Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

RfC on inclusion of lab-accident theory

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Howdy hello folks. I am re-closing this per request at WP:ANRFC. As Forich was a major participant in the discussion, several users questioned if it was proper for Forich to close it. I have thus reviewed the RfC and Forich's close given their involvement, and that this is quite the controversial topic. I note this RfC came on the back of a lengthy discussion, so despite some conversation still occurring at this RfC at time of close, the issue seems to have been discussed to death, and consensus has formed. By raw vote counts, I see 13 opposes to 6 supports. The main reason for opposition was that since the theory lacked WP:MEDRS, and was quite WP:FRINGE, it did not represent WP:DUE coverage. The main reasons for support were that the issue had been widely covered, and that world governments were investigating. Oppose votes felt that the issue was better covered at Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic, where appropriate weight could be given. By number of votes and strength of argument, it is clear that the oppose votes have it, thus I affirm that consensus was reached to not mention the lab accident theory. This should not be read as a consensus to keep the theory out of other articles, merely this one. Obviously, should a MEDRS be published that supports the theory, this RfC would become moot. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

---

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to not mention the lab accident theory. Forich (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Should the theory about the accidental leakage of Covid-19 from a Wuhan laboratory be mentioned in the article? Forich (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey (lab-accident theory)

• IMHO, no per WP:FRINGE. It was discussed at length previously and there seemed to be general consensus on the issue. This article came up. I think the key point is that given that there's absolutely zero actual evidence it leaked from a lab, given the mind-bogglingly huge prevalence of diverse strains of coronaviruses in bats, and given the simple reality of zoonotic spillover risk given China's wildlife trade/markets, even the very idea that it came from a lab is just pointless. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

More recent article here. AFAIK, zero evidence, zero reason to believe it. Just pure speculation at this point that seems needless given the realities I pointed out above. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:FRINGE. There is no evidence supporting the lab accident theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. The only WP:MEDRS which discusses this speculative theory find "that the available data argue overwhelmingly against any scientific misconduct or negligence". As such, mentioning it would be undue.Note: I participated in the previous discussion on this subject so instead of repeating myself once again I'll keep this intentionally brief. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose If we do list this conspiracy theory which was cited by several US government figures, we should also list the conspiracy that was cited by several Chinese government figures. We should treat BOTH of these superpowers' words with scepticism, not just China's. JMonkey2006 (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support If the theory that the virus was accidentally released from a laboratory in Wuhan is being seriously investigated by intelligence services and it has been reported by several reliable news outlets, we should preferably mention it, and not consider it as a mere conspiracy theory. David A (talk) 07:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Politically-motivated narratives about the virus origin are completely divorced from hypotheses developed by scientists reporting in WP:MEDRS. JoelleJay (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose goes in the misinformation article per WP:FRINGE. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Three reasons: i) The lab-accident theory does not fit the definition of fringe: "to depart significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field", because the mainstream view is that the starting place of the outbreak is a mistery, it is unknown; since there are no leading clues backed by hard evidence of the place where the outbreak start, speculations that it emerged at the laboratory are not large deviations from the mainstream; ii) The theory has been directly mentioned in MEDRS and RS; iii) The theory should not be viewed as a push to criticize the chinese government, as some editors have suggested. We can easily word the mention carefully to avoid those kind of concerns.Forich (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You mention MEDRS sources. Which ones are those? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: See the one I gave above. While it is a direct mention; it's also a very clear rejection... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

See . The last one is a preprint that may not make it through peer review, but seems better substantiated than most news RS on the subject.Forich (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The first two sources were covered in the previous discussion. I think I recently saw a discussion which expressly resulted in a consensus to forbid preprints so no comment on that last one (can't remember the exact link). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The first source say "In light of social media speculation about possible laboratory manipulation and deliberate and/or accidental release of SARS-CoV-2, Andersen et al. theorize about the virus’ probable origins, emphasizing that the available data argue overwhelmingly against any scientific misconduct or negligence "[1]

We say "The scientific consensus is that COVID-19 has a natural origin." I am not sure we need to say more in this article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@107.190.33.254: I believe you are referrring to this rule Talk:Coronavirus_disease_2019#Discretionary_sanctions_on_the_use_of_preprints, recently enforced at the disease entry. It says it is page-specific, so I think it does not apply to other related pages.Forich (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I don't see why a preprint would be anymore valid here than there... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Preprints are not suitable anywhere as they are not reliable sources. Sure exceptions can be made but those must gain consensus before hand. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a conspiracy theory, and we should not be covering it in the main article. Dimadick (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory posits that "some small and hidden group" has manipulated events, or the existence of secretive coalitions of individuals and speculation as to their alleged activities. If the theory under consideration is that a virus was accidentally released from a Wuhan lab could you clarify who the small and hidden group is and what events were supposedly manipulated? — Swood100 (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory is a theory that there is a conspiracy to hide the truth or something. In this case, the "conspiracy" would be that the Chinese govt. is hiding the alleged escape of the coronavirus from the WIV, a claim which is so far totally unsubstantiated, rejected by MEDRS, and which smells more like a politically motivated non-sense (from a government whose head said "I don't take responsibility at all" and is "playing a deadly [blame] game") than anything else... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support Maybe this was a fringe theory to start with, but it certainly isn't any longer. Should a reader wish to find out about the leak suggestion, to where will he go? This article is the natural place, but at the moment he'll find nothing. As to the matter already having been debated; that's no longer relevant, given the pace of change. Arcturus (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The link to Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead suffices. William Avery (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Since it is a very controversary topic, it should be mentioned. However, it should emphasize the conspiracy theory since there is only a minor probability. All scientific facts oppose this claim, although none of them can deny it by 100 % - but it's feels much more as an election manoeuvre, both the Trump version, as the Chinese conspiracy propaganda. --Traut (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support The statement by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that "there's enormous evidence that that's where this began" is not a fringe theory. It is a fact that he made that statement. The statement by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) that it is investigating whether the coronavirus pandemic was the result of a laboratory accident in Wuhan is not a fringe theory. It is a factual report of current government activity. What is the WP:NPOV principle that requires these actions to be excluded from a factual recounting of the events surrounding the pandemic? The theory of accidental release from a Wuhan lab is said to be a fringe theory because there is no publicly available evidence to support it. But the U.S. Secretary of State says that there is "enormous evidence." What is the WP:NPOV principle that requires Wikipedia to treat such a statement by the Secretary of State as false unless he makes all the evidence public? — Swood100 (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• oppose per Global Cerebral Ischemia--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose without any publicly available WP:MEDRS-compliant sources giving any credence to this. Wikipedia reflects published sources, and Mike Pompeo is not a MEDRS-compliant source. I would note that I was brought here by this post, which appears not to be neutral as it says that there is nothing resembling a consensus at this discussion. I see a very strong resemblence to a consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is a stand-alone article on misinformation and misinformation should go there. This article is already gigantic, and specialized information to go into specialized spin offs, not on the main. GMG^talk 15:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: Discussion of the origins of the pandemic should be based on WP:MEDRS sources. If this is to be mentioned at all in the article, it should only be in the context of discussing misinformation. But as for now, most discussion of misinformation is split off into a separate article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: as per Thucydides411.Whispyhistory (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support: At least one major intelligence agency in the world is investigating whether the virus accidently escaped a lab. Other reputable reports in the media show that U.S. intelligence is taking this seriously (1,2,3,4). Regardless of whether this theory is proven true or false, it's being taken seriously and thus doesn't meet the definition of being "fringe" or a "conspiracy theory." --1990'sguy (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Neither Fox News nor Trump have a reputation for accuracy when it comes to anything COVID.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
    • First, I never cited Trump. Second, I don't think any serious person thinks John Roberts is some right-wing hack, including other mainstream journalists. Third, this doesn't change the fact that the U.S. intelligence community is taking the "lab accident" theory seriously -- that doesn't mean the theory is ultimately correct, obviously, but it's absurd to ignore this. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Them investigating it is a news item. It might go in the article about US govt. response and in the article about misinformation; but the section here about origins should be about facts and research reported in MEDRS. Unless US intelligence comes up with something (and so far, see the previous discussion, the few reports we have on the matter indicate they have found exactly zero evidence), then Trump's unproven (and seemingly politically motivated) allegation remains just that and doesn't deserve any more mention here than all other unproven allegations (such as those from Iran, China, et al.)... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
        • The issue of whether or not something is a news item concerns, for example, whether it consists of “routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities” as opposed to “the enduring notability of persons and events.” The issue of notability revolves around whether the topic “has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” A few of the reliable sources for the proposition that the U.S. intelligence community is investigating whether or not the virus was accidentally released from a lab include Axios, CBS News, NBC News, Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Politico, PBS Newshour, Forbes, and CNN. Furthermore the notability being described here is whether the topic is presumed to be suitable for its own article. Less notability is needed merely for content within articles, but it would seem that this topic meets the requirement for either. What is the specific objection? — Swood100 (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
          • The objection is, since apparently that wasn't made clear enough: A politically-motivated investigation which has not returned any evidence is not a MEDRS and doesn't require mentioning here, since this article is already too long and mentioning minor details such as this in a section which is primarily about scientific opinions on the matter would be UNDUE (since this has been rejected by scientists). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The question is really whether misinformation (or conspiracy theories that have no WP:MEDRS support) should be discussed in this article if it receives enough coverage. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The objection is, since apparently that wasn't made clear enough: A politically-motivated investigation which has not returned any evidence is not a MEDRS…

Well, to be clear, the objection was that “Them investigating it is a news item.”

A politically-motivated investigation which has not returned any evidence is not a MEDRS and doesn't require mentioning here

The question is really whether misinformation (or conspiracy theories that have no WP:MEDRS support) should be discussed in this article if it receives enough coverage.

This article is not limited to medical content. It talks about economic impact, supply shortages, culture, politics, xenophobia, etc. A secondary source in WP:MEDRS is described this way: “Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations.” Is that the way you would characterize most of the references in this article? They are not WP:MEDRS. They are WP:RS, just like the sources I cited, which found it notable that one of the responses of the United States to COVID-19 was to begin an official investigation by the intelligence community. This response deserves to be included as much as the responses of other countries – more so since the U.S. is an international leader.

The requirement for inclusion is notability, and this depends on whether the topic “has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” You insist that if you believe that a governmental action being described was “politically-motivated” or the reason given for the action is false, then that renders the action not notable regardless of other factors, but those requirements are not mentioned in WP:SIGCOV. Can you supply some authority for the proposition that an official governmental response to the pandemic loses its notability if the motivation behind that response is impugned? Please also include how it is determined that the evidence supporting the impugnment is sufficient to justify excluding it.

If a government takes a notable action and gives X as the reason or goal but Wikipedia editors believe that no such action should have been taken because X is part of an imaginary conspiracy theory, then in the article on current affairs in that country is the action no longer notable? If not, where is the Wikipedia authority for this?

and mentioning minor details such as this in a section which is primarily about scientific opinions on the matter would be UNDUE (since this has been rejected by scientists).

There are plenty of non-scientific issues discussed in this article. Furthermore, it is absurd to say that whether or not the U.S. intelligence community has been investigating whether this virus was accidentally released has been rejected by scientists. They have no special competence in evaluating this question and have made no such statement. — Swood100 (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The origin of the CoVID-19 pandemic is fundamentally a scientific question, and should be guided by WP:MEDRS. Intelligence agencies have been known to promote conspiracy theories in the past (and there is reporting suggesting that that is what is happening in this case), and the purported existence of an investigation by US intelligence has zero weight as evidence about the origin of the pandemic. If the idea that the virus leaked from a lab moves beyond the realm of conspiracy theories, it will receive ample support by WP:MEDRS. Until then, it should be handled the same way as all other unsupported conspiracy theories. Whether to cover conspiracy theories in this article or to relegate them entirely to Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic is an editorial question that can be considered. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, it's too WP:FRINGE to be WP:DUE, as Doc James (and others) have said. -sche (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Discussion (lab-accident theory)

In case you are not familiar with, I must point out there has been a lenghty previous discussion on the topic just higher up on this talk page. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

As the editor who posted the Rfc I am going to end it, given that is evident that it received overwhelming opposition. I hereby ask for an editor other than me to provide a summary of the Rfc, possibly taking into account the discussion section as well, to determine what we have agreed on and try to implement our agreement.Forich (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Here a report from the Guardian which states quite unequivocally that "The scientific community has largely rejected theories that the virus came from a lab but the origins of the illness have become increasingly political", confirming everything we've been discussing so far... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

"states quite unequivocally" that the scientific community has "largely rejected"... So, unequivocally most but not all of them. The Washington Post puts it this way:

"Yet, despite the intense scrutiny, the novel coronavirus’s origins remain as murky now as they did when the first cases emerged in China five months ago. While intelligence analysts and many scientists see the lab-as-origin theory as technically possible, no direct evidence has emerged suggesting that the coronavirus escaped from Wuhan’s research facilities. Many scientists argue that the evidence tilts firmly toward a natural transmission: a still-unknown interaction in late fall that allowed the virus to jump from a bat or another animal to a human."

So they describe the origin as “murky,” with “many” intelligence analysists and scientists seeing the lab-as-origin theory as a possibility and “many” scientists arguing that that the evidence tilts firmly toward a natural transmission. Hmmm...seems a little at odds with the "escape from lab as nonsense" position.

According to Science Magazine, pressure is growing on China for an independent investigation into the pandemic’s origin. "So far, however, the assertions that the new virus was in that facility have not been backed by hard evidence, and some scientists are skeptical of the escape claim, saying it is more likely that SARS-CoV-2 naturally emerged elsewhere. … Still, both politicians and scientists are increasingly calling on China to make any investigations it is conducting into the matter more transparent—and to allow independent scrutiny."

"Some scientists are skeptical..." How do we understand these articles if all reputable members of the intelligence and scientific community have conclusively rejected the notion that the virus could have escaped from a lab?

And then look at how far the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has fallen with their recent article Natural spillover or research lab leak? Why a credible investigation is needed to determine the origin of the coronavirus pandemic. It’s a sad sight when a formerly august publication is so out of step with 2/3 of the Wikipedia editors who have responded to this inquiry. — Swood100 (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

THIS is exactly the kind of loophole exploited by conspiracy theories. Yes, "largely rejected" does not imply all of them, but global warming and evolution can also be described as "largely accepted" despite the few ignoramuses pretending that the Bible is fact or that climate change is not caused by human activity... In any case, the standard here is that MEDRS report on this bonkers idea with something more than "extremely unlikely"; and so far no such source exists... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Has this interview been taken note of? Today I cam across CGTN interview with Wang Yanyi (Wang), an immunologist and director (Wuhan-Institute-of-Virology) dated 25th May 2020 and interview with Shi Zhengli (Shi), a virologist and researcher at the institute

Has this interview been taken note of?

Bookku (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes the article from the Guardian (an independent source), see above, mentions it... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Summarizing the discussion

1. The Wikipedia community has agreed by this Rfc that the theory about the accidental leakage of Covid-19 from a Wuhan laboratory is not to be mentioned in the Covid-19 pandemic article.
2. The inclusion of the lab accident theory is agreed to violate WP:FRINGE because WP:MEDRS do not give any credence to it. One example claims that "the available data argue overwhelmingly against any scientific misconduct or negligence [of WIV regarding an accidental leak]".
3. The lab accident theory has gained enough notability to be somewhat covered in Wikipedia, and we agree that it belongs to a separate article.
4. Per this summary, for the theory to become elligible for inclusion in the Covid-19 pandemic article, it needs to not violate WP:FRINGE and be mentioned with some credence in WP:MEDRS
5. If the scientific consensus regarding the theory remains the same, but somehow we see a very noticeable increase in coverage on news and RS on it, we may revisit this discussion. This entry is not exclusively medical but should also inform about the impact of the pandemic on society, if this particular misinformation eventually produces a notable impact we may need to refer to it.
6. We agree that the lab accident theory has been utilized with underlying political motivations. Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources this does not mean we should censor it, but we need extra caution and adherence to this rule:

   Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".

   Forich (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

References

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.

• I have made a request that this be added to the current consensus (since that subpage is protected) as item no. 14; see here. If one of you can deal with that feel free to do so. Thanks, 107.190.33.254 (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  Given that Forich expressed a view on the topic in the conversation above and opened the RfC here, he seems like a WP:involved participant who should not have closed the discussion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  In closing the Rfc I followed the WP:RFC guidelines stating that "The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly)". I also asked a few days ago for uninvolved editors to summarize the discussion, but it seems it went unnoticed, except for a response from User talk:107.190.33.254. Feel free to amend the summary as you wish, and I will append it to the Rfc.Forich (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  As far as I understand, the question may be withdrawn if the opposition is unanimous (if nobody has concurred with the original poster, or as pointed out it's a case of WP:SNOW). That was not exactly the case here. I have instead asked for confirmation/review at WP:AN/RFC. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:56, 27 May 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.

First second third and fourth sentences of second paragraph

Moved to Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019 § First second third and fourth sentences of second paragraph

Redundant references

There are some sentences that are cited using several references. We're all aware of the importance of correct referencing, but we have to be concerned about the article size, too (see Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Summary style for more info). Some parts have been moved to sub-articles, but still the article suffers from extensively high Page length (already 335,690 bytes). So, I thought in addition to moving extra content to other sub-pages, we can omit redundant references. Already, the article contains over 1,000 references, while some of them can be easily removed without remarkable loss. To shed more light on my proposal, I have provided some examples below:

• Popular snorkelling masks have been adapted into oxygen dispensing emergency respiratory masks via the usage of 3D printed adapters and minimal modifications to the original mask. (3 refs)
• We expect France to promptly cease the requisition of medical equipment and do what it can to ensure that supply chains and the transportation of goods are secured. The common market has to function, particularly in times of crisis. (3 refs)
• "Lovosice is not quite en route from China to Italy." (4 refs)

Clearly, we can omit additional useless references and keep only one of them.

Dear @Ohconfucius, CaradhrasAiguo, Gandydancer, and Kashish Arora:, as some of the main contributors to this page, I would be glad if I could have your opinion.Freshman404^Talk 16:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Freshman404: There have been a few passes over the article before to remove redundant references. However, those weren't always sufficiently thorough, and in some cases removed references I later had to re-add. So if you want to go through, feel free, but just check to make sure that the remaining references are enough to support the text, and stay away from the touchier areas of the article. - {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2020

139.138.64.57 (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

139.138.64.57 (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC) I will not have this pandemic ongoing forever.

 Not done. Not a request to change the article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Talk page moratorium

Prevent anymore merging of discussion into 1 section. Mistakes and mistakes obviously. Whoever inserted this idea to merge talk page discussion forgot that Contents tree exist. Regice2020 (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see what your are referring to. In any case, given the prior (now it seems to have abated a little) high activity on this talk page, emergence of duplicate sections was certainly a possibility and I certainly don't think there's any good reason to keep such kinds of discussions separate as it needlessly splits editor intervention. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Recoveries

it looks like someone has put the incorrect recoveries. maybe we should find and revert the edits? GhostDude7885 (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Moved here as a new section since this is unrelated to the original section it was put in. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Also, @GhostDude7885:, the notice you get when editing the page is rather clear "Do not post about updating tables, images or maps", please check that. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

2020 (UTC)

East Asia map

A map of East Asia was recently added to the article. It has several problems, such as making India look like an ocean, not noting the ambiguity around North Korean data, and not including province-level data for China (meaning it offers less detail than the main one at the top of the article). Observing that we don't have continent-level maps for any other continent other than Europe (which is a special case given that it was a hard-hit continent where we don't have country-level maps), I tried to remove it, but the creator added it back again. Does anyone else want to remove it? I think it's largely redundant to the China map right below it, and even if we were going to have an Asia map, it doesn't make sense to include only East Asia. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:01, 30 May

International Aid Section

This section, which got a too long tag, really seems to be a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of a bunch of random aid. Therefore, I'm proposing its complete removal, or splitting it off as its own list. Benica11 (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe create a sub-article? It could encapsulate the international coordinated response, if such an article doesn't exist. Useful to compare the various NGOs. Sometimes these list type articles improve over time. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Financial Times analysis

There is a financial times analysis of covid-19 numbers here: [2] This analysis is high quality and significant. It is also the only substantial analysis which avoids the problems in cross-country comparisons due to lack of standardisation. I think this should definitely have a place in the article, and perhaps steer some of the focus. Suggestions on how to best incorporate this analysis welcomed.Wikiditm (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Says "Until Thursday, the UK had a higher rate of death than in any country for which high-quality data exist." So appears they left out small states like San Marino.

They list Spain as having the highest excess deaths per million at just shy of 0.1% of the population.

But yes with the appropriate caveats reasonable to include as looking at increase in total deaths from baseline rather than COVID specific deaths to deal with under counting and tangentially related deaths. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Back in March

When the COVID-19 spread became global and a pandemic in March, the article said many commentators described the pandemic as the biggest event in world history since WW2, this century and the millennia. It was removed, but I would thought there are resources to back that up. This is a highly publicized world event, should we bring back that statement in the article? Adinneli (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Adinneli, there was a discussion (which is linked above in the pinned thread) that you can read which states why we're not using that phrase. QueerFilmNerd^talk 19:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

US recovery number

How is US recovery number larger than US confirmed cases and worldwide recovery number? Enjoyer of World (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Were do you see that or is it now fixed User:Enjoyer of World? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It is now fixed. Enjoyer of World (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Whoever did that assumes over 1% of the US population had the virus, already 0.5% were infected in some point in the year 2020. It's not sourced, then it can't be included. The WHO said in April that most countries (170-some) may had 1-3% of their population infected. 2605:E000:100D:C571:6DCE:ABEA:BC50:DF93 (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

"Corona pandemic" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Corona pandemic. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 30#Corona pandemic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CrazyBoy826 01:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2020

In the "Health care" section, at the end of the first paragraph please add a sentence stating: "In addition, in an attempt to maintain physical distancing, and to protect both patients and clinicians, many non-emergency healthcare services are being provided virtually by telehealth."

Three references for this sentence: Smith, Anthony C., Thomas, Emma, Snoswell, Centaine L., Haydon, Helen, Mehrotra, Ateev, Clemensen, Jane and Caffery, Liam J. (2020). Telehealth for global emergencies: implications for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 1357633X20916567. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633x20916567

Ohannessian, Robin, Tu Anh Duong, and Anna Odone. "Global telemedicine implementation and integration within health systems to fight the COVID-19 pandemic: a call to action." JMIR public health and surveillance 6.2 (2020): e18810.

Keshvardoost, Sareh, Kambiz Bahaadinbeigy, and Farhad Fatehi. "Role of telehealth in the management of COVID-19: lessons learned from previous SARS, MERS, and Ebola outbreaks." Telemedicine and e-Health (2020).

Thanks, HealthAcademic (talk) 07:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

 Note: This seems reasonable. Not sure about "by telehealth"; that seems like a silly neologism and it's redundant to "virtually". Maybe just cut off those two words? Of course this being the article it is I'd like if somebody else endorsed this request before going ahead. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Doc James —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Yah one can just say "In addition, in an attempt to maintain physical distancing, and to protect both patients and clinicians, in some areas non-emergency healthcare services are being provided virtually." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done In that case I shall go ahead with this. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletions in the South America section

All of the copy that I added to the South America article related to Ecuador, Chile, and Peru has been removed with an edit review saying it was undue. The prognosis para that I added was called crystal-balling and removed. This is not my first pandemic article. I shared top edit positions on the Ebola article, I am the major editor of the "bird flu" article (I think it was about 2009), I am the major editor of the meningitis outbreak related to a corrupt compounding operation a few years ago, one of the major editors of the last major flu pandemic, and perhaps others that don't come to mind. In other words, I think I have a fair amount of experience and understand how these things work... I believe that as the current epicenter of the pandemic South America should have a fair amount of information. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Please do a summary of why it is important and DUE, one or two sentences maybe. I recall you added 3 or 4 paragraphs right? We are not going to add every country to this article, so you need to justify why the country warrants inclusion. Chile is how you spell the country. Your ranking as an editor is not important here. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

In the first place, yes my experience does matter. As for my edits in the S.A. section I took two things into consideration: They have become the current epicenter and as such warrant a fair amount of copy. I also looked at the length of the other countries that we list and used that as a judge as to how much information to add. BTW, so kind of you to correct my spelling -- that is always much appreciated. Gandydancer (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Gandy is correct...IMO South America is a ‘new epicenter’ of the coronavirus pandemic, WHO says--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's keep this civil, folks. Personally, I think some more content in the South America section is warranted. Possibly separate out a section on Brazil. Some of the recent additions ought to be made at the COVID-19 pandemic in South America lead so that they'll be transcluded here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

As the disease increases significantly in South America, agree we should include more about there.

With respect to new cases per day, Brazil is first, Peru is 5th and Chile is 6th. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree that it is important to edit the COVID-19 pandemic in South America article, the lede of the same, and then add here based upon lede over there. But not in the converse order. I am not opposed to adding content, just opposed to adding a paragraph for each country anchored by one dubious source, that is fare from WP:DUE. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Some comments: Regarding the using of the SA article for new information and then transporting it to this article, this idea is brand new to me. I've never done it and I've never run across it in any of the numerous articles that I edit. That is until now with this one...and even in this article for the most part it is not used for the info posted in the other nation's sections. Why should we go out of our way to create confusion? About calling Vox "one dubious source". I didn't find anything in the Vox article that is not reported in several other sources. Since another editor recently suggested that it would be for the better to not use multiple sources I felt the Vox site to be a good one for our readers to use as a reference. And finally, Doc lists several SA country totals -- I think this figure is significant: "Ecuador has the highest death rate with 182 per million inhabitants, while Brazil has 111." :::[3] Gandydancer (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Brazil case count is heading toward half a million[4]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf and Gandydancer: To clarify, the lead of COVID-19 pandemic in South America is already being transcluded here, and has been for about a month, the same as excerpts are in a variety of other places in the article. So there's no need to "then add here"; it'll happen automatically. I'm going to go transfer to clean things up a bit and add a hidden text warning to make that clear, so that people don't try to add on to the bottom here again. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I wonder whether this auto-synchronization is producing enough value right now to justify the difficulty of editing the pages. Maybe experiment with taking it out, at least for a while?

Back in the day, WP:SUMMARY said that the text in a {{Main}} section was never supposed to be a straight copy of the lead from the linked article. Its WP:DETAIL section said "The summary in a section at the parent article will often be at least twice as long as the lead section in the child article." It was not an absolute rule, but it sounds like it would be appropriate for this particular section right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Brazil has very significant numbers. Its case numbers are now between USA and Russia. But its population is huge. Have a closer look at Chile and Peru - the increase there is much, much worse. That's why I added Chile to my chart.

COVID-19 total cases per 100 000 population from selected countries

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Traut (talk • contribs) 06:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

more information on underrepresented areas

Is there a way to find more credible information on the responses of Europe, Asia, and Brazil? -Nrandazzza (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

For getting a sense of what's actually important about the responses of a given country at a global scale, I'd look to see what the news media is saying. Perhaps Google News search for the country name + COVID-19, and click on any promising links from WP:RSP-approved publications. Does that help? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Fasting

I've removed this paragraph from the article, which seemed tangential and also per WP:NOMEDICAL. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

As a point of information, it was introduced in this revision on 16 May, as part of a section titled "Religion, creed, cults, faith and its subsequent tradition", which despite its extremely broad name consisted almost exclusively of information on Muslims spreading the virus or closing sites. Based on how the article already covered various Christian groups spreading the virus in the sections on the relevant countries, and how information on the Catholic church cancelling some events was in the section for effects on cultural events, I trimmed and dispersed the section, and other editors trimmed or removed other bits. I have no objection to this removal. (The same editor introduced some other dodgy stuff the same day, which other editors removed. IIRC the last vestige of the content added at that time is the sentence which begins "Iran's Health Ministry announced the cancellation of Friday prayers..." and ends "...holy sites in Mecca and Medina.) -sche (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Move to 2019-20 COVID-19 pandemic

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.

---

Ok so when this page was first moved, the user wanted the new title to be COVID-19 pandemic from 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic. Yes the move was successful, but the new title is missing the years it has took place in. See, most articles talking about outbreaks have the years it has took place in, except, notably, the Spanish flu. (e.g. 2002-04 SARS outbreak.) That's why I am requesting that this article be moved from COVID-19 pandemic to 2019-20 COVID-19 pandemic so the years it has took place in can be brought back. Metric Supporter 89 (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Please see Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_32#Requested_move_7_May_2020. Capewearer (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Don't think it's necessary: disambig by year is only useful when there have been multiple outbreaks; so far, there has only been one and any future one is strictly in the realm of WP:CRYSTAL, i.e. not a sufficient reason... Oddly enough, since you mention it, Spanish flu is a prime example of this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• I oppose this, sorry. There's no reason to think that the consensus that led to the current title would change if we opened another formal discussion; there were editors who brought up the argument you're making during the last discussion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy Close Proven to be stable name based on reliable facts and data. Regice2020 (talk) 07:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Good how it is We can and should just use the common name. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, the page name is fine as it is. We shouldn't add dates per WP:CRYSTALBALL. QueerFilmNerd^talk 20:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The year is in the name. The "19" is for 2019. That's sufficient. This will be the only COVID-19 pandemic we ever have. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  Muboshgu, that's technically not the case. COVID-19 stands for "coronavirus disease 2019", or the disease caused by a coronavirus that was discovered in 2019. If it comes back it would still be called COVID-19. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  Eh good point. But, the 19 still stands for 2019, making it redundant to add the year, unless this bad boy really does come back in a decade or two. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed. We'll cross that bridge if it happens. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose It's unnecessary to include years in the title, as this is the only COVID-19 pandemic recorded so far. Also, the situation could very well last into next year. 9March2019 (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose (for now). Per WP:CRYSTALBALL giving it a time range is premature. As far as I remember, the reason why it was called "2019-20 coronavirus pandemic" was that the disease wasn't given an official designation when the article was made; "2019-20" was used to qualify the unnamed disease at the time. Now it has a name, so the range isn't required unless it comes back again in a few years. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose any blanket changes per above arguments. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 04:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment we all know this proposal is going nowhere. For the sake of keeping the talk page tidy, the next person who sees this, please close it rather than !voting. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• oppose per all above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:49, 30 May 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.

Misinformation photo caption

Two editors have recently been repeatedly changing the caption for the Trump video that we agreed to use for the section (see current consensus item 13) away from the version that several of us chose at the time. To settle this: which of the following is preferable? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Option 1
U.S. president Donald Trump suggested at a press briefing on 23 April that disinfectant injections or exposure to ultraviolet light might help treat COVID-19. There is no evidence that either could be a viable method. (1:05 min)

Option 2
President of the United States of America Donald Trump speaking about the use of disinfectants in COVID19.

References

• Strongly support option 1: This is a better option in all regards. Even when used as an example of misinformation, it is dangerous to present Trump's statements verbatim without a fact check. Linking to the office of the U.S. presidency rather than Trump's article is nonsensical. The New York Times source is authoritative and pertinent, whereas the ABC News piece just shows Trump backpeddaling. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  I'll also note that the image of Khamenei that one of the two just introduced has no consensus behind it at talk and should be removed immediately, along with changing the caption back to the status quo while this discussion takes place (hopefully it won't take long). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  Looking back to this discussion about Khamenei's photo, it seems like that was centered around diffs that inserted the photo in isolation: objections included that Khamenei was being made a poster child for misinformation, that it was undue weight, or that a narrative was being spun. I feel that including Khamenei and Trump together resolves many of the objections that have been raised with their photos and/or captions in isolation. At the very least, it changes the how the overall figure is viewed and hence changes the nature of the discussion. Einsof (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly support option 1: per Sdkb. Trump is no scientist.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Veto on option 1 Trump suggested Extra researches to William N. Bryan from the DHS. "You gonna have to use medical doctors". Any claim that he suggested anything else to anyone else should be treated as misinformation and political push. According to Nancy Pelosi, "The president is asking people to inject Lysol into their lungs". [5]. If we are going to present POV, we have to present all of them clearly. As a side note, Trump say that disinfectant DOES get into patient lungs. He was most likely talking about traces of Chlorine dioxide in patients lungs, which honestly could use more researches. Iluvalar (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose option 1 and option 2: no consensus behind it at talk, see this recent discussion here, and the discussion I started here. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose option 1 and option 2: it was a miscommunication, since president Trump later claimed to have spoken sarcastically (i.e. with a sharply mocking taunt). It did misinformed persons temporarily because the retraction did not came inmediately. I agree that it was odd that as soon as the joke bombed, Trump should have made it clear that we has being sarcastic. This is a serious falt on his part, given that it was a press conference for a serious matter, but it does not qualify as misinformation anymore. Whenever a person publicly retracts the intention of a statement, encyclopedias have to give him a charitable treatment, in my opinion.Forich (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Ambivalent: I am strongly against Option 2, because it almost feels like lying by omission (leaving out the actual content of Trump's statements, which are what made those statements newsworthy in the first place). However, I'm hesitant to endorse Option 1, simply because from a medical point of view, the contents of the statements were extremely dangerous. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. Option 2 almost seems to violate the principle of least astonishment. Relatedly, I see from reading through the previous discussion that some editors objected to this caption (and/or the inclusion of the image at all) because it was seen as US-centric or as a cheap political shot. In that case it seems like the picture and caption of Khamenei could be left in for balance (the previous discussion that resulted in its removal having taken place in the context of Khamenei's picture appearing alone). Einsof (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  We objected Option 1. Option 2 is a place holder text, I don't believe it was proposed as a permanent option. Presenting this as 2 definitive option is in itself a push for Option 1. And to give a look of consensus to it. Feel free to oppose both. Iluvalar (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 is more informative in both the text and even the references cited, as Sdkb says. (If the user(s) who added option 2 to the article intended it only as a placeholder, it would be useful to mind that this is a live and heavily viewed article and not something in draftspace where one can just leave up placeholder wording, and therefore, to provide whatever actual alternative wording is being proposed...) -sche (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose All: For reasons mentioned above. David A (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 - because that is what happened.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose both options and remove file. Entirely UNDUE and unbalanced to focus on one person. Hzh (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  There's a clear benefit to readers of having the section be illustrated, as we established at the last discussion, and if we do that, we're going to have to choose an example. A video of Trump works well, both since he's probably the most prominent politician spreading misinformation about the disease, and since he speaks English, whereas a video of e.g. Bolsonaro would be unintelligible to most en-WP readers. We use a photo of the president of Taiwan wearing a face mask in the face masks section; does that give that section an UNDUE focus on Taiwan? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan is an entirely wrong example since misinformation is about people doing something wrong, and there is nothing wrong with wearing a mask. The image of someone wearing a mask is neutral, but image of someone accused of spreading misinformation is not, which by its nature would raise question of DUE and NPOV. Whether the language used is English or not is entirely irrelevant here, you can use a picture of Trump without audio and it would not make any difference. It is also not clear if it was a case of misinformation or just an attempt at sarcasm. Using an unclear example like that to illustrate misinformation can be considered POV and non-neutral, and should not be allowed. The Iran president's one is a more clear cut example, but that was removed also, so I don't see how this one can be used at all.

• Strong Oppose All - Any mention of Donald Trump speeches should not be mention in this article as he known spread misleading information to viewers.Also to stop increasing article content size to make it easier to load as we address it.Regice2020 (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 - Of the two, #1 is the most accurate. Gandydancer (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - A full transcript of his comments: "So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that too. It sounds interesting. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me." Option 1 is an accurate and neutral summary of these comments, and importantly includes the fact that what is being said here is false. This is definitely a notable example of misinformation as it was reported worldwide.Wikiditm (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

  "you said you’re going to test that" [...] "So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with." That's a crucial part of the passage. I start to wonder if everyone here also understand the context, this is the middle part of the 22th press conference were typically medical experts are invited and trump just do the padding. No one in their right mind would mistake Trump for a medical expert able to do "suggestions" as we seems to imply here. Iluvalar (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

  That part is also untrue (this is definitely not going to be tested) but the big misinformation which was picked up in various sources, and should be covered here, is the claim that injecting disinfectant helps in any way. This claim is in the line "it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs."Wikiditm (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

  To do a number on: To hurt or harm someone or something. [6]. Are we talking about the same thing ? Iluvalar (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  "I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs." I think we're talking about the same thing yes. This is the key section. The claim being made here is that injecting disinfectant helps with covid-19. That is false.Wikiditm (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  Replace the word "do" by the word "test" and the whole thing make common sens. The disinfectant DO clean in a minute but tests are needed to know what impact it get in the lungs. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. How can we test ? Iluvalar (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support option 1 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Retaining the video as opposed to Khamenei was already decided upon, and Option 2 fails to describe why what Trump bloviated was misinformation. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose option 1 Wikipedia is becoming a tool to slam Trump and conservatives. This section is another example. For example, it lists "cconservative" media as a source of misinformation. Ironically, option 1 then says that Trump suggests ingesting disinfectants as a way to cure Coronavirus. The very clip clearly shows him asking the medical professionals if there is any way this might be developed into a treatment and if it should be studied. The clip does not support the summary. So where did the summary come from? The media. The media rephrased what Trump said to hurt him politically. This is misinformation by the "liberal media." Those that support option 1 do so because they have bought into the misinformation and want to hurt Trump politically. This is not the direction wikipedia should go. It hurts the credibility of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NTAbbott (talk • contribs) 14:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment All arguments posted against option 1 seem to be on one of two grounds: One is that this should not be included at all, and the other is the claim that this event didn't happen as widely reported (either that Trump did not say what he is recorded as saying, that he has been misquoted, that he was sarcastic and didn't really mean what he said, or that context provides a different interpretation to what was said). The former argument is irrelevant as this question has already been established. The second argument is seen to be false from reading the transcript posted above.Wikiditm (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  The argument is very valid. I think my main concern is in the double meaning of the word "suggest", if we were using an unequivocal term like "seems to argue", "evoke", "hypothesized", I'd be fine with the whole sentence I think. But if we use the other sens of the word suggest : "recommend/advocate/urge/encourage" it become inaccurate and highly political. And the dichotomy between the two IS the misinformation i'm aiming to illustrate. Iluvalar (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  The "recommend" sense of the word suggest is fully supported by the transcript, as Wikiditm tried patiently explaining to you above. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  No that's bullshit, the transcript end by "So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with". It's CLEARLY indicating that this is a call for more research, not a direct recommendation to try anything at home. This is a clear political push. Iluvalar (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Suggestion — Should the caption include the fact that there were people who actually tried this method and ended up calling poison control centres? - EelamStyleZ (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

face masks

Has anybody found credible information opposing wearing face masks? Nrandazzza (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nrandazzza: As the header at the top of the page points out when you edit, "this talk page is not a forum for general discussion." If you have questions about this, the proper place would be the reference desk. I think information opposing wearing face masks would, also, probably be found at Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic (since this article is very long and we are trying to maintain some form of summary style, so we only try to add the most essential information). Possibly, if I remember correctly there were quite a few statements in the media saying that wearing a face mask outdoors wasn't really helpful, but in any case I'm not sure if we want that covered here or at the other article. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

RandomCanadian is correct that this isn't the place, but to answer your question very quickly, there's a reasonable argument to be made (and which is the position of many governments) that since the stock of masks is finite, the mass wearing of masks is actively damaging as it diverts supplies from high-risk sectors like medicine, policing, social care etc. There's also a defensible position that since the protection offered by non-surgical masks is relatively low, they can give wearers a false sense of security and encourage them to engage in risky behaviours that increase the risk of transmission to degree which outweighs the protection afforded by the mask. ‑ Iridescent 15:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

One new argument I heard yesterday against face mask is one that would certainly apply to me. A face mask causes most new wearers to touch their face more often, adjusting it and the like. Touching the face is discouraged. HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

[7], doi:10.1136/bmj.m2003 is a short piece on the arguments against masks. (COI: I work with 2 of the authors.) Then there's work by Martin: [8], doi:10.1136/bmj.m1435, and [9]. Bondegezou (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

First case

Earliest case with symptoms

The article says the earliest case with symptoms was 1 dec, yet the UK atrticle says there was a Welshman with symptoms on 25 Nov - surely this is earlier and should be mentioned here https://news.sky.com/story/fighting-coronavirus-one-of-the-first-british-sufferers-describes-his-ordeal-11950631 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The article is not clear whether there is official confirmation that this was truly the coronavirus... We should wait until this gets mentioned in press briefings by authorities. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is Reuters saying "Reed got confirmation at the end of December that he had COVID-19."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-wuhan-britain/briton-struck-with-coronavirus-in-wuhan-recalls-i-couldnt-get-enough-air-idUSKBN20Y22F

so that is an earlier case with symptoms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Please sign your posts as you have been told on your talk page previously per WP:SIGN. Ideally you also need to indent your posts per WP:THREAD. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Date of first case

Sentence in question "However, the first case may be traced back to 17 November, 2019."

References

Is this edit okay? I haven't been too involved in the discussions about the date of the first case, but I seem to remember there being some, and I'm guessing this probably violates it and might want to be reverted. And we should probably add whatever the current consensus is on it to the list. Doc James, you just made an edit to this portion, so pinging you. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Yah it was originally just in the body of the article and not the lead. The source does support https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3074991/coronavirus-chinas-first-confirmed-covid-19-case-traced-back but not sure if it is strong enough for the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Doc James, the amount of space in the first paragraph now devoted to the date of origin is now undue, so it'd need to be streamlined, if nothing else. I'm a little hesitant to make the reversion myself, though, given I haven't followed this aspect that closely, and that I'm running up again my revert limit for this article for today. (You may want to review the recent addition of an Asia map; imo the only continent-level map we should currently have is Europe.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay have moved here for further discussion. Agree different sources come to different conclusions and it is best to discuss in the body of the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The date of the earliest known case should be based on what WP:MEDRS state. Reports in normal news media about this sort of scientific question should not be held as reliable. The dating of the first known case to 1 December 2019 is based on this Lancet paper. There have been unconfirmed media reports of earlier cases, including a claim in the SCMP that the first case in China has been dated to 17 November ([10]), but I think we should regard these reports as potentially unreliable, until they are published in high-quality peer-reviewed journals, such as The Lancet. I would not include any mention of cases before December 2019 in the lede, but we can discuss unconfirmed claims of earlier cases in the body, as long as it is made clear to the reader that those claims are not yet certain. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

There are indeed scientific publications which include this claim, and they are citing the SCMP source for it. The date of the first case is not so much a scientific or medical claim, but a historical one, and SCMP is a good enough source for this in my opinion.Wikiditm (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Which scientific publications? Can you link to them here? The date of the first case is very much a scientific question, and the SCMP alone is not a suitable source for this claim. We need an actual scientific journal as a source. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It appears as background info in a large number of publications addressing related issues, for example [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. I also found modelling and forecasting work which uses the mid-November date: [16]. None of these are publications seeking to answer the question directly "when was the first case?" and I couldn't find any studies trying to answer that question apart from through modelling. I don't think it would be appropriate to cite any of these studies for the claim for this reason. This really does seem to be a historical claim rather than a scientific one - it is treated as a historical statement in most studies I found, and so citing a news report seems reasonable to me.Wikiditm (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James, Thucydides411, and Wikiditm: A relatively new editor just changed the date in the infobox. Feel free to revert them if you wish. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no need for the date of the first case to meet WP:MEDRS as this is historical information and bears no chance of harm. SCMP is a plenty good source. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

While I agree with this, it's a tricky one. The WHO have the earliest confirmed case being in December. The SCMP is a plenty good source, but the WHO isn't too shabby either.Wikiditm (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

WHO is wp:primary here, as they have been pushed around by PRC. We should be able to find some ok big newspapers. SCMP for Asia is about as good as it gets and i thought is highly respected. If we have a respected source saying it is earlier than the WHO, we can use the earlier date and attribute it unless there is some later some 'medical consensus' on what is correct. But the WHO's statements relating to dates and early suggested course of action (dont close flights, position on masks, etc) is all very very suspicious in my opinion and there are now a lot of source that point to PRC influence. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Country list

Coverage of US and UK in the list of countries is a bit WP:UNDUE. Probably both need to be trimmed and it seems that UK is terribly undue. Probably the only countries that should be singled out need to be US and China, with China bc it started there and the US had a huge crisis in New York. But still it doesn't warrant the amount of coverage it has right now on this main article. I am for keeping the list of current countries, just trimming them a bit. Everyone seems to want coverage on the main page for their fav country, so we need to start making a policy about this and trimming. Might as well start with the US and UK first to set a standard. I would think one paragraph or maybe two for the US and UK should be fine. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

US and UK are the highest and second-highest number of deaths. See [17]. As worst hit, it seems reasonable to give them substantial coverage.Wikiditm (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Ethiopia country Belisa Mahadi Beker Belisa Mahadi Beker (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2020

Hi, kindly change the number of recovered patients in the United States to 645,974 as of June 2, 2020 under the Epidemiology tab. Thanks. 42.60.88.59 (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

To change that, go to Template:COVID-19 pandemic data. CrazyBoy826 20:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The source does not provide that figure. CrazyBoy826 20:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Automatic archiving time limit

As both the main page and this talk page are getting a bit less attention of late, I don't think automatic archiving of all threads with no new replies in the last 36 hours is still warranted. Limit could be set at 7 or 14 days, perhaps. Speed74 (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Speed74, agreed that some increase is appropriate. I'm a little worried about increasing it too much, though (partly since it's an impediment to clearing out the periodic conversations-that-just-won't-die™ that happen on this page). I'll double it to 3 days, and let's see how that works out before boosting it further. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Lack of scrutiny of recent edits threatening deterioration

My daily look through the changes to this page resulted in reversions of 4 editors today. I'm safe with WP:3RR since it defines undoes of multiple editors as a single revert when done as a consecutive series, but it's getting tiring having to monitor the page so closely. The phrase "oriental people" should not have remained in the lead for nearly two hours (in clear violation of current consensus item 8). The article is mature enough at this point that I think a fairly substantial portion of edits are detrimental rather than constructive, so it would help to have more people monitoring recent changes and reverting them when needed. To avoid cluttering your watchlist, I recommend coming back here every so often and using the "compare selected revisions" tool in the page history to see how it's changed since your last check-in. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll watch more closely--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

should be mentioned?

Protests could accelerate spread of coronavirus, experts say and[18]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Bravo, Holmes, (this isn't aimed at you or anything, I'm just saying that it's quite astonishing that nobody mentioned this before) this is obvious and if it isn't already in the article... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: does this meet WP:MEDRS? I would think that if we are saying in wikivoice that some activity contributes to the spread of disease, that statement needs to meet MEDRS. I have also read (that probably also doesnt meet MEDRS) that outside activity has a low role in spread. Thus I am not sure this inclusion is warranted. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I also think that it needs to be sourced on a MEDRS.Forich (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The text we currently have is Starting in late May, large-scale protests against police brutality in at least 200 U.S. cities in response to the death of George Floyd raised concerns of a resurgence of the virus due to the close proximity of protesters. The phrase "raised concerns" is helpful — we're not claiming in WP's voice that the protests contributed to the spread (that claim would indeed require WP:MEDRS), but just reflecting widespread media coverage that the protests are part of the story of the pandemic in the U.S. I'm certainly in favor of searching for the highest-quality sources we can find on the topic, but I think the text should be kept. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I dont have a big problem with raised concerns. It seems the concerns are unfounded, but that is my opinion and worthless. But we do have sources stating that concerns have been raised and it is nice to be able to wikilink to the Floyd protests article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Short description not displaying properly

Greetings and felicitations. The article's actual short description reads:

Ongoing pandemic of COVID-19

but it is being displayed as:

False information about the COVID-19 outbreak

(In searching the archives of this page I found "Wikipedia talk:Short description#Short description broken at COVID-19 pandemic and possibly elsewhere".)

I don't know how to fix this, even after reading the instruction in the "Wikipedia:Short description" article. Would someone else please be so kind? —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It was transcluded from Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic with {{#lsth:Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic}} in COVID-19 pandemic#Misinformation. Fixed by <noinclude>...</noinclude>.[19] PrimeHunter (talk) 10:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

legend for case map

I tried to change the legend for the map for the infobox on top - but I'm no expert for the wiki syntax. How do you like this representation - and could you insert it, please? --Traut (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

none	–10	–30	–100	–300	–1 000	>1 000

personally don't know how to, however it does look good...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The vertical display looks empty since it was just changed here. But I agree that a horizontal legend bar will be an improvement if we can get it to work. I think the template we're looking for is Template:Legend inline; I'll take a gander at implementing it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so we can easily get   None/no data   0–10   10–30   30–100   100–300   300–1000   >1000 ... I might need to add a parameter to the template to get it to work. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! --Traut (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm fairly stumped on the technical aspect of this. There's also the issue of how to handle the gray box, which isn't just "none" but "none or no data". One solution might be to keep the current vertical display rather than switching to horizontal, but to use two columns. I'm bad with tables, so if someone else wants to try implementing that (and can do so without breaking mobile), go ahead. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that 'none' is worse than "no cases or no data available" - but I doubt that you need it that super-correct. The map is used on lots of other pages - many of them without any legend at all. I just want a short and clear legend, without repeating the same redundancy again and again. But I would not like a 10-30|30-100|100-... since the breaking value 30 would be part of both intervals. And 10-29|30-99|100-... is even worse, since the actual number could be e.g. 29.5. --Traut (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment: a recent edit expressed concern that with a horizontal legend it is less clear whether the label goes with the color to the right or the left of it: this could be addressed by adding middot separators (as are used to separate items in certain 'series'/'topic' and 'navbox' templates) or some other spearator, if people otherwise want a horizontal label for compactness or other reasons. For example, here's a spaced middot separator:

  >1000  ·    300–1000  ·    100–300 [...]

-sche (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

for people reading from left to right an increasing number looks more obvious to me than zig zagging 300-1 000 | 100-300 | 30-100 | 10-30 --Traut (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree, though I suppose the numbers are probably listed the way they are because one does not normally(?) see "1 000-300". We could avoid the issue by listing the options from smallest to greatest, i.e. "0-10 ... 10-30 ... 30-100". Also, shouldn't the ranges be non-overlapping, i.e. ""0-10 ... 11-30 ... 31-100"? Otherwise what colour is a country with exactly 30 cases (per unit being measured), under the current legend?. -sche (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

-sche, the labels were non-overlapping, but there's been a bunch of tweaks made to them, and at some point (I think fairly recently) the non-overlappingness was lost. I don't mind too much, since no country is going to have exactly 1000, etc. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It probably never will be exactly 100 - but i won't be exact integer numbers either. So taking values 10–30 | 31–100 will no fit for 30.5. Typical solutions are

• 0 | < 10 | < 30 | < 100 | < 300 | < 1000 | ≥ 1000
• 0 | ≤ 10 | ≤ 30 | ≤ 100 | ≤ 300 | ≤ 1000 | > 1000
• 0 | –10 | –30 | –100 | –300 | –1000 | 1000+
• 0 | ..10 | ..30 | ..100 | ..300 | ..1000 | 1000..
• 0 | [0–10) | [10–30) | [30–100) | [100–300) | [300–1000) | [1000-∞)
• 0 | [0–10[ | [10–30[ | [30–100[ | [100–300[ | [300–1000[ | [1000-∞[

I guess not everyone is used to the last two mathematical intervals --Traut (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

As of 5 June, the Key for the 'Deaths' map is incorrect (okay when you click on link, but small one on this page appears to show "over 1000 per million" color for countries (e.g. the US, "321" is less than "1000"). Thank you. --18:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.196.200.242 (talk)

Wow, I'm not sure how that error slipped in, but thank you for catching it! Fixed now. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Misleading 'CCP Virus' article name

When searching covid-19 statistics on Ecosia (the ecosia extension for chrome specifically, check this link https://www.ecosia.org/search?q=covid+statistics&addon=chrome&addonversion=3.2.0&method=topbar), a preview of this wikipedia article appears at the top of search results.

However, the name of the article incorrectly displays as 'CCP Virus' due presumably to someone creating a redirect link for 'CCP Virus'. Here is a screenshot of the incorrectly named article preview: https://imgur.com/a/qORMQRC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superfinetube (talk • contribs) 11:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• its being discussedWikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_25#CCP_virus--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Map of world lockdowns is inaccurate

The map of world lockdowns (National responses section) is inaccurate and inconsistent with the table that is linked to in the caption (Template:COVID-19_pandemic_lockdowns). For example Japan in the map is coloured in light blue suggesting regional lockdown, but there have not been any lockdowns in Japan, as confirmed by the template page. Also it is unclear whether the map refers to *current* presence of lockdown, or whether there has been a lockdown at all. Arguably the latter would be more useful. The map needs to be updated and clarified, or I will continue to press for its removal. Speed74 (talk) 07:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC) Slightly separate point, "lockdown" is a word open to different interpretations, so I still think there's a risk the map could be considered original research. It may be useful to somehow use the data amassed by Oxford university (https://covidtracker.bsg.ox.ac.uk/stringency-map; set the map to 13 April for example, gives a good overview). Speed74 (talk) 07:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Speed74: Thanks for looking over the map; I guess it's not too surprising it has some issues. I've tagged it as dubious on the page. I agree that it would be best for the map to indicate what there was at the peak, not what's current (per WP:RECENCY). Courtesy pinging Nice4What. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I have raised the matter on the map file's talkpage (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:COVID-19_Outbreak_lockdowns.svg) Speed74 (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I am again seriously tempted to remove the map, at least until issues with it have been fixed. It is pretty much unpresentable in its current form. Why is all of Africa in grey? Nearly every African country has had a lockdown (see the map by the Oxford university researchers which I linked to above), and indeed still has a lockdown. For many countries, whether there has been a lockdown or not depends on who you ask. For example on the commons talk page a user asserts authoritatively that there has been no lockdown in Armenia or Georgia, but other sources (including the Oxford researchers) will tell you that there has, at least in Georgia. Speed74 (talk) 04:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Speed74, I reluctantly have to agree with you at this point. I just commented it out and added a note that it should only be brought back once it's been made reliable. That will make it easier to add back when the time comes and less likely to pop back up before then.

Have we been able to contact the original map creator(s)? Is there anywhere we should reach out that might have editors likely to want to work on getting it back in shape? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

A quick summary of improvements I think need to be made before the map can be made visible again:

• It should be verifiable which means it should exactly match the list given at Template:COVID-19_pandemic_lockdowns, which has references. To give just two examples of discrepancies between the map and the table: Japan and Mongolia. There are many others. (Potentially the map could be made verifiable in other ways, but to get it to match the table at the template page would be one way.)
• It should focus mainly on whether countries have used a lockdown at any point, even if the lockdown has since been lifted, for two reasons: one, this is more notable in the long-term than whether there is currently a lockdown in place; two, it is unfeasible to keep the map constantly updated with the latest situation in every country in the world.

To answer your point about who to contact about improving the map, several users seem to have contributed to it (their usernames are visible at the file's page on Wikimedia commons, under file history). All of them could be pinged potentially, and I myself might be willing to work on the map if I can figure out how, although it will take a lot of work to get it completely up to scratch. Speed74 (talk) 08:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Another idea: the map could be set to a specific date, for example, it could give the global situation on 15 April, again going by the data in the table on the template page. This would make it much less vulnerable to repeated edits that can be hard to keep track of. Speed74 (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

To add I would prefer if we used the map from the Oxford source. As mentioned "lockdown" itself could mean differently. In the Philippines for example uses several terminology for different lockdown measures (general community quarantine to enhanced community quarantine). At one point all provinces and cities are under some form of "lockdown" (not just the areas on the table on the main lockdown page) See COVID-19 community quarantines in the Philippines. In short the table is also a messy attempt, in its current state, to document lockdowns across the world.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020

Inaccurate figure for number of deaths in table. The figure stated is in the region of 360,000 deaths. By most estimates, including the value of individual countries, give the number of deaths as 396,699. This is verifiable via John Hopkins University Covid Resources Centre. 82.0.25.57 (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

should you look at the current table it reflects neither of the numbers you've indicated--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not the page to requests update to the table. Rather try at Template:COVID-19 pandemic data. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2020

COVID-19 makes you cough and sneeze. So to avoid it don't cough or sneeze. 72.180.71.104 (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Not sure this is right... Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

"Covidemic" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Covidemic. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#Covidemic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

"Coronacaust" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Coronacaust. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#Coronacaust until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

"Corona baby" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Corona baby. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#Corona baby until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

"CCP coronavirus" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect CCP coronavirus. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#CCP coronavirus until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Is the article too long?

Moved from User talk:Interstellarity

 – Interstellarity (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

lets talk before tagging article for 'too long', please--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: I will move this discussion to the Talk:COVID-19 pandemic because that is the most appropriate place for improvements for the article. If you would like to discuss further, please reply there. Interstellarity (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the article is too long and should be condensed. What are your thoughts? Interstellarity (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

we could remove some of the countries in 'national responses'--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: Which countries are you thinking about removing? Which ones do you want to keep? Interstellarity (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

maybe condense the countries(subsections) in Europe, to a single section dedicated to Europe( which would talk about every country) this would shrink significant article space...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: How about an edit like this? [20], is this what you're talking about? Interstellarity (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

impressive...however we should put in one sentence for each country[21](that's not a lot)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Whoa there! We really just going to cut out almost all discussion of the European pandemic, including the entire Italy section, which was the first epicenter for the virus outside of Asia, and the UK section, which has the highest European case count and one of the highest in the world? We might wanna establish consensus before removing all of that! BlackholeWA (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, an entry for Sweden is specifically mandated in consensus point 5, which also says that France and Germany should not have subsections (which were added in the edits). I have reverted them for the timebeing because there is clearly a lot that needs to be addressed before changes are made BlackholeWA (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hang on, apparently the France section was already there, despite the consensus point. ...I'll let someone else clear that up BlackholeWA (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

that's correct France was already in the text[22], furthermore I would support reducing this section(Europe and its subsections) as the article has become too long...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment: If we're going to have a vote we should phrase more clearly what we're asking, because I would support across the board content trimming of the national responses section, but not the removal/ground-up rewriting of particular countries. BlackholeWA (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: three-phase combined history/countries

It's overwhelmingly obvious looking at File:2020_coronavirus_cases_by_date_of_report.svg

and File:Covid-19_new_cases_in_top_5_countries_and_the_world.png that the history so far is in three phases:

• China (Dec 2019/Jan-Feb 2020)
• Iran/S.Korea/Europe (Mar-Apr 2020 - exponential growth and then homeostasis)
• Americas (+India) (May- 2020)

Sources for the division should be easy to find. Due weight to be given to different countries would make sense mostly following this historical structure, apart from exceptions such as Sweden (claims to have a scientifically better justified policy, and an implemented policy that is clearly different from the other European cases). This would make it possible to compress the History and National responses sections together. Right now, the tiny section for Brazil compared to long sections for the rich countries is clearly out of proportion (the other sections are proportionally too long), given that Brazil is driving the daily infection count.

This would be a lot of work and require a lot of careful consensus building and making sure that valid content is shifted to the more topic-specific (e.g. country-specific) pages, since I'm sure people who've contributed to the content won't be happy to see their content "disappear". But my feeling is that this would:

• shorten the page;
• make it more balanced;
• bring it more up to date;
• refocus the "what country is more significant" debate into the COVID-19 historical context.

("Up to date": Just as the "second phase" has led to most of the China new cases being imported, the "third phase" will tend to lead to Europe (west of Białystok) getting to a stage where many of the new cases will be imported from the Americas/India, as intercontinental non-goods-related travel is gradually loosened.) Boud (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear it's time for another big discussion on how to structure the country-specific content on this page. We should have some meta-discussion here first, though, about how to structure that RfC to make it most productive. Last time (see the current consensus list for link), it got a bit muddled since we hadn't fully moved to continent-level coverage at that point. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I feel that File:2020 coronavirus cases by date of report.svg does not help very much to understand any kind of development how corona spread. The overlay with a second axis and the "Total" line does not help either. File:Worldwide Coronavirus Curve 6-7-20.png is a second chart which has very little useful information. --Traut (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Updated cases in Spain

There are 288,630 confirmed cases in Spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.51.215 (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Per item number 3 in the COVID-19 consensus above, we do not use WorldOMeters as a source anymore. The current source that we're using for Spain appears to be up to date. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

References

I found out that Total cases is the sum of total cases detected by PRC and antibodies tests. If you want the real source it's right here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.51.215 (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Additional edit notice for this talk page?

Some editors who are unable to edit Template:COVID-19 pandemic data are posting their requests on here rather than on its talk page. Should another edit notice be created to redirect their suggestions to over there? I'm just worried another one might be overkill on edit notices. Alternatively, the one in the middle could be edited to include a link to the template. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu, the second edit notice is basically already that, but I share the concern. Linking to the data template definitely sounds like a good idea, since I think some of the ignoring might be from people who see it but don't know where else to go so just decide to ignore it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, the link to the talk page for the template on this article isn't very obvious. A bulleted addition to the edit notice like "If your edit request has to do with the table of total cases, deaths, and recoveries, please go to Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data" might be helpful. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Here's a draft update to the editnotice:

Extended content

How does it look? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, it appears that it is the only table (thankfully) on the article, so I don't think "main" is necessary. Otherwise I'm all for it! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu, sounds good; I'll make it an edit request. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: The edit notice has been edited as such. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

"Responses to the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Responses to the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 10#Responses to the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

“False information about the COVID-19 outbreak” is written under the title

I’m using the Wikipedia app and underneath the title of the article (the subtitle of description maybe?) it says “False information about the COVID-19 outbreak” which doesn’t seem right at all. Icedmorning (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

This also shows up when searching for covid-19 through wikipedia search bar. https://imgur.com/tvoq9Sa I couldn't see where that was included in the source code.Alsidprime (talk)04:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Alsidprime, It's a problem with the short description; will fix. Thanks for pointing it out! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Update required

global confirmed cases should be 7.2 million now, please update accordingly. BlackSun2104 (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Then go to Template:COVID-19_pandemic_data and fix it yourself! But keep in mind, the source within the text is based on official numbers from the WHO, while other sites, such as JHU and worldometer use different, estimated, higher numbers. --Traut (talk) 06:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

BlackSun2104, if you took this information from WorldOMeters, please note that per item #3 on the COVID-19 consensus up at the top of the page, we do not accept it as a source due to potential double-counting. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

Under Section 3.1 (Transmission), after the sentence "Some medical procedures are aerosol-generating and result in the virus being transmitted more easily than normal." Please can you add: "The risk of transmission to medical professionals performing aerosol-generating procedures such as tracheal intubation has been estimated at approximately 1 in 10 for the month following first performing the procedure." Dannyjnwong (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

References

 Done {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 19:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

 Undone: This request has been undone. Please provide a reliable source for medicine. Special:Diff/962389624 {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 20:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Can I Log In, am I missing something? Anaesthesia appears to be a reliable peer-reviewed medical journal. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, the reverting editor, would you like to weigh your opinion on this regarding the source provided and WP:MEDRS? {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 20:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu and Can I Log In: WP:MEDRS states:

all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge

...

Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information

You need to understand that "peer-reviewed" is a minimum standard for a reliable source, so is a necessary, but not sufficient requirement for a source that complies with MEDRS. The study removed was a primary source and is not acceptable for making biomedical claims like estimates of transmission risk. If you don't yet understand the difference between primary and secondary sources, and the quality of sources required, then please review WP:MEDASSESS as a good starting point. It is important to do that because Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 #Application notes sets particularly strict conditions on editing here. --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, thanks for clearing that up. That being said, could it act as a supplementary source if a sufficient secondary source is provided? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: If you find a good secondary source discussing estimates of transmission risk, you won't need the primary source. The point of a source is it's something that we can use to write content from; it's not there as "Further reading" (we have a different section for that). --RexxS (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Deaths

The deaths are now 431,000... Not 429,000...103.100.11.3 (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

This question pops up again and again. 1) check for the sources. Numbers here are taken from WHO or ecdc.europa.eu, but not necessarily the numbers from JHU or the estimates from worldometers. 2) fix it yourself if you got the proper numbers. --Traut (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

vandalism - says china wuhan virus pandemic

please delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.230.159 (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done by Fengryffen. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

good read

• Colavizza, Giovanni (12 May 2020). "COVID-19 research in Wikipedia". bioRxiv: 2020.05.10.087643. doi:10.1101/2020.05.10.087643. Retrieved 17 June 2020.…--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 17 June 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.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, with oppose citing WP:CONCISENESS, and WP:SNOW. How long a move moratorium should be is an open question, though this and the preceding very long discussion are rather strong consensuses. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

---

COVID-19 pandemic → Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic – Still confusing how title of Wikipedia page about the pandemic/epidemic is. I suggest the title of the page to be accurate (for example: title should be named to Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic). I think that would be better than current title of article. 2A02:2F01:6504:6200:495:F136:5E0:109B (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. The name of the disease is either "COVID-19" or "Coronavirus disease 2019"; what it definitely isn't is "Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)". I don't see how a name you just made up could possibly be considered "more accurate". ‑ Iridescent 17:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per reason above. please see guideline on the top talk page. 114.125.253.19 (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• No, as Iridescent explains. We also have a consensus for the current name, as listed at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Current consensus above, and we have had far too many people trying to move this (and other related articles) to different titles. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. We've covered this already in consensus item #2 above. COVID-19 is WP:COMMONNAME, and anyone looking for more information is more than likely going to use that as the search term. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Strong oppose - This just makes the title longer than it should be. I suspect this will be WP:SNOW closed within the next few hours. Interstellarity (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Move to Coronavirus pandemic per my comments in the previous discussion. Also note that "Coronavirus pandemic" site:bbc.co.uk gets about 128,000 results compared to only about 49,800 for "COVID-19 pandemic" site:bbc.co.uk. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support move to Coronavirus pandemic – 'Covid-19' is jargon, confusing, and less common than 'Coronavirus' as a name for this disease in common discourse. We ought use the names people actually use for things, not the names handed down from above, as per our COMMMONNAME policy. RGloucester — ☎ 21:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Strong oppose - This just makes the article title longer than it should be. Please see the guideline of the talk page. 180.244.146.165 (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Snow close per Iridescent and WP:CONCISE, and time to implement a much longer move moratorium, until the end of September at the least. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose and snow close. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:56, 17 June 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.

Australian guidelines recommend consideration of remdesivir

https://covid19evidence.net.au/ --115.70.230.159 (talk) 06:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

"C-pandemic" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect C-pandemic. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 16#C-pandemic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

This article needs to talk less about COVID-19 itself

The article talks a lot about COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2. It should talk only a little bit about the disease and virus, and more about the pandemic of the disease.--RaiBrown1204 (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Why? Isn’t the pandemic the spread of the disease? It goes into it perfectly--BaseFree (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

RaiBrown1204, but that's the point of talking about the pandemic: how the disease is affecting the world and what the current status is on its prevalence. Specifics of the virus or disease are mostly confined to the lede, or in their own sections which also have a link to their own articles. Responses to the disease are listed further down. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Should excess deaths be quantified ?

I noted BBC remarks give a number for excess deaths here.

At least another 130,000 people worldwide have died during the coronavirus pandemic on top of 440,000 officially recorded deaths from the virus, according to BBC research.

Should the Deaths section give a number for excess deaths ? Should the LEAD mention of numbers include it ?

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Markbassett, for the lead, I think there's only room for one clause, which is currently resulting in more than 452,000 deaths. We might add a footnote to that, though. And I think there's certainly room in the deaths section to talk about excess deaths — it's a useful measure since my sense is that it's harder for vested parties to manipulate than the deaths count. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Wrong statistic for Kazakhstan

Starting from June 3rd Kazakhstan Authorities started to split official COVID-19 statistic into 2 groups. Authorities withdrew people who have been tested positive for COVID-19 but have no symptoms (known as asymptomatic) from the main official statistics. Data on the main page of the reference site (reference 109) https://www.coronavirus2020.kz/ is for people tested positive and have symptoms only. There is another statistic for people who have been tested positive for COVID-19 but have no symptoms on this site. For example, for June 18th please take data from here: https://www.coronavirus2020.kz/ru/o-bessimptomnyh-nositelyah-koronavirusnoy-infekcii_a3663512. We should add up 2 these numbers to get correct number of confirmed cases. For example, for July 18th the number of confirmed cases in Kazakhstan is 16 351 + 7 609 = 23 960. Otherwise statistics won't be correct. This article is semi-protected and I don't have rights to make changes by myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Михаил Гулидов (talk • contribs) 12:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Trump & Khamenei misinformation images/videos: NO consensus

After careful thought I believe neither image/video should be included. My recent edit was reverted, with the following edit summary: "Reverting back to consensus". However, there seems to be no clear consensus, see the recent discussions here, here, here and here. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The is no real consensus for the inclusion of the Trump video. The last discussion was on the image caption even that argument was all over the place. If people want to keep the video, they need to have a clear consensus for its inclusion, otherwise it's a violation of UNDUE and NPOV. Hzh (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

+1 no consensus at all. Iluvalar (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

This issue has been settled. All three of you participated in the prior discussions and consensus did not go your way. It's time to drop the matter, not to forum shop by raising it over and over again. "I disagreed with the consensus" ≠ "there is no consensus". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

There is NO consensus. You just opened a vote between a dissatisfying option 1 and an absurd option 2 that no one ever wanted. It doesn't make option 1 impossible to change after the vote. YOU are the one who categorically refuse to try to reach a consensus. Iluvalar (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

That discussion wasn't even about whether to have the Trump video there at all, so it is entirely wrong to argue that there is a consensus on keeping the video. It also disappeared from the talk page before closing, so even the vote on the options wasn't decided on (I counted 8 for option 1, 7 against option 1 including those who wanted neither, no one cared about option 2), that is not a consensus. Hzh (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

You are right, there is no consensus. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Someone can probably start a RfC on whether to keep the Trump video or not. Hzh (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

good idea...(item 13 indicates it should stay)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Given that there is no evidence of consensus, then item 13 needs to be removed as a false assertion of consensus. There is also the question of whether Sdkb improperly asserted consensus in Current consensus when there is none. The editor needs to remove that edit. Hzh (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

National responses section

This section needs more global coverage in summary style. Currently only some countries are covered in excessive depth while others are not even mentioned. This section should have subsections on Continents (like Asia, Africa etc.) with only few paragraphs on heavily affected nations in those continents.

• Current version
  • Asia
    • China
    • Iran
    • South Korea
  • Europe
    • Italy
    • Spain
    • UK
    • France
    • Sweden
  • North America
    • US
  • South America
    • Brazil
  • Africa
  • Oceania

India, Russia, Turkey, Peru, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia; these all heavily affected nations are missing. This section needs rewriting.-Nizil (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

if you add all those 'missing' countries, how long will this article get?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Nizil Shah, you may want to take a look at consensus item number 5, which has two links ([ 1 ] [ 2 ]) discussing the criteria to include countries in the Responses section to prevent it from being too bloated. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Problem is, those discussions don't mention Brazil, for example, so where did the consensus come from for COVID-19 pandemic #Brazil? France is excluded by the discussions, but currently has a section. It's clear that the situation (and consensus) changes with time. I'd suggest that the criterion for including a national section here should be contingent on having a separate article "COVID-19 pandemic in Xyz", and that the section here should be a brief summary of that article per WP:Summary style. Cutting down on the over-detailed sections would go a long way toward reducing the size of the article. --RexxS (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Before it was archived, we were having a discussion about a new potential RfC on this matter after some contentious edits last week. It stalled a little when attempting to decide what sort of question we should ask, but most people agreed that the section should be re-balanced. I'm not sure if it would make sense to vote on specific countries, or a broader criteria for inclusion. Somebody suggested we organized the section by the main "phases" of spread as indicated by the pandemic curve, Asia, then Europe, then the Americas, but that seems messy to me. But perhaps there's a more even handed way of determining where weight should be given to particular countries. BlackholeWA (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• The addition of specific countries has changed over time, so they needed to be adjusted when the situation changes. France can be removed since it is not particularly interesting and its inclusion was not agreed on, but Russia and India can be added. I think some country sub-sections need to be trimmed (China and US), maybe limiting to four or five paragraphs. Otherwise it is fine as it is. Hzh (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• If we want to shy away from specific countries, COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory has short paragraphs for each continent; though of course these might be too short for our purposes here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Updated recoveries in Chile

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.

---

Chile has 191,491 recoveries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.51.215 (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

References

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.

"spread by a factor of 100 to 200 times"

What does "the outbreak spread by a factor of 100 to 200 times" mean? It seems to be far more common to say something spreads by a factor of N, rather than "by a factor of N times". This was tagged "clarify", but then the tag was removed without clarifying the text. Does it mean the disease spread to become 100-200 times as widespread as it had been? Can this be rephrased for clarity? -sche (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Bar chart for cases/deaths for world situation

According to the WHO, cases worldwide are accelerating [23]. At least, that how The Guardian in the UK is reporting it. For the reader to quickly verify the assertion, and the situation generally, it would be good to have that horizontally-aligned bar chart covering cases and deaths for the world as a whole. This is the chart used in most of the country-specific articles. Any opinions on the matter? Arcturus (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Please explain how this should look like. How does a horizontal bar chart show that cases are accelerating? Those bars would just show a current status, but not any development. How would you like to present the bars - in absolute numbers? You feel worried about the 1 mio cases in Brazil? Yes, that's a lot. But when you compare Brazil (1 032 913 cases) to Chile (231 388 cases) - which country is worse? Brazil has a population of > 200 Mio, Chile not even 20 Mio. So comparing cases per population, you have Brasil: 493 cases/100k, Chile: 1235 cases/100k! Or take the deaths. What's worse: United States (119 112 deaths) or Belgium (9 695 deaths). Per capita that's US: 36.4 deaths/100k, Belgium: 84.9 deaths/100 k! It's not that easy to have a chart of countries with a very different size. --Traut (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It should look exactly like this [24], using the three figures currently at the head of the InfoBox and detailing the worldwide situation. This template is used in just about every subsidiary country article, so it would make sense to use it here as well. In the same way that the US has this chart for the overall situation there, that article has 50 sub-articles for the US states, and most of them use this chart. It would just give the overall global situation at a glance, which is not easy to deduce from the plethora of complicated graphs currently near the top of the article. Arcturus (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

ok, got it - it a bar chart for the whole world. I don't know how recoveries would be estimated, but the WHO does seem to provide this guess. It could go above or below /{{COVID-19 pandemic data}}/ --Traut (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Arcturus, for an article like this, where we are constantly bumping up against the post-expand include size, we have to put WP:DWAP aside. We unfortunately don't even have room for a navbox at the bottom, so a bar chart almost certainly wouldn't fit. There's work to be done improving the charts in the cases/deaths sections, so that might be a more productive area in which to focus. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the article is too big, and I'm not sure that we, as editors, should be bothering about WP:DWAP. One obvious change would be to strip out the vast amount of material about national responses, nearly all of which is duplicated in the country articles. And, many of the sections in this article also address country-specific stuff, which can also be reduced significantly. So at the end of the day, we need to be cognisant as to the needs of readers, and not so much of editors. When the average reader sees stuff along the lines of the WHO assertion mentioned above, he may well come here to quickly view the relevant data. The chart I'm suggesting would very much facilitate this. Arcturus (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Add 'disputed' tag to number of cases within China

The American Enterprise Institute published a non-scientific paper in April on China's potential obfuscation of their case numbers. While this paper is in no way definitive proof they have done so, it brings up a lot of good arguments. China has also under-recorded case numbers in the 2003 SARS pandemic, and while that is by no means damning evidence, it does show that there is precedent for such a move by the Chinese authorities.

I propose that a [disputed] tag be added to the running number of cases in China. I feel it's a relatively neutral way to show the numbers China is and has released are disputed by some, or in this case, this source.

Link to PDF of paper here: https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Estimating-the-True-Number-of-Chinas-COVID-19-Cases.pdf

Porcelain katana (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

AEI is a political organization. I would be against using their claims to make any statements about the number of deaths in China, or to put a "disputed" tag next to the numbers. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Again stating here the obvious. China stopped the testing on Feb 4. After 3 research such as this one [25] shown that covid was already spread all over wuhan (from who knows where) with an IFR <1% . While china up to that point was managing it as a >10% IFR virus. There is no international laws that forced China to test and they never claimed they were testing anyway. The massive error was from WHO who waited from feb 4 to march 11 for evidence that the virus was indeed pandemic (waiting for confirmation), instead of immediately announcing that they have no evidence that it's not pandemic based of previous knowledge of coronaviruses. Iluvalar (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Not really sure what spread in China has to do with whether it was a pandemic which requires spread through multiple regions. If it was just in China no matter how wide spread it is unlikely it would be considered a pandemic. Just an epidemic limited to China. Nil Einne (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Worldometers.info

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.

---

Interesting CNN article about Worldometers ( https://www.worldometers.info/ ):

• The Covid-19 pandemic has catapulted one mysterious data website to prominence, sowing confusion in international rankings

Cited twice on COVID-19 pandemic, Twice on COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory, six times on COVID-19 pandemic in Iraq, twelve times on Pandemic, and 219 times on all Wikipedia pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, according to project consensus 3 (in the headers at the top, above the consensuses for this specific article), Worldometers.info shouldn't be being used as a source anywhere. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:46, 21 June 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

Add Trump Virus to the search that redirects to this page 2600:8800:4600:171C:2053:346A:3B8E:8C88 (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: GoingBatty (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Article size.

This article is too big.

It's a pain, really, and could be compressed into a smaller article and entire sections could be turned into pages. Many have, but the main article still retains unnecessary info. I suggest limiting the details (this one article has OVER 1,000 references) and replacing some subsections with links to the full article. At least, for the time being, mark it with a banner that says "This article may be too long to navigate comfortably". It's the least we can do.

BlindmanJr (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This has been brought up a few times but I've yet to see any kind of significant change or concrete proposal. One possibility under discussion is trimming the "National responses section", see above. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

A good start would be to delete everything that does not comply with Wikipedia’s sourcing guidelines for biohealth content and Wikipedia’s policy that it is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. But there may be little left ... I did not make it past the first section of the article without finding speculation based on primary studies. (Perhaps such issues are part of why Edit requests are going unanswered?) Perhaps something in the range of 4 to 5,000 words, avoiding policy and guideline breaches, is attainable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

"Covid crisis" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Covid crisis. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 23#Covid crisis until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 06:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

I suggest adding the following to the History section, perhaps as the first sentence, or alternatively at the end of the first paragraph of the History section:

The virus started spreading successfully among humans at some point between mid-September 2019 and early December 2019, based on estimates using the virus mutation rate as a molecular clock.

Great article, by the way - thank you, Wikipediacs. 86.161.80.143 (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

References

 Note: The second cited source (which is referred to in the first) has some letters from other scientists which seem to dispute its results. Expert attention required, and I'd ping Doc James (who was helpful with the last edit request here) but he appears to have fallen prey to some wiki-drama recently so I'll wait for some other qualified person. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

You are right about the letters, but that was long ago and the dispute seems to have been settled because Altmetric states the paper has been cited by over 80 scientific articles in the past few weeks, here.[26] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.70.190 (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Have you noticed the authors have responded to the critics here. [27] Judging by this reply the criticism is unfounded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.41.65.201 (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

"Cited by over 80 scientific articles" does not mean the same as "supported by over 80 scientific articles". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Spread of covid-19/timeline should be updated to reflect new info, that sewage samples contained Covid-19 in Italy in Dec, and that a man was found to have been infected in France on Dec 27th. [28] There may be other articles in circulation which clarify whether these early cases detected a posteriori exacerbated the spread of Covid-19 in certain countries. Narnesandboble (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There appears to be a discussion in this section about the merits of this change. Please note that edit requests should only be made once a consensus has been reached. Please continue this discussion in another section on this talk page and gain a consensus before reopening this request. Thanks. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 23:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tartan357: I'm not waiting for consensus, more for further input from people who have more of a clue about this than me (I left a note at the WikiProject but so far apparently no one noticed it or no one acted on it). Maybe I should try WP:MEDICINE? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: You could try that, as well as creating a section on this talk page not labeled as an edit request. You could also ask me; I contribute to WP:COVID-19 and WP:MEDICINE. Start a section on my talk page and we can discuss it. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 00:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Saw the request at WT:MED. I would not recommend adding it, as it is a primary study. And based on modeling, which could later be refuted. And NOTNEWS. But you may find someone else from WPMED who believes Wikipedia should be reporting breaking news of primary studies that have not been vetted by secondary sources, and it is my impression that plenty of same is present in Wikipedia’s COVID coverage already. But my two cents is that Wikipedia should not be in the business of spreading unvetted medical primary studies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• I also saw the note at WT:MED, and I agree that this kind of claim can wait, and that it would ideally be supported by a review article (specifically a narrative review) from a reputable journal, that does more than give a passing mention to this claim. Given the rate at which COVID-19 papers are being pushing through, such a paper might be available soon (or maybe even now). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Up the archive period

A three-day archive period is no longer necessary here; how about trying five ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, sounds fine to me. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

Is the map about the school closure a live map?? If it is, you to have to update it. If it's not a live map but a map representing the school closure during the whole pandemic, your map is totally wrong. Like saying that France hadn't any school closure is totally wrong. Grégoire Heymans (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Please make specific edit requests at the file page on commons. Danski454 (talk) 10:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

corona

62.254.169.99 (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

not clear in terms of the request....--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

* NOTICE REGARDING THE ONGOING DISEASE PANDEMIC: This article refers to ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 since the W.H.O declared it as pandemic in March 11^th, 2020. As disease spread is accelerating, I ask editors to add both {{Current event}} or {{Current COVID}} to reflecft and focus the ongoing situation of virus in which country spreads, and maybe worldwide. Learn more at https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/19/who-says-coronavirus-enters-new-and-dangerous-phase-as-daily-cases-hits-record.html and https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who/who-reports-record-daily-increase-in-coronavirus-cases-idUSKBN23S0V2 for information. 2A02:2F01:6504:6200:D416:8655:233A:60DC (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Currently at WP:COVID-19 the first point of consensus is:

There is no current consensus about whether to use Template:Current at the top of articles covered by this project, although the matter has previously been discussed here. The de facto practice has been to include them for less-trafficked articles but not for the most heavily trafficked ones.

This is one of the more frequently-trafficked articles, so it is unlikely this will happen.—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Where is to discuss the issue in order to get consensus like this one? To Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard? 2A02:2F01:6504:6200:94D8:3E88:C1D1:F671 (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19? 2A02:2F01:6504:6200:94D8:3E88:C1D1:F671 (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

You're going to want to go to WT:COVID-19, though I strongly suggest you read the previous discussion that I've linked in the quote before doing so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: although the matter has been previously discussed here?[29] It was said the {{Current}} to be added on request by Sdkb but its discussion got a lastly bit and short-term with meaningless, while Liz stating that is a big mistake. This is a big change to make based on a couple of comments. Many of the pages are not regularly updated and these notices serve to make that clear. 2A02:2F01:6504:6200:94D8:3E88:C1D1:F671 (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is one of those highly trafficked pages; it's ranked as a top-importance article. We're also getting an average of roughly 116,000 daily page views. It's also being edited every day, so it is "regularly updated". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: I did say in this discussion. Alright. It has been needed to discuss the issue. Indeed, per current consensus. I didn't forget that, after I woke to read the statement: There is no current consensus about whether to use Template:Current at the top of articles covered by this project, although the matter has previously been discussed here. I'm satisfied. 2A02:2F01:6504:6200:94D8:3E88:C1D1:F671 (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Peru numbers

Resolved

 – Typo fixed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The statistics for Peru state 260,810 total cases; 8,404 deaths; and 1458,437 recoveries. Obviously there’s an error in the number of recoveries, but since the sources were in Spanish I wasn’t able to find the correct number and fix it. — LissanX (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

LissanX, looking at this source, it appears to be 148,437 people who have been discharged or released from isolation; I've gone ahead and fixed it. PS: For future inquiries about the table, please go to Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

First sentence of transmission reads poorly

COVID-19 spreads primarily when people are in close contact, when a well person inhales contaminated droplets, often produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, talks or sings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.131.241 (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

and your suggestion for the first sentence is...?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

Please remove this sentence in the "Sweden" paragraph: "On 19 May, it was reported that the country had in the week of 12–19 May the highest per capita deaths in Europe, 6.25 deaths per million per day." Telling that Sweden has the highest per capita deaths in Europe during one week is really not relevant when describing in a few lines the Swedish situation during the whole pandemic. And what about the other weeks?? This sentence is really not describing objectively the overall situation in Sweden. Grégoire Heymans (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Symptoms

Please consider updating the "Signs and symptoms" section of the page to reflect the content within https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234765. This is the largest evidence synthesis of symptoms of test positive adults with COVID-19 to-date. It shows the global prevalence of symptoms which differs to those stated on your page. Thank you. Ryckie Wade Ryckiewade (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

thank you for posting this article/systematic review and meta-analysis --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market photo request

Should File:Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market.png be included, maybe in the "Background" section? Or should the photo request be deleted? Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

in the absence of a better image...sure the 'background' (or other) section could benefit from it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I was aware of that image when I added the photo request; it's really not a great image (basically just a road), so I'm on the fence about whether including it is a net positive or not. I'd say maybe leave it out and leave the request up, and perhaps we'll get a better photo at some point. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes the problem is that its dated March, it would be better if we had one around the time the market was just closed but from searching on Commons we don't appear to. Unless we stated "in March" in the caption it might make readers think it was when it just closed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I've now created Commons:Category:Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market which I've managed to add one other image to (a map) if anyone has anymore images, preferably around the time the market was just closed that would be good. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale, be careful — the other image you added is one promoting a conspiracy theory about the virus's origin. It was added for a few days a while back until we noticed what it was depicting. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: OK, I'll remove it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

florida

• running away w/ it ~9000 cases/ one day[30],and the next day on 27 June [31] w/ 9,500 cases.... separate subsection in U.S. might be good idea(and Texas too) on 'virus resurgence'--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add

Demand for dexamethasone surges after publication of the preprint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B060:19EC:7590:8C1E:E5:AE94 (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The source is primary. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 06:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

References

It started in November 2019 per the History section...

...so to me it is fairly obviously wrong to have the lede stating that it started in December. I am suggesting that the consensus that I understand was reached about December must be re-examined. I did what I could to tidy up the messy history section, then updated the lede to reflect what the History section says, and indeed already said. Uh-oh, can’t do that...my edit was reverted. So,

I propose that the lede be updated to read: "The outbreak was first identified in Wuhan, China, in November 2019." Boscaswell talk 10:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Define "It". COVID-19 started in 2019. November, december - or yet to find any proof, maybe october or earlier, we will see. But as a pandemic this was not before december. A global pandemic arrived in March 2020. But the 17 November source is named as "According to an unpublicised report from the Chinese government" - so there is not sufficient proof for this date, while the 1 December dates are very well referenced. --Traut (talk) 11:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

useless picture

File:COVID19_deceased_in_Hackensack_NJ_April_27.jpg is a useless picture and adds to the geographical bias on WP. It should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.100.139.52 (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2020

Change number of recoveries in Sweden from "No data" to "10 176". Reference to number of recoveries for Sweden: https://platz.se/coronavirus/ Dmtcake (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dmtcake:  Not done: There is a comment in Template:COVID-19 pandemic data that says "Do not use recoveries from platz.se, as the given source explains, there is no comprehensive and reliable source for it". GoingBatty (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"Korona pandemic" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Korona pandemic. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 27#Korona pandemic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Zoozaz1 20:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"Draft:Corona Chasers" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Draft:Corona Chasers. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 27#Draft:Corona Chasers until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Zoozaz1 20:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"Draft:Wuhan Coronavirus 2019" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Draft:Wuhan Coronavirus 2019. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 27#Draft:Wuhan Coronavirus 2019 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Zoozaz1 20:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)