This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
COVID-19 pandemic data/Mainland China medical cases chart template. |
|
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I feel that would be more informative. -- Colin dm ( talk) 00:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Yug, Akira CA, GyozaDumpling, Eyesnore, Samozd, and Mardus: What to do you think of including projected cases based on current spread rate? I've did some math and found the following percentage growth for the respective days. With an average of 33.5%. Also have calculated the following graph based on the 33.5% spread per rate and included a estimate forecast for the next week. Do you think this should be included? RandomAccount1235423 ( talk) 10:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Daily growth respectively between 16 and 29 January: RandomAccount1235423 ( talk) 10:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
28% 49% 39% 32% 34% 23% 32% 36% 35% 29% 40% 25%
Average: 33.5% RandomAccount1235423 ( talk) 10:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be a miscalculation in the initial chart. The daily growth percentages are wrong, instead they are: CoronaVirusUpdates ( talk) 11:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 38 95 64 47 51 30 45 55 53 38 64 32 29
Respectively with an average of 49.3%. Hence the future chart should look like: CoronaVirusUpdates ( talk) 11:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
But we should be able to give a projection with the current numbers for a short term. So we have 10.000 cases yesterday and can project 50.000 cases in one week. If it holds true then we can project another week with 250.000 cases — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.117.135.34 ( talk) 19:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Or the other way round with current infection growth of 25% and 10000 cases we have 2 month left until all mankind is infected. 10000 * 1,25^60 = 6 Billion
Making a straight projection using latest % of growth will have very high chances or giving misleading results anyway, because over time the % of growth tends to "slow down". So, such a projection would have to take into account, not only the current % of growth, but also the rate at which that % of growth is, itself, slowing down. Basically, you have to try to find the S curve that fits best, not the exponential curve that fits best. Which is a bit more math-extensive. Using a pure exponential "fits best" curbe leads to ridiculous things like say in 3 months, more than 12 billion people will have become infected, which is evidently false because that would be more than Earth's entire population. Even for only a couple days in the future, pure exponential curve gives a 100% certainty give results that would be definitely overshooting. We want the best real "cold analysis" result, with sources, not some "scare-mongering" misdirection based on a Wikipedia contributor's edits alone. Unless there is a reasonably quite high % of confidence in a prediction curve's values, and for more than 2 or 3 days in the future, then it is probably a better approach to just not try to make such predictions in the first place. What could be much more useful is the chart showing the tracking of the number of deaths, in addition to the chart of the number of confirmed infected cases. In any case, using red for predicted values, visually shrinks down a lot the confirmed yellow values bars, and seems to downplay a lot the importance of the real data compared to some uncertain potential future.
I suggest showing bars representing death cases too reported for each day.-- 180.129.30.246 ( talk) 13:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Death cases count should be another chart 92.117.251.9 ( talk) 20:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I second the "two bars in the same chart" approach. However, because the number of deaths is only around 2-3% of the number of confirmed cases, I suggest using two different horizontal scales, one for confirmed cases, the other for deaths. Also, the two number data columns should be colored to color-match the color of their respective bars, and adopting two colors that are very easy to tell apart and that are easily readable (yellow is not all that much readable as text). For the few people with color blindness, some other trick should also exist. Maybe the bars for deaths are "full solid color" bars, while the bars for confirmed cases is a "hacked diagonal lines" texture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.178.47.171 ( talk) 18:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The NHC changed lists, the old list will not get the new updates anymore. Here's the new list: http://www.nhc.gov.cn/yjb/pzhgli/new_list.shtml (I have already updated this on the reference, just for people looking for the new cases) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samozd ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Some have used the growth percentage to project the future infected cases. Should we add the growth percentage to the graph? To see if it goes down over time? Or create another graph?
Expected is the growth goes down because people in infected regions are in quarantine and all confirmed cases are isolated. So if we had 33% growth last week then maybe next week it may only be 20% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.117.241.19 ( talk) 10:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't know how to fix this, otherwise I'd have done it directly, but it seems there is one dash character ('-') too many between the parenthesizes after the number 45 in the first data line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.178.47.171 ( talk) 18:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Simple suggestion. Now that we have a lot recoveries in the stats (more than half the total cases) shouldn't we calculate the growth percentage with a ratio : "new cases / ACTIVE cases", instead of : "new cases / all cumul. cases"? This will represent the current progression more accurately. For 2020-02-29, 0.7% will become about 1.4%. Narringa ( talk) 17:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
The text size in relation to the column width causes the date to be split into two lines. I’m using the default text size so I don’t think it’s that I’m also not sure if it’s only certain models/screen sizes of the iPhone. I would modify the column widths but My knowledge of formatting elements like that isn’t that good. I can also see that as soon as the numbers of cases hits the 100,000 mark or the percentage increase hits triple digits that column will also start to wrap its text around to a second line. It’s confusing to read. The center column with the actual graph bars can definitely be narrowed down a little. Kjpmi ( talk) 18:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello? Anyone? Kjpmi ( talk) 18:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
See fr:Template:2019-nCoV diagram Yug (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I added a new bar to the template since consensus seemed to indicate that deaths should be shown in the same chart. It seems natural to me to also have a bar showing recoveries but I'm wondering if the chart is getting too cluttered. I'm putting my proposed chart here for the time being and if there are no objections I'll move it to main space. CheeseBuffet ( talk) 16:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I like that. And it will illustrate when more people recover than get infected additionally soon. 92.117.140.183 ( talk) 19:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
+1 useful data to have 96.255.82.196 ( talk) 23:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Added it now CheeseBuffet ( talk) 10:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Suggested color change? -- Osunpokeh ( talk) 23:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
We should use an accessible color scheme for the bar colors, see MOS:CONTRAST. – Leviv ich 05:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The February 8th bar appears incorrect - I looked at the code and the numbers for confirmed cases are different in the text and in the formula used to calculate bar length.— Anne Delong ( talk) 00:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Anyone else think it should also show the numbers for the total death count and amount of recoveries? Having only bars doesn't really tell a lot. Poklane 00:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
As of time of writing, the source in the template has yet to publish the 02-12 report, but someone already put the supposed numbers in, as well as a percentage increase that contradicts the actual increase. Atheist723 ( talk) 00:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
The caption now says "As of February 12, 2020, numbers include clinically diagnosed people." How is this different than the previous numbers? Presumably this means they are not comparable? Are comparable numbers available that would make the graph more meaningful? -- Beland ( talk) 01:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Currently there is a description of why the number has jumped but it's not obviously linked to the last figure and it's likely people will look at the graph and not the caption. Ideally there needs some kind of bar or spacing between the two epochs (I don't know enough to do so unfortunately), if not a separate graph. At least some kind of footnote marker on the number to indicate to the reader that there is more to the 12 Feb statistic. Sabretoof ( talk) 01:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
33%<'nowiki'>*</'nowiki'>
just do not add the apostrophe in the nowiki tags. Thus this can easily be done. In fact, after February 14th's data is added, even if the clinically confirmed and tested confirmed cases are added together, the % will be looking like a normal value because it will be relying only on the previous value.
Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (
talk)
05:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Do we have a good source for knowing if the pre-12-Feb mainland China data excluded asymptomatic cases? Or were no mainland China asymptomatic people (those who had been in contact with known carriers) tested? Please add sources to Template talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data/International medical cases#Does "confirmed cases" include all lab-confirmed cases, including asymptomatic cases, or not?, because (at least) the European and Australian definitions of "confirmed cases" include all laboratory confirmed cases, independent of symptoms and independent of whether the person recovers or dies later on. Boud ( talk) 02:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
The Health Commission of Hubei province actually publishes with a breakdown of how many cases are clinical diagnoses and how many are confirmed diagnoses. Link for 12 Feb: http://wjw.hubei.gov.cn/fbjd/dtyw/202002/t20200213_2025581.shtml . I tried to add this to the graph but somehow the section that I add won't show up in my editing preview. The CD figure for 12 Feb is 13,332. Could anyone add this to the bar graph? Rethliopuks ( talk) 03:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
and
seem to use different colors and data - perhaps the colors could be harmonised so deaths is the same color on all for example. SO that "suspected cases" are removed after a time (say a month / evidence that people tested negative AND then not subsequently found as a false positive). ALSO harmonised with this graphic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 ( talk) 21:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
The numbers included in the graph and data do not match those provided in the reference, and in some cases (like the confirmed cases on the 13th) aren't even available in the referenced documents. Seems wrong. Martinwuhan ( talk) 04:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
There have been a lot of color schemes used in this article and due to the risk of WP:COLORWAR it seems like a good idea to settle the color debate. After all, it's a bit confusing for regular visitors to the article to see the chart change style constantly. As far as I know these are all the proposed colors for the various bars (used in different constellations):
Deaths: black , crimson , red
Recoveries: blue , dodgerblue
Tested confirmed: orange , red
Clinically confirmed: #Eb6e00 , khaki , limegreen
Personally I prefer the red/dodgerblue/orange/#Eb6e00 combination which looks like this:
Due to its contrast and
consistency with other disease charts.
CheeseBuffet (
talk)
17:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Why there is a change in color from Feb 18th (light yellow) to Feb 19th (dark yellow)? Even the statistics suggests that the numbers are same. Shyam ( T/ C) 07:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Re this revert:
From the perspective of an average WP user, this chart is overly complex and confusing, containing statistics that are not essential.
Rethliopuks wrote: "believe it or not the numbers are essential" - can Rethliopuks, or anyone else, please explain why the numbers are essential for the average WP user?
Rethliopuks wrote: "I don't find this chart any more complex or confusing than the basics of the situation." I do find it more complex and confusing than is absolutely necessary to understand the basics of the situation. Is the objective of the chart to present the data in a manner that is just as complex and confusing as the basics of the situation, or is it preferable to simplify the presentation of the data as much as possible - without grossly oversimplifying or distorting the information - to help the average reader to understand the basics of the situation? --- Ijon Tichy ( talk) 04:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
It appears that Hubei and NHC have both not released the number of clinical diagnoses. Yet that doesn't mean we won't have the data: the WHO situation reports always separate it from tested cases because the WHO only counts lab tested ones. At this moment the 17 Feb sitrep (for the global situation up to the end of 16 Feb) hasn't been released yet; when it is released we should hopefully have the separate data then. Rethliopuks ( talk) 03:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, this template just keeps getting wider as more cases are added. It's currently taking up something like 90% of the width of the article space on my screen at the moment, which is completely ridiculous. Of course this doesn't affect everyone to the same extent; nevertheless, it is out of hand.
Can the numbers be colocated/overlapped with the bars? Can some sort of scaling be used? Can the whole thing be rendered out as an SVG and then just handled as a regular image? pauli133 ( talk) 13:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm a little bit concerned of no original research particularly in the use of recoveries as a data point. Whilst the Chinese are using it, it is not standard in outbreak investigation or communication to use as a statistic. Can someone point me to a
WP:MEDRS source doing this?
The Chinese themselves have a great discussion on the use of statistics here (sorry about the google translate, which I guess is
WP:MEDRS compliant. Problems with the recovery data point include
1. Who defines recovery? if it becomes a pandemic, this will not be standardised worldwide.
2. When there is reporting into a surveillance system (which is what is happening) the data point of "positive test" or "death" is far more likely to be close to correct, due to clinician's sense of "urgency" of reporting these, as opposed to reporting recoveries.
3. Loss to followup - if you're well, many people won't tell their doctor so they can even be reported as recovery. Admittedly these cases are being followed very closely in this outbreak, but its a unique outbreak with a lot of active surveillance as opposed to passive surveillance. --
Almaty (
talk)
16:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Should we use the current graph or make visual changes to become a more standard epidemic curve per WP:MEDRS? As we can see in the best current data source (Figure 4). -- Almaty ( talk) 06:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Deciding on the data points but these are around case rates, can be stratified by diagnosis or symptoms sometimes - epidemic curves don't show recoveries. I would make the date bars much much smaller and put separate bars and colours for diagnostic method personally but there's options
3. Making it horizontal
Thats it then you have a proper epi curve as has been replicated in the WHO situation reports, follows WP:MEDRS and shows the data in an easily understandable way. Sorry I did try give this a shot to visualise - no hope in wikicode -- Almaty ( talk) 06:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I think we should use the chart above ("the cumulative chart" [9]) as the first one in the article (though we could also do well to also include the epidemic curve below it). IMO showing cumulatives makes visualizing the epidemic much easier (especially for the general reader) while avoiding the risk of confusion a secondary axis can bring. Whatever chart(s) we end up using should probably also include some note regarding the change of case definition on February 10th/12th. CheeseBuffet ( talk) 22:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I prefer this one. Peterwu2019 ( talk) 03:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Maybe this is the graph you are looking for ... TheRightKindOfDoctor ( talk) 14:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC) (same as for the MERS data)
This template is getting too tall and we must find a solution soon! If we want to keep the personality of this chart we have 2 options:
1- A temporary patch might be to decrease the font size, but this isn't neat and decreases accessibility.
2- A cool solution would be to create clickable tabs for each month, below the title, so that readers can switch to the bars/data of specific months. However this doesn't seem simple. The closest dynamic thing I can think of in Wikipedia is the
collapse template (does anyone know of a more similar feature?). Therefore, we would need to use
parser functions and more to customize our
Bar Box. Does anyone have knowledge on this? Otherwise, I'll try to learn them in the near future.
If nothing is done, we will need to completely scrap the chart and start a new one without the numbers on the right. If we get to this stage it might be better to just do an epi curve like suggested in the previous section.
Alexiscoutinho (
talk)
20:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Should use different colors for death and confirmed, the red colors are too similar. Wikilucki ( talk) 15:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Can you make much smaller and concise version now for the 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak page? Because I think the data isn't super relevant for where it is in the page now. My edits might be reverted but i think its not as important as it was even just 2 days ago. Also would appreciate any epidemic curves for any country. Or you can make an overall epidemic curve, I think this is better, have said a few times why. -- Almaty ( talk) 13:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Dear all, there seems to be much confusion on these wikipedia talk pages about coronavirus outbreak data. I see a lot of "original" thoughts and interpretations ... I'm trying to be kind ... alas, most of it should be removed asap. Stick to the data ! For example, the D/C (case fatality ratio) vs. D/(D+R) debate is ridiculous: just plot them both on the same graph as functions of time and ask yourself *is this understandable* ... it is not ! How does one justify to show / plot a quantity that has varied from 64% down to 9% during the past month and try to push it as an indicator of the severity of this very serious planetary event ? All those content in building anti-WHO/anti-Government conspiracies based on the fact that CFR is misleading should be ashamed. CFR is just CFR and it's a pity if some of you don't understand it. Should it be shown as a single large index supposed to clarify everything ? NO, absolutely not ! Again, these wikipedia pages should focus on clear understandable data (the following table is hilariously full of originality and should be cleaned up once and for all /info/en/?search=Template:2019–20_coronavirus_outbreak_data/China_medical_cases ) with clear graphical representations ... now this is a bit trickier because *everyone* has their fav-plot. What is certain is that semi-log plots are not an option for the general public (don't get me wrong, I love them (semi-)logs ... in a previous life, I spent 5 years of my life sleeping with stretched exponentials). If you give it a think, we can do without semi-log plots for all this data.
I addition to my "get rid of all this originality", I have 2 suggestions:
- stop using "," as a separator in the numerical data.
- make a useful-for-all graph out of the data like a stacked plot of Deaths / ill (=#Cases minus D+R) / Recovered ( /info/en/?search=File:Covid-test01.png ). It is a very intuitive way of showing such data because you can easily see WHEN the number of people that are ill declines (or will decline) - remember, a lot of people have difficulties with cumulative data plots. This type of plot was previously used for the wikipedia page on the MERS outbreak.
Best of luck. TheRightKindOfDoctor ( talk) 13:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
This barchart has a lot of data embedded in it and I am wondering if there is a spreadsheet/CSV available (anywhere?) that contains the data. Thanks! James Howard ( talk/ web) 23:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Should the graph be changed to include global cases instead of Mainland China? Nabu-Kudurri-Usur Yaniv ( talk) 10:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
As of 27 February 2020, there is a greater number of increase in cases outside of China then inside of it. In fact South Korea alone has reported more cases on this date (+505) than China +(433). It seems that the spread in China no longer represents the majority. Nabu-Kudurri-Usur Yaniv ( talk) 10:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I don't wish to cause an edit war, but I did have to swap the table back to the old style (without the custom stacked bar issues).
This is a screenshot of the table with the custom stacked bar, where the number of cases are quite distorted: https://imgur.com/a/Ieel2ny. "Show preview", unfortunately, doesn't exhibit those behaviors of distorted numbers.
This is a screenshot of the table in the original style [w/o the custom stacked bar}: https://imgur.com/a/DLEwmpN.
If possible, I'd like to see screenshots of both of these two different table styles on your devices before we start fighting over which style is better, etc. Then we can reach a consensus of which style to use and how to fix the width issues.
Until such a consensus is reached, I suggest that we stick with the style without the custom stacked bar for the sake of the readability of this table for others.
Good day/night.
EDIT: I do wish to note that the browser add-on that makes everything dark in my attached screenshots is Dark Mode Reader for Firefox, with the Contrast setting at +50.
RayDeeUx ( talk) 00:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Please take a look at the mobile view. The numbers in the right column show up like this:
80,02 (+0.3%
6 )
But it should look like:
80,026 (+0.3%)
--
FredTC (
talk)
02:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Alexiscoutinho ( talk) 08:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
@
Alexiscoutinho: Thanks for adding the collapsible feature. However, the "Last 10 days" option is a bit too short of a period to be that useful. Either half a month or 15 days, or "last two weeks" (14 days) would be better.
There could also be an "All" option to sit alongside the months and "Last xx days" options.
Zarex (
talk)
17:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Is there anyone here who could help me make this template work? Thank you in advance! — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 11:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I recently started the {{ 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Australia medical cases chart}} template, and I was wondering how one can implement a toggle for months and last 15 days like this template currently features? I want to add toggles for the first two months (Jan and Feb), March, and the last 15 days. I couldn't work it out on my own unfortunately, and there's absolutely no documentation on this feature, it seems. – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 19:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
id
and class
, respectively. You should only have one id
per HTML element, but you can have multiple classes for one toggle/button. Therefore, if a row should be affected by two different toggles, its id
should be a combination of the two, for example: mw-customcollapsible-feb-l15
. The toggle for February would thus need a simple class, mw-customtoggle-feb
, and a combined class, mw-customtoggle-feb-l15
, to affect the February rows which are not and are also within the last 15 days, respectively. {{
Medical cases chart/Row}} internally takes care of the id
attribution and its initial state based on the date provided (if you don't put a valid date, i.e. you have a time jump, the current implementation won't work properly) if you activate the collapsible
parameter. The {{
2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/China medical cases chart/Month button}} simply creates two alternating buttons which toggle their appropriate rows. However, it only accepts one month at time so, if you want to combine (Jan and Feb), you will need to manually create the alternating buttons with at least these classes on each: mw-customtoggle-jan mw-customtoggle-feb mw-customtoggle-feb-l15
. The 'Last 15 days' button follows the same principle, it only affects the bars with -l15
appended to their ids. All these buttons lie on a bar which is just a centered <div>
, but you still have the freedom to make whatever bar HTML. Summarizing:id
automatically appended with its month and, optionally, -l15
(if it's a recent date), if collapsible=
(yes
|y
|1
);togglesbar
is just an HTML that arranges the buttons in an ordered way;id
and initial state so that you can toggle/hide time jumps aswell.
Alexiscoutinho (
talk)
18:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
data
parameter. Furthermore, giving support to all country templates is extremely time and energy consuming, so I stopped midway to finally do your request. I hope you like it. Is it what you wanted?
Alexiscoutinho (
talk)
01:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)I've created WikiProject COVID-19 as a temporary or permanent WikiProject and invite editors to use this space for discussing ways to improve coverage of the ongoing 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Please bring your ideas to the project/talk page. Stay safe, -- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Starting March 31, 2020, the NHC started reporting data about asymptomatic patients. For example, on March 31, http://www.nhc.gov.cn/yjb/s7860/202004/28668f987f3a4e58b1a2a75db60d8cf2.shtml states that: "31个省(自治区、直辖市)和新疆生产建设兵团报告新增无症状感染者130例,当日转为确诊病例2例,当日解除隔离302例。尚在医学观察无症状感染者1367例,比前一日减少174例。"
However, it only provides an existing (instead of cumulative) number of asymptomatic patients. I'm not sure if we should include this data in the chart, and if we do, how would we go about adding it. -- Efly ( talk) 04:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Ahecht: Is it strictly necessary to "destroy" this template's structure by not using {{ Medical cases chart}}? The current implementation is bad because it won't automatically receive updates from {{ Medical cases chart}}. Manually expanding the template should only be done as a very last resort. Moreover, if this were to be done, then why not put in the HTML directly? Why stop halfway? Alexiscoutinho ( talk) 21:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Updated data: Shouldnt this data be updated? It is over a month out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.66.112 ( talk) 00:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
COVID-19 pandemic data/Mainland China medical cases chart template. |
|
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I feel that would be more informative. -- Colin dm ( talk) 00:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Yug, Akira CA, GyozaDumpling, Eyesnore, Samozd, and Mardus: What to do you think of including projected cases based on current spread rate? I've did some math and found the following percentage growth for the respective days. With an average of 33.5%. Also have calculated the following graph based on the 33.5% spread per rate and included a estimate forecast for the next week. Do you think this should be included? RandomAccount1235423 ( talk) 10:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Daily growth respectively between 16 and 29 January: RandomAccount1235423 ( talk) 10:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
28% 49% 39% 32% 34% 23% 32% 36% 35% 29% 40% 25%
Average: 33.5% RandomAccount1235423 ( talk) 10:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be a miscalculation in the initial chart. The daily growth percentages are wrong, instead they are: CoronaVirusUpdates ( talk) 11:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 38 95 64 47 51 30 45 55 53 38 64 32 29
Respectively with an average of 49.3%. Hence the future chart should look like: CoronaVirusUpdates ( talk) 11:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
But we should be able to give a projection with the current numbers for a short term. So we have 10.000 cases yesterday and can project 50.000 cases in one week. If it holds true then we can project another week with 250.000 cases — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.117.135.34 ( talk) 19:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Or the other way round with current infection growth of 25% and 10000 cases we have 2 month left until all mankind is infected. 10000 * 1,25^60 = 6 Billion
Making a straight projection using latest % of growth will have very high chances or giving misleading results anyway, because over time the % of growth tends to "slow down". So, such a projection would have to take into account, not only the current % of growth, but also the rate at which that % of growth is, itself, slowing down. Basically, you have to try to find the S curve that fits best, not the exponential curve that fits best. Which is a bit more math-extensive. Using a pure exponential "fits best" curbe leads to ridiculous things like say in 3 months, more than 12 billion people will have become infected, which is evidently false because that would be more than Earth's entire population. Even for only a couple days in the future, pure exponential curve gives a 100% certainty give results that would be definitely overshooting. We want the best real "cold analysis" result, with sources, not some "scare-mongering" misdirection based on a Wikipedia contributor's edits alone. Unless there is a reasonably quite high % of confidence in a prediction curve's values, and for more than 2 or 3 days in the future, then it is probably a better approach to just not try to make such predictions in the first place. What could be much more useful is the chart showing the tracking of the number of deaths, in addition to the chart of the number of confirmed infected cases. In any case, using red for predicted values, visually shrinks down a lot the confirmed yellow values bars, and seems to downplay a lot the importance of the real data compared to some uncertain potential future.
I suggest showing bars representing death cases too reported for each day.-- 180.129.30.246 ( talk) 13:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Death cases count should be another chart 92.117.251.9 ( talk) 20:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I second the "two bars in the same chart" approach. However, because the number of deaths is only around 2-3% of the number of confirmed cases, I suggest using two different horizontal scales, one for confirmed cases, the other for deaths. Also, the two number data columns should be colored to color-match the color of their respective bars, and adopting two colors that are very easy to tell apart and that are easily readable (yellow is not all that much readable as text). For the few people with color blindness, some other trick should also exist. Maybe the bars for deaths are "full solid color" bars, while the bars for confirmed cases is a "hacked diagonal lines" texture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.178.47.171 ( talk) 18:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The NHC changed lists, the old list will not get the new updates anymore. Here's the new list: http://www.nhc.gov.cn/yjb/pzhgli/new_list.shtml (I have already updated this on the reference, just for people looking for the new cases) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samozd ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Some have used the growth percentage to project the future infected cases. Should we add the growth percentage to the graph? To see if it goes down over time? Or create another graph?
Expected is the growth goes down because people in infected regions are in quarantine and all confirmed cases are isolated. So if we had 33% growth last week then maybe next week it may only be 20% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.117.241.19 ( talk) 10:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't know how to fix this, otherwise I'd have done it directly, but it seems there is one dash character ('-') too many between the parenthesizes after the number 45 in the first data line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.178.47.171 ( talk) 18:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Simple suggestion. Now that we have a lot recoveries in the stats (more than half the total cases) shouldn't we calculate the growth percentage with a ratio : "new cases / ACTIVE cases", instead of : "new cases / all cumul. cases"? This will represent the current progression more accurately. For 2020-02-29, 0.7% will become about 1.4%. Narringa ( talk) 17:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
The text size in relation to the column width causes the date to be split into two lines. I’m using the default text size so I don’t think it’s that I’m also not sure if it’s only certain models/screen sizes of the iPhone. I would modify the column widths but My knowledge of formatting elements like that isn’t that good. I can also see that as soon as the numbers of cases hits the 100,000 mark or the percentage increase hits triple digits that column will also start to wrap its text around to a second line. It’s confusing to read. The center column with the actual graph bars can definitely be narrowed down a little. Kjpmi ( talk) 18:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello? Anyone? Kjpmi ( talk) 18:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
See fr:Template:2019-nCoV diagram Yug (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I added a new bar to the template since consensus seemed to indicate that deaths should be shown in the same chart. It seems natural to me to also have a bar showing recoveries but I'm wondering if the chart is getting too cluttered. I'm putting my proposed chart here for the time being and if there are no objections I'll move it to main space. CheeseBuffet ( talk) 16:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I like that. And it will illustrate when more people recover than get infected additionally soon. 92.117.140.183 ( talk) 19:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
+1 useful data to have 96.255.82.196 ( talk) 23:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Added it now CheeseBuffet ( talk) 10:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Suggested color change? -- Osunpokeh ( talk) 23:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
We should use an accessible color scheme for the bar colors, see MOS:CONTRAST. – Leviv ich 05:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The February 8th bar appears incorrect - I looked at the code and the numbers for confirmed cases are different in the text and in the formula used to calculate bar length.— Anne Delong ( talk) 00:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Anyone else think it should also show the numbers for the total death count and amount of recoveries? Having only bars doesn't really tell a lot. Poklane 00:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
As of time of writing, the source in the template has yet to publish the 02-12 report, but someone already put the supposed numbers in, as well as a percentage increase that contradicts the actual increase. Atheist723 ( talk) 00:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
The caption now says "As of February 12, 2020, numbers include clinically diagnosed people." How is this different than the previous numbers? Presumably this means they are not comparable? Are comparable numbers available that would make the graph more meaningful? -- Beland ( talk) 01:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Currently there is a description of why the number has jumped but it's not obviously linked to the last figure and it's likely people will look at the graph and not the caption. Ideally there needs some kind of bar or spacing between the two epochs (I don't know enough to do so unfortunately), if not a separate graph. At least some kind of footnote marker on the number to indicate to the reader that there is more to the 12 Feb statistic. Sabretoof ( talk) 01:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
33%<'nowiki'>*</'nowiki'>
just do not add the apostrophe in the nowiki tags. Thus this can easily be done. In fact, after February 14th's data is added, even if the clinically confirmed and tested confirmed cases are added together, the % will be looking like a normal value because it will be relying only on the previous value.
Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (
talk)
05:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Do we have a good source for knowing if the pre-12-Feb mainland China data excluded asymptomatic cases? Or were no mainland China asymptomatic people (those who had been in contact with known carriers) tested? Please add sources to Template talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data/International medical cases#Does "confirmed cases" include all lab-confirmed cases, including asymptomatic cases, or not?, because (at least) the European and Australian definitions of "confirmed cases" include all laboratory confirmed cases, independent of symptoms and independent of whether the person recovers or dies later on. Boud ( talk) 02:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
The Health Commission of Hubei province actually publishes with a breakdown of how many cases are clinical diagnoses and how many are confirmed diagnoses. Link for 12 Feb: http://wjw.hubei.gov.cn/fbjd/dtyw/202002/t20200213_2025581.shtml . I tried to add this to the graph but somehow the section that I add won't show up in my editing preview. The CD figure for 12 Feb is 13,332. Could anyone add this to the bar graph? Rethliopuks ( talk) 03:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
and
seem to use different colors and data - perhaps the colors could be harmonised so deaths is the same color on all for example. SO that "suspected cases" are removed after a time (say a month / evidence that people tested negative AND then not subsequently found as a false positive). ALSO harmonised with this graphic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 ( talk) 21:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
The numbers included in the graph and data do not match those provided in the reference, and in some cases (like the confirmed cases on the 13th) aren't even available in the referenced documents. Seems wrong. Martinwuhan ( talk) 04:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
There have been a lot of color schemes used in this article and due to the risk of WP:COLORWAR it seems like a good idea to settle the color debate. After all, it's a bit confusing for regular visitors to the article to see the chart change style constantly. As far as I know these are all the proposed colors for the various bars (used in different constellations):
Deaths: black , crimson , red
Recoveries: blue , dodgerblue
Tested confirmed: orange , red
Clinically confirmed: #Eb6e00 , khaki , limegreen
Personally I prefer the red/dodgerblue/orange/#Eb6e00 combination which looks like this:
Due to its contrast and
consistency with other disease charts.
CheeseBuffet (
talk)
17:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Why there is a change in color from Feb 18th (light yellow) to Feb 19th (dark yellow)? Even the statistics suggests that the numbers are same. Shyam ( T/ C) 07:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Re this revert:
From the perspective of an average WP user, this chart is overly complex and confusing, containing statistics that are not essential.
Rethliopuks wrote: "believe it or not the numbers are essential" - can Rethliopuks, or anyone else, please explain why the numbers are essential for the average WP user?
Rethliopuks wrote: "I don't find this chart any more complex or confusing than the basics of the situation." I do find it more complex and confusing than is absolutely necessary to understand the basics of the situation. Is the objective of the chart to present the data in a manner that is just as complex and confusing as the basics of the situation, or is it preferable to simplify the presentation of the data as much as possible - without grossly oversimplifying or distorting the information - to help the average reader to understand the basics of the situation? --- Ijon Tichy ( talk) 04:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
It appears that Hubei and NHC have both not released the number of clinical diagnoses. Yet that doesn't mean we won't have the data: the WHO situation reports always separate it from tested cases because the WHO only counts lab tested ones. At this moment the 17 Feb sitrep (for the global situation up to the end of 16 Feb) hasn't been released yet; when it is released we should hopefully have the separate data then. Rethliopuks ( talk) 03:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, this template just keeps getting wider as more cases are added. It's currently taking up something like 90% of the width of the article space on my screen at the moment, which is completely ridiculous. Of course this doesn't affect everyone to the same extent; nevertheless, it is out of hand.
Can the numbers be colocated/overlapped with the bars? Can some sort of scaling be used? Can the whole thing be rendered out as an SVG and then just handled as a regular image? pauli133 ( talk) 13:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm a little bit concerned of no original research particularly in the use of recoveries as a data point. Whilst the Chinese are using it, it is not standard in outbreak investigation or communication to use as a statistic. Can someone point me to a
WP:MEDRS source doing this?
The Chinese themselves have a great discussion on the use of statistics here (sorry about the google translate, which I guess is
WP:MEDRS compliant. Problems with the recovery data point include
1. Who defines recovery? if it becomes a pandemic, this will not be standardised worldwide.
2. When there is reporting into a surveillance system (which is what is happening) the data point of "positive test" or "death" is far more likely to be close to correct, due to clinician's sense of "urgency" of reporting these, as opposed to reporting recoveries.
3. Loss to followup - if you're well, many people won't tell their doctor so they can even be reported as recovery. Admittedly these cases are being followed very closely in this outbreak, but its a unique outbreak with a lot of active surveillance as opposed to passive surveillance. --
Almaty (
talk)
16:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Should we use the current graph or make visual changes to become a more standard epidemic curve per WP:MEDRS? As we can see in the best current data source (Figure 4). -- Almaty ( talk) 06:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Deciding on the data points but these are around case rates, can be stratified by diagnosis or symptoms sometimes - epidemic curves don't show recoveries. I would make the date bars much much smaller and put separate bars and colours for diagnostic method personally but there's options
3. Making it horizontal
Thats it then you have a proper epi curve as has been replicated in the WHO situation reports, follows WP:MEDRS and shows the data in an easily understandable way. Sorry I did try give this a shot to visualise - no hope in wikicode -- Almaty ( talk) 06:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I think we should use the chart above ("the cumulative chart" [9]) as the first one in the article (though we could also do well to also include the epidemic curve below it). IMO showing cumulatives makes visualizing the epidemic much easier (especially for the general reader) while avoiding the risk of confusion a secondary axis can bring. Whatever chart(s) we end up using should probably also include some note regarding the change of case definition on February 10th/12th. CheeseBuffet ( talk) 22:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I prefer this one. Peterwu2019 ( talk) 03:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Maybe this is the graph you are looking for ... TheRightKindOfDoctor ( talk) 14:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC) (same as for the MERS data)
This template is getting too tall and we must find a solution soon! If we want to keep the personality of this chart we have 2 options:
1- A temporary patch might be to decrease the font size, but this isn't neat and decreases accessibility.
2- A cool solution would be to create clickable tabs for each month, below the title, so that readers can switch to the bars/data of specific months. However this doesn't seem simple. The closest dynamic thing I can think of in Wikipedia is the
collapse template (does anyone know of a more similar feature?). Therefore, we would need to use
parser functions and more to customize our
Bar Box. Does anyone have knowledge on this? Otherwise, I'll try to learn them in the near future.
If nothing is done, we will need to completely scrap the chart and start a new one without the numbers on the right. If we get to this stage it might be better to just do an epi curve like suggested in the previous section.
Alexiscoutinho (
talk)
20:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Should use different colors for death and confirmed, the red colors are too similar. Wikilucki ( talk) 15:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Can you make much smaller and concise version now for the 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak page? Because I think the data isn't super relevant for where it is in the page now. My edits might be reverted but i think its not as important as it was even just 2 days ago. Also would appreciate any epidemic curves for any country. Or you can make an overall epidemic curve, I think this is better, have said a few times why. -- Almaty ( talk) 13:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Dear all, there seems to be much confusion on these wikipedia talk pages about coronavirus outbreak data. I see a lot of "original" thoughts and interpretations ... I'm trying to be kind ... alas, most of it should be removed asap. Stick to the data ! For example, the D/C (case fatality ratio) vs. D/(D+R) debate is ridiculous: just plot them both on the same graph as functions of time and ask yourself *is this understandable* ... it is not ! How does one justify to show / plot a quantity that has varied from 64% down to 9% during the past month and try to push it as an indicator of the severity of this very serious planetary event ? All those content in building anti-WHO/anti-Government conspiracies based on the fact that CFR is misleading should be ashamed. CFR is just CFR and it's a pity if some of you don't understand it. Should it be shown as a single large index supposed to clarify everything ? NO, absolutely not ! Again, these wikipedia pages should focus on clear understandable data (the following table is hilariously full of originality and should be cleaned up once and for all /info/en/?search=Template:2019–20_coronavirus_outbreak_data/China_medical_cases ) with clear graphical representations ... now this is a bit trickier because *everyone* has their fav-plot. What is certain is that semi-log plots are not an option for the general public (don't get me wrong, I love them (semi-)logs ... in a previous life, I spent 5 years of my life sleeping with stretched exponentials). If you give it a think, we can do without semi-log plots for all this data.
I addition to my "get rid of all this originality", I have 2 suggestions:
- stop using "," as a separator in the numerical data.
- make a useful-for-all graph out of the data like a stacked plot of Deaths / ill (=#Cases minus D+R) / Recovered ( /info/en/?search=File:Covid-test01.png ). It is a very intuitive way of showing such data because you can easily see WHEN the number of people that are ill declines (or will decline) - remember, a lot of people have difficulties with cumulative data plots. This type of plot was previously used for the wikipedia page on the MERS outbreak.
Best of luck. TheRightKindOfDoctor ( talk) 13:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
This barchart has a lot of data embedded in it and I am wondering if there is a spreadsheet/CSV available (anywhere?) that contains the data. Thanks! James Howard ( talk/ web) 23:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Should the graph be changed to include global cases instead of Mainland China? Nabu-Kudurri-Usur Yaniv ( talk) 10:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
As of 27 February 2020, there is a greater number of increase in cases outside of China then inside of it. In fact South Korea alone has reported more cases on this date (+505) than China +(433). It seems that the spread in China no longer represents the majority. Nabu-Kudurri-Usur Yaniv ( talk) 10:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I don't wish to cause an edit war, but I did have to swap the table back to the old style (without the custom stacked bar issues).
This is a screenshot of the table with the custom stacked bar, where the number of cases are quite distorted: https://imgur.com/a/Ieel2ny. "Show preview", unfortunately, doesn't exhibit those behaviors of distorted numbers.
This is a screenshot of the table in the original style [w/o the custom stacked bar}: https://imgur.com/a/DLEwmpN.
If possible, I'd like to see screenshots of both of these two different table styles on your devices before we start fighting over which style is better, etc. Then we can reach a consensus of which style to use and how to fix the width issues.
Until such a consensus is reached, I suggest that we stick with the style without the custom stacked bar for the sake of the readability of this table for others.
Good day/night.
EDIT: I do wish to note that the browser add-on that makes everything dark in my attached screenshots is Dark Mode Reader for Firefox, with the Contrast setting at +50.
RayDeeUx ( talk) 00:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Please take a look at the mobile view. The numbers in the right column show up like this:
80,02 (+0.3%
6 )
But it should look like:
80,026 (+0.3%)
--
FredTC (
talk)
02:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Alexiscoutinho ( talk) 08:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
@
Alexiscoutinho: Thanks for adding the collapsible feature. However, the "Last 10 days" option is a bit too short of a period to be that useful. Either half a month or 15 days, or "last two weeks" (14 days) would be better.
There could also be an "All" option to sit alongside the months and "Last xx days" options.
Zarex (
talk)
17:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Is there anyone here who could help me make this template work? Thank you in advance! — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 11:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I recently started the {{ 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Australia medical cases chart}} template, and I was wondering how one can implement a toggle for months and last 15 days like this template currently features? I want to add toggles for the first two months (Jan and Feb), March, and the last 15 days. I couldn't work it out on my own unfortunately, and there's absolutely no documentation on this feature, it seems. – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 19:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
id
and class
, respectively. You should only have one id
per HTML element, but you can have multiple classes for one toggle/button. Therefore, if a row should be affected by two different toggles, its id
should be a combination of the two, for example: mw-customcollapsible-feb-l15
. The toggle for February would thus need a simple class, mw-customtoggle-feb
, and a combined class, mw-customtoggle-feb-l15
, to affect the February rows which are not and are also within the last 15 days, respectively. {{
Medical cases chart/Row}} internally takes care of the id
attribution and its initial state based on the date provided (if you don't put a valid date, i.e. you have a time jump, the current implementation won't work properly) if you activate the collapsible
parameter. The {{
2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/China medical cases chart/Month button}} simply creates two alternating buttons which toggle their appropriate rows. However, it only accepts one month at time so, if you want to combine (Jan and Feb), you will need to manually create the alternating buttons with at least these classes on each: mw-customtoggle-jan mw-customtoggle-feb mw-customtoggle-feb-l15
. The 'Last 15 days' button follows the same principle, it only affects the bars with -l15
appended to their ids. All these buttons lie on a bar which is just a centered <div>
, but you still have the freedom to make whatever bar HTML. Summarizing:id
automatically appended with its month and, optionally, -l15
(if it's a recent date), if collapsible=
(yes
|y
|1
);togglesbar
is just an HTML that arranges the buttons in an ordered way;id
and initial state so that you can toggle/hide time jumps aswell.
Alexiscoutinho (
talk)
18:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
data
parameter. Furthermore, giving support to all country templates is extremely time and energy consuming, so I stopped midway to finally do your request. I hope you like it. Is it what you wanted?
Alexiscoutinho (
talk)
01:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)I've created WikiProject COVID-19 as a temporary or permanent WikiProject and invite editors to use this space for discussing ways to improve coverage of the ongoing 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Please bring your ideas to the project/talk page. Stay safe, -- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Starting March 31, 2020, the NHC started reporting data about asymptomatic patients. For example, on March 31, http://www.nhc.gov.cn/yjb/s7860/202004/28668f987f3a4e58b1a2a75db60d8cf2.shtml states that: "31个省(自治区、直辖市)和新疆生产建设兵团报告新增无症状感染者130例,当日转为确诊病例2例,当日解除隔离302例。尚在医学观察无症状感染者1367例,比前一日减少174例。"
However, it only provides an existing (instead of cumulative) number of asymptomatic patients. I'm not sure if we should include this data in the chart, and if we do, how would we go about adding it. -- Efly ( talk) 04:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Ahecht: Is it strictly necessary to "destroy" this template's structure by not using {{ Medical cases chart}}? The current implementation is bad because it won't automatically receive updates from {{ Medical cases chart}}. Manually expanding the template should only be done as a very last resort. Moreover, if this were to be done, then why not put in the HTML directly? Why stop halfway? Alexiscoutinho ( talk) 21:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Updated data: Shouldnt this data be updated? It is over a month out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.66.112 ( talk) 00:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)