an animation that translates rate into count and back again would be very cool! Thanks for what you are doing. TheyoungmanandtheC ( talk) 13:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Is there really a need for this article, when we have a nearly identical double: Isolation (health care)? Tshuva ( talk) 15:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I'll repeat my statement on my talk page. [Comments are referring to WP:SURPRISE] Most themes covered in the section are mentioned a lot with flattening the curve so it could be assumed they are in the correct place. I think that point could be made for most redirects in my opinion like the 3 million redirects to 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic ( 2019–20 outbreak of North East Respiratory Syndrome(NERS) (NERS-nCoV) which could be interpreted as something complacently different or Wuhan outbreak which could mean a hole range of things in my opinion). — RealFakeKim T 17:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Anyone who follows the news these days will have heard repeated references to social distancing from public health experts, and specific discussion of the measures described in this article, which are being implemented in over 100 countries at this time. Cmacauley ( talk) 05:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I have removed one of the images from this article for three reasons.
1. Having three (consecutive) images by the same private company (Spinoff.co.nz) comes across as a kind of ad injection. 2. So many animated images distract from the content of the article. 3. The image might have fit better in an article about cartoons or greetings. This article is neither.
2605:E000:141D:C2FD:FDB9:CF27:60ED:4ACC ( talk) 07:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
A University of Sydney study says that social distancing has to be at least 80% compliant for it to be effective. Also, time spans are given for COVID-19:
If social distancing measures were adopted by at least 80 percent of the Australian population, we could expect to see a control of the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic in just over three months, new research by the University of Sydney has found. Led by Complex Systems academic and pandemic modelling expert, Professor Mikhail Prokopenko, the study also revealed that social distancing would be an unproductive measure if adopted by less than 70 percent of the population.
Even though this is stated for Australia, they might be similar to other countries with similar starting points. Is it worth including this information in the article? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Should we move some of what is in the "effectiveness" section into "history" or vice versa? There is a lot of cross-over. Whispyhistory ( talk) 14:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I believe a link to the Stay-at-home order is needed on this article, and possibly warrents a section under the effectiveness section linking to Stay-at-home order as the main article. But I'm not furthering this myself after by previous 1st attempt proved problematic. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 16:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I have uploaded 4 variations on the same chart (.png & .jpg, with & without supporting data) depicting the effects & timing of social distancing, each having with Weekly excess flu death rates per 100,000 for 4 US cities final 16 weeks of 1918 in the title. They depict rates for the cities of Boston, Philadelphia, St. Louis, & Seattle. They are in commons:Category:Spanish flu in the United States charts. I am going to leave it to other editors as to where & whether to place them or not.
I think the biggest take away of the chart is to avoid a big parade at the start of a pandemic.
Peaceray ( talk) 16:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
WHO is changing the phrase "social distancing" to "physical distancing" to encourage people to stay connected through online means during the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic. [1]
Therefore, I recommend changing the article lead from "Social distancing is a set..." to "Social distancing (also known as physical distancing) is a set..." 162.221.124.29 ( talk) 02:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved at the current time. Many arguments were made that the "better" title is the one proposed. I appeal to @ Jimbo Wales: to move the article if indeed that is true. In the meantime, a consensus has certainly developed that the current title is still the common name and is good enough as a title to remain. We cannot move an article against the consensus of Wikipedians. ( non-admin closure) Red Slash 23:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Social distancing → Physical distancing – Major bodies, such as the WHO have gone out with different terminology. Carl Fredrik talk 07:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
References
"Her Majesty's Government"and
"the WHO"is that
"the WHO"has articulated an argument for the phrase "physical distancing". Has
"Her Majesty's Government"articulated an argument for the phrase "social distancing"? Bus stop ( talk) 14:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
"[T]he WHO"has articulated an argument for the phrase "physical distancing". Has
"Her Majesty's Government"articulated an argument for the phrase "social distancing"? Bus stop ( talk) 01:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
But our choice of title should not follow most common use in the face of clear guidance to the contrary.Why shouldn't it? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose at least for now per WP:COMMONNAME. Social distancing is a far more common phrase than physical distancing, and if in a month or so physical distancing is the phrase widely used, I think a case could be made, but I think the damage may be done. HunterAlexBrown ( talk) 08:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Recognizabilty
and Naturalness
, though probably physical distancing re Precision
. Conciseness
favors neither. Consistency
points ultimately to
WP:NCMED which specifies "name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name)", but this isn't really a medical term. Overall, criteria favor social distancing. —
RCraig09 (
talk) 15:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)I submit that the "Flatten the curve" gif and caption cogently convey the effectiveness and importance of these measures, leaving readers better informed and wiser. The gif is particularly salient given that the vast bulk of readers of this page are looking to better understand the current response to COVID-19, per the daily pageviews graph at the top of this page. The Lazzaretto is interesting but historical. We're not currently shunning lepers. Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 21:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
References
A key issue for epidemiologists is helping policy makers decide the main objectives of mitigation—e.g., minimising morbidity and associated mortality, avoiding an epidemic peak that overwhelms health-care services, keeping the effects on the economy within manageable levels, and flattening the epidemic curve to wait for vaccine development and manufacture on scale and antiviral drug therapies.
References
A comic about how to greet people doesn't seem to me like encyclopedic content in an article about social distancing. See WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:INDISCRIMINATE — Omegatron ( talk) 21:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment re. specificity of term "social distancing": if one were at all honest about it, that term is clearly prevalent in disability literature, and thus not at all specific to infectious disease prevention (see e.g. Google Scholar). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.85.135.133 ( talk) 05:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps this animation is more clear than the simulation currently used. I have not edited this article before, nor even read it fully, so I'll leave this here. Here is a webm-version (renaming already requested). Greetings, Eissink ( talk) 20:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC).
I'm still not totally comfortable with the series of graphics that has taken over the article. They're accessible, yes, but we can be accessible without being cartoonish, and the extremely informal font in particular just doesn't feel appropriate for an encyclopedia, especially for a page on a serious medical topic. They also don't carry as much informational weight or medical authority — for instance, it's clear that for the "alternatives to social distancing" graphic, the artist just drew an arbitrary line saying "okay, if the response is strong but short-term, I'm going to draw cases going up this much". Compare that to something like the excellent (albeit not freely licensed) article the Washington Post put out about this, which uses some statistics and actual simulation to give the results more credence. I'm not going to say we should remove the graphics since I don't know of anything better currently available to replace them with (and yes, I recognize that criticism is cheap), but I do think we ought to recognize that they aren't the ideal, and if something better is created/found, we ought to be open to replacement. Sdkb ( talk) 05:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
External image | |
---|---|
https://i2.wp.com/flowingdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/flatten-the-curve-smaller.gif?fit=670%2C565&ssl=1] Animation from Twitter user @axlrdk. Schematic based on a number of different MEDRS-sourced concepts |
I understand it looks at an odd with other wikipedia articles but at this emergency its absolutely okay as it loks like some emergency "How to" bulletins. Later on more realistic graphic may be added . btw i am comortable with cartoonistic graphics. RIT RAJARSHI ( talk) 05:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Jesus, let me say it again: slow the animations down. The new "billiards" animation is very good, but... I have a degree in applied math, I know exactly what it illustrates, but I had to watch it over and over and over to make sense of it because it's too fast. Slow it down! Way down! E Eng 20:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Is there a way that the user can control animation speed? It would be my preference. A step through image by image would also be a good alternative. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
hi friends, i'm based in germany and read the german article about social distancing. problem: the first couple of images were complex and hard to grasp. why so complicated when social distancing is about people keeping at a distance from each other? so i thought, why not create an image which at the first glance shows strangely distanced people in a neutral environment. call it an eyecatcher which tells every visitor: uh, that's what this article is about!
i've seen the discussion about the cartoons in this article. problematic indeed. my image is not cartoonish at all. but it's an illustration, an abstract way to lead the visitor into the article. when i read in → the revert that that image "does not help at all" by User:EEng, i'm puzzled.
the current images are complex to grasp; the first one transports a message about the implications social distancing might have, not about social distancing.
think about it, folks! wikipedia is for everyone, not for academics only. Maximilian ( talk) 09:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
"Historically, leper colonies and lazarettos were established as a means of preventing the spread of leprosy and other contagious diseases through social distancing,[8] until transmission was understood and effective treatments invented."I think the disease of leprosy, in the Middle Ages, was only known when the symptoms were obvious. Bus stop ( talk) 21:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, the little movies or animations are done very well, congratulations. Could you make them in a way that they do not move unless the reader clicks on them? They are extremely distracting while I read. Kind regards, Ziko ( talk) 20:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
As for this graphic I would make a few changes but I like it. For "Number of people infected" I would have it say "Number of people infected with and without social distancing". And I would change "without precautions" to "without social distancing". And I would change "social distancing" to "with social distancing". (The dotted line "Health care capacity" I would leave unchanged.) Bus stop ( talk) 21:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Anyone know if we have a phabricator ticket open about this? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Can you make graphics that are non-moving and printable, like having each step be a separate part of a bigger image, comic-book style? 203.211.55.242 ( talk) 02:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
This appears to require clicking to play but not indication that one has to click to play... Does it work like this for others? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
External image | |
---|---|
the new graphic |
Goran tek-en from the Graphics Lab has kindly created a new version of the flattening the curve graphic that is available to view at this link. How does it compare for you all to the current more cartoonish graphic we're using? Feedback is welcome at the Graphics Lab at this link if there are modifications you'd like to see. Sdkb ( talk) 16:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Notice:
Interested editors here may want to contribute to
that discussion as it concerns choosing the most appropriate "Flatten the curve" media. —
RCraig09 (
talk) 01:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
to mix two different intentions
to mix two different meanings
isn`t scientific
WHO:
german language wikipedia:
Räumliche Distanzierung
-- Über-Blick ( talk) 08:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I think this article could use a history section if anyone is inclined to add one. Sdkb ( talk) 23:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
These two aspects of disease control are fundamentally different, aren't they? Obviously they can be part of an overall strategy, and have similarities, by the one is not the other? Arcturus ( talk) 14:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
"It involves keeping a distance of six feet or two meters from others and avoiding gathering together in large groups" That's not necessarily true. If a particular government or health authority were to recommend 1.5 metres, or 3 metres, then it would still be social distancing. So the distance of six feet or 2 metres isn't intrinsic to the definition (and besides, six feet doesn't equal 2 metres but only about 1.83. 86.191.247.118 ( talk) 15:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Relative discussions are copied here from the Physical distancing talk page for convenience
Hello everyone, Physical distancing is increasingly substituting the old term due to increasing concerns of the inevitable consequences including psychiatric conditions The Mental Health Consequences of COVID-19 and Physical Distancing: The Need for Prevention and Early Intervention. However, this is the only way I know to switch the pages. Please guide me if there is a better way or proceed with your own way. I appreciate you taking the time to correct it Behzad Azarmju M.D. ( talk) 23:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC).
Technically isolation, separation, or distancing to prevent transmission of infections are physical not social occurences in nature. However, they can necessitate some social isolation [Mdr 1] which has attenuated with the novel communication technologies as well as deprivation from physical contact benefits [Mdr 2]. Applying the term "social distancing" for this purpose is simply incorrect [Mdr 3] and many times implys the "social isolation" [Mdr 4]. I believe the pages should be switched if the Wikipedia wants to stay loyal to the science. The term was being used predominantly for the psychosocial purposes before March 2020 [Mdr 5] [Mdr 6] [Mdr 7] [Mdr 8]. Those definitions must be on top of the page in an encyclopedia. Then the historically unique overwhelming situation of the outbreak helped an incorrect (or at least rare) attribution boost dramatically in a very short period of time in the middle of the March and now has started to decline [Mdr 9]. It's time for a revision. The accumulative usage of the old term is higher but the new term is being used more and more everyday, exponentially [Mdr 10] and is not much less common than old term if the previous uses of the latter is excluded [Mdr 11] Also, I would like to draw your attention to some of the main world references (WHO and englophone health ministries): [Mdr 12] [Mdr 13] [Mdr 14] [Mdr 15] [Mdr 16] [Mdr 17] [Mdr 18] Behzad Azarmju M.D. ( talk) 07:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
After all, can we deny the effect Wikipedia has on earth? Shall applying recommendations from health authorities contribute to improving lives of potentially billions. Wikipedia is more than a social media to just relay the discourse. This is about a novel concept in human history in this scale rather than a name being excluded from WP:COMMONNAME. Behzad Azarmju M.D. ( talk) 23:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
A second request for move 16 April 2020 references
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: |archive-date=
/ |archive-url=
timestamp mismatch; 2020-03-26 suggested (
help)
I think we don't want this page to mirror what happened over at Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 or at Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic (where there is currently a move moratorium)... Given the outcome of the recent move discussion and the fact that, despite that, individual editors seems to have taken it onto themselves to solve this major issue, I think a moratorium on move requests for the short term (1 or 2 months?) would be in order. What do you think? 107.190.33.254 ( talk) 20:27, 17 April 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) 02:13, 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) 04:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to solicit some feedback on the topic of whether "social distancing" includes a decrease in activity outside the home. I see this as separate from the question about calling it social vs. physical distancing; you could substitute "physical distancing" below and everything would hold.
I look forward to seeing what others think. Kudu ~I/O~ 22:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
The formula (or "The Math") is less than helpfull. No explanation of why the sum is taken over the range n=0, …, 6 (presumably each $n$ represents five days, the incubation period accordig to the source). R0ⁿ would be 0 (except possibly when n=0), the expression ought to be ΣR₀ⁿ. And the formula is the same regardless of exposure levels ($a$ and $f$ in the text). And what's with the arrows and crossed over viruses for 50%? The graphics seems to indicate that 50% less exposure means no viruses, while in the "now" and 75% cases the intial person "INFECTS". Also, a six feet distance seems to be equated to 50% less exposure, which is contradicted by the definition section of the article. E5150-00000000000 ( talk) 13:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Some publishing platforms expose full publication history and peer-review, so if you follow the link to the article you get the updated version (or notice of retraction) and comments / reviews. Others, like PNAS, don't. Hence better do some search and provide external peer-reviews / commentaries if available, beside that of the article/paper. E.g. please note that ref(17) looks blatantly flawed [1], so worth pairing its citation with e.g. the following https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/mario-molina-coronavirus-face-masks-pnas
thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.233.67 ( talk) 16:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
References
Calling this phenomenon "social distancing" is an unfortunate misnomer. Social distancing should mean developing social distance. What this article is about is spatial distancing. I realise that "social distancing" as a term has caught on now, but clearly the words were poorly thought out or understood when the phrase was coined and propagated. These days since English wikipedia is translated into many other languages, please do be mindful that although errors like this cause native English speakers to be non-plussed until they deduce from the context what was actually meant despite what was said, such oversights can result in even more confusing phraseology after automatic translation. 49.181.229.49 ( talk) 13:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Look at
Google Trends.
"Social distancing" is still being searched about thirty times (30 X) as much as "physical distancing". Today's Google hit count for "social distancing" is 742 million, versus <17 million for "physical distancing" (about a 43:1 ratio). Though arguably the latter term is more 'precise' it's clearly still time to follow
WP:COMMONNAME's guidance that "Wikipedia . . . generally prefers the name that is most commonly used" by sources. (It's not convincing reasoning to state "I feel like sometimes COMMONNANE does not need to be applied"). —
RCraig09 (
talk) 17:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I was surprised to find a few minutes ago some English language references in the companion French language article that I couldn't find in this article. You may know about them and don't cite them, because what they say is covered in other things currently cited. If not, you might consider them.
Thanks for your work in creating this article and bringing it to its current state. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 12:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
[1] Derek K Chu, Elie A Akl, Stephanie Duda and Karla Solo, « Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis », The Lancet, June 2020, S0140673620311429 (PMCID PMC7263814, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9.
[2] Prateek Bahl, Con Doolan, Charitha de Silva et Abrar Ahmad Chughtai, « Airborne or Droplet Precautions for Health Workers Treating Coronavirus Disease 2019? », The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 16 April 2020, jiaa189 (ISSN 0022-1899 et 1537-6613, PMID 32301491, PMCID PMC7184471, DOI 10.1093/infdis/jiaa189.
[3] Alyssa C Fears, William B Klimstra, Paul Duprex and Amy Hartman, « Comparative dynamic aerosol efficiencies of three emergent coronaviruses and the unusual persistence of SARS-CoV-2 in aerosol suspensions », medRxiv (prépublication), Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS), 18 April 2020 (DOI 10.1101/2020.04.13.20063784.
[4] C Raina MacIntyre and Quanyi Wang, « Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection for prevention of COVID-19 », The Lancet, June 2020, S0140673620311831 (DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31183-1.
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 |
I keep seeing an illustration of the projected change in the number of cases when social distancing is used. One would be very useful here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
20 (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.
The article refers to deaths due to polio. I hadn't realized it was that dangerous, unless of course you fall off the pony. E Eng 05:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, the little movies or animations are done very well, congratulations. Could you make them in a way that they do not move unless the reader clicks on them? They are extremely distracting while I read. Kind regards, Ziko ( talk) 20:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I've wikilinked this article from the intro sections of Coronavirus disease 2019 and 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic, so this page should be getting additional views. I've added a pageviews tracker above so we can see. Sdkb ( talk) 19:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Social media is starting to pass this around and the gaussian doens't match what they are seeing in the mainstream news reports. Media show the exponential because it is number of cases, a count. The gaussian is number of cases per unit of time, a RATE. Inherently hard to understand. Total cases is what the media report and this ... which is a NIFTY ANIMATION by the way ... should match. Why are you showing it? No one without a background in functions & distributions is going to understand how the two relate to each other. Understanding is key to effecting change. If they don't understand it they won't get engaged. Easy to "flatten" the exponential and animate it in exactly the same way. Please make this simple change! THANK YOU.
Here is an example: The COVID-19 tracker at Johns Hopkins university. Just like almost every other virus information cite in the universe, it uses an exponential (see bottom right of window) TheyoungmanandtheC ( talk) 01:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop ( talk) My advice would be simply create the same animation for the exponential, and put it top of article with suitable brief explanation. Explaining the connection is a mathematical exercise that may ... or may not ... be of interest to sophisticated readers coming here for info about "flatten the curve". If I had to guess I'd say NOT because if someone really wants to understand differentiation & integration of functions there are other great articles for that. This page is more like general reader who wants quick understanding of what the CDC is talking about. And maybe grab that animation to send all over the social media landscape. Now if CDC is getting it wrong too and talking about rates not counts, then we're stuck. :) Thanks for listening. TheyoungmanandtheC ( talk) 05:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
OK I've thought about this some more, and maybe RATE really is what you want. If it's rate that overwhelms the healthcare system. So an animation that translates rate into count and back again would be very cool! Thanks for what you are doing. TheyoungmanandtheC ( talk) 13:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Is there really a need for this article, when we have a nearly identical double: Isolation (health care)? Tshuva ( talk) 15:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I'll repeat my statement on my talk page. [Comments are referring to WP:SURPRISE] Most themes covered in the section are mentioned a lot with flattening the curve so it could be assumed they are in the correct place. I think that point could be made for most redirects in my opinion like the 3 million redirects to 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic ( 2019–20 outbreak of North East Respiratory Syndrome(NERS) (NERS-nCoV) which could be interpreted as something complacently different or Wuhan outbreak which could mean a hole range of things in my opinion). — RealFakeKim T 17:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Anyone who follows the news these days will have heard repeated references to social distancing from public health experts, and specific discussion of the measures described in this article, which are being implemented in over 100 countries at this time. Cmacauley ( talk) 05:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I have removed one of the images from this article for three reasons.
1. Having three (consecutive) images by the same private company (Spinoff.co.nz) comes across as a kind of ad injection. 2. So many animated images distract from the content of the article. 3. The image might have fit better in an article about cartoons or greetings. This article is neither.
2605:E000:141D:C2FD:FDB9:CF27:60ED:4ACC ( talk) 07:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
A University of Sydney study says that social distancing has to be at least 80% compliant for it to be effective. Also, time spans are given for COVID-19:
If social distancing measures were adopted by at least 80 percent of the Australian population, we could expect to see a control of the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic in just over three months, new research by the University of Sydney has found. Led by Complex Systems academic and pandemic modelling expert, Professor Mikhail Prokopenko, the study also revealed that social distancing would be an unproductive measure if adopted by less than 70 percent of the population.
Even though this is stated for Australia, they might be similar to other countries with similar starting points. Is it worth including this information in the article? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Should we move some of what is in the "effectiveness" section into "history" or vice versa? There is a lot of cross-over. Whispyhistory ( talk) 14:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I believe a link to the Stay-at-home order is needed on this article, and possibly warrents a section under the effectiveness section linking to Stay-at-home order as the main article. But I'm not furthering this myself after by previous 1st attempt proved problematic. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 16:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I have uploaded 4 variations on the same chart (.png & .jpg, with & without supporting data) depicting the effects & timing of social distancing, each having with Weekly excess flu death rates per 100,000 for 4 US cities final 16 weeks of 1918 in the title. They depict rates for the cities of Boston, Philadelphia, St. Louis, & Seattle. They are in commons:Category:Spanish flu in the United States charts. I am going to leave it to other editors as to where & whether to place them or not.
I think the biggest take away of the chart is to avoid a big parade at the start of a pandemic.
Peaceray ( talk) 16:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
WHO is changing the phrase "social distancing" to "physical distancing" to encourage people to stay connected through online means during the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic. [1]
Therefore, I recommend changing the article lead from "Social distancing is a set..." to "Social distancing (also known as physical distancing) is a set..." 162.221.124.29 ( talk) 02:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved at the current time. Many arguments were made that the "better" title is the one proposed. I appeal to @ Jimbo Wales: to move the article if indeed that is true. In the meantime, a consensus has certainly developed that the current title is still the common name and is good enough as a title to remain. We cannot move an article against the consensus of Wikipedians. ( non-admin closure) Red Slash 23:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Social distancing → Physical distancing – Major bodies, such as the WHO have gone out with different terminology. Carl Fredrik talk 07:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
References
"Her Majesty's Government"and
"the WHO"is that
"the WHO"has articulated an argument for the phrase "physical distancing". Has
"Her Majesty's Government"articulated an argument for the phrase "social distancing"? Bus stop ( talk) 14:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
"[T]he WHO"has articulated an argument for the phrase "physical distancing". Has
"Her Majesty's Government"articulated an argument for the phrase "social distancing"? Bus stop ( talk) 01:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
But our choice of title should not follow most common use in the face of clear guidance to the contrary.Why shouldn't it? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose at least for now per WP:COMMONNAME. Social distancing is a far more common phrase than physical distancing, and if in a month or so physical distancing is the phrase widely used, I think a case could be made, but I think the damage may be done. HunterAlexBrown ( talk) 08:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Recognizabilty
and Naturalness
, though probably physical distancing re Precision
. Conciseness
favors neither. Consistency
points ultimately to
WP:NCMED which specifies "name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name)", but this isn't really a medical term. Overall, criteria favor social distancing. —
RCraig09 (
talk) 15:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)I submit that the "Flatten the curve" gif and caption cogently convey the effectiveness and importance of these measures, leaving readers better informed and wiser. The gif is particularly salient given that the vast bulk of readers of this page are looking to better understand the current response to COVID-19, per the daily pageviews graph at the top of this page. The Lazzaretto is interesting but historical. We're not currently shunning lepers. Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 21:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
References
A key issue for epidemiologists is helping policy makers decide the main objectives of mitigation—e.g., minimising morbidity and associated mortality, avoiding an epidemic peak that overwhelms health-care services, keeping the effects on the economy within manageable levels, and flattening the epidemic curve to wait for vaccine development and manufacture on scale and antiviral drug therapies.
References
A comic about how to greet people doesn't seem to me like encyclopedic content in an article about social distancing. See WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:INDISCRIMINATE — Omegatron ( talk) 21:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment re. specificity of term "social distancing": if one were at all honest about it, that term is clearly prevalent in disability literature, and thus not at all specific to infectious disease prevention (see e.g. Google Scholar). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.85.135.133 ( talk) 05:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps this animation is more clear than the simulation currently used. I have not edited this article before, nor even read it fully, so I'll leave this here. Here is a webm-version (renaming already requested). Greetings, Eissink ( talk) 20:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC).
I'm still not totally comfortable with the series of graphics that has taken over the article. They're accessible, yes, but we can be accessible without being cartoonish, and the extremely informal font in particular just doesn't feel appropriate for an encyclopedia, especially for a page on a serious medical topic. They also don't carry as much informational weight or medical authority — for instance, it's clear that for the "alternatives to social distancing" graphic, the artist just drew an arbitrary line saying "okay, if the response is strong but short-term, I'm going to draw cases going up this much". Compare that to something like the excellent (albeit not freely licensed) article the Washington Post put out about this, which uses some statistics and actual simulation to give the results more credence. I'm not going to say we should remove the graphics since I don't know of anything better currently available to replace them with (and yes, I recognize that criticism is cheap), but I do think we ought to recognize that they aren't the ideal, and if something better is created/found, we ought to be open to replacement. Sdkb ( talk) 05:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
External image | |
---|---|
https://i2.wp.com/flowingdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/flatten-the-curve-smaller.gif?fit=670%2C565&ssl=1] Animation from Twitter user @axlrdk. Schematic based on a number of different MEDRS-sourced concepts |
I understand it looks at an odd with other wikipedia articles but at this emergency its absolutely okay as it loks like some emergency "How to" bulletins. Later on more realistic graphic may be added . btw i am comortable with cartoonistic graphics. RIT RAJARSHI ( talk) 05:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Jesus, let me say it again: slow the animations down. The new "billiards" animation is very good, but... I have a degree in applied math, I know exactly what it illustrates, but I had to watch it over and over and over to make sense of it because it's too fast. Slow it down! Way down! E Eng 20:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Is there a way that the user can control animation speed? It would be my preference. A step through image by image would also be a good alternative. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
hi friends, i'm based in germany and read the german article about social distancing. problem: the first couple of images were complex and hard to grasp. why so complicated when social distancing is about people keeping at a distance from each other? so i thought, why not create an image which at the first glance shows strangely distanced people in a neutral environment. call it an eyecatcher which tells every visitor: uh, that's what this article is about!
i've seen the discussion about the cartoons in this article. problematic indeed. my image is not cartoonish at all. but it's an illustration, an abstract way to lead the visitor into the article. when i read in → the revert that that image "does not help at all" by User:EEng, i'm puzzled.
the current images are complex to grasp; the first one transports a message about the implications social distancing might have, not about social distancing.
think about it, folks! wikipedia is for everyone, not for academics only. Maximilian ( talk) 09:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
"Historically, leper colonies and lazarettos were established as a means of preventing the spread of leprosy and other contagious diseases through social distancing,[8] until transmission was understood and effective treatments invented."I think the disease of leprosy, in the Middle Ages, was only known when the symptoms were obvious. Bus stop ( talk) 21:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, the little movies or animations are done very well, congratulations. Could you make them in a way that they do not move unless the reader clicks on them? They are extremely distracting while I read. Kind regards, Ziko ( talk) 20:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
As for this graphic I would make a few changes but I like it. For "Number of people infected" I would have it say "Number of people infected with and without social distancing". And I would change "without precautions" to "without social distancing". And I would change "social distancing" to "with social distancing". (The dotted line "Health care capacity" I would leave unchanged.) Bus stop ( talk) 21:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Anyone know if we have a phabricator ticket open about this? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Can you make graphics that are non-moving and printable, like having each step be a separate part of a bigger image, comic-book style? 203.211.55.242 ( talk) 02:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
This appears to require clicking to play but not indication that one has to click to play... Does it work like this for others? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
External image | |
---|---|
the new graphic |
Goran tek-en from the Graphics Lab has kindly created a new version of the flattening the curve graphic that is available to view at this link. How does it compare for you all to the current more cartoonish graphic we're using? Feedback is welcome at the Graphics Lab at this link if there are modifications you'd like to see. Sdkb ( talk) 16:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Notice:
Interested editors here may want to contribute to
that discussion as it concerns choosing the most appropriate "Flatten the curve" media. —
RCraig09 (
talk) 01:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
to mix two different intentions
to mix two different meanings
isn`t scientific
WHO:
german language wikipedia:
Räumliche Distanzierung
-- Über-Blick ( talk) 08:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I think this article could use a history section if anyone is inclined to add one. Sdkb ( talk) 23:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
These two aspects of disease control are fundamentally different, aren't they? Obviously they can be part of an overall strategy, and have similarities, by the one is not the other? Arcturus ( talk) 14:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
"It involves keeping a distance of six feet or two meters from others and avoiding gathering together in large groups" That's not necessarily true. If a particular government or health authority were to recommend 1.5 metres, or 3 metres, then it would still be social distancing. So the distance of six feet or 2 metres isn't intrinsic to the definition (and besides, six feet doesn't equal 2 metres but only about 1.83. 86.191.247.118 ( talk) 15:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Relative discussions are copied here from the Physical distancing talk page for convenience
Hello everyone, Physical distancing is increasingly substituting the old term due to increasing concerns of the inevitable consequences including psychiatric conditions The Mental Health Consequences of COVID-19 and Physical Distancing: The Need for Prevention and Early Intervention. However, this is the only way I know to switch the pages. Please guide me if there is a better way or proceed with your own way. I appreciate you taking the time to correct it Behzad Azarmju M.D. ( talk) 23:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC).
Technically isolation, separation, or distancing to prevent transmission of infections are physical not social occurences in nature. However, they can necessitate some social isolation [Mdr 1] which has attenuated with the novel communication technologies as well as deprivation from physical contact benefits [Mdr 2]. Applying the term "social distancing" for this purpose is simply incorrect [Mdr 3] and many times implys the "social isolation" [Mdr 4]. I believe the pages should be switched if the Wikipedia wants to stay loyal to the science. The term was being used predominantly for the psychosocial purposes before March 2020 [Mdr 5] [Mdr 6] [Mdr 7] [Mdr 8]. Those definitions must be on top of the page in an encyclopedia. Then the historically unique overwhelming situation of the outbreak helped an incorrect (or at least rare) attribution boost dramatically in a very short period of time in the middle of the March and now has started to decline [Mdr 9]. It's time for a revision. The accumulative usage of the old term is higher but the new term is being used more and more everyday, exponentially [Mdr 10] and is not much less common than old term if the previous uses of the latter is excluded [Mdr 11] Also, I would like to draw your attention to some of the main world references (WHO and englophone health ministries): [Mdr 12] [Mdr 13] [Mdr 14] [Mdr 15] [Mdr 16] [Mdr 17] [Mdr 18] Behzad Azarmju M.D. ( talk) 07:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
After all, can we deny the effect Wikipedia has on earth? Shall applying recommendations from health authorities contribute to improving lives of potentially billions. Wikipedia is more than a social media to just relay the discourse. This is about a novel concept in human history in this scale rather than a name being excluded from WP:COMMONNAME. Behzad Azarmju M.D. ( talk) 23:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
A second request for move 16 April 2020 references
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: |archive-date=
/ |archive-url=
timestamp mismatch; 2020-03-26 suggested (
help)
I think we don't want this page to mirror what happened over at Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 or at Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic (where there is currently a move moratorium)... Given the outcome of the recent move discussion and the fact that, despite that, individual editors seems to have taken it onto themselves to solve this major issue, I think a moratorium on move requests for the short term (1 or 2 months?) would be in order. What do you think? 107.190.33.254 ( talk) 20:27, 17 April 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) 02:13, 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) 04:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to solicit some feedback on the topic of whether "social distancing" includes a decrease in activity outside the home. I see this as separate from the question about calling it social vs. physical distancing; you could substitute "physical distancing" below and everything would hold.
I look forward to seeing what others think. Kudu ~I/O~ 22:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
The formula (or "The Math") is less than helpfull. No explanation of why the sum is taken over the range n=0, …, 6 (presumably each $n$ represents five days, the incubation period accordig to the source). R0ⁿ would be 0 (except possibly when n=0), the expression ought to be ΣR₀ⁿ. And the formula is the same regardless of exposure levels ($a$ and $f$ in the text). And what's with the arrows and crossed over viruses for 50%? The graphics seems to indicate that 50% less exposure means no viruses, while in the "now" and 75% cases the intial person "INFECTS". Also, a six feet distance seems to be equated to 50% less exposure, which is contradicted by the definition section of the article. E5150-00000000000 ( talk) 13:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Some publishing platforms expose full publication history and peer-review, so if you follow the link to the article you get the updated version (or notice of retraction) and comments / reviews. Others, like PNAS, don't. Hence better do some search and provide external peer-reviews / commentaries if available, beside that of the article/paper. E.g. please note that ref(17) looks blatantly flawed [1], so worth pairing its citation with e.g. the following https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/mario-molina-coronavirus-face-masks-pnas
thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.233.67 ( talk) 16:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
References
Calling this phenomenon "social distancing" is an unfortunate misnomer. Social distancing should mean developing social distance. What this article is about is spatial distancing. I realise that "social distancing" as a term has caught on now, but clearly the words were poorly thought out or understood when the phrase was coined and propagated. These days since English wikipedia is translated into many other languages, please do be mindful that although errors like this cause native English speakers to be non-plussed until they deduce from the context what was actually meant despite what was said, such oversights can result in even more confusing phraseology after automatic translation. 49.181.229.49 ( talk) 13:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Look at
Google Trends.
"Social distancing" is still being searched about thirty times (30 X) as much as "physical distancing". Today's Google hit count for "social distancing" is 742 million, versus <17 million for "physical distancing" (about a 43:1 ratio). Though arguably the latter term is more 'precise' it's clearly still time to follow
WP:COMMONNAME's guidance that "Wikipedia . . . generally prefers the name that is most commonly used" by sources. (It's not convincing reasoning to state "I feel like sometimes COMMONNANE does not need to be applied"). —
RCraig09 (
talk) 17:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I was surprised to find a few minutes ago some English language references in the companion French language article that I couldn't find in this article. You may know about them and don't cite them, because what they say is covered in other things currently cited. If not, you might consider them.
Thanks for your work in creating this article and bringing it to its current state. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 12:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
[1] Derek K Chu, Elie A Akl, Stephanie Duda and Karla Solo, « Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis », The Lancet, June 2020, S0140673620311429 (PMCID PMC7263814, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9.
[2] Prateek Bahl, Con Doolan, Charitha de Silva et Abrar Ahmad Chughtai, « Airborne or Droplet Precautions for Health Workers Treating Coronavirus Disease 2019? », The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 16 April 2020, jiaa189 (ISSN 0022-1899 et 1537-6613, PMID 32301491, PMCID PMC7184471, DOI 10.1093/infdis/jiaa189.
[3] Alyssa C Fears, William B Klimstra, Paul Duprex and Amy Hartman, « Comparative dynamic aerosol efficiencies of three emergent coronaviruses and the unusual persistence of SARS-CoV-2 in aerosol suspensions », medRxiv (prépublication), Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS), 18 April 2020 (DOI 10.1101/2020.04.13.20063784.
[4] C Raina MacIntyre and Quanyi Wang, « Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection for prevention of COVID-19 », The Lancet, June 2020, S0140673620311831 (DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31183-1.