This is an archive of past discussions about COVID-19 pandemic. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Can we edit the list of countries affected, by adding in rankings, to check if a country has slowed down or increased exponentially? It's a bit hard to count.
Also, it would help if there was another column for active cases, so we can list them by total infected, active cases, number of deaths, or per 10 million capita.
I fully agree with adding active cases to the page. This is the more important number than cases. China is a save country now! Since there is great reluctance to include active cases in the present table, just make a second table for the sake of humanity. In the second table you have three columns: Active cases, percentages with respect to previous day, new cases. Active cases are simply calculated from confirmed cases minus recovered minus deaths. Robads (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Completely agree. The number of active cases has become far more relevant to the current situation than the number of overall cases Romdwolf (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2020 (U
number of active cases is very problematic due to inconsistent reporting of recoveries and no standard definition of what is an active case. You’ll get good info from daily ‘’’new’’’ cases reported. —Almaty (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
So in that case why even have a Recoveries column. If active cases is problematic due to the recoveries...why have the recoveries in the first place ? Regarding the "no standard definition of what is an active case" I'm pretty sure everyone knows we're basically talking about total cases - recoveries - deaths . The only way to truly see the current situation is to basically copy-paste the table into an excel/sheets (or some similar app) and use the formula on the whole table . Romdwolf (talk) 06:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
At present in many tables it looks like China is still the problem as they lead the rankings in confirmed cases. This gives a wrong impression. China is the country which has successfully fought back against the virus and every country should take them as an example. In order to do so, China needs to move down in the rankings. To all those who are against showing active cases, let me ask you, where would you rather be in China or Germany/Italy/Spain at the moment? Recoveries are coming automatically, in case you are infected the typically length of being sick is 3-6 weeks. That means all confirmed cases more than 6 weeks ago are either dead or recovered. So in case there is no information about recoveries you can use this as a bottom estimate in the recoveries column, which is needed to be shown. As long as you write somewhere the definition of active cases as to be done here "confirmed cases-recoveries-deaths" its fine, nobody will complain. The main purpose of the page is to induce proper action. If people in the US see, that they have less confirmed cases than China why worry. So by not adding active cases and percentages to previous days you are making yourself guilty of people still taking it lightly and infecting and killing others. Don't worry too much about the exact numbers, estimates are still better than not showing numbers at all, as long as you are making clear how the numbers are derived its fine. Its about saving lifes now, not about some nitpicking. Robads (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Recommendation for radical change to table of contents order: consensus sought
Our current structure is:
3. Cause
4. Diagnosis
5. Prevention
6. Management
I want to change it to (bold):
3. Cause
4. Prevention
5. Diagnosis
6. Management
Changing the order of the areas for Prevention and Diagnosis ("flipping them") will make this article flow better.
CHANGE I AM ASKING TO MAKE - Prevention before Diagnosis (Cause, Prevention, Diagnosis, Management):
3. "What is the Cause?"
4. "What kind of Prevention should there be now, based on those Cause(s)?"
5. "Prevention did not work, so now there is a Diagnosis".
6. "There has now been a Diagnosis, so what are the Management opportunities?"
CURRENT CONDITION - Diagnosis before Prevention (Cause, Diagnosis, Prevention, Management):
3. "What is the Cause?"
4. "Let's have a Diagnosis now based on those causes!"
5. "Oh! Well ... why not at least think about "Prevention" first? It might help!"
6. "Forget about Prevention! What good could that possibly do? What are the Management possibilities?"
The current flow of information is currently fighting itself. I suggest we change the current structure so the "current" of information will not so toss the reader about, like being in a boat upon the stormy sea. See?
Feel free to make the change, should there be a consensus. I am willing to do it myself. Transitions may need to be added or changed. You might consider also changing "Cause" to "Causes". "Causation" is what is accurate, but I'd rather keep it simple. Also, "Management" is divided into "Outbreak" and "Illness". "Illness" needs to be subdivided into "Treatment" and "Research". The "Illness" section is surprisingly underdeveloped, a mere one paragraph. God Bless. Al Leluia81 (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes. When it comes to order of sections, every article is different, and flow of the narrative should be the paramount consideration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. I don't buy the arguments brought forth above, and since we know quite well that people don't read articles from top to bottom, it really doesn't matter. In face of that, it's just best to save time by not changing anything, hence I'm pro the status quo. Carl Fredrik talk19:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep present order, but consider a possible rename of the "Prevention" section. The "diagnosis" and "prevention" sections here are about a pandemic, not about a single person and a disease. More detailed names might be "medical diagnostic tests" to check who is or is not infected or who might be infected; "prevention" is not strictly prevention, it's more like "individual and society-wide techniques for slowing the spreading of the pandemic and hopefully suppressing sufficiently long until a vaccine comes along", which is a bit too long for a section title. We have "Management" after that, which is about a broader, government-level management, and it has a subsection "illness". Maybe renaming "Prevention" to something like "Limitation techniques" or "Epidemic control measures" would help. It would then make sense to shift the "Management" h2 header earlier, to include what is now "Prevention" as an h3 header subsection, renamed to something like "Epidemic control measures". Boud (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Please add this to the United States section, this photo is taken on a nearly empty Brooklyn Bridge and shows a commuter with mask a gloves. People in NYC are relying on bikes more than ever as concerns over spreading on subway and ride-shares increase.
It's a good picture, but might be difficult to piece in on a top level article like this. It isn't immediately obvious that the bridge is normally full of people, and it could be cropped a little to remove the wall to the right. Carl Fredrik talk19:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
According to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Russia, the death toll is rises into 1. But in the Epidemology subsection, it is nil. Needs update. The Supermind (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
That death was subsequently removed from official count. According to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Russia: However, pulmonary embolism was identified as the direct cause of her death, she had no pathological changes in lungs, and her death was not officially counted as caused by coronavirus. Ellestar (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
IN DIAGNOSIS->IMAGING SUBSECTION CHANGE CURRENT CONTENT TO THE BELOW AND ADD REFERENCES
Imaging
Characteristic imaging features on radiographs and computed tomography have been described in a limited case series including bilateral and peripheral ground-glass and consolidative pulmonary opacities.[288, REF A] The Italian Radiological Society [it] is compiling an international online database of imaging findings for confirmed cases.[289] Imaging has been proposed to be considered for the first-line diagnostic test in epidemic areas as it has shown higher sensitivity for diagnosis of COVID-19 as compared with initial reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from swab samples in the epidemic area of China. (REF B,c)
Distinguishing between COVID-19 and community acquired pneumonia on chest CT scans has now been demonstrated by both radiologists (ref d) and deep learning techniques (ref e).
There is 26,833 confirmed cases as of pacific time 8:40pm 3/20/2020. In the article, it was said that there is 27,111 cases. Source from https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en and it's the same source as in the article.
Did you notice that the first edit has got nothing to do with the complaint here? Is it edit-warring to correctly pluralise a word? Seems to be random accusation. Hzh (talk)
It can generally be recognized that the virus originated in Wuhan, China, right? I am pretty sure that most people in the world agree on it's origin, but the other editor has a point. The real problem is dismissing the opposing side as "Chinese propganda". 2607:FB90:2429:B9EA:9139:A592:8FEB:88F6 (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
People only started changing it to unknown or undetermined after the Chinese government started their propaganda campaign to cast doubt on its origin -[1]. Adding unknown only add grist to the mill of Chinese conspiracy theories -[2]. Hzh (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Were is the evidence regarding were it came from? Sure the first case was found in Wuhan but the exact source, be it bat via Wet Market is unclear. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I only removed the "unknown" part, I did not make any claim about its origin. Whether it is Wuhan, bats or the Wet Market, I don't think there is any credible claim that it comes from outside China. You can add China as the origin if you want, but adding "unknown" to the origin is veering into conspiracy theory territory. Hzh (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Agree there is no credible claim that it comes from outside of China. Doc James (talk · contribs · [[Special:EmailUser/Do
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Requested move 22 March 2020
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2019–20 coronavirus pandemic → Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic – I am aware that there may be fatigue over renaming suggestions, but because it is such an important issue, I believe we should get the name right. I shall keep my argument short, but I see two major issues with the current name:
1) There was no pandemic in 2019: the dating is erroneous;
2) By definition, a pandemic is about the spread of a disease, not of a virus, and the current title does not name the disease.
Wikipedia strives to disseminate good information, not common error and misapplication of terms. Let's keep that standard here.
Personally, I would be slightly happier with COVID-19 pandemic, as it would avoid possible misunderstanding of the 2019 as the date of the pandemic, but I don't think the shorter name has reached COMMONNAME expectations. Kevin McE (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
procedural close - I agree there may be editor fatigue over renaming discussions. I would prefer we just accept the current title as "good enough for now" and focus in other directions. Right now, the world is overusing the term "coronavirus" to cover everything, but in the coming months and years will settle on a common name for this virus, the disease it causes, and the associated pandemic. Let's give them time to do that. -- Netoholic@10:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
You seem to be saying that the current title is wrong, but don't believe it should be improved until after interest in it has dropped. I really don't understand that logic. Kevin McE (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose the article is about the whole crisis, when it was just an outbreak and when the WHO classified it as a pandemic. However I would consider moving it to something like COVID-19 pandemic per WP:CONCISE since there isn't another one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
If you don't think the title should specify the pandemic stage, I don't understand why you would be defending the current title. The one that you state you would support does all the things I seek to do in this proposal, so I don't see why you oppose it. Kevin McE (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
OK, I see that because the disease has "2019" in the name this might be OK. Possibly however it might confuse people in that the disease is often (probably usually so WP:COMMONAME might apply) know without the "2019" meaning people might think its only about it in 2019 therefore it might be better to not use "2019". Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose and speedy close. Again. There is no reason to keep proposing changes to the name when nothing has changed. And the rationale is wrong anyway. The pandemic didn't start when the WHO declared it to officially be one, it started when the fist case occurred in China at some point in late 2019, after which it grew to what we see today. — Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Spread of the disease started when the second person caught it: that was not a pandemic. I understand that the WHO announcement was the acknowledgement of what it already was, not the event by which it became a pandemic, but at no point before 31 December was the extent of the outbreak remotely describable as a pandemic (if you have a source dated before 31 December, I will of course retract). If the current title is wrong, which it is, we don't need anything to change in order to change it. Kevin McE (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Speedy close. The current naming scheme is used in dozens of articles and seems to be good enough at the moment. Renaming too often is disruptive. --MarioGom (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
The current naming scheme displays poor semantics and suggests collective ignorance. That is not a situation an encyclopaedia should be content with on one article, yet alone dozens. Kevin McE (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Also saying its 2019-20 almost saying the COVID-19 pandemic will end at 2020!? Its better to leaves off the 20 or 2020 off the name. The current name is based on a Wikipedia group agenda not the researchers (which is obviously called COVID-19 pandemic) A stable name. Regice2020 (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Request to stop any speedy close and WP:SNOW The WP:RM better to be move forward without closure next 7 days of starting times and no other users can start a RM until the closure of this RM (after 7 days). Regice2020 (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose I disagree with (1), either per Amakuru or because 2019-20 can refer to "coronavirus" rather than "coronavirus pandemic". It's unavoidably ambiguous — with the proposed move, readers who interpret the date as referring to the pandemic rather than the disease name will be very confused. And there will be a lot more of them. I find (2) a little more persuasive, but that seems like a very technical distinction. In everyday terms (and don't forget WP is written for readers), "coronavirus" can refer to the disease. If we were starting from scratch, I'd be okay with 2019–20 COVID-19 pandemic, but fixing the issue is not worth the disruption a move would cause. Sdkb (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
There is no virus called 2019-2020 coronavirus, and a virus cannot be the subject of a pandemic, a disease is. There is no disruption in changing to a correct title: redirects will lead there from old links. (although I would of course hope that old links written in a way that incorporates a semantic error will in time be corrected) Kevin McE (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment And a note to those appending "speedy", etc.: I understand the RM fatigue, but this is a serious proposal, and one the proposer felt compelled to make despite awareness of the fatigue, so let's at least give it serious consideration. I'm not opposed to closing this early (I think it's clear where consensus is going, so we won't need to wait seven days; that requirement seems like an issue RM may want to fix), but to the extent "speedy" means "this was frivolous", I don't think that's fair. Sdkb (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
How can dating and semantic errors be "good enough" for an encyclopaedia that seeks to have any sort of goal of reliability and accuracy? Kevin McE (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Strong oppose The novel coronavirus wasn't considered a pandemic till this year, so the proposed title is completely out of the question. 9March2019 (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
You seem to misunderstand. The name of the disease is 'coronavirus disease 2019' (hence the abbreviation covid-19). The current title claims that there was a pandemic in 2019 that continued into 2020: my proposal does not. Kevin McE (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
New column in "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory" table?
Is Coronavirus dangerous or is it H1N1 exaggerated
as during the time of 2009 flu pandemic lots more people were infected and died yet the mass hysteria seen for Coronavirus wasn't there [1]
This is edit I tried to put on page why have edit war over it is Coronavirus same as H1N1 why even quarantine patients can't tell if it is dangerous though read reports of a third of patients being on Ventilator.Anjan10 (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Anjan10, there are fewer deaths (so far) than the 2009 pandemic in part because this hasn't run its course yet. COVID-19 is plenty dangerous. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Guess it is dangerous who knows read source where they said half the patients on ventilators we need Vaccine fast it might not be H1N1 but a different killer God save our earth man the deaths could go to 30 million if Vaccine doesn't come in 2 years and lockdowns will be permanent hope is is H1N1 best case scenario not worst case one otherwise we might have to go to Mars if scientists can't find anything in 10 years.Anjan10 (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Of course it's exaggeration, they can't have us thinking any of the stuff they do wasn't justified, can they?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The US response to this matter is now worse than the disease, and has now progressed to violating everyone's right to a decent life without sufficient ground. Yell stop the fascism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.242.3.106 (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Guys - when off-topic forum posts begin, just delete it and make a note of it in your summaries - this crap clutters the page.50.111.14.86 (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
RfC on the sources we can use to support numbers of cases
CLOSED
Wrong forum for this type of discussion. As SandyGeorgia has stated, this is already being discussed in general at RSN. Mgasparin (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WRONG FORUM. This discussion was already occurring at the more general level, WP:RSN when this post was made; this RFC should be removed from here. Further, the idea that "any source that gets more than 50% support can be used" is not a statement reflected by any interpretation of consensus anywhere on Wikipedia. Please remove this RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: it is the most up-to-date aggregate source, but not the most reliable (see the discussion below). We can do better and use reliable sources. --MarioGom (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Covid-19 is likely to have originated in a wet market. In a wet market live animals are slaughtered and sold for consumption. The wet markets came about to inhibit starvation of millions of people under communist rule. In the wet markets, of which there are many in the world, cages are stacked one above the other. Animals in the lower cages are often soaked in bodily fluids such as faces, urine, puss, and blood, excreted from animals above them. That is how viruses can jump from one animal to another. If the animal is slaughtered and sold for consumption the virus has an evolutionary opportunity to jump the species barrier. Many viruses that affect humans have their evolutionary origins in animals. Influenza comes from birds and pigs. HIV/AIDS from chimpanzees. Ebola likely came from bats. There is some evidence Covid-19 came from a bat via a pangolin before infecting a human. R A Curtis BSc (BioSc) (talk) 09:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Add to the External Links Section of this article the following link:
CoVID-GEO - geographical analysis and mapping of Coronavirus COVID-19 related world data through a web-based platform developed by the GeoCHOROS Geospatial Analysis and Research Group at the National Technical University of Athens, Greece 176.58.236.152 (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
The caption is correct and clear. > 1 case per 1,000 inhabitants means greater than 0.001 per capita; 1–10 cases per 10,000 inhabitants means from 0.0001 to 0.001 per capita. Writing "> 0.001 per capita", "0.0001-0.001 per capita", ... would be technically correct, but more cognitively difficult for many readers, because the reader would have to try to understand "for a typical person, there's a 1/1000-th of a person infected" or "for a typical person, there's between a 1/10000-th and a 1/1000-th of a person infected". Boud (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
My guess is that 73.26.46.210 was pointing out that national debt per capita is typically a value greater than one, while here we have numbers which are all less than one; and s/he thought that "per mille" applies to any per-person-normalised scales that give values that are typically less than one. In any case, we have the scales written out explicitly, and I agree that modifying everything by a factor of 1000 doesn't make sense. Writing "1–10 cases per mille", "1–10 cases per 10 mille" might be understandable by French (and some other latin-based language) speakers, but would be confusing to people knowing only English and non-latin languages - where "mille" sounds more like "million" than "thousand". Boud (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Compare to SARS outbreak?
It might be a good idea to compare this pandemic with the SARS outbreak - deaths, infections, reactions, etc. Even if it's not a in-depth analysis, there are definitely similarities (and differences) between SARS and this new COVID-19 pandemic.
Mount2010 (talk) 06:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
We have to be careful of WP:SYNTH. We, as editors, should not be trying to make comparisons. If reliable sources have done that, great, let's cite them and use that information. Bondegezou (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
impact on 2020 US presidential election
@Polskiwielbiciel: How do you know that, "The outbreak has had a negative impact on Donald Trump's chances of re-election"? An article in the New York Times may say that, but it doesn't make it so.
In fact, I don't see any amount of evidence that would establish that conclusively. If the NYT article you cite actually supports your claim, you could say that "The NYT" or the author of that article "clam that the outbreak has had ... ."
I hope this is the correct place to reply to the message you sent me. Before participating as an editor I wanted to do a little research about possible political bias at Wikipedia, so I posted small edits on the most controversial topic I could find, with some of my edits favoring a Democrat point of view and others the Republican. I am pleased that these edits have been removed, although there is a hint of bias remaining in the sentence that currently reads: "The outbreak may have a negative impact on Donald Trump's chances of re-election in the 2020 presidential election.[624]" since a version of this sentence that I tested, i.e.: "The outbreak may not have a negative impact...etc." was edited back to the current one.
Following Wikipedia's published editorial standards, I think either version is unacceptable, because either version is speculative and not in accordance with Wikipedia's admonishment to use past tense only.
Sincerely,
David LeightonPolskiwielbiciel (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I've deleted "may have a negative impact on Donald Trump's chances of re-election in the 2020 presidential election.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Haberman |first=Maggie |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/12/us/politics/trump-vs-biden.html |title=Trump's Re-election Chances Suddenly Look Shakier |date=12 March 2020 |work=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=15 March 2020 |last2=Martin |first2=Jonathan |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>"
I'm inclined also to delete the rest of that paragraph: "The outbreak has prompted calls for the US to adopt social policies common in other wealthy countries, including universal health care, universal child care, paid family leave, and higher levels of funding for public health.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/03/13/opinion/americas-botched-response-coronavirus-is-problem-bigger-than-donald-trump/ |title=America's botched response to the coronavirus is a problem bigger than Donald Trump |website=[[The Boston Globe]]}}</ref>
The problem I see with the part I left is that it's an old debate trying to opportunistically piggy back on this new concern. In addition, this article is already long, and this is one place it could easily be cut.
Also the numbers on this page seem a little on the high side. based on the available information it seems a little excessive.
Sickboy254698 (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Explicit guidance in a top ambox?
While it is course exceedingly unusual to suggest that an article give advice to readers in the imperative voice, would it be worth typing up https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public into an ambox? At 1 million hits a day, this would be a non-trivial contribution to promoting social distancing and similar. (It is obvious that this would violate NPOV and a bunch of other policies - however I think it would be worthwhile regardless.) I suggest WHO rather than a national organisation to avoid being too region-specific. User:GKFXtalk15:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Regarding how this is likely to play out, given that, after extensive debate, even suicide doesn't have any public service-type announcement at the top other than a hatnote to suicide prevention, I doubt it'd be possible to achieve consensus for something like that here. Regarding my personal view, is there information at that link that's not adequately covered in the article? I'd need to think about this more. There's an obvious upside, but the policies that this would violate also exist for very good reason and it could set a precedent that could potentially become very troublesome, so there are downsides to consider too. Sdkb (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
The problem with this figure is that it illustrates the result of changing multiple variables, in particular "Reduce number of overall cases" as well as delay the timecourse.
In the source, it is not an introductory figure, but a late discussion illustration of the late discussion of the paper. On this page, a more introductory figure is needed. I suggest a figure that changes only one variable, the timecourse. For a first introduction to the concept, the two curves should have the same area under the curve, the number of cases should be the same in the two scenarios. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the figure. It sounds like you misread the source. The Figure 1 illustrate the Purpose section in the source after the introduction, it is not about any late discussion, it in fact illustrates an early part of the source and it is the introductory figure. Some publications simply put the figures, tables and notes at the end. I suspect you are misled by the silly figure given in the Coronavirus disease 2019#Prevention, which should not have been used, and I have raised objections to that figure before. Hzh (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Doc James. What do you mean by "we have two that do a good job at that"? I am still having trouble swallowing the caption numbered points: "(1) delay outbreak peak (2) decompress peak burden on healthcare, known as flattening the curve (3) diminish overall cases and health impact." (1) & (2) are different aspects of the same concept, while (3) is a completely different concept. The final clause of (3) "and health impact" I think is a throwaway line that is no more particular to (3) than than (1)/(2). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
One and two are not the same concept. Delay is a separate aim from mitigate. UK health sources in fact identify 4 phases - containment, delay, mitigate and research [4]. The Spinoff one in fact illustrate two concepts (delay outbreak peak and decompress peak burden, therefore it is not just the one that Doc James said), they just did it badly, and their illustration is unsupported by the source (the CDC source does not state it going below healthcare capacity). Since it is based on the one illustrating 3 concepts, I'd say it is an error on their part rather than any attempt to show one concept. They did not know what they were doing. All the academic studies I have seen show shifted peaks and a decrease in number of total cases at the same time. They did another one diagram in Coronavirus disease 2019#Prevention which is about effective measures producing a sharp decrease in number of cases, but that illustrates a separate scenario and should not be taken as a separate concept for the first curve. Hzh (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
RedSoxFan274 has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a fresh pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. I know it is highly unorthodox to post WikiLove on an article talk page. I’m not sure if it’s even permitted. But, I hope you will grant me this opportunity, in the spirit of #CoronaKindness, to post a MASS WikiLove message to acknowledge the tireless contributions of EVERYONE working on this most vital of Wikipedia articles in this most trying and historic of times. Stay safe, stay healthy, and stay happy, everyone. It is this sort of banding together and this sort of collaborative effort that truly makes Wikipedia great — and which we ALL, as humans, everywhere, everybody, need to emulate. #WeWillPrevail :) —RedSoxFan274(talk~contribs)12:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)†
Ooh, tasty! But you left out a very important piece of information — what kind of pie is it? Is it banana cream, perhaps, in which case thank you, or is it pecan, in which case THANK YOU!!! Sdkb (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
How do opinions about Trump's handling of the crisis fit in?
My other question was archived, and in fact it was about actions Trump failed to take before COVID-19 was even known to exist, based on a radio newscast, though I have yet to find a reliable source stating what the newscast said. Opinions of Trump's handling of the situation are certainly notable and I assume they're mentioned or should be, in the main article. They might also be in other articles.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The focus of this article should be mostly on the global, medical situation (which does include some politics); it already criticizes Trump with undue and unbalanced content. The US-specific article already does a more-than-adequate job of misrepresenting the US response, but feel free to add to the mess over there, and please leave this article to focus on the global medical situation. There are individual country articles, this article is large, and summary style to individual articles should be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The US response section of THIS PAGE has political opinion critical of our presidents response, and none regarding Nancy Pelosi's refusal to release money for that response. It IS politacal, it IS biased, and IT SHOULD BE GONE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.203.36.123 (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Add a current event template on this article.
Information about this pandemic is still growing like wildfire to this day. I propose we add a
In the United States portion, there is an AP article cited to say that VP Mike Pence office coordinated with Health officials to control the message. This is biased as such an action is commonplace and not unique. Raj208 (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Just remember that we shouldn't be updating case numbers on Wikipedia articles every few minutes or even every hour. Readers can check either source if they want the most up-to-date numbers. LizRead!Talk!18:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if you are just referring to this article, but this VERY frequent updating causes havoc for those trying to Watchlist COIVD-19 articles, in general. LizRead!Talk!21:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't think Worldometer is fine at all. It does not come close to Wikipedia standards for reliable sources. It does not provide sources for every update, it reported plainly wrong figures for Spain a few days ago, it reported a case in Angola based in a report about a viral WhatsApp audio. It's a great tool to find "breaking news" about stats, but it really trades off reliability in favor of freshness. This was particularly frustrating whenever Worldometer reported an unreliable figure and other editors rushed to change the figures even when these figures where backed by far more reliable sources. --MarioGom (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
All these aggregators have their own problems, Worldometers discloses their sources and so could be counted as reliable. But they still make errors. There are also omissions of limited recognition areas (Kosovo and Northern Cyprus). Whatever source we use we need to check with other sources to confirm. JHU is more opaque and includes significant problems, eg click on Italy and it says 4 confirmed and not deaths and highlights South Africa. Also JHU uses Worldometer s a source, so it it better or worse? Worldometer can lead editors to a more reliable source in a timley manner.
RFCs are being made unnecessarily and comments censored
Comments on RFCs cannot be removed. Also RfCs have been made unfairly when talk page consensus hasn’t already been reached Almaty (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Almaty, I agree with you, fully. This is not the way to run Wikipedia at all. In fact, we were reaching consensus on a second sentence on the first RfC but unfortunately I had to create a 2nd so that I didn't get banned from editing. I've now removed the second RfC as it's completely pointless. RfC are not publicised enough to begin with, only when they seek to include something that a mod wants. Magna19 (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
You appear to want to position simple breathing as a major method of spread, ala measles, but the sources do not support that. It is a method sure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Nope, you're mistaking my opinion. I am simply seeking that the article gives indication in the lead that droplets can also be produced by sneezing and exhalation. All sources listed fully support that. The article as it stands gives the impression that droplets can only be formed by coughing, which is wrong. Magna19 (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Is this of use?
"Colombian Prison root over Coronavirus kills 23"
since the Colombian page seems moribund, can this be used here?
Copying one comment I made just before it was archived: I just added a notice to the top of this talk page encouraging editors to consider contributing to one of the sub-articles instead (scroll up and look for the notice with the orange stop sign to read it). Should this be added as another edit notice when people edit the article directly, or should we add a line to the main edit notice for the article stating the point in brief and linking to the template? Sdkb (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Someone (I'm not sure who) keeps uncollapsing the requested move history at the top of this talk page. I understand the fatigue, but it's so long as this point, I think it needs to be collapsed to create space for other notices. Sdkb (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
And secondly, can any wiki community create a prevention/ awareness related video in English language so that it can be used in corona related articles ?
More a Wikicommons question, but thought I'd post here given the traffic. Currently using a computer without Photoshop, anyone know how to update the SVG map(s) with another resource? Those on this page, and related ones — e.g., 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Asia — are terribly outdated. --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה19:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
You wouldn't use photoshop to update that anyhow as it is a vector image. I can recommend Inkscape, which is open source. However, that file might also be editable in a text editor. I would run this by WT:COVID. Carl Fredrik talk19:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, @Carl. What is the standard, is it Inkscape? Been on Wiki a long time, but never edited and uploaded a new version of an SVG before. --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה19:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Inkscape is what is normally used here, however there is also Adobe Illustrator, but seeing as it's more for professional use and quite expensive, I'm not going to recommend it. Carl Fredrik talk19:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Even better, emacs is excellent for editing svg files. That's at the heart of free-licensing, which is at the core of what Wikipedia is built on in terms of both software and content. Use C-c C-c to switch between the file itself and the file rendered as an image. Or create a shell/perl/python script to update only those parts of the file that need to be updated. Boud (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Everyone has a choice along the range from users controlling software at one end to software controlling users at the other, though of course there's a learning curve at one end, and an obedience-training curve at the other. For those willing to and wanting to have (at least in principle via the free software community) control of software rather than vice-versa, emacs is an excellent solution; I assume that vim has equivalent possibilities. Boud (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I use vim myself. I have used emacs in the past, but it took a long time to learn, so I would not recommend it unless you are going to use it often over a long period of time. How editible the .svg file is, will depend on how it is structured, but it is fairly easy to change colours of regions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Total cases graph ("Total-cases-covid-19-who.png")
I've uploaded an updated, SVG version of the graph. Since I don't know much about Commons, licenses and uploads, can someone please take a look at [5] if it's OK to replace the current [6] graph. Thanks! byteflushTalk04:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I believe Worldometer is the de facto trusted source due to its complete independence from governing bodies, and good reputation (their services have been used by the United Nations in the past, for example). -- Pingumeister(talk)12:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
there should be absolutely no information about individual people's responses to this. Government responses are acceptable but not individuals.
this is supposed to be an article about facts. Not your opinion of trump. Or any other political leader for that matter. I don't come here to listen to you bitch. I come here to find facts.
This is a great article, I've been looking at it every day. But I'm not sure it adequately shows the way things are currently changing, particularly in visuals.
For that there needs to be an emphasis on new cases and the daily toll of deaths as well as on the totals. I've tried to show this in the two graphs here, which show the top 5 countries in the world, considered by a balanced average of new cases and deaths. The information is mainly taken from worldometers.info.
These aren't necessarily graphs to be inserted into the article (they aren't svg's and I'm not instantly agreeing to update them every day). But the nearest (Covid-19 daily cases by region) is seriously out of date–at least a month(!) Chris55 (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
What is it? How many supports does one option require for this article? We appear to have an RfC on this talk page with many editors expressing support for an opinion but due to the poor organisation of this page, it's not clear until you read every single bit of the section. If an edit is made, will we begin a debate seeking consensus on whether consensus has been reached? Come on people, we need to be sensible. It's about the community. Magna19 (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
"Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision making, and is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies." (Page nutshell) is prety clear clear cut in my opinion. — RealFakeKimT11:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
can someone help me with the ECDC refs
The ECDC was removed from the lead. It is a perfectly reliable source on par with the WHO and the CDC. This needs to be noted and also the reference was never invoked due to this removal. Please correct ASAP. --Almaty (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
also I note that the editor removing the ECDC stated that this is "the rest of the world" - clearly and repetitively being American centric. This is not the purpose of the encyclopaedi. --Almaty (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Apologies if this is not directly related to the article content, but someone pointed out today that we've been given the cold shoulder on this subject by Google. If you search for "coronavirus" the only Wikipedia entry, which appears well down the list of search results, is the general coronavirus article, which isn't directly linked to the current outbreak. I assume they've deliberately suppressed us (Wikipedia normally appears right near the top for most search terms), perhaps because they worry we might not be giving reliable information to the public. It would be interesting to know why. — Amakuru (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I've noticed that, too. It's a shame. Although given the traffic this article is getting, people do seem to be finding their way here. Does anyone at WMF have connections to Google so they could ask about this for us? (And is there a way to ping the WMF?) I know that SEO stuff is tricky since Google is secretive about their algorithm and every entity on the planet is trying to boost their own ranking, but this is about the public's access to information, not self-promotion, so hopefully they'd at least listen. Sdkb (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't see anything of concern here nor any reason to think Google is deliberately suppressing us. Google's search results always depend significantly on where you're searching from, what you're searching for etc. While there is some broad level info, they're very secretive about how their rankings happens. But it's entirely plausible that the results have risen organically. For example, when I search for coronavirus I get [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. The only one you might say we should be ahead of is Worldometers. Well maybe also the first result, but then again that does illustrate it's not just that Google hates us if they give a weird result for us. I search for covid-19 I get more or less the same thing except the generic WHO result is gone but after the main WHO page, there is [13] and also Coronavirus disease 2019 replaces the pandemic article. True the pandemic article is no where in the top results, but then again the next result is [14] which frankly is probably useless for most people. Now here's the other thing. If I search those terms again without changing anything I get different results. One time I even got worldmeters first. True I've never seen Wikipedia at the exact top. But IMO this is reflective of the fact that there are a bunch of good timely sources on the outbreak, and we're also probably not the fastest to update numbers. So it's completely reasonable that other results are ahead of us since for better or worse, that's what people want. There are sometimes where I got some more questionable results, e.g. a news service ahead of us, but again I don't think we can read anything much into this. Nil Einne (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The results definitely vary, but from my anecdotal experience, this page is on the second page of Google results for "coronavirus", which means we'll be receiving very little traffic from that search, and reflects us not being as highly ranked as I'd say we ought to be. I don't think Google is deliberately suppressing us; if I had to guess, I'd say what's likely happening is that people at Google are panicking about misinformation and trying to combat that by including as many official results as possible, so they've filled up the first page with health agencies and pushed us off of it. Sdkb (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
do we want to be the most viewed or highest ranked? Working for NSW Health I simultaneously edit this and have to recommend that it is not used as a resource. —Almaty (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
No comment on that part. As an update though, earlier just after I posted the above, I did a few searches for coronavirus in incognito and logged in and any Wikipedia results did show up on the second page. But now I've done 2 incognito for coronavirus and the pandemic page was somewhere similar to what I outlined above. IMO this just illustrates my point. Anecdotal Google search results are often not very meaningful. If someone had tried with multiple different IPs and without Google accounts logged in, or multiple different Google accounts with very different histories and locations etc, and over multiple different time periods. Maybe conclusions could be drawn about our location. Otherwise not really except maybe that we're often not within the top 3. (Even this I'd be reluctant to say for sure from the available data.) Further note that although I sometimes see the EU page, the extra stuff before Wikipedia was largely news sources like the New York Times, Al Jazeera etc. There are by no means "official" results. And I'm unconvinced that Google would purposely fiddle with the results to give them higher priority than us. For the Healthline, WHO, CDC results, let me say again given the way Google works, it's entirely reasonable these would arise organically without them needing to do anything. Nil Einne (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm told that Google never manually intervenes in search results rankings. They might remove results altogether (e.g., imagine if someone got a court order for that), but they don't decide whether to push Wikipedia up or other things down. Also, as noted above, results vary by person and place. If I search for the title of this article, it's the first hit. If I search for coronavirus pandemic, the WHO is the first hit, and this article is the second hit. Other people will get different results, but these seem pretty good to me. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Clarification needed as to why primary prevention is hand washing if primary vector is airborne droplets
"The virus is typically spread from one person to another via respiratory droplets produced during coughing... Recommended preventive measures include hand washing...", sounds like nonsense, even though it's actually true. For the primary preventative measure not to address the typical method of spread is very strange. It's not wrong; it just doesn't make intuitive sense. The reason for this apparently conflicting expert opinion needs to be clarified.47.139.43.32 (talk) 04:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Mauritius, British Crown dependencies and the Diamond Princess double count
The Mauritian Governement has set up a site with updated data. covid19.mu
On the 23rd of March 2020, 28 cases, 2 deaths. We should use that site for any further updates.
BTW, why are Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Man given special priviledge? All other dependencies are included into the state to which they belong to
And as all the quarantined passengers on the Diamond Princess disembarked, aren't we double counting those who were on the ship and now disseminated across countries Manish2542 (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I oppose this, unless there's evidence of a major difference in mortality rates. There's no need to split everything in life by gender just since it's the most obvious category. Sdkb (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, in the case of Italy, we have balance of 70/30 % (male/female) of death distribution. Indeed there is a strong evidence of mortality rates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.214.62 (talk) 08:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Exemplifying the "keep calm and carry on spirit", a statue depicting a young holidaymaker, usually given a scarf to keep warm, was given a face mask by some unknown person. I was going to add this to the United Kingdom section, on reading the notice now bring it here first for discussion. As Private Frazer would say, "we're doomed", but a sense of humour survives. . . dave souza, talk20:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
You folks have been incredibly busy I can see and the page is a pretty awesome testament to the power of wikipedia.
I have a suggestion/request to put the "date of arrival" for each country into the main table. The information is listed on each country page but not in the main table on this page. I feel that it would be useful for the reader, especially in the period while the pandemic is still unfolding. I'm not sure if this would be a major undertaking or not. Thepm (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion! This seems useful. The only question I'd have is if the date of the first confirmed case is an accurate measure of when the pandemic began in a certain country. Sdkb (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, it's almost certainly not completely accurate but it's probably the best available measure. Maybe calling it "First Confirmed Case" rather than "Date of Arrival" would be better. User:Doc James, Haha! Fair enough then. I haven't regularly edited for a long while and was kind of hoping there was a whippy automated way of keeping it up to date. :) Thepm (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Cheater no1 for your work I would suggest putting them on this page on the other wikis (look at the wikidata iteam or 'Languages' tab on the left of the screen) so their edditing teams and implument them. — RealFakeKimT10:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
@RealFakeKim: Thank you for the advice. I think this is the best option on the table for now. Btw, if somebody with enough reddit karma wants to bring it there, that would be nice as well. Cheater no1 (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I think it's generally nice and slightly funny, but I wonder if "biological weapon" there is a result of mistranslation, or voluntary metaphor? With all the misinformation around, "biological hazard" may be a more appropriate description... —PaleoNeonate – 18:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
@PaleoNeonate:: "Biological weapon" is a direct translation from the Russian original version of the poster and it is definitely a metaphor to make it memorable. It is funny that neither me nor the other 100+ translators and friends I discussed ever thought about such a possible clash with the controversies. Thank you for bringing this important point up! I hope this is not really a problem but I will definitely consider it. Cheater no1 (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Add graph showing 10 most affected countries using data from WHO
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Semi-log graph showing the change in total count from the first reported date for the 10 most affected countries[1]
Semi-log graph showing the change in total count(starting from 100) for the 10 most affected countries excluding China
Semi-log graph showing the change in total count(starting from 100) for the 10 most affected countries
Not done — Too much missing from the description of the image, and the legend is not clear. Didn't you post a similar image a few days ago and got the same comments? Carl Fredrik talk22:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
The legend is clear. Updated axis labels. Updated description. This graph can replace the graph from file "Time series of active COVID-19 cases, most affected countries as of 2020-03-21.svg".Givingbacktosociety (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Other versions of these plots use the date of 100 cases or 10 deaths as a common starting point. Unfortunately, aligning with the day of first recorded case dramitically limits the value of the chart. - Wikmoz (talk) 06:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
The main reason for this chart is to align with the first recorded day. That gives an idea of how fast the virus is moving in each country. Useful to compare where a country is, which is in day 15 compares to a day 15 of a country which is already in day 30. I also though about using 100 as starting point as there is a lot of variation in the first 100 cases and then lots of similarities after that. But since the y-axis is in log scale, I think aligning with 1st will give more information. I have added a graph which starts at 100 and excludes China. I still think the first graph is more informative.Givingbacktosociety (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Here it is with 100cases as starting point. More crowded than the top-right diagram, but includes China. TGCP (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Should there be a special section (or a separate page) listing all the famous people who have had an infection confirmed (and those who are suspected cases)? Like Idris Elba, Tom Hanks, Rita Wilson, Kevin Durant, Daniel Dae Kim, Placido Domingo, Sophie Gregoire Trudeau (all confirmed) and Angela Merkel (suspected). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Symptoms for coronavirus will be seen between 1 to 14 days with the average being 7 days. A recent research study[1] in Wuhan, China says that out of 204 patients who were affected by coronavirus, more than half of them initially had digestive symptoms. And usually they got admitted in the 9th day (meaning the virus takes more time to show symptoms). Symptoms mostly included "lack of appetite for food" and diarrhea. Patients without digestive symptoms were more likely to be cured and discharged than patients with digestive symptoms.
Why this information should be added?
Currently in this page, "lack of appetite for food" is not mentioned.
Could help create awareness so that people could recognize the sympton and report it
Why this information should not be added?
This research has not yet been published.
WHO [2] has not mentioned it. But "loss of smell"[3] has been added in this page. But this is from another source.
Could mislead people into thinking that they have the infection. But at this point a false positive is better than a false negative.
ÑÑÑÑÑ
This is mostly an excellent article. But the graphic format stands to confuse readers about their chances of survival once infected.
Comparing total number of deaths to total infections almost seems to imply that anyone infected who has not yet died isn't going to die.
A more earnest metric is to compare total number of deaths to total number of recoveries. That's still not perfect, because it apparently takes longer to die than to recover, on average. But to change the graphic explanation could be an ethical improvement. I understand that anyone intelligent enough, who really wants to, can graph probability of outcome hour by hour for an average infection, or if lazier, merely try to make such sense of graphs provided in the article. But if the question has to be dumbed down, perhaps it could be dumbed down in a less misleading way, rather than in a more misleading way. If this is not a time to encourage panic, it is also not a time to encourage baseless optimism which deters people from making better informed decisions. - Joshua Clement Broyles
ÑÑÑÑÑ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.155.12.184 (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
WW2 Comparison
I have added back the sentence which says pandemic is the biggest crisis since ww2. The main reason for taking it out was it initially said by commentators. I have now found sources in which the PM of Italy, Chancellor of Germany have both said this is the biggest crisis since WW2. That is an important statement which merits inclusion in the opening paragraph. It gives the reader context of how truly historic this pandemic is. Mercenary2k (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
We cannot go beyond the sources, which say that it is the worst crisis in their respective nations (Germany and Italy), not the world. Kablammo (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it should be added as it doesn't represent the world wide veiw of the pandemic. Also a consentius was formed here desiding it shouldn't be included (I'm awear the wording is diffrent). — RealFakeKimT16:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. The consensus was formed to include it if instead of commentators there were global and political leaders who made that comparison. And since that was founded, it merits an inclusion in the first paragraph. Mercenary2k (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
@Mercenary2k:, you've repeatedly tried to add that line back to the lead. You need to respect the current consensus. Starting a new discussion now that more political leaders are making the comparison is fine, but you should have done so before adding it back to the lead. Please don't make us give you a user warning. I'm going to revert, given that others here seem to still feel it is not warranted in the lead section. I agree with them — it's fine in the body but not yet the lead. Sdkb (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Who the hell do you think you are? My addition is perfectly relevant. Not sure why you are acting like the boss of this article. Mercenary2k (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Mercenary, everyone feels pressure now. Please assume good faith. Your text is based on statements by leaders of two nations, and cannot be extrapolated to cover the world. (I doubt that India and Pakistan would say that this pandemic is the most serious crisis since World War II in their nations.) If statements on the severity of this crisis in a particular nation are to be made, they should be in the articles or sections for those nations. Kablammo (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
We can only say that it is the worst crisis that these leaders believe has happened in those countries since WWII. You can't generalize their statements to be a definite claim for the world. One might claim that the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami was the worst crisis to hit Indonesia. Also, not all countries that will be impacted by COIVD-19 were even involved in WWII. It's better to locate those comments on the COVID-19 pages for Italy & Germany. LizRead!Talk!21:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't doubt the accuracy of the statement nor that many people agree with it. However, the comparison is entirely unnecessary and doesn't add much value. That said, it's worth inclusion with attribution to the respective leaders in the pandemic topics for Italy and Germany. - Wikmoz (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
coronavirus impact on technology and community
Due to spread of coronavirus, there are lots of event suspended or postponed.
1.WWDC 2020 (worldwide developers conference): will be held online due to the ongoing spread of the novel corona virus. Apple says the event, to start on an unspecified date in June, will feature a “completely new online experience” that includes both Apple’s traditional announcement keynote and developer sessions.
2.Google IO 2020: Due to concerns around the coronavirus (COVID-19), and in accordance with health guidance from the CDC, WHO, and other health authorities, we have decided to cancel the physical Google I/O event at Shoreline Amphitheatre,” Google said in a statement. “Over the coming weeks, we will explore other ways to evolve Google I/O to best connect with and continue to build our developer community. We’ll continue to update the Google I/O website.
3. Facebook F8 conference:Facebook has confirmed that it has canceled its annual F8 developers conference over growing concerns about the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. More specifically, the company says it’s canceling the “in-person component,” which would have been held in San Jose, Calif. There may still be video presentations, along with live-streamed and local events, under the F8 umbrella.
4. Mobile world congress (MWC) by GSMA: The GSMA, the organization behind MWC, the world’s largest mobile trade show, has announced that it is officially canceling the show. MWC usually attracts more than 100,000 attendees from 200 countries to Barcelona. This year’s show was supposed to take place on February 24 to 27.Several publications received a statement about the cancellation. “The GSMA has cancelled MWC Barcelona 2020 because the global concern regarding the coronavirus outbreak, travel concern and other circumstances, make it impossible for the GSMA to hold the event,” GSMA CEO John Hoffman told Bloomberg and the Financial Times. El Diario, El País and La Vanguardia also report that the show has been canceled.
5.NASA Moon and Mars Mission: NASA has temporarily paused work on the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion capsule that will be used for its forthcoming Artemis missions, which will ultimately return the next American man and the first American woman to the surface of the Moon. The rocket and spacecraft were undergoing production and testing activities ahead of the first Artemis mission, which had been planned for no earlier than April 2021.
I see that someone has added a section on possible duration. This is entirely speculation, which adds nothing to the article apart from bloating an article that is already too big. I'd suggest deleting it. Hzh (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Having a section is definitely bloat. Maybe a paragraph or two at most. For the rest, is there some other article we could move it to? I don't think it's necessarily a WP:CRYSTAL violation, but we don't have room for it here. Sdkb (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
At the moment, there is nothing in the section by the CDC or WHO. Given that, as stated, it is almost impossible to make any sensible projection right now, I don't see anything useful in adding speculated end dates. Perhaps it only warrants a sentence or two in the epidemiology section (for example, whether it will end in a few months or become seasonal). Hzh (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi all - I added this section - mainly because this question is such a huge issue. I see the risk that it could be politicized very badly if some people are keen to promote the idea that everything will be back to normal soon. But that is highly unlikely based on the bulk of scientific opinion. The weight of opinion is that return to normal is going to be a very long term matter - that is one of the biggest facts about this crisis. I've no problem in moving the text to epidemiology and shortening it somewhat but it would be unencyclopaedic to ignore the very pressing question of duration on which a fair amount of opinion has been expressed. By the way I'm not sure why opinion from the CDC is so crucial, the UK doesn't have a CDC and the Imperial College study has been relied on as driving uk government policy. Anyway let's not get into an argument about it, we can restructure in some reasonable way I am sure but let's not ignore this important aspect of the problem. Stay well. Zymurgy (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
@Zymurgy: No, what you added is still speculation, moreover, stating specific months is country-specific and not relevant to the rest of the world (for example, it mentions "if we don't flatten the curve" when China's curve is already doing that, it is therefore a US-centric speculation). Removing the line about projection being almost impossible does not make it better, in fact worse. Why would you prefer someone who mentioned a time over someone who warned against setting too specific a timeline in the same source. I don't see the section useful to a general audience, it only confuses them. Hzh (talk) 08:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Data discrepancies
Regrettably, this article and its child articles for the separate countries can no longer be used for definitive information. There are discrepancies between the data in the main table in this article and the supposedly equivalent data in the subsidiary articles. See, for example, the current data as of the time of this comment, pertaining to the US. Perhaps greater care needs to be taken when sourcing the data, and at the very least, for each country both articles (main and subsidiary) should always be updated simultaneously. Arcturus (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Arcturus, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of individual volunteer editors from all over the world editing the 200+ COVID-19 articles. Accuracy is the primary goal but Wikipedia is a decentralized, collaborative editing project as you know. it is likely that editing involving, say Country X's confirmed cases is edited by one editor on the Country X article, a different editor on the main COVID-19 template and a third editor on this page.
What I mean is if some figure was updated to today's value, is the changed by a bot to yesterday's value, then it is likely that someone will change it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, support moving the table. It is no longer necessary. I'm also dubious about the table of countries with quarantines - it is too big already and will get increasingly bigger. Hzh (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Proposal : new banner
hopefully such a banner would not need to be used again in the future. But I propose that we emulate the CDCs banner, insofar as they use it.
and I think it’s a unique circumstance. We have a general medical disclaimer, sure, but this is different. People don’t read the medical disclaimer, and we have repetively made assertions that have already possibly had real world consequences. Has there ever been such a circumstance in wiki history similar to this article? —Almaty (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I disagre. It's true most people wont read the medical disclamer but the only things in your disclamer are medial. I don't think it's apropriate as in the artical it could say not much is known about the vius ect instead of this. — RealFakeKimT12:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Because IMO, The name of organization should be capitalized, Please change the sentence below from
Estimates of the crude mortality rate by the World Health organization are three to four percent as of 6 March 2020, while the infection mortality rate (the number of reported deaths divided by the number of infections) will be lower.
to
Estimates of the crude mortality rate by the World Health Organization are three to four per cent as of 6 March 2020, while the infection mortality rate (the number of reported deaths divided by the number of infections) will be lower. 36.77.93.25 (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
change: "Commentators are also consider the state propaganda is promoting a narrative that China's authoritarian system is uniquely capable of curbing the coronavirus and contrasts that with the chaotic response of the Western democracies.[912][913][914]"
to this: "Commentators also consider the state propaganda is promoting a narrative that China's authoritarian system is uniquely capable of curbing the coronavirus and contrasts that with the chaotic response of the Western democracies.[912][913][914]"
MDSherwood (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC) MDSherwood (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Note: Stale request, marking closed as 
Not done. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Done. Someone updated it already. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Not done: No source provided in furute please plase the requset to Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data for changes to the table. — RealFakeKimT 17:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Not done - did not provide a revision or a WP:RS source. See WP:NOTFORUM. --Zefr (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
![Semi-log graph showing the change in total count from the first reported date for the 10 most affected countries[1]](//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Coronavirus_-_Most_affected_countries_-_top_10.png/325px-Coronavirus_-_Most_affected_countries_-_top_10.png)
Semi-log graph showing the change in total count from the first reported date for the 10 most affected countries[1]
Semi-log graph showing the change in total count(starting from 100) for the 10 most affected countries excluding China
Semi-log graph showing the change in total count(starting from 100) for the 10 most affected countries![Semi-log graph showing the change in total count from the first reported date for the 10 most affected countries[1]](/wiki/File:Coronavirus_-_Most_affected_countries_-_top_10.png)
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Total-cases-covid-19-who.svg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Total-cases-covid-19-who.png){kind=link}
![04:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_22#c-Byteflush-2020-03-23T04:30:00.000Z-Total_cases_graph_("Total-cases-covid-19-who.png")){kind=link}