Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Criticism of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

The US government, including CDC, have received fair criticism, which is being developed under United States government. I see there is now a new section dedicated to criticism of the CDC:

2019–20 coronavirus outbreak § Center for Disease Control and Prevention

The Center for Disease Control of the United States has been widely criticized for a number of problems and failings in its approach to the novel coronavirus outbreaks. Among the issues include: a large number of faulty coronavirus test kits sent out to localities throughout the United States, a "woefully" low number of tests being done (3600 as opposed to over 65000 in South Korea, a country with a smaller population) and contamination of the lab dealing with the new coronavirus... The CDC was also surrounded in controversy after a suspected patient who was refused a test by the CDC later turned out to be positive for SARS-CoV-2...

Firstly, can or should the content here be moderated a bit? Secondly, should the section be made subordinate to the United States government?

- Wikmoz (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

For now, I'd say putting it under US government would be fine enough. It's only if there's a later plethora of passages specifically targeting the CDC that it may need to be split as in the case of Hubei and the central CCP. Sleath56 (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
The CDC is acting independently of the governments: for example, a problem that was pointed out with the Japanese response was how Japan didn't have a CDC and hence the response was managed by political leaders. The US government section seems to focus mostly on the response of the government itself and budget issues, though it's far from clear that these CDC problems were to do with funding. I personally view the problem to be a cultural/structural issue relating to the CDC rather than something to do with the US government directly. Tsukide (talk) 07:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Tsukide, I see that you created the section. I think you highlight some real issues. However, the section really reads like it was written by someone who has an opinion on the subject. It doesn't read like an encyclopedia entry impartially chronicling the criticism. The CDC has its own issues but it is part of the U.S. federal government. - Wikmoz (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
This section needs to be merged with or made subordinate to the US Government section, as the CDC is a US Government agency. Also, the US Government section itself requires significant clean-up. Specifically, the reports regarding cuts in CDC funding have been investigated and are inaccurate, as discussed here: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/democrats-misleading-coronavirus-claims/ The tone of the US Government Criticism section also reads more like an Op-Ed than an encyclopedia article. Also, the text regarding the deaths in WA state that appears in the "US Government" section should be moved to the US "Domestic Response" section, and definitely should not appear here, in the "criticisms" section.
Also, the United States government section has claims regarding the "80% cut" which need to be cleaned up. Specifically, this news report [[1]] clearly ties the identified program cuts to the expiration of funding earmarked the Ebola Crisis--which both the CDC and WHO have declared is "ended" [[2]]. Including information about the expiration of funding for an unrelated and resolved epidemic in an article about COVID-19 is misleading, as it implies the Global Disease Detection (GDD) program itself was cut. In reality, overall funding for this program has gone up in past FY's: [[3]] As written, this section is misleading and inaccurate. (NoExcuseForSloppiness) —Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I see the section has been moved under United States governement, which is great. The content I think in all of these sections needs work.
@Doc James, Dekimasu, and Mikael Häggström: Should we drop a {{POV section|date=March 2020}} flag in the Criticism of Responses section? Or is that too drastic? - Wikmoz (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
The criticism belongs on the subpage about the disease in the US if anywhere. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Since the CDC funding issue is of great significance for US political debate, we should make an effort to get the details correct here. I have done more research on the "80% cut" issue, and what I have found is significantly different from what is written in the article. For example, the CDC's Global Disease Detection (GDD) program was founded in 2004, not 2014, and was established as 10 regional coordination centers worldwide at the time. The "2014" date in the article likely refers to the start of a five-year effort to combat Ebola, which saw the deployment of CDC personnel to as many as 62 different countries during this time, which overlapped with the Zika crises, among others. It was the funding for Ebola eradication which was due to expire at the end of 2018. A peer-reviewed article with details of this program may be found here (may require subscription): [[4]]. Here is the full citation: Montgomery, J.M., Woolverton, A., Hedges, S. et al. Ten years of global disease detection and counting: program accomplishments and lessons learned in building global health security. BMC Public Health 19, 510 (2019). [5] NoExcuseForSloppiness--NoExcuseForSloppiness (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The stats on recoveries just don't look credible

(2nd post of this as 1st didn't come through)

Recoveries on <https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:2020_coronavirus_patients_in_China.svg> just don't make sense. The curve is far too perfect and deaths have levelled off weirdly. I'm either misunderstanding or something is plain wrong here. I followed the link back to the stats page <http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/list_gzbd.shtml> which is in Chinese, well no surprise, but the data is not in any machine-legible format I could find (edit: or even HTML table). Something smells off.

Is there any machine-formatted data for this that anyone knows of? Should that data be munged into machine-readability and made available here as well as the graph, as a matter of course? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.102.166 (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

This is the main article, so no I don't think we need any more detail than we already have. The subarticle 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak in Mainland China has additional detail including this chart Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/China medical cases chart. In addition, this is wikipedia, an encyclopaedia. Our purpose is to be read by humans. Machine-readability is not our concern. Try Wikisource:Wikisource or Wikidata:Wikidata:Wikidata. Of course even the graph you mention is an SVG so meets some definitions of machine-readability anyway. And the template, since it's intended to be edited by humans, also has the data in an even more machine-readable format. Nil Einne (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
(2nd edit to write this. The first seems to have been removed for some reason)
One of wikipedia's aims is verifiability, so having the data to analyse arguably does matter. And an SVG isn't even close to what I mean.
But that totally neglects the main point which is what wikipedia is saying appears likely to be wrong because it's based on dubious data. Surely you can see that's what I was getting at.


All numbers coming from China are plain lies. There is no point debating them. I actually support having them included on Wikipedia because they are so obviously wrong.--Adûnâi (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. The silence on this, and the diminution then removal of a section critical of these statistics - it was starting to unnerve me. Glad I'm not the only one with doubts.


I am not an English native speaker but concerning the same image, instead of "Under treatment (daily)", it should be something different than "(daily)". Otherwise, what is the difference to "Confirmed cases (daily)"? When using the same meaning of "(daily)", there would already be several hundred thousand of infected people with over 30,000 "daily" for the last 20 days. Suggestion: "Under treatment (currently)" and "New confirmed cases (daily)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.247.54.208 (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

In theory, an expert could check if the data provided by China fit to general models of epidemics dynamics and things like Herd immunity. Probably someone did it already somewhere. My very best wishes (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
In practice this has been done and it didn't fit the model. Also we had a section here (which I mention above) where a proper statistician was quoted giving his opinion. It got removed and when I asked why, no-one responded. What disturbs me much more than China spouting rubbish (it's what they do) is people quietly going along with it.88.108.214.79 (talk) 07:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I strongly concur, in fact I removed the recoveries, which were reinserted after conensus. To quote myself
Surveillance systems are not standardised worldwide, and comparing deaths to recoveries is near impossible at this stage. Hong Kong had many cases and only 2 recoveries from memory. That can't be compared in a graph to other countries - it is very misleading. If you follow my contribs you can see a fair bit of the argument --Almaty (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

IMO, the argument holds even more weight, and the situation we are in now, I was predicting. User:Doc James I again proposing removing recoveries for all these reasons. --Almaty (talk) 11:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

WHO has looked at this and there is a good overview here.[6]
By the way is the claim that more people have recovered than is listed? Or that these many people have not recovered? :::With respect to recoveries "not looking credible" we are not here to make those sorts of claims. The question is do any reliable sources make those claims? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I support showing the recovery data. Statistically relevant data from Italy, Iran, etc. will be coming out in the coming days and weeks. Comparison to China will either prove that China was/is messing with its numbers, or that it has better methods for containment. Either way, the comparison is useful.132.68.80.41 (talk) 07:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I strongly support looking for primary data as sources from the Mainland should be taken with a handful of salt. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 07:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Doc James I don't claim either way. I just suggest, strongly as I have since mid feb or earlier, that all recovery data is misleading and not yet encyclopaedic. --Almaty (talk)
We have good sources that state it.[7] That is all that matters. Our own opinions should count for nothing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not know where to suggest it, but I would recommend to add a column to the table of number of verified and dead cases per country. That column will indicate those number per million of people in that country. It will give a better understanding of the situation. For example 100 cases in Norway is much worse situation than 300 in the USA... Currently there is no way to get this understanding using Wikipedia, without calculations. Thanks. 🙏 Crxsmh (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Estimates / Projection - missing ?

Hi everyone, sometime between mid February (I guess during a reshuffle / reorganisation) the epidemiology subsection on "estimates" (tame as that was) got lost. For what I'm talking about, see eg - https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_outbreak&oldid=940935841#Estimates .

I wouldn't have noticed, but with the UK government (and various top health officials eg of Wales and Scotland) describing a (first) peak of infections for this summer, and a possibly very high attack rate (80% being given as the max estimate), I was thinking these projections are starting to be valid for inclusion in the article (and if you ask me, the lead as well). Won't get round to being BOLD right now, so thought I'd throw out a bone and see what other people here think ! Regards Sean Heron (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Whilst there are valid estimates, I think we need to follow the WHO's lead on that one because of the global outlook of the page. Also many estimates are expert opinion AFAIK, so need to follow WP:MEDRS --Almaty (talk)
I would really like to see information on expert modelling/projection of the novel coronavirus outbreak discussed somewhere on this page, or in a dedicated article. I don't think it violates WP:CRYSTAL or other policies because the article would not be making claims about the future, it would be discussing claims made by others. Wikipedia has plenty of articles on climate change projections, so this should be allowed. Maybe there are specific rules for reliability of health-related sources, but that shouldn't be a barrier to including any info at all about projections. 72.209.60.95 (talk) 05:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand Almaty - at first I thought you'd misunderstood my point or were answering at the wrong section (cause it sounded to me like you were discussing whether the outbreak should be called "pandemic" or not). On rereading, I can see you are talking about an estimate section, but I don't really understand your point, sorry. The "opinions" I was referring to are both by top health officials, and based on modelling by the scientific community (the models I saw were published on MedarXiv 2 weeks ago - dunno if they've been published in a journal yet). Regards Sean Heron (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
P.S. If the WHO has projections saying this is not going to peak in summer, and/or that they estimate a far lower attack rate, then I guess that would have some weight, sure. But I've not heard of any such projections (and just the fact that they're not making projections doesn't seem to be much of a reason to not include any here???). Sean Heron (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
The projections are all high and low estimates which aren't really possible to maintain up to date or reliable, trust me things will become clearer in approx 2 weeks I would still hold off until then per WP:NOTNEWS --Almaty (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

So what does "60% alcohol" mean?

Some explicit clarification is needed of the claim that "60% alcohol" is effective against coronavirus. Strangely none of the official sources from WHO or the government sources from the US or the UK bother to clarify the issue. Now Wikipedia is compounding the cover up by continuing the cryptic obfuscation. Do they mean 60% proof? Or do they mean 60% alcohol by weight. Or perhaps they mean 60% alcohol by volume. Then again, perhaps it's 60% alcohol by some other measure. No one is saying.

It happened that on 1 January 1980 Britain adopted the system of measurement recommended by the International Organisation of Legal Metrology, a system which measures alcohol strength as a percentage of alcohol by volume. And in the United States, the Code of Federal Regulations 27 CFR [1 April 2003 Edition] §5.37 Alcohol content requires that liquor labels must state the percentage of ABV. So perhaps it is ABV that WHO uses as well. Is it sensible to assume every Wikipedia reader knows all this?

The matter is not trivial. I have heard acquaintances saying happily that whisky, brandy, rum, gin and vodka are over 60% proof and will make fine hand washes. Older people often still think in terms of alcohol proof, and this is the demographic most likely to die from coronavirus. — Epipelagic (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

WHO uses volume ratios (v/v) so 80% would be 80 ml alcohol and 20 ml water. For example see https://www.who.int/gpsc/5may/Guide_to_Local_Production.pdf for example formulations. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
@Epipelagic: When communicating alcohol concentration in terms of alcohol proof, the percent sign isn't used. For example, you would just say 60 proof, not 60% proof. As to whether it's by weight or by volume, I would say that from my personal experience working in labs that alcohol concentration is given by volume. So 100 mL of 60% alcohol is 60 mL of 100% alcohol plus 40 mL H2O. Graeme seems to have a more official response above.  Bait30  Talk? 06:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
So I take it there is consensus that when the article refers to "60% alcohol" it is referring to 60% alcohol by volume (or 120 proof). I have edited the article accordingly, so there can be no confusion. — Epipelagic (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

10,000 cases color

Could whoever is making the infobox image add a new darker color for 10,000+ confirmed cases? At this rate, either Italy or South Korea will soon join China in that club, while some others would join the 1,000 group.. Juxlos (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Corona

one case is said to be confirmed in Lagos, Nigeria. Mxscot (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Source? and the table already shows one case in Nigeria. — RealFakeKimT 07:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2020

The number of patients with COVID-19 in Austria is only 55, as per official government communication: https://www.sozialministerium.at/Informationen-zum-Coronavirus/Neuartiges-Coronavirus-(2019-nCov).html 2A02:8388:6583:CD00:951:48B1:8FC8:E286 (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

☒N Not Done: The source provided says 74, the template says 66 and your saying it's 55. I will be updating it to 74 as per the source. 08:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2020

The correct reference for the 66 cases in Austria in the table of number of infected cases: https://www.apa.at/Site/News.de.html?id=6253571046 2A02:8388:6583:CD00:951:48B1:8FC8:E286 (talk) 07:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

☒N Not Done: The government source provided in your other comment says 74. — RealFakeKimT 08:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Cases per 100,000 inhabitants

Would it not be good to have cases per 100,000 inhabitants in the table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.37.81 (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Although it might be interesting, updating would be very difficult. I suggest you write your own javascript to pull up the population of the territory from wikidata and use the figure in the column. Divide and time 1000000. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

No domestic response addition for Israel?

Why no addition of Israel who is taking one of the harshes actions against the virus? The only ones topping it are Singapore and China. Information regarding Israels actions alongside the palestinian government can be found online. Thanks, Allan Tracy 21:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Knish (talk • contribs)

should you submit links it would be helpful--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

cases/new numbers

Brasil first death

It is not putting the carriage a front the horses, but you cancount this is the first case of death in brasil, be sure if i know how brasil is... https://g1.globo.com/df/distrito-federal/noticia/2020/03/07/paciente-que-testou-positivo-para-coronavirus-no-df-esta-em-estado-grave-e-respira-com-ajuda-de-aparelhos.ghtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.108.156.84 (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

New cases in Spain

Spain has reported 50 new cases and 1 death. Numbers should now read 480 cases and 10 deaths XmeggiewX (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Russia's numbers

Should be 17 confirmed and 3 recovered. https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=3246238 https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=3246209&tid=108446 2.93.146.199 (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Brazil has 13 cases confirmed

Brazil has nine confirmed cases, not ten as mentioned in the table. The outbreak map should be changed too.

Sources: https://g1.globo.com/ba/bahia/noticia/2020/03/06/secretaria-de-saude-confirma-1o-caso-de-coronavirus-na-bahia.ghtml https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/equilibrioesaude/2020/03/bahia-confirma-primeiro-caso-de-coronavirus-no-estado-pais-agora-tem-9.shtml https://saude.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,bahia-registra-primeiro-caso-de-coronavirus-numero-de-casos-no-pais-sobre-para-9,70003222291 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:7F1:E100:67EF:9F5:E577:5E89:6BF0 (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

1313 https://g1.globo.com/bemestar/coronavirus/noticia/2020/03/06/brasil-tem-13-casos-confirmados-de-novo-coronavirus.ghtml

checkY Done — RealFakeKimT 07:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
it's called convalescent plasma. There are articles, China has been using and four patients have recovered using them . Here's a link to a page that mentions it. Source is cited also, but not sure if it is [WP:MEDRS] <http://covidindia.org/biology-and-treatment/> Gegu0284 (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Former Diamond princess member confirmed dead

The seventh diamond princess member has been confirmed dead according to this news article

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/mar/07/coronavirus-live-updates-australia-sick-doctor-us-cruise-ship-cases-mike-pence?page=with:block-5e63a11f8f085f0b8d943f2b#block-5e63a11f8f085f0b8d943f2b XmeggiewX (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2020

UNAMBIGUOUSLY A problem is in the animated map showing 1-9 people but the key only shows 1-4 people affected. Hi poland (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC) Hi poland (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

That legend is for the still map, and there is a line before you get to the animated map. Do you think we should have a key for the animated map? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2020

In subsection "Mainland China" of section "Domestic Responses", in the caption of the 5th image, change "early report" to "early reporting". 2601:401:C680:4240:7843:B7B2:CEF1:2617 (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Updated, that sounds better! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2020

Change Egypt to 48 cases 156.213.210.249 (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Had a search around, but was unable to establish that figure. A reliable source would be required. Sun Creator(talk) 21:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Dubious

"100 countries and territories have been affected". This claim is unsourced, plus it's untrue. It is over 100 unless you do some combining of territories that is not currently done within the article. Sun Creator(talk) 21:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

From the Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases [8], I'm counting 102 countries listed. So the value in the article seems correct. --McSly (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
So 100 is equal to 102? Sun Creator(talk) 21:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread your comment. We can update the article with that source to "over 100". What do you think? --McSly (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
That would be an improvement. Sun Creator(talk) 21:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

What happened with the infection chart?

Bring back the total number of countries affected. It just says total. StickyKeys (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

We are up to 102 User:Dannelsluc Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Responses section check list

I understand that this outbreak is evolving quickly, but I thought I'd list here where I see some deficiencies in the article as it relates to the responses to the outbreak. For example, I didn't see a section on Germany's or France's responses to the outbreak even though they have more cases than the United States or Japan. I'm not sure what criteria is being utilized as inclusion for a response section, but presuming it is 250 cases (of which Switzerland presently has it's own "starter" section and has the least amount of cases of those that have their own section), below is a list of areas where a section could be added for specific responses to the outbreak:

  • China 80,000+ cases  Done
  • South Korea 7,000+ cases  Done
  • Iran 5,000+ cases  Done
  • Italy 4,000+ cases  Done
  • Germany 700+ cases  Done
  • France 700+ cases  Done
  • Diamond Princess 600+ cases  Not done
  • Spain 500+ cases  Done
  • Japan 400+ cases  Done
  • United States 300+ cases  Done
  • Switzerland 200+ cases  Done
  • United Kingdom 200+ cases  Not done

Stylteralmaldo (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Updated by linking to Switzerland page and added Germany, France, and Spain section as they all have significant outbreaks. Didn't link United Kingdom at this time as they presently have < 250 cases. That will likely change soon. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

More cases and wrong origin of first case

More cases are in Poland and now 5 people are affected by the virus and when Poland got the virus did not start in Zielona Górą because The county lubeskie had the origin of the virus and the person who caught it was transported to Zielona Górą later. Hi poland (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

link?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
It's not quite clear what's being proposed. See 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Poland for the main article on Poland. Boud (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Add a chart indicating cases per million

It might be useful to add to the chart titled "2019-20 coronavirus outbreak by country and territory" a column which indicates the number of total cases per million of the population or the number of current (unrecovered) cases per million. This would, at a glance, give a sense of how severe the burden is on the medical infrastructure in that location. Instead of a column, this could also be a separate chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58A:8002:CE60:3C81:856:5141:9642 (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

would not a 'separate chart' add to confusion (instead of clarity of current numbers) to our readers--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I support adding this chart. Listing by country is a rather arbitrary method that could result in the most populous countries being given more prominence, even if smaller countries are worse affected in per population terms. I believe Italy has surpassed or is close to surpassing China as the most affected country by population. Switzerland and the UK have a similar number of cases but Switzerland is 8 times smaller. All very interesting and gives a true reflection of at risk areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.146.31.32 (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

British English?

Considering most of the medical literature is written in standard american english, wouldn't this article make more sense in that dialect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakesyl (talk • contribs) 07:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the article was started in British English, but agree it should be standardised either way, good luck with that --Almaty (talk) 07:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I have no problem doing it. I do need consus as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English Jakesyl (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Was already discussed here, my reading is consensus for British. No strong feelings either way but I think the article needs standardisation so I'll add the tag --Almaty (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Quarantine vs lockdown

For wiki purposes, are these words effectively the same thing? And if so, should we standardise to quarantine? --Almaty (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

[9]looking at definition #2 , that is what is occurring in North Italy[10]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes but its also a quarantine. Some quarantines are lockdowns, some lockdowns are quarantines, but not all obv... eg terrorism or whatever. "Quarantine of x" is more WP:PRECISE --Almaty (talk)

Overseas Territories and Conveyance

1. I do not understand why Diamond Princess is under Overseas Territories and Conveyance, yet the other two ships that were listed separately yesterday are now listed under the country where the ship is docked. Consistency is important.

Yesterday was ok the ships in table separated of countries but listed together. Now I do not understand also why Grand Princess is USA ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

I see no reason why they shouldn't be listed separately as they are separate entities to a country. Listing them together with the unfortunate country that just happens to get lumbered with them is punitive at best and misleading at worst.

2. If you are going to list "Overseas Territories" in a separate list, then ALL territories should be listed there. French Guiana is an overseas territory of France but is currently included in the main list of countries.

3. St. Barthelamy and St. Martin are also overseas territories and currently have 1 and 2 cases of COVID-19 respectively, yet they are not included. Martinique is also a French overseas territory and I believe they have 2 cases. It too is not listed separately.Liane-Windsor (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Coronamapper.com

I find it problematic that Special:Contributions/John_tibbs72 and Special:Contributions/Montetennis persistently add links to the top page of Coronamapper.com. The problem is that they do so at country-specific subpages of the ongoing coronavirus outbreak such as 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Japan, even though the external website provides no breakdown within a country other than Switzerland and Italy. What do you think? --2001:240:2415:9967:2974:C4D5:7169:81EC (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this is inappropriate. Is it possible to link to a more specific page in Coronamapper.com? Can a note be inserted into the reference that will help the reader navigate to the right section? Bondegezou (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
The website seems to have country specific pages for Switzerland and Italy only, swiss.coronamapper.com and italy.coronamapper.com. There is no counterparts for countries other than the two as far as I can see. In the meantime, two users have joined what I'm inclined to describe as spamming: Special:Contributions/MightyMask and Special:Contributions/PearMilk22. --2001:240:2413:CF0B:2974:C4D5:7169:81EC (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
@Montetennis and MightyMask: Please don't just remove this thread. [11][12] Given the unfavarable response here, do you agree that the links should go? --2001:240:2413:CF0B:2974:C4D5:7169:81EC (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Montetennis (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)I believe coronamapper.com adds relevant, reliable and up to date numbers. This information that can't be found in other sources (see infected growth per day), and it's relevant country by country. However, I agree with Special:Contributions/Bondegezou that the page would be better if points directly to the relevant nation.


The about page says that it is a student project, so not WP:MEDRS? Sources are Johns Hopkins CSSE and Statistic department of China. John Hopkins cites its sources as WHO, CDC, ECDC, NHC and DXY. So the data has been through several portals before it gets here. Robertpedley (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Totally agree. That website is just repeating the information from the Johns Hopkins website which has more information, a better interface, is refreshed more frequently and is RS. --McSly (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree. I'd direct the link to Johns Hopkins CSSE, if anywhere. - Wikmoz (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the links to Coronamapper.com and added the Johns Hopkins CSSE link where applicable.--McSly (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2020

Pleaae change the statement from Italian Prime Minister when the statement was added by user named Activist from:

  • On the morning of March 8, 2020, Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte said that much of Italy's northern territories, including Milan and Venice would be quarantined within their region. Conte said the country was locking down all of the populous Lombardy region, with movement restrictions applying to about 16 million people. This will be the most aggressive response taken in any region beyond China, and will paralyze the wealthiest parts of the country as Italy attempts to constrain the rapid spread of the disease.

to

  • On the morning of 8 March 2020, Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte said that much of Italy's northern territories, including Milan and Venice would be quarantined within their region. Conte said the country was locking down all of the populous Lombardy region, with movement restrictions applying to about 16 million people. This will be the most aggressive response taken in any region beyond China, and will paralyse the wealthiest parts of the country as Italy attempts to constrain the rapid spread of the disease. 110.137.162.190 (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Just an Intrigant Question : Why Cuba has no Case ?

Thanks for a plausible answer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.108.156.84 (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Cuba is populated exclusively by cyborgs, yw. Captainllama (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I think it should either be out of the infobox and be larger , maybe in the Epidemiolgy section. Or then not at all. The Epidemiology section has a big gap. reducing the infobox and placing the map in column A might give the map more prominence, giving it actually more value, while not taking space because mostly it would be in the gap Gegu0284 (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we have better data on children and maybe a section?

At the end of the Epidemiology section. "As of 26 February 2020, very few cases have been reported in children." I looked at the source of this. Children is a large area of confusion, with some news outlets saying that children are immune (like the Indian Medical Council head), of that there are "few" cases. Can we put something more precise here?

Also There is clearly something different about children. Can we add a section ? The joint WHO study says this: "Data on individuals aged 18 years old and under suggest that there is a relatively low attack rate in this age group (2.4% of all reported cases). Within Wuhan, among testing of ILI samples, no children were positive in November and December of 2019 and in the first two weeks of January 2020. From available data, and in the absence of results from serologic studies, it is not possible to determine the extent of infection among children, what role children play in transmission, whether children are less susceptible or if they present differently clinically (i.e. generally milder presentations). The Joint Mission learned that infected children have largely been identified through contact tracing in households of adults. Of note, people interviewed by the Joint Mission Team could not recall episodes in which transmission occurred from a child to an adult." <https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf> Gegu0284 (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Are there not two groups of children - those under 2-3 who will have limited acquired immunities, and those who are older who have been exposed (vaccination or 'ordinary colds etc').
A key point is - whether actual immunity or 'very limited symptoms' ('a sniffle or similar') - it appears to be present across various geographical regions, so not the (beneficial) side-effect of a particular country's immunisation program. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
In order to add to the section it needs to have WP:MEDRS compatible sources - reviews such as the one cited are a good starting point. --Almaty (talk) 10:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
To clarify, I am very happy for anyone to expand the content in relation to children, and think it should be done. Would be very happy to proof and support or oppose anyone else's draft in relation to this, recommend posting here first --Almaty (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I will post something here tomorrow. Have gathered research on it today Gegu0284 (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The first German died in Hurghada

Can someone put Hurghada Egypt Map Red ? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.108.156.84 (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

According to this https://www.focus.de/gesundheit/news/coronavirus-ausbruch-im-news-ticker-erstmals-deutscher-nachweislich-an-virus-gestorben_id_11576018.html that man was the first german national who died from COVID 19 and the first deadly case in Africa. Seems he was double counted since there is now one death counted for both Egypt and Germany in the table.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2020

The number of cases in Austria is actually 99: https://www.sozialministerium.at/Informationen-zum-Coronavirus/Neuartiges-Coronavirus-(2019-nCov).html 2A02:8388:6583:CD00:9C5F:5A67:5B68:A9D3 (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done We update the article when the government authorities update the numbers. Besides the reference you provided does not say 99 cases. Mgasparin (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Dubious diagram

I see that someone has made a diagram on the effect of protective measures based on a diagram here - https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/rr/rr6601a1.htm . This seems to be a case of WP:OR, first, the diagram suggests that the timescale has become doubled, when the original suggests that the peak only shifted with no appreciable increase in timescale, just the start and end points getting shifted. Second, unless I missed it, I see nothing about the peak the curve with protective measures will be below the health care capacity in the original, merely that it will reduce the demand on health care system. It should be removed until it is fixed. Hzh (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah – I made the diagram based on the CDC page linked, and originally as an multi-language public domain infographic after following this twitter thread. The timescale stretch was honestly mostly to improve text placement readability, and there are no units of measurements on either axis. Both curves should start at the zero-point of the axis "Days since first case" in the original too, though, by definition, the delayed curve is just flatter.
The health care capacity issue is taken from the "Interim pre-pandemic planning guidance" text that the original "FIGURE 1. Goals of community mitigation for pandemic influenza" is taken from. Can't make direct links in that source since it's a PDF, but the difference on the stress on the health care system is from statements such as "A severe pandemic could overwhelm acute care services in the United States and challenge our nation’s healthcare system. [...] Delaying a rapid upswing of cases and lowering the epidemic peak to the extent possible would allow a better match between the number of ill persons requiring hospitalization and the nation’s capacity to provide medical care for such people"
I don't have the ability to make an improved diagram at the moment, so unless someone else wants to go for it it will have to stay off the page for now, I guess. Amphis (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I assume you mean this - https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/11425 . It's still OR to infer that the peak would be below health care system capacity from the wording of "a better match". Anyway, once you draw a graph using the same axis without any other indications, you do imply they share the same units and scale, therefore you have doubled the timescale when protective measures are employed, which is not supported by the text of the link. The graph you drew also has other implications that don't make sense (e.g. on the number of total cases), so it cannot be used. Hzh (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


I think this diagram is not relevant to the "outbreak" page. The "prevention" section outlines the principal methods of prevention but doesn't contain much detail - there are other pages for this. The diagram illustrates the desired impact of delaying measures so it would probably find a home under epidemiology or a related page. Robertpedley (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
A further comment; at peak demand, the capacity of the healthcare system is reduced because many health workers are themselves unwell.Robertpedley (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Preparation time, in contrast, increases the effective capacity. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC).

Add data time to the cases number by country

Hi there

Can someone who has the right to edit the data add an extra column for data date/time to give a more accurate description of the situation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loophalo (talk • contribs) 15:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

thank you for your suggestion--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

11 Cases in Poland

Please edit it, Poland has 11 confirmed cases of the coronavirus. Loocyfair (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

 Denied, a source is required. Sun Creator(talk) 20:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Self-Isolation and self-quarantine

In the U.S. , CDC regards these as two different things https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/quarantineisolation.html In the UK, only the term self-isolation is being used https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2020/02/20/what-is-self-isolation-and-why-is-it-important/ Robertpedley (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

different countries, different usage of terms--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Please include this somewhere

See — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.108.156.84 (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

interesting graph--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed very interesting, show how much money airliners made in a decade from 2010 to 2020 and it was really huge amount, much more than 1960ies which people think was a noble time. Unfortunate the table does not show now after Coronvirus Globalization with many airliners and routes stopped. I took the table anyway for me from this aviation history. Now as I heard fortunate Aviation lost some kind of US$ 115 billion in this couple past two weeks meantime and I am happy with that (Airbus 1 km here down did not hired me as Designer of Styling Concepts not even calling me for an interview since 2010 when they earned billions and increased a lot, 5 times of cv sent, the negative response was 6 months after from a site 1000 km away from factory) it is my way of turn, the globe continues turning.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2020

In the table, the cases in Latvia should be increased to two with one recovery (2-0-1) Adomasv (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 23:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

1st death in Germany

I dont know how to add and dont want to disturb.

https://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/coronavirus-deutschland-toter-1.4828033 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammadeusy (talk • contribs) 23:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The death was not in Germany, but was in Egypt, so it counts in the Egypt row. Though the person was a German. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
indeed and was a fire man who lived in Hamburg, so the guys put ship in USA, so nationalities are strange, isn't ? I agree with you the Case is Hurghada case, no matter the guy travelled from, at the same way Grand Princess is international waters, not USA... but as soon as the history of China is included we can expect all written in wiki, make me laugh a lot... For GERMANY has really NONE DEATHS... unbelievible with more than 1100 cases and none died, even with so bad doctors and a dubious healthy system in Germany, impressive Please reaggroup or case solved— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.108.156.84 (talk • contribs)

The animated map graphic

I think it doesn't add much personally, for several reasons, please discuss --Almaty (talk) 06:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Im of the opinion that it does 'add' a lot to the article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
No strong opinion in either direction. In the early weeks of the outbreak, it was very informative to see the rate and sequence of the global spread. Now that the whole map is turning red, I'm not sure how valuable it is outside of a more historical context. I suspect by later this month, there will be nothing left to animate. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Guernsey is not a part of the United Kingdom

Guernsey should be distinguished separately in the table showing the number of cases (and removed from any other totals of the number of UK cases) as it is not a part of the United Kingdom. —Formulaonewiki 17:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Infected & Deceased Notable Individuals?

What does the wiki community thinking of either embedding or creating + linking a list of Notable Individuals infected and/or deceased by this disease?

The only downside I could imagine is that it could create prejudicial and/or potentially harmful treatment towards the individuals so maybe limit it to just those deceased? But if that's not a concern, I think it would be an interesting/fascinating list to for public consumption but I would want consensus before commencing... Jccali1214 (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Should be a category I think. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC).
Category:Deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC).
The navbox includes a list of notable infected people and notable deaths. Bondegezou (talk) 08:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

What is the China History box doing here???

That's bizarre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.192.35.12 (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

agree w/ you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

My Opinion : Ships Diamond & Grand Princess - Split from USA

If one of Princess Cruises is alone in table, the other should be. Both are from same cruise company of USA, but they are not the country USA, floating offshore. USA country must be seen apart the ships, because are travels inside country with airplanes or bus or other vehicle. USA is distracted with a ship included in it. In the case of Egypt, it is ok a Nile River Cruise be considered as part of country because the ships there never goes out the Nile. We made two Nile Cruise Ships in far past Nile Supreme & Carmen and we know how they are fix to country or very bounded to it and never goes offshore waters worldwide. My opinion how should be ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.108.156.84 (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The flags of Both Princess Ships are Nassau Bahamas, not USA.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.108.156.84 (talk • contribs)
I suspect you know the term Flag of Convenience. Country of ownership/management is obviously far more relevant than the country of registration. HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Princess Cruises is a subsidiary of Carnival Corporation & plc which is a British-American business with two headquarters offices, one in the UK and the other in the USA. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

If a Ship is a Country, I am an Astronaut without nationality. I continue the same opinion, ship was in Asia International waters and because of this is not a static terrain USA, no matter you say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.108.156.84 (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's see how CDC and WHO treat the cases on the ship. As of 8 March, the cases are not counted anywhere in the reports yet.CDCWHO―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

German deaths

Is it reliable that there are no deaths in Germany? Day by day this turns less and less likely. Is this really a case of no deaths, or rather "no data" or "n/a"? Has Germany each day declared 0 deaths officially? Tuohirulla puhu 15:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

2 First Deaths : a 89 years old woman in Essen, a person in Heinsberg and a Hamburger fireman who died in Egypt.[1]

References

  1. ^ https://www.abendblatt.de/vermischtes/article228637475/Coronavirus-Corona-News-Live-Ticker-Covid-19-Tote-in-Deutschland-1164-Infektionen.html

Treatment from people who have recovered

I don't see anything here about it, but antibodies or something like that from people who have recovered are being considered as a method of treatment.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

source?50.111.9.62 (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I'll have to figure out where I heard that.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
See the section here on this talk page, just one above this one: there's a comment referring to "convalescent plasma". Boud (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Plasma. That's what I remember hearing about.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
And nothing has been said in the article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, now the section is gone.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Found it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Animated map

The animated map has stopped updating at 29th of February. Is there a reason for this? Sir Magnus (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


They now removed it from the article. Hi poland (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:People with coronavirus disease 2019 at CfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus map

I have found a Coronavirus map showing worldwide affection with the virus and European with it Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105 Hi poland (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


It may not work in every place but should work best in Britain. Hi poland (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Request to seperate cruise ship infectees from inland ones on the table under epidemology

See subject. earlier cruise ship people were separated into international waters category,(opinion warning) which made more sense. I feel this makes the problem in the united states seem worse than it actually is. I understand if my suggestion is stupid and I'm missing something, but im not sure why this was changed. 73.59.27.117 (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Different ships! Diamond Princess the 'on an international conveyance' while Grand Princess (roughly 50 miles from San Francisco) is classified as part of the United States cases. I thought the same as you until I realised! —Formulaonewiki 20:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

article

interesting preprint...

  • Woelfel, Roman; Corman, Victor Max; Guggemos, Wolfgang; Seilmaier, Michael; Zange, Sabine; Mueller, Marcel A.; Niemeyer, Daniela; Vollmar, Patrick; Rothe, Camilla; Hoelscher, Michael; Bleicker, Tobias; Bruenink, Sebastian; Schneider, Julia; Ehmann, Rosina; Zwirglmaier, Katrin; Drosten, Christian; Wendtner, Clemens (8 March 2020). "Clinical presentation and virological assessment of hospitalized cases of coronavirus disease 2019 in a travel-associated transmission cluster". medRxiv: 2020.03.05.20030502. doi:10.1101/2020.03.05.20030502. Retrieved 9 March 2020.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Domestic response

While this is a summary section anyway, it is perhaps time to hive it off into it's own article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 20:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC).

probably it would be best to do so--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 coronavirus outbreak's impact on film

A couple of editors and I are starting 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak's impact on film. Any suggestions on where it could be linked to in the article body? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

First death in Canada

1st death in Canada has been arrived from Coronavirus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.209.244 (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2020

Death number for JAPAN is presently "17" in the page, but this number includes death number of Diamond Princess passengers, which is also counted under "Diamond Princess". Therefore, death number of Diamond Princess passengers is counted twice.

Please change Death number for JAPAN from "17" to "9" as shown in "[coronavirus outbreak in Japan]" Heiankyo794 (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The WHO is reporting 17 deaths in Japan and reports Diamond Princess cruise ship separately. Sun Creator(talk) 03:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2020

UK deaths have rose to 4. 86.5.111.221 (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Source. Bondegezou (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 Already done Au contraire sir, it is up to 5. Mgasparin (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Table Epidemiology

Is it possible to add to the table number of registered cases per capita for each country? It would help to realize the actual development of the epidemy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.255.52.173 (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

best to keep table as simple/readable as possible--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
We have decided that this is unmaintainable, so we will not be adding to the table. The numbers get changed frequently, and editors have proved that they cannot add up, let alone divide. I am thinking about a JavaScript extension that could do it for you. But that is probably vapourware. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I also would very much like to see this information, and I do not think it is unmaintainable: there is a first-time investment to put the population numbers in an additional column, and then all you need is an Excel or Libreoffice spreadsheet: any user at any time can just copy the table into the spreadsheet, and have an additional column to the right of it that automatically recomputes the incidence rate and can even color the cells red where there is a deviation to the copied incidence rate of more than a given fraction. Once you have created such a spreadsheet, it is reusable (and can be shared). This is virtually no additional work compared to gathering the data in the first place. Seattle Jörg (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I created a table for selected countries. It is interesting anyway.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Incidence rate of 2020 coronavirus cases
as of 8 March
Country Cases
(WHO)[1]		 Population
(thousand)[2]		 Incidence rate
(per 100k)
 South Korea
(excl. Shincheonji cluster)		 7,134 51,230 13.93
(2,652) (5.18)
 Italy 5,883 60,550 9.72
 Iran 5,823 82,910 7.02
 China 80,859 1,433,780 5.64
 France 706 65,130 1.08
 Germany 795 83,520 0.95
 Spain 430 46,740 0.92
 Japan 455 126,860 0.36
 United States 213 329,060 0.06

References

  1. ^ "Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report – 48" (PDF). WHO. 8 March 2020.
  2. ^ "2 Population, surface area and density" (PDF). United Nation.

Per 100k is probably more clear for most people than per 0.1M. 38.124.35.11 (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Corrected. I followed a Korean CDC report.

Can we standardize the map by total population? Total counts are meaningless with standardization.

I have an example but I can't upload due to forgotten password. My source is CDC. 23 years working in GIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.155.129.9 (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

23 years working in GIS

proof? why not leave the source here? Pancho507 (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Footnote 3

Would someone who knows how (I don't) please fix the citation error in footnote 3. American In Brazil (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain more. Fix what? Sun Creator(talk) 11:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Add 10,000-99,000 color to map legend

This will help distinguish China (and soon South Korea+Italy) from nations with lower cases counts such as France and Germany. I suggest that the color be black. 69.117.53.217 (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

thank you for your suggestion--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I wish different colors and/or numbering would be added for the colorblind. As of 11-Mar-2020 I (and probably many others) can not distinguish the difference in those color gradients.

Mention of dates of validity

The table with the numbers of cases would be clearer if the numbers mentioned are accompanied by the dates (preferably in UTC) for when they are valid. For an ongoing event like the COVID-19 outbreak this seems indispensable.Redav (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

it would produce too much clutter(of numbers)...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
With an ongoing event, it seems essential (at least to me) for a useful and clear overview that the dates of validity of daily (or more often) changing numbers are mentioned. To me this outweighs the - in itself valid - argument about clutter.Redav (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
The numbers are like watching a live television football match. It seems to much information to provide date (and time) of last update. In the end all that matter is the final score. How will the figure be in a few months time? It will just be the end figures and what we show now is a almost live count. Sun Creator(talk) 13:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Our focus should not be providing a running total of cases, but providing encyclopaedic content on what the numbers mean. Bondegezou (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Ye. Does any source explain what the numbers mean rather then what the numbers are? Sun Creator(talk) 14:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

No such country as Palestine

There is no such country as "Palestine". Remove the heading for "Palestine" and incorporate those infection stats with those of Israel - unless of course Wikipedia is trying to live up to its reputation of being a Jew-bating outlet.2A02:2454:9873:5900:E844:5C61:E14F:DD8 (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Can the OP assure us that Israel's health services will be looking after those with COVID-19 in Palestine? HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2020 (1)

46.193.68.50 (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The number of tested case in Turkey as of 9 march is 2000+ according to Turkish Health Ministry Live press. [1]

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/drfahrettinkoca/status/1237004964435812354?s=20
 Not done Turkey doesn't have any cases. Mgasparin (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't talk about confirmed cases, about suspected cases. At a press briefing in the capital Ankara Monday, Turkish Health Minister Fahrettin Koca said they have run more than 2,000 tests on suspected cases so far and none tested positive for the virus, which continues claiming lives in Turkey’s neighboring countries. [1]

New Press conference as of 10 March [2] Turkish Health Minister Fahrettin Koca said they have run more than 2,900 tests on suspected cases so far and none tested positive for the virus.

Not done for now: We are not listing tested cases, only confirmed cases at this time. The numbers of tested cases are not being reported consistently enough across regions and countries to make attempting to track them reasonable factual. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

But I see here [3] that Turkey has 940, it's not true real number is 2900. Please change.

Already done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.dailysabah.com/turkey/virus-scare-turkey-urges-self-quarantine-for-returnees-from-abroad/news
  2. ^ https://www.dailysabah.com/turkey/virus-scare-turkey-urges-self-quarantine-for-returnees-from-abroad/news
  3. ^ https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_outbreak#Diagnosis

Death

How long will it take for it to kill you and how does it kill you? UB Blacephalon (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

see Coronavirus disease 2019--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Wrong amount of cases

There is a wrong amount of cases in Poland and it is showing 16 but is is supposed to be 17. That needs to be changed. Hi poland (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Mgasparin (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Another problem I have found that 373 cases are in Britain not 375 or 2 got recovered but that is definitely wrong. Hi poland (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2020 (2)

According to this(https://egyptianstreets.com/2020/03/10/26-out-of-59-cases-test-negative-for-coronavirus-egypts-health-ministry-confirms/) egypt has 26 recoveries Faefae122 (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

If you want to have edits requested for the number of cases, deaths, and recoveries, do so on Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data. •rslashthinkong the oof man 18:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rslashthinkong (talk • contribs)

Spain's Recovered & Deaths Data needs to be corrected

Source data from "El País" is wrong. Instead you may use data from, for example, Johns Hopkins Univeristy: https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6/

There, todays (9/03/2020) data show: https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19/blob/master/csse_covid_19_data/csse_covid_19_daily_reports/03-09-2020.csv

Deaths: 28 Recovered: 32 (not 135 as in "El País" newspaper) Xrjunque (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2020 (3)

Confirmed cases in Iceland has changed from 69 to 76 31.209.227.59 (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Done. Source from worldometers https://www.visir.is/g/202016645d/fjogur-ny-tilfelli. Sun Creator(talk) 19:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2020 (5)

Australia has 107 cases now 2001:8004:CC2:600D:A4FE:7745:E4CC:B62D (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Checking sources and see nothing shown yet. Sun Creator(talk) 20:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

L-type and S-type

A Los Angeles Times article seems to suggest more people in China had the L-type, which is more deadly, but the S-type, which spreads faster, is not that bad.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Found it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
The conclusion has been criticized by other scientists, so unless it is supported by other studies, it should be regarded as speculative only. Hzh (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Animals (mammals)

It's evident that the original reservoir species, and probably an intermediate species are susceptible to this virus. Moreover IIRC civets, rats and mice seem to have ACE2 receptors. I can't find a definitive statement, but it looks likely that at least most mammals have the receptor.

Separately the UK Government has advised people in isolation "Try to keep away from your pets. If this is unavoidable, wash your hands before and after contact."[1]

I am a little chary about our "myth busting" line about cats and dogs.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 14:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC).

There's at least one reported case of SARS-CoV-2 being transmitted to a dog.[2] Both dogs and cats get other coronaviruses, and dogs get another human coronavirus. Bondegezou (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the above and have taken the line about pets out of the article. --The Huhsz (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wuhan-novel-coronavirus-self-isolation-for-patients-undergoing-testing/advice-sheet-home-isolation
  2. ^ https://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/186/9/265.1.abstract

But what about bats? Hi poland (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Bats are an expected reservoir of coronaviruses and other viruses, and have been for a long time. See this 2006 paper, for example.
Bats are of course mammals, as are pangolins. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 21:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC).

Animated map is too old

Animated map of confirmed COVID-19 cases has not been updated since the beginning of March! 93.85.72.25 (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


Yeah it is not up to date. Hi poland (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

It is very time-consuming to update the animated graph every day. If you would like to update it, by all means go for it. We have a limited amount of time to spend here as we are all volunteers and have real jobs IRL. Mgasparin (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

And is wrong anyway, example: French Guiana, this distort the reality, I don't see than Greenland be coloring because of the cases in Denmark--181.29.125.114 (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Will remove, it is out of date, and although great work by the editor, virtually meaningless now if we want to keep the page current enough. --Almaty (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I strongly suggest to add it back. I found the animated map very useful, even if it isn't updated daily - it is far from "virtually meaningless". We don't need to remove content because the creator of a map has been a couple of days behind. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and as Mgasparin said, there is no reason not to bring it up to date yourself. If you want to keep it out of the infobox, by all means do that, but it should be in the article! Renerpho (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I added it back the way I suggested (into the Epidemiology section). Please help to bring it up to date! Renerpho (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC) Regarding the "French Guiana" issue, that has been discussed on the image talk page. Renerpho (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Is there a way to automate the generation of the map from a table? All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 22:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC).

Non-reporting countries

This is not a Wikipedia issue, I'm just making a general observation... What good are all the stats when North Korea, Syria and Turkey officially have zero cases? I would bet good money that there are over 5,000 infected people in Turkey by now. Yet, Erdogan's government claims the number is zero. Just look at the map of that region and everything will be clear.

We should have some text, appropriately sourced, that talks about the various limitations in the stats reported. Bondegezou (talk) 10:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
On a quick search, while there is some scepticism online about Turkey, I couldn't find any reliable sources saying they think Turkey is hiding cases. However, there's this article discussing whether North Korea is. There's also this article covering South Korean reports of large numbers of cases and deaths in North Korea. Bondegezou (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
You can bet there's huge foul play going on. Numbers from China and Iran are fake, for starters. Let's not even talk about Africa - China has colonized over 25 African countries over the last 15 years and there are hundreds of thousands of Chinese workers in those countries. Many of them went home to China for Chinese New Year and then traveled back to Africa, however they probably have zero test kits there and treat all local cases there as regular flu. COVID-19 is much bigger already than is being reported and only time will show how unreported the first couple of months were.
It doesn't matter what we think - if no reliable sources explicitly mention the number of "real" Chinese/Iranian cases, we cannot put a number to it. We can, however, mention that a lot of people are skeptic about their numbers. Juxlos (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
This preprint identifies probable under-reporting or under-detection in Thailand and Indonesia. Bondegezou (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
And this preprint identifies under-reporting of cases in Italy, but that there has been a greater degree of under-reporting in Iran (also [1]). Bondegezou (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
LOL - FIRST case in Turkey reported!!!! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Tuite AR, Bogoch I, Sherbo R, Watts A, Fisman DN, Khan K. Estimation of COVID 2019 burden and potential for international dissemination of infection from Iran. medRxiv 2020

Valuable to include both public perceptions and conclusions from specialists

By all means, we should include public perceptions, say as summarized by reputable journalists. And obviously the conclusions of specialists add to the richness of our article, for example:

'A goodly number of Americans seem "exasperated" and resentful of being asked to worry, and state that COVID-19 appears no worse than the flu. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the John Hopkins Center for Health Security, states, “We don’t want another flu. This is additive, not in place of.”'
‘We’re going to have more deaths’: Influenza kills more people than the coronavirus so everyone is overreacting, right? Wrong — and here’s why, MarketWatch, Quentin Fottrell, March 9, 2020.

Although we can perhaps make the perception part shorter. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Cities under quarantine table totals

This table appears to be in error. On the "Quarantine total" line at the end, only the population column has actually been added up. The remaining columns are identical to the figures for Wuhan and do not include the other areas. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 20:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Table removed by another user 00:52 11 March 2020. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 01:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Table of countries needs additional info

Three columns should be added: Number of new cases / Number new deaths / Number of active cases. See: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

such numerical additions would only cause clutter and confuse our readers--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Wrong link to Italian article

I noticed that "Italiano" in the language navigation bar on the left points to "Template:Epidemie". I don't see how to fix this. Could someone help please (preferably with some explanation of how to go about this)? Thank you. Retimuko (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

On wikidata. I have some script but anyone can go https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q81068910 login and edit right column. It currently says "Epidemia di COVID-19 del 2019-2020". Sun Creator(talk) 23:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I have looked there, but the link there seems to be correct as you say, and also I don't see how to edit stuff there. Retimuko (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
It does look correct, but it perhaps only incorrect for a moment as someone was editing it? Where exactly do you see "Template:Epidemie"? To edit wikidata, you login, should be same name and pw as Wikipedia. Sun Creator(talk) 00:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I see "Template:Epidemie" in the article's left navigation bar under languages. Try clicking on "Italiano". Regarding wikidata, I am logged in, but I fail to see how would I edit anything. Retimuko (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Update: I see that the link is correct now, but still have no idea who did what and where. Retimuko (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Fixed in [15] by removing [[it:Template:Epidemie]] from a used template. This was an example of Help:Interlanguage links#Local links. If templates have local links then they should always be in <noinclude>...</noinclude> so they don't apply to pages using the template. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Maps removed

Till yesterday, there were two links for maps as references in "2019–20 coronavirus outbreak by country and territory" box.

https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries


Why are these links/references removed? I can't think of a single reason for removing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Colorodo (talk • contribs) 04:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Armenia

3 new cases in Armenia. Update please https://news.am/eng/news/565345.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.182.174.59 (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Infobox no longer readable with large font sizes

Hi, I use larger font sizes to try to read the web. The large infobox under Epidemiology only shows the right edge of the first column, followed by cases, deaths, recovery, and ref. I have checked the old versions, and can't find a readable one, though it was readable yesterday. Maybe be an issue with Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 01:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Garbled edits

@Almaty It's nice that you tried to trim the article, but please don't garble the article in the process and give outright false information. For example you changed the first person known to have been fallen ill on 1 December 2019 to the "first case was reported in Wuhan on 1 December 2019" when they weren't even aware that there is a new viral disease. How can they report on that date about something they weren't even aware of? They traced the first one known in a study published on 24 January 2020. You also changed "Museums throughout China are temporarily closed" to "Several museums throughout China were temporarily closed", how does "several" make sense when they quarantined many cities? I can't check all the edits you made, but please check your own edits to make sure that they make sense. Hzh (talk) 10:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Point taken, thankyou! I have been suggesting WP:SUMMARY for a very long time and I don't have much time to do it personally, would prefer if others did. --Almaty (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
The best way to trim it is to remove information and then give a summary of the parts removed, rather than change the wording of pre-existing sentences you want to keep. That way if you won't accidentally change the meaning of pre-existing text if you don't want to read the sources to check. Hzh (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Great advice thankyou. I'll try to summarise Iran tomorrow, but will leave it to others to (please) do rather than me :) --Almaty (talk) 11:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Edits in thes article are garbled indeed. Constant changes are, for example, made to the list of countries and territories, and I'm not talking about the figures, without first discussing them here. No one ever discussed replacing the zeroes with "no data" espeically since a zero doesn't necessarily mean that there are no data. If you want to make suggestions such as introducing a "no data" figure please first discuss it here. This is also valid for "international conveyance" and the various ships which are alternately put in one figure and then distributed apart again. It' annoying! So discuss matters here and suggest the edit before doing it or also before undoing an edit of an other user!!! It's not too much to be expected to talk about things! --Maxl (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I think people are able to follow WP:BRD. I'm happy for anyone to re-add anything I removed, I removed about 60kb of content in Chinese and Korean responses last night, but only for readability and to ensure it was neutral. I didn't touch the figures. --Almaty (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I just noticed that an entire section on censorship has been removed without a proper summary and without explanation (asking for rewrite is not an explanation for removing them, it smacks of censorship itself). If you are the one who did it, please don't do it again. Hzh (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
OK. Basically the edit was aiming to encourage others to summarise, clearly not how its meant to work, apologies --Almaty (talk) 07:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:CALC - additions, subtractions and divisions

To quote our very important, pre existing policy Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources.
From this, I propose very strongly the following:
1. There is not obvious, correct or meaningful current ability of myself or other Wikipedians to add, subtract, or divide statistics quoted in the WHO situation reports.
2. The reason for proposing is because particularly the WHO does not do many of the calculations we have been doing. Therefore additions, subtractions or divisions of numbers in the sit reps are not a meaningful reflection of the source. --Almaty (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: and @Doc James: as that is quite a proposal, but I think very mandatory if we're to consider ourselves an encyclopaedia, rather than a repository for original research, as simple and obvious as that research may seem. In this outbreak, it isn't. --Almaty (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree we have to be careful about WP:OR, but I think it would be more useful to discuss specific issues. What particular possible calculations were you concerned about? Bondegezou (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Well as I mentioned the "death rate", and also my concerns about the graphs, although they're made by a biostatistician. But what I'm more concerned about is as the outbreak progresses, that the statistics will not follow WP:MEDRS, at all, so I'm attempting to, as I have before with the word "pandemic" pre-empt the issue --Almaty (talk) 08:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
So I strongly propose that all graphs and statistics aren't made by wikipedians, even if its a simple addition or subtraction, and divisions are obviously my main concern. --Almaty (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
So who else is supposed to make graphs and statistics for the Wikipedia? Of course the Wikipedians have to! --Maxl (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Almaty I oppose the suggestion to not allow Wikipedian to make graphs. We allow basic calculations and common sense when making graphs and images. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I think Wikipedians should be allowed to make graphs too. However, as we have seen repeatedly here, editors can be overly enthusiastic and start doing things that are epidemiologically ignorant and tip over into WP:OR. For example, Wikipedians should not be trying to calculate the disease's case fatality rate: we should just draw on MEDRS-compliant sources there. We also need more text around numbers and graphs. These aren't "cases": there are "reported cases". We need text explaining why the numbers are frequently to be considered suspect. Bondegezou (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not saying for ever, I'm saying for now when the reliable sources aren't, because they're not divisible at the moment. --Almaty (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Also I'm saying go right ahead and make graphs, just point to how a reliable source has used the exact format and the calculations, ideally with the reliable sources interpretation of the calculations Almaty (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we would agree that naive calculations of the death rate per 1000 for example, is not a good idea. But totalling columns is a reasonable activity, provided we are careful labelling our data as Bondegezou says above. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 23:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC).
I hope I sound calm and reasonable despite questioning the graphs. Thats the purpose of our encyclopaedia, to question, and question again. --Almaty (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Origin and Arrival in infoboxes by country

For the 2020 coronavirus outbreak in the Netherlands infobox I have proposed an additional information for the infobox. Some editors insert Wuhan, China on every 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak by country and territory, and some want to put as an origin the source for the first local cases. For Poland it was Germany, for Netherlands it was Lombardy, Italy and so on. So currently under Origin in Netherlands we have both: Wuhan, China (globally) and Lombardy, Italy (first local cases). This can alleviate unnecessary edit warring between editors for this spot and give readers more clue as to the local transfer of infecion and it's global origin at the same time. Maybe there could be additional parameter in infobox Arrival for outside source. YBSOne (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_16&oldid=1073161467"