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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
The table is currently sorted by confirmed cases (by default). There are recurrent discussions about changing it to deaths (e.g. 1, 2, 3). The table is sortable by any column, but this is about the default sort column. So the question is simple:
Add your !vote here.
I support Option C. The current stage of the crisis is of a different nature than what it was in january, requiring us to change our perception on this. Some countries such as South Korea or Germany have tested their population at a very large scale, even people with very mild symptoms or no at all [1]. However, in many other countries such as Italy, Spain, France or the UK, the testing capacity reached saturation. Therefore, testing is limited only to the most serious cases and healthcare workers [2]. As a result, the number of confirmed cases reported daily remains steady, not because we're nearing the peak but simply because there's no testing capacity to report more. Using this metric as the main one can easily lead to very fallacious conclusions about the maturity and intensity of the epidemics from a country to another.
Obviously reported deaths count has its own bias as well [3], yet, sadly, the number of deaths will never reach any saturation point like testing does. As such, it remains despite its flaws a more accurate metric to value the intensity of the epidemic in each country. Therefore, it would seem wiser to use it as the ranking by default on the table. Metropolitan ( talk) 12:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
the number of deaths will never reach any saturation point like testing does. Counting deaths as caused by COVID-19 also relies on testing. Unfortunately, we have reports in Spain about hundreds of deaths suspected but unconfirmed. -- MarioGom ( talk) 12:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Editors here may be interested in the related proposal about which map to use first. Sdkb ( talk) 02:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Can we agree that 1) there is no consensus to change it and 2) there is an agreement to keep cases as the default sorting column at the moment? Any objection for listing at the #Current consensus section? -- MarioGom ( talk) 12:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
To use them as a scorecard is therefore improper synthesis.I don't think WP:SYNTH applies here because most reliable sources that publish worldwide figures (including the World Health Organization) sort territories per number of confirmed cases. -- MarioGom ( talk) 16:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
tl;dr, Google is sharing some data with the community about which stats they're showing/planning to show, and which stats Google searchers are looking for most. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#Data_on_most-trafficked_COVID_stats_in_Google_+_sneak_peek_at_stats_card_roadmap for more details if you're interested! MPinchuk (WMF) ( talk) 17:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
How should we incorporate cases reported by the United States Department of Defense? This is as cases, ever since March 31st, [4] have been only reported on a maximum granularity of the branch of military (e.g. air force, army, etc), no matter where they are deployed, whether domestically or internationally. Like this: [5]. Although with some domestic bases, cases are still reported and counted in the local health authority's numbers. [6] This means under/overcounting will be inevitable... Thoughts? -- 17jiangz1 ( talk) 21:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Spain's CCF is 119,199 not 119,119, please amend that error. [1] BlackSun2104 ( talk) 22:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Panama has 1801 confirmed cases, 46 deaths and 13 recovered. Source: TVN Panama https://www.tvn-2.com/nacionales/Caso-COVID-19-Panama-fallecidos-positivas_0_5548695122.html Webi0311 ( talk) 23:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the typo, formation is information. BlackSun2104 ( talk) 02:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Panama has 1988 confirmed cases, 54 deaths and 13 recovered. Source: TVN Panamá https://www.tvn-2.com/nacionales/coronavirus-en-panama_0_5549445053.html Webi0311 ( talk) 00:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Panama has 2100 confirmed cases, 55 deaths and 14 recovered. Source: La Estrella de Panamá https://www.laestrella.com.pa/nacional/200406/panama-registra-2-100-pacientes-covid-19-cierra-mina-mas-grande Webi0311 ( talk) 23:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Germany's CCF has creep up slightly to 96,092, please update accordingly. [1] BlackSun2104 ( talk) 23:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
The additional supporting information is in the reference. https://www.fr24news.com/a/2020/04/french-coronavirus-death-toll-reaches-new-record-as-retirement-home-count-increases.html BlackSun2104 ( talk) 02:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Formation is actually information, apologize for that. BlackSun2104 ( talk) 02:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Apologize for missing reference. https://www.fr24news.com/a/2020/04/french-coronavirus-death-toll-reaches-new-record-as-retirement-home-count-increases.html BlackSun2104 ( talk) 02:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Some countries publish official data for recoveries (e.g. China, Italy, Spain), others have reputable newspapers tracking them (e.g. Germany) and others do not have any up-to-date data about it. That is why we don't have recoveries column for Norway or the Netherlands. In some cases, like the United Kingdom, we have a really outdated figure coming from early news reports (stuck at 135). Isolated news reports might be ok in early stages, when recoveries can be tracked easily, but I don't think it makes sense to keep a completely outdated value as the pandemic advances in a country. Do you think it makes sense to remove the recoveries column when there are no official sources or when reliable sources stop reporting about it? I'm thinking about the United Kingdom, but it could apply to some countries that will probably be in the same situation soon. -- MarioGom ( talk) 23:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Bryn89: could you point where in the UK govt website is the number of recoveries? (re [8]) I cannot find it. If there is an official source, we should add it in a reference. -- MarioGom ( talk) 17:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I think we should leave the data for the UK recoveries blank or 135 until further updates from the UK government show up. The figure 135 can be found in the document 'Access historical data from the dashboard' on this website "Total UK cases COVID-19 Cases Update". Public Health England. Chbe113 ( talk) 13:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change China(Mainland) to China, I have created an App that takes the Data from Wikipedia and already uploaded it. 2 days ago everything worked fine but then suddenly China was chnaged to China(mainland) and no data can be pulled from China. 84.226.174.208 ( talk) 12:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
China (mainland)for way more than two days. There is currently no consensus to change it. -- MarioGom ( talk) 12:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
We have systematically rejected requests for new columns. See Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Archive 8#More columns or Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Archive 9#Google using Wikipedia pages to power sidebar stats panel in search. I would like to add the following item to #Current consensus:
No more columns.
What do you think? Any objection? Better wording? Do we really need a RfC for this? -- MarioGom ( talk) 08:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Proper comparisonis not so simple. Confirmed cases represent very different realities in different countries depending on testing criteria, test availability, etc. You can even observe tendency changes within a single country depending on policy changes over time. -- MarioGom ( talk) 14:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Luhansk and Donetsk seem to be included in Ukraine's official figures ( [10]). Reliable sources that publish worldwide numbers do not split it (e.g. WHO, ECDC, Reuters, The New York Times, Financial Times, Bloomberg, BBC and Berliner Morgenpost). -- MarioGom ( talk) 21:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Ukrainian territories occupied by Russiais improper synthesis. As far as I can tell, there is no reliable source publishing aggregate figures with such denomination. -- MarioGom ( talk) 12:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, just want to update everyone here that the source I'm using to update all figures in the USA and its overseas territories (1Point3Acres, as the title of this topic implies) has now added a recoveries column. As such, I've added the same sum template nested within the formatnum template for the recoveries cell for the 50 states of USA, and have replaced the darkgray "–"s or dashes with the values I've found on 1Point3Acres.
As such, there is no need for the notice saying that there are a lack of sources for recoveries in USA's overseas territories.
Cheers, u|RayDeeUx talk page 19:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
France and Germany's CCF should be higher now, please update accordingly. BlackSun2104 ( talk) 19:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Why the hell wasn't it's numbers incorporated into the American statistics? It is definitely not like those cases of cruise ships. Cruise ships are something international and serves tourists all around the globe, but Theodore Roosevelt is a ship of United States Navy and definitely does not belong to and affects any other parties. I'm making a motion for it to be incorporated. Pktlaurence ( talk) 22:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Canadian sources are incorrect due to a change in the CTV making a change in the way they report on the Bar graph. What is identified as confirmed is the active cases. Total confirmed is 14018 2607:FEA8:C31F:D2B0:599F:2CFE:6325:64A6 ( talk) 13:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I noticed Worldometer is counting 5 confirmed cases in Belize. Please, do not update to that figure unless there is a reliable source. It comes from a rumor that has been retracted by the initial source: Міnіѕtrу оf Неаlth ѕауѕ rumоr оf 5 саѕеѕ оf Соvіd-19 іn Ѕаn Іgnасіо іѕ fаlѕе аlаrm; 1 реrѕоn оnlу іѕ іn ѕеlf іѕоlаtіоn. Еаrlіеr tоdау, Вrеаkіng Веlіzе Nеwѕ rероrtеd thаt оnе реrѕоn whо rесеntlу trаvеllеd frоm Сhіnа wаѕ іn ѕеlf іѕоlаtіоn іn Сауо аѕ а рrесаutіоnаrу mеаѕurе.
[11] --
MarioGom (
talk) 15:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
MSG17: Please, take some time to read the #Current consensus section. The current consensus is to split Åland Islands and you should not change this unilaterally ( [14]). While I agree that Åland Islands should be merged into Finland, doing this kind of changes unilaterally leads to edit wars that disrupt the usual work on this table. Thank you. -- MarioGom ( talk) 10:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I have no issue as to whether Sahrawi PDR should or should not be included here. But some 15+ hours ago it popped up on the table with 4 cases. It linked to the 2020 COVID19 in Sahrawi PDR page. Now it is gone again. Whether these cases referred to the Moroccan controlled region, I don’t know. The SPDR page identified a location presumably under their control. The thing is this. It popped up without any mention in Talk (which is common enough), and it disappeared with no explanation either. We had a discussion earlier about the status of the region, and as I recall, the concept was that cases in the Morocco controlled area were to be under Morocco, and any that came up in the SPDR controlled area would have separate listing, since not included in Morocco. Methinks some clarity and explanation are warranted. Ptilinopus ( talk) 14:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
In so happens that there was a debate on whether the figures for each country should include all the cases of that country or if the dependencies of that state should be treated separately. The issue was mostly about the Channel Islands where some channel islanders wanted to make sure that their insular hamlets were counted separately and they eventually won. The rule was thus applied to all countries for the sake of coherency. Fine.
Now, once they have won, the great secessionists/freedom fighters/independence leaders/fathers of the nations, seem to have forgotten that it was up to them to make sure that the template remains clear and devoid of double counting. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case.
I'll take an example that I know very well of. France.
First clarity or the lack of it. The vast majority of wikipedia users who want to know what the figures are for France won't bother, out of ignorance mostly, to go look for the individual figures of French Polynesia, New Caledonia, French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Mayotte, Reunion and Martinique. Some might even not even stop at Martinique, French Polynesia and New Caledonia because, for reasons unknown to me but I'm sure the great secessionists do know of, Martinique, New Caledonia and French Polynesia are the only French overseas territories to currently have their own local flag while all the others have the national French one. French Polynesia and New Caledonia have constitutionnally specific statuses but how is Martinique any special when compared to Guadeloupe? I guess the Guernsey and Jersey islanders who fought so well might shed some light on the issue.
Secondly, double counting. The current figure for France is, at the moment I'm writting these words, at 7560 deaths. The only problem being that the official French source "santé publique france", doesn't make any distinctions between metropolitan France, Corsica, Overseas Departments, Overseas territories and Overseas etc. So the 7560 figure includes ALL deaths on French soil even those in its overseas territories. The problem is, these territories have their own death figures leading to, well, double counting.
Now, of course, I can already hear the great independence leaders of Guernsey and Jersey saying that it's up to us to make sure that that doesn't happen. But actually, it's up to them to do so, because those who fought for including only states and not their dependencies didn't want this mess in the first place. So how to solve this and especially who has to?
I rest my case Manish2542 ( talk) 01:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
the great secessionists/freedom fighters/independence leaders/fathersinclude the World Health Organization, Reuters or the BBC. -- MarioGom ( talk) 08:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I find this frustrating. We had a long debate, an extended RfC, and everyone had their input. Everyone had a chance to indicate the way they thought this should go, and the majority consensus was to treat the outlying dependencies/territories/regions separately. For some of us it wasn’t the issue of politics but of geographical spread. Manish2542 had an extended say at the time. Now because he is objecting rather stridently yet again, we are going to scrap that decision and reopen the whole can of worms? No system is perfect. This system may have some double counting - though editors work to avoid it. In the previous system we had records being omitted because the main country did not include them. The consensus system has worked as well as any other system we have had. And geographically it is much more indicative. Can we just get on with the job? None of the arguments are new. I see no reason to reverse a majority consensus because one individual is stridently rehashing arguments he presented before. Ptilinopus ( talk) 14:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Some people keep copying the UK data from JHU, which includes the BOTs and CDs and doesn't match our consensus. Also, it seems that the UK government has stopped releasing data for recoveries. They said that 'a new process for collecting numbers of recovered patients is in development' days ago. Given that there is no information on recoveries to be found on the website, I wouldn't be surprised if the UK government simply gave up on counting. Chbe113 ( talk) 11:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry that I probably didn't make myself clear. This section is to discuss how to deal with the data for UK recoveries. Chbe113 ( talk) 11:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
FRANCE IS 98.010! 93.66.153.225 ( talk) 08:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Table inline style now has "font-sizebel" which replaced "font-size". This change has resulted in font size increase. Can someone correct or remove the invalid property name? 86.31.125.137 ( talk) 13:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
We probably should switch those dependency flags into localised flags even if they're unofficial. Using Tricoloure Français everywhere is just visually & graphically confusing and misleading. If there are dependencies other than the French ones who're still using sovereign flags, we probably should also do the same thing to them, too. Pktlaurence ( talk) 22:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
We separated dependency data because of their distinctiveness & uniqueness.Not really, that's a quite small part of the story. In my opinion, separating some entities make sense because of the way they are handled by reliable sources in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. I don't think you can infer that using unofficial flags is somehow a logical consequence of the last RfC decision. -- MarioGom ( talk) 22:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Please list out some examples where you can't. I'm editing the Chinese Wikipedia and we have distinct flags for every dependencies, even for akotiri and Dhekelia. Pktlaurence ( talk) 22:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC) MarioGom:Well, I've said the so called official measure is graphically both misleading and confusing, and I do think it outweighs your concerns. I asked you to provide example nicely, but it seems that you failed to produce any. Pktlaurence ( talk) 23:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Some clarifications regarding French regions
There is nothing unique to the situation of French overseas regions. On March 19th 1946, at the initiative of the Martinican deputy Aimé Césaire, supported by the Guianese Gaston Monnerville and the Reunionese Raymond Vergès a law has been voted at the French national assembly to make of Martinique, Guadeloupe, La Réunion and French Guiana French departments which are integral parts of the country, like any other French departments on mainland. Later, in 1982, the French governement created a new subdivisions, the Regions of France, and they subsequently became regions. In 1946, the islands of Saint-Martin and Saint-Barthélemy were parts of the created department of Guadeloupe. Later, in 2007, both islands became their own collectvities while remaining integral parts of France. Eventually, in 2009, the island of Mayotte held a referendum, won with 95.24% of votes, to obtain the same status and therefore became also integral part of France.
France is a unitary state. As such, being integral part of France means that the same rights, the same law, the same administration and the same representation applies there as it does on mainland. There is no different representation between the region of Martinique and the region of Nouvelle Aquitaine. Considering that France is part of the European Union, EU laws apply there as well and their currency is the euro. The Loi de départementalisation is the equivalent process as the Hawaii Admission Act or the Alaska Statehood Act which has lead both territories to become integral parts of the Union. The comparison with British overseas territories make no sense as those are crown dependencies, with a distinct citizenship (see British Overseas Territories citizen) and a legal autonomy. British overseas territories are considered separate from the rest of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
On the other hand, the status of New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Wallis and Futuna and Saint Pierre and Miquelon do belong to the category of autonomous territories. Citizens are French and they belong to the Republic, but they benefit of autonomous law which makes them indeed different from the rest of France. In the US context, their status could be compared to the one of Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa and US Virgin Islands.
For what it matters here and to get back on topic, The national French authority managing the Coronavirus crisis is the Agence nationale de santé publique which is competent over all French regions, each represented locally by their own Agence régionale de santé (ARS). Despite their status change, Saint-Martin and Saint-Barthélemy still depends of the Guadeloupe ARS. However, the other collectivites, having a more autonomous status, are managed through a different system. Therefore, it makes sense to me to add to the table the overseas collectivities of New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Wallis and Futuna and Saint Pierre and Miquelon if cases are reported there, however it doesn't to add overseas regions as well as Saint-Martin and Saint-Barthélemy, as that will necessarily lead to double counting. As a matter of fact, this is currently the case as the figures published for France already include them, yet they are still listed separetely.
In a nutshell, the confusion only comes from the fact some people believe that overseas regions mean "autonomous territories", "dependencies" or "colonies", whereas they are none of those. They are integral parts of the country in the very same way as the regions of Brittany or Normandy. Metropolitan ( talk) 08:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi! It is obvious that listing criteria for different territories and partially/limited recognized states is still a contentious topic where we did not reach a comprehensive agreement yet. I'd like to prepare a new RfC. You can look at the draft, including a proposal, here: User:MarioGom/sandbox/COVID-19 Locations RfC. Does anyone else want to make a different proposal for the RfC? Or an amendment to mine? Best, -- MarioGom ( talk) 14:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
MarioGom: I agree with your draft on the French case but I would approach it more as an amendment to the current RfC rather than as putting it totally into question. The RfC stipulates: "Autonomous territories and dependencies should be split as long as there are reliable sources.". I repeat that French overseas regions as well as the collectivities of Saint-Martin and Saint-Barthélemy are integral parts of France, they are neither autonomous territories nor dependencies. As far as I know, they are the only regions being integral parts of their country which are currently listed. This is certainly the reason why there is an issue specifically related to them. As for French autonomous territories which do exist and therefore could be listed separately, you could add to New Caledonia and French Polynesia the collectivity of Saint Pierre and Miquelon and the collectivity of Wallis and Futuna. Thanks for your work. Metropolitan ( talk) 17:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Since a few days, this table has become a huge mess, with unrecognised states appearing and disappearing from day to day, outer territories coming from nowhere, this is ridiculous. Please be serious, stick to the official list of recognised countries and real outer territories (having no close border with the mainland state, for example Falkland Islands and UK, Taiwan, Macau and China, Hawai, Alaska and USA, French Guyanna, New Caledonia and France, Greenland and Denmark... list not exhaustive). All pseudo-country that was formed outside of the Montevideo Convention of 1933 IS NOT a recognised country. It means that only 206 entities are recognised, and disregard any politically correct consideration, or otherwise don't forget to add the self declared states like Republic of Saugeais, Principality of Sealand and many other or even Isil/Daesh ! FMichaud76 ( talk) 08:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
(Insert tentative ping to MarioGom here, apologies for lack of notice)
So I'm reporting for duty as per the COVID–19 Case Count Task Force and I'm updating the values for USA and its overseas territories. Something odd happened with the Northern Mariana Islands (NMI for my convenience, apologies in advance).
1Point3Acres was reporting that NMI has 8 cases, 1 death, and 24 recoveries.
Proof: https://imgur.com/a/zrqO7HG.
How could this happen, and what should be the procedure for issues like this? For me, I just took the numbers at 1P3A as they are because this could be temporary. Thanks in advance.
Cheers, u|RayDeeUx contrib talk page 15:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Cumulative Number of Persons Released from Quarantine. This is an indicator that many countries publish, and it means people who were put in isolation and then released. People put in isolation are not necessarily confirmed cases. They can be people who returned from travel to a risk zone or had close contact with a confirmed case. -- MarioGom ( talk) 15:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Panama has 2249 confirmed cases, 59 deaths and 16 recovered. Source: La Estrella de Panamá https://www.laestrella.com.pa/nacional/200407/dia-mundial-salud-panama-suma-2-249-casos-59-muertes-covid-19 Webi0311 ( talk) 00:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Done same with official source. Thanks-- Tensa Februari ( talk) 02:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change confirmed cases for New Zealand from 1210 to 969, as it currently erroneously shows total of confirmed + probable cases. Source is https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-current-situation/covid-19-current-cases 125.238.91.48 ( talk) 22:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Death Figures mentioned for Italy are erroneously entered wrong, please rectify. 5.30.203.157 ( talk) 16:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Number of cases is 1795, deaths 70, recovered 365 ( Source). TheTrueGilben ( talk) 17:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I added a list of common errors in aggregate sources (JHU, Worldometer, 1point3acres, etc) that may be useful for other editors: Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Case Count Task Force § Common errors. -- MarioGom ( talk) 08:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Quick question: this table should be for listing human and only human COVID-19 cases, right?
I'm only asking this because there are rumors of dogs and cats in Europe who have been diagnosed with COVID-19, as well as a tiger in NYC's Bronx Zoo with COVID-19.
Cheers, u|RayDeeUx contrib talk page 00:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
For some countries there is no information about number of recoveries in the table. But this information can be found here: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html May we use this page to complete the table? For example, about the Netherlands. -- D.M. from Ukraine ( talk) 18:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Data "cases" for France is false (shows 89953 where it is 68605) on 2020/04/05 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.98.252.161 ( talk) 07:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Confirmed cases
Recoveries
Hospitalised
ICU
Deaths (hospital only)
Weekly reporting
Daily deaths in France (all causes) ; updated every week
daily summary
Buisson ( talk) 18:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Ya, I'm noticing a similar thing as noted above (Currently 5:17 EST on 04/07/2020). Sources linked to worldometers.com are claiming over 109 000 cases in France, yet the French gov ( https://dashboard.covid19.data.gouv.fr/) has less than 80 000. Not sure why there's such a discrepancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.87.57 ( talk) 21:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I added a bunch of new sources for this from the Iran article. The Iranian numbers are heavily disputed in the media, with a number of sources claiming the true count is being covered up by the Iranian government. This has been ongoing since at least late February, including with some Iranian officials (such as some in Qom) putting out higher numbers than the central government. Hamid Souri, who is part of the Iranian Government's National Coronavirus Combat Taskforce, said on April 6 that the true number of infected is 500k, though he blames poor testing rather than an official concerted cover-up, as have some WHO officials, such as Dr. Rick Brennan on March 16th. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 06:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Now we are more advanced into the pandemic. For maintaining, it's just one more Ctrl+V for cases and deaths into the Percentage template (example: 1.00%). Just asking Feelthhis ( talk) 20:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
death-to-caseratio is hardly a serious metric when based on cumulative death count and cumulative confirmed case count at a fixed point in time. You can check realiable sources in medicine for a more in-depth explanation of this kind of issue ( Estimating case fatality rates of COVID-19). There is also an informal consensus to avoid new columns on this table at the moment ( Link to discussion (informal)). -- MarioGom ( talk) 10:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
The following locations have lower cases than Worldometer or BNO and may require an update. Please, do not update directly. There can be false positives. Look for a reliable source to use and verify that all figures are correct:
Outdated report. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
-- MarioGom ( talk) 23:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Global CCF needs to be tally with JHU website, since that has changed a while ago. https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 BlackSun2104 ( talk) 01:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Malta 337 total cases 2 deaths 5 recoveries 77.71.201.131 ( talk) 12:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Bolivia, contagiados: 275, Muertes 20 Fuente: https://www.boliviasegura.gob.bo/ DrEditador ( talk) 04:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Page 2020 coronavirus pandemic in East Timor reports one recovered case. There is also a source.
-- 80.104.182.248 ( talk) 00:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Ecuador's president is claiming his country's figures to be wrong… should be included as a footnote
https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-bodies-left-home-streets-city-ecuador-2020-4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.26 ( talk) 04:38, 9 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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
The table is currently sorted by confirmed cases (by default). There are recurrent discussions about changing it to deaths (e.g. 1, 2, 3). The table is sortable by any column, but this is about the default sort column. So the question is simple:
Add your !vote here.
I support Option C. The current stage of the crisis is of a different nature than what it was in january, requiring us to change our perception on this. Some countries such as South Korea or Germany have tested their population at a very large scale, even people with very mild symptoms or no at all [1]. However, in many other countries such as Italy, Spain, France or the UK, the testing capacity reached saturation. Therefore, testing is limited only to the most serious cases and healthcare workers [2]. As a result, the number of confirmed cases reported daily remains steady, not because we're nearing the peak but simply because there's no testing capacity to report more. Using this metric as the main one can easily lead to very fallacious conclusions about the maturity and intensity of the epidemics from a country to another.
Obviously reported deaths count has its own bias as well [3], yet, sadly, the number of deaths will never reach any saturation point like testing does. As such, it remains despite its flaws a more accurate metric to value the intensity of the epidemic in each country. Therefore, it would seem wiser to use it as the ranking by default on the table. Metropolitan ( talk) 12:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
the number of deaths will never reach any saturation point like testing does. Counting deaths as caused by COVID-19 also relies on testing. Unfortunately, we have reports in Spain about hundreds of deaths suspected but unconfirmed. -- MarioGom ( talk) 12:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Editors here may be interested in the related proposal about which map to use first. Sdkb ( talk) 02:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Can we agree that 1) there is no consensus to change it and 2) there is an agreement to keep cases as the default sorting column at the moment? Any objection for listing at the #Current consensus section? -- MarioGom ( talk) 12:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
To use them as a scorecard is therefore improper synthesis.I don't think WP:SYNTH applies here because most reliable sources that publish worldwide figures (including the World Health Organization) sort territories per number of confirmed cases. -- MarioGom ( talk) 16:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
tl;dr, Google is sharing some data with the community about which stats they're showing/planning to show, and which stats Google searchers are looking for most. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#Data_on_most-trafficked_COVID_stats_in_Google_+_sneak_peek_at_stats_card_roadmap for more details if you're interested! MPinchuk (WMF) ( talk) 17:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
How should we incorporate cases reported by the United States Department of Defense? This is as cases, ever since March 31st, [4] have been only reported on a maximum granularity of the branch of military (e.g. air force, army, etc), no matter where they are deployed, whether domestically or internationally. Like this: [5]. Although with some domestic bases, cases are still reported and counted in the local health authority's numbers. [6] This means under/overcounting will be inevitable... Thoughts? -- 17jiangz1 ( talk) 21:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Spain's CCF is 119,199 not 119,119, please amend that error. [1] BlackSun2104 ( talk) 22:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Panama has 1801 confirmed cases, 46 deaths and 13 recovered. Source: TVN Panama https://www.tvn-2.com/nacionales/Caso-COVID-19-Panama-fallecidos-positivas_0_5548695122.html Webi0311 ( talk) 23:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the typo, formation is information. BlackSun2104 ( talk) 02:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Panama has 1988 confirmed cases, 54 deaths and 13 recovered. Source: TVN Panamá https://www.tvn-2.com/nacionales/coronavirus-en-panama_0_5549445053.html Webi0311 ( talk) 00:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Panama has 2100 confirmed cases, 55 deaths and 14 recovered. Source: La Estrella de Panamá https://www.laestrella.com.pa/nacional/200406/panama-registra-2-100-pacientes-covid-19-cierra-mina-mas-grande Webi0311 ( talk) 23:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Germany's CCF has creep up slightly to 96,092, please update accordingly. [1] BlackSun2104 ( talk) 23:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
The additional supporting information is in the reference. https://www.fr24news.com/a/2020/04/french-coronavirus-death-toll-reaches-new-record-as-retirement-home-count-increases.html BlackSun2104 ( talk) 02:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Formation is actually information, apologize for that. BlackSun2104 ( talk) 02:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Apologize for missing reference. https://www.fr24news.com/a/2020/04/french-coronavirus-death-toll-reaches-new-record-as-retirement-home-count-increases.html BlackSun2104 ( talk) 02:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Some countries publish official data for recoveries (e.g. China, Italy, Spain), others have reputable newspapers tracking them (e.g. Germany) and others do not have any up-to-date data about it. That is why we don't have recoveries column for Norway or the Netherlands. In some cases, like the United Kingdom, we have a really outdated figure coming from early news reports (stuck at 135). Isolated news reports might be ok in early stages, when recoveries can be tracked easily, but I don't think it makes sense to keep a completely outdated value as the pandemic advances in a country. Do you think it makes sense to remove the recoveries column when there are no official sources or when reliable sources stop reporting about it? I'm thinking about the United Kingdom, but it could apply to some countries that will probably be in the same situation soon. -- MarioGom ( talk) 23:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Bryn89: could you point where in the UK govt website is the number of recoveries? (re [8]) I cannot find it. If there is an official source, we should add it in a reference. -- MarioGom ( talk) 17:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I think we should leave the data for the UK recoveries blank or 135 until further updates from the UK government show up. The figure 135 can be found in the document 'Access historical data from the dashboard' on this website "Total UK cases COVID-19 Cases Update". Public Health England. Chbe113 ( talk) 13:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change China(Mainland) to China, I have created an App that takes the Data from Wikipedia and already uploaded it. 2 days ago everything worked fine but then suddenly China was chnaged to China(mainland) and no data can be pulled from China. 84.226.174.208 ( talk) 12:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
China (mainland)for way more than two days. There is currently no consensus to change it. -- MarioGom ( talk) 12:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
We have systematically rejected requests for new columns. See Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Archive 8#More columns or Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Archive 9#Google using Wikipedia pages to power sidebar stats panel in search. I would like to add the following item to #Current consensus:
No more columns.
What do you think? Any objection? Better wording? Do we really need a RfC for this? -- MarioGom ( talk) 08:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Proper comparisonis not so simple. Confirmed cases represent very different realities in different countries depending on testing criteria, test availability, etc. You can even observe tendency changes within a single country depending on policy changes over time. -- MarioGom ( talk) 14:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Luhansk and Donetsk seem to be included in Ukraine's official figures ( [10]). Reliable sources that publish worldwide numbers do not split it (e.g. WHO, ECDC, Reuters, The New York Times, Financial Times, Bloomberg, BBC and Berliner Morgenpost). -- MarioGom ( talk) 21:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Ukrainian territories occupied by Russiais improper synthesis. As far as I can tell, there is no reliable source publishing aggregate figures with such denomination. -- MarioGom ( talk) 12:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, just want to update everyone here that the source I'm using to update all figures in the USA and its overseas territories (1Point3Acres, as the title of this topic implies) has now added a recoveries column. As such, I've added the same sum template nested within the formatnum template for the recoveries cell for the 50 states of USA, and have replaced the darkgray "–"s or dashes with the values I've found on 1Point3Acres.
As such, there is no need for the notice saying that there are a lack of sources for recoveries in USA's overseas territories.
Cheers, u|RayDeeUx talk page 19:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
France and Germany's CCF should be higher now, please update accordingly. BlackSun2104 ( talk) 19:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Why the hell wasn't it's numbers incorporated into the American statistics? It is definitely not like those cases of cruise ships. Cruise ships are something international and serves tourists all around the globe, but Theodore Roosevelt is a ship of United States Navy and definitely does not belong to and affects any other parties. I'm making a motion for it to be incorporated. Pktlaurence ( talk) 22:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Canadian sources are incorrect due to a change in the CTV making a change in the way they report on the Bar graph. What is identified as confirmed is the active cases. Total confirmed is 14018 2607:FEA8:C31F:D2B0:599F:2CFE:6325:64A6 ( talk) 13:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I noticed Worldometer is counting 5 confirmed cases in Belize. Please, do not update to that figure unless there is a reliable source. It comes from a rumor that has been retracted by the initial source: Міnіѕtrу оf Неаlth ѕауѕ rumоr оf 5 саѕеѕ оf Соvіd-19 іn Ѕаn Іgnасіо іѕ fаlѕе аlаrm; 1 реrѕоn оnlу іѕ іn ѕеlf іѕоlаtіоn. Еаrlіеr tоdау, Вrеаkіng Веlіzе Nеwѕ rероrtеd thаt оnе реrѕоn whо rесеntlу trаvеllеd frоm Сhіnа wаѕ іn ѕеlf іѕоlаtіоn іn Сауо аѕ а рrесаutіоnаrу mеаѕurе.
[11] --
MarioGom (
talk) 15:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
MSG17: Please, take some time to read the #Current consensus section. The current consensus is to split Åland Islands and you should not change this unilaterally ( [14]). While I agree that Åland Islands should be merged into Finland, doing this kind of changes unilaterally leads to edit wars that disrupt the usual work on this table. Thank you. -- MarioGom ( talk) 10:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I have no issue as to whether Sahrawi PDR should or should not be included here. But some 15+ hours ago it popped up on the table with 4 cases. It linked to the 2020 COVID19 in Sahrawi PDR page. Now it is gone again. Whether these cases referred to the Moroccan controlled region, I don’t know. The SPDR page identified a location presumably under their control. The thing is this. It popped up without any mention in Talk (which is common enough), and it disappeared with no explanation either. We had a discussion earlier about the status of the region, and as I recall, the concept was that cases in the Morocco controlled area were to be under Morocco, and any that came up in the SPDR controlled area would have separate listing, since not included in Morocco. Methinks some clarity and explanation are warranted. Ptilinopus ( talk) 14:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
In so happens that there was a debate on whether the figures for each country should include all the cases of that country or if the dependencies of that state should be treated separately. The issue was mostly about the Channel Islands where some channel islanders wanted to make sure that their insular hamlets were counted separately and they eventually won. The rule was thus applied to all countries for the sake of coherency. Fine.
Now, once they have won, the great secessionists/freedom fighters/independence leaders/fathers of the nations, seem to have forgotten that it was up to them to make sure that the template remains clear and devoid of double counting. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case.
I'll take an example that I know very well of. France.
First clarity or the lack of it. The vast majority of wikipedia users who want to know what the figures are for France won't bother, out of ignorance mostly, to go look for the individual figures of French Polynesia, New Caledonia, French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Mayotte, Reunion and Martinique. Some might even not even stop at Martinique, French Polynesia and New Caledonia because, for reasons unknown to me but I'm sure the great secessionists do know of, Martinique, New Caledonia and French Polynesia are the only French overseas territories to currently have their own local flag while all the others have the national French one. French Polynesia and New Caledonia have constitutionnally specific statuses but how is Martinique any special when compared to Guadeloupe? I guess the Guernsey and Jersey islanders who fought so well might shed some light on the issue.
Secondly, double counting. The current figure for France is, at the moment I'm writting these words, at 7560 deaths. The only problem being that the official French source "santé publique france", doesn't make any distinctions between metropolitan France, Corsica, Overseas Departments, Overseas territories and Overseas etc. So the 7560 figure includes ALL deaths on French soil even those in its overseas territories. The problem is, these territories have their own death figures leading to, well, double counting.
Now, of course, I can already hear the great independence leaders of Guernsey and Jersey saying that it's up to us to make sure that that doesn't happen. But actually, it's up to them to do so, because those who fought for including only states and not their dependencies didn't want this mess in the first place. So how to solve this and especially who has to?
I rest my case Manish2542 ( talk) 01:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
the great secessionists/freedom fighters/independence leaders/fathersinclude the World Health Organization, Reuters or the BBC. -- MarioGom ( talk) 08:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I find this frustrating. We had a long debate, an extended RfC, and everyone had their input. Everyone had a chance to indicate the way they thought this should go, and the majority consensus was to treat the outlying dependencies/territories/regions separately. For some of us it wasn’t the issue of politics but of geographical spread. Manish2542 had an extended say at the time. Now because he is objecting rather stridently yet again, we are going to scrap that decision and reopen the whole can of worms? No system is perfect. This system may have some double counting - though editors work to avoid it. In the previous system we had records being omitted because the main country did not include them. The consensus system has worked as well as any other system we have had. And geographically it is much more indicative. Can we just get on with the job? None of the arguments are new. I see no reason to reverse a majority consensus because one individual is stridently rehashing arguments he presented before. Ptilinopus ( talk) 14:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Some people keep copying the UK data from JHU, which includes the BOTs and CDs and doesn't match our consensus. Also, it seems that the UK government has stopped releasing data for recoveries. They said that 'a new process for collecting numbers of recovered patients is in development' days ago. Given that there is no information on recoveries to be found on the website, I wouldn't be surprised if the UK government simply gave up on counting. Chbe113 ( talk) 11:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry that I probably didn't make myself clear. This section is to discuss how to deal with the data for UK recoveries. Chbe113 ( talk) 11:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
FRANCE IS 98.010! 93.66.153.225 ( talk) 08:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Table inline style now has "font-sizebel" which replaced "font-size". This change has resulted in font size increase. Can someone correct or remove the invalid property name? 86.31.125.137 ( talk) 13:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
We probably should switch those dependency flags into localised flags even if they're unofficial. Using Tricoloure Français everywhere is just visually & graphically confusing and misleading. If there are dependencies other than the French ones who're still using sovereign flags, we probably should also do the same thing to them, too. Pktlaurence ( talk) 22:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
We separated dependency data because of their distinctiveness & uniqueness.Not really, that's a quite small part of the story. In my opinion, separating some entities make sense because of the way they are handled by reliable sources in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. I don't think you can infer that using unofficial flags is somehow a logical consequence of the last RfC decision. -- MarioGom ( talk) 22:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Please list out some examples where you can't. I'm editing the Chinese Wikipedia and we have distinct flags for every dependencies, even for akotiri and Dhekelia. Pktlaurence ( talk) 22:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC) MarioGom:Well, I've said the so called official measure is graphically both misleading and confusing, and I do think it outweighs your concerns. I asked you to provide example nicely, but it seems that you failed to produce any. Pktlaurence ( talk) 23:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Some clarifications regarding French regions
There is nothing unique to the situation of French overseas regions. On March 19th 1946, at the initiative of the Martinican deputy Aimé Césaire, supported by the Guianese Gaston Monnerville and the Reunionese Raymond Vergès a law has been voted at the French national assembly to make of Martinique, Guadeloupe, La Réunion and French Guiana French departments which are integral parts of the country, like any other French departments on mainland. Later, in 1982, the French governement created a new subdivisions, the Regions of France, and they subsequently became regions. In 1946, the islands of Saint-Martin and Saint-Barthélemy were parts of the created department of Guadeloupe. Later, in 2007, both islands became their own collectvities while remaining integral parts of France. Eventually, in 2009, the island of Mayotte held a referendum, won with 95.24% of votes, to obtain the same status and therefore became also integral part of France.
France is a unitary state. As such, being integral part of France means that the same rights, the same law, the same administration and the same representation applies there as it does on mainland. There is no different representation between the region of Martinique and the region of Nouvelle Aquitaine. Considering that France is part of the European Union, EU laws apply there as well and their currency is the euro. The Loi de départementalisation is the equivalent process as the Hawaii Admission Act or the Alaska Statehood Act which has lead both territories to become integral parts of the Union. The comparison with British overseas territories make no sense as those are crown dependencies, with a distinct citizenship (see British Overseas Territories citizen) and a legal autonomy. British overseas territories are considered separate from the rest of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
On the other hand, the status of New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Wallis and Futuna and Saint Pierre and Miquelon do belong to the category of autonomous territories. Citizens are French and they belong to the Republic, but they benefit of autonomous law which makes them indeed different from the rest of France. In the US context, their status could be compared to the one of Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa and US Virgin Islands.
For what it matters here and to get back on topic, The national French authority managing the Coronavirus crisis is the Agence nationale de santé publique which is competent over all French regions, each represented locally by their own Agence régionale de santé (ARS). Despite their status change, Saint-Martin and Saint-Barthélemy still depends of the Guadeloupe ARS. However, the other collectivites, having a more autonomous status, are managed through a different system. Therefore, it makes sense to me to add to the table the overseas collectivities of New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Wallis and Futuna and Saint Pierre and Miquelon if cases are reported there, however it doesn't to add overseas regions as well as Saint-Martin and Saint-Barthélemy, as that will necessarily lead to double counting. As a matter of fact, this is currently the case as the figures published for France already include them, yet they are still listed separetely.
In a nutshell, the confusion only comes from the fact some people believe that overseas regions mean "autonomous territories", "dependencies" or "colonies", whereas they are none of those. They are integral parts of the country in the very same way as the regions of Brittany or Normandy. Metropolitan ( talk) 08:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi! It is obvious that listing criteria for different territories and partially/limited recognized states is still a contentious topic where we did not reach a comprehensive agreement yet. I'd like to prepare a new RfC. You can look at the draft, including a proposal, here: User:MarioGom/sandbox/COVID-19 Locations RfC. Does anyone else want to make a different proposal for the RfC? Or an amendment to mine? Best, -- MarioGom ( talk) 14:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
MarioGom: I agree with your draft on the French case but I would approach it more as an amendment to the current RfC rather than as putting it totally into question. The RfC stipulates: "Autonomous territories and dependencies should be split as long as there are reliable sources.". I repeat that French overseas regions as well as the collectivities of Saint-Martin and Saint-Barthélemy are integral parts of France, they are neither autonomous territories nor dependencies. As far as I know, they are the only regions being integral parts of their country which are currently listed. This is certainly the reason why there is an issue specifically related to them. As for French autonomous territories which do exist and therefore could be listed separately, you could add to New Caledonia and French Polynesia the collectivity of Saint Pierre and Miquelon and the collectivity of Wallis and Futuna. Thanks for your work. Metropolitan ( talk) 17:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Since a few days, this table has become a huge mess, with unrecognised states appearing and disappearing from day to day, outer territories coming from nowhere, this is ridiculous. Please be serious, stick to the official list of recognised countries and real outer territories (having no close border with the mainland state, for example Falkland Islands and UK, Taiwan, Macau and China, Hawai, Alaska and USA, French Guyanna, New Caledonia and France, Greenland and Denmark... list not exhaustive). All pseudo-country that was formed outside of the Montevideo Convention of 1933 IS NOT a recognised country. It means that only 206 entities are recognised, and disregard any politically correct consideration, or otherwise don't forget to add the self declared states like Republic of Saugeais, Principality of Sealand and many other or even Isil/Daesh ! FMichaud76 ( talk) 08:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
(Insert tentative ping to MarioGom here, apologies for lack of notice)
So I'm reporting for duty as per the COVID–19 Case Count Task Force and I'm updating the values for USA and its overseas territories. Something odd happened with the Northern Mariana Islands (NMI for my convenience, apologies in advance).
1Point3Acres was reporting that NMI has 8 cases, 1 death, and 24 recoveries.
Proof: https://imgur.com/a/zrqO7HG.
How could this happen, and what should be the procedure for issues like this? For me, I just took the numbers at 1P3A as they are because this could be temporary. Thanks in advance.
Cheers, u|RayDeeUx contrib talk page 15:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Cumulative Number of Persons Released from Quarantine. This is an indicator that many countries publish, and it means people who were put in isolation and then released. People put in isolation are not necessarily confirmed cases. They can be people who returned from travel to a risk zone or had close contact with a confirmed case. -- MarioGom ( talk) 15:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Panama has 2249 confirmed cases, 59 deaths and 16 recovered. Source: La Estrella de Panamá https://www.laestrella.com.pa/nacional/200407/dia-mundial-salud-panama-suma-2-249-casos-59-muertes-covid-19 Webi0311 ( talk) 00:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Done same with official source. Thanks-- Tensa Februari ( talk) 02:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change confirmed cases for New Zealand from 1210 to 969, as it currently erroneously shows total of confirmed + probable cases. Source is https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-current-situation/covid-19-current-cases 125.238.91.48 ( talk) 22:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Death Figures mentioned for Italy are erroneously entered wrong, please rectify. 5.30.203.157 ( talk) 16:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Number of cases is 1795, deaths 70, recovered 365 ( Source). TheTrueGilben ( talk) 17:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I added a list of common errors in aggregate sources (JHU, Worldometer, 1point3acres, etc) that may be useful for other editors: Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Case Count Task Force § Common errors. -- MarioGom ( talk) 08:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Quick question: this table should be for listing human and only human COVID-19 cases, right?
I'm only asking this because there are rumors of dogs and cats in Europe who have been diagnosed with COVID-19, as well as a tiger in NYC's Bronx Zoo with COVID-19.
Cheers, u|RayDeeUx contrib talk page 00:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
For some countries there is no information about number of recoveries in the table. But this information can be found here: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html May we use this page to complete the table? For example, about the Netherlands. -- D.M. from Ukraine ( talk) 18:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Data "cases" for France is false (shows 89953 where it is 68605) on 2020/04/05 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.98.252.161 ( talk) 07:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Confirmed cases
Recoveries
Hospitalised
ICU
Deaths (hospital only)
Weekly reporting
Daily deaths in France (all causes) ; updated every week
daily summary
Buisson ( talk) 18:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Ya, I'm noticing a similar thing as noted above (Currently 5:17 EST on 04/07/2020). Sources linked to worldometers.com are claiming over 109 000 cases in France, yet the French gov ( https://dashboard.covid19.data.gouv.fr/) has less than 80 000. Not sure why there's such a discrepancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.87.57 ( talk) 21:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I added a bunch of new sources for this from the Iran article. The Iranian numbers are heavily disputed in the media, with a number of sources claiming the true count is being covered up by the Iranian government. This has been ongoing since at least late February, including with some Iranian officials (such as some in Qom) putting out higher numbers than the central government. Hamid Souri, who is part of the Iranian Government's National Coronavirus Combat Taskforce, said on April 6 that the true number of infected is 500k, though he blames poor testing rather than an official concerted cover-up, as have some WHO officials, such as Dr. Rick Brennan on March 16th. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 06:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Now we are more advanced into the pandemic. For maintaining, it's just one more Ctrl+V for cases and deaths into the Percentage template (example: 1.00%). Just asking Feelthhis ( talk) 20:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
death-to-caseratio is hardly a serious metric when based on cumulative death count and cumulative confirmed case count at a fixed point in time. You can check realiable sources in medicine for a more in-depth explanation of this kind of issue ( Estimating case fatality rates of COVID-19). There is also an informal consensus to avoid new columns on this table at the moment ( Link to discussion (informal)). -- MarioGom ( talk) 10:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
The following locations have lower cases than Worldometer or BNO and may require an update. Please, do not update directly. There can be false positives. Look for a reliable source to use and verify that all figures are correct:
Outdated report. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
-- MarioGom ( talk) 23:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Global CCF needs to be tally with JHU website, since that has changed a while ago. https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 BlackSun2104 ( talk) 01:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Malta 337 total cases 2 deaths 5 recoveries 77.71.201.131 ( talk) 12:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Bolivia, contagiados: 275, Muertes 20 Fuente: https://www.boliviasegura.gob.bo/ DrEditador ( talk) 04:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Page 2020 coronavirus pandemic in East Timor reports one recovered case. There is also a source.
-- 80.104.182.248 ( talk) 00:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Ecuador's president is claiming his country's figures to be wrong… should be included as a footnote
https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-bodies-left-home-streets-city-ecuador-2020-4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.26 ( talk) 04:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)