Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40→Archive 45

COVID-19 pandemic page size issue

The COVID-19 pandemic topic is running into PEIS issues, which among other problems is causing citation display errors.

COVID-19 data table size

An earlier analysis of the topic's size pointed to the COVID-19 pandemic data template as being a significant contributor.

I did rough approximation based on visible characters. Not sure how it translates in wikitext but is hopefully at least approximately right. The visible text is about 30% the byte count of the actual content so multiply everything by 3 to approximate actual byte savings:

  • 54kb: Full table with footnotes and references
  • 13kb: Top 20 nations with footnotes and references (75% reduction)
  • 18kb: Full table with footnotes (no references) (66% reduction)
  • 6kb: Full table (no footnotes or references) (88% reduction)

- Wikmoz (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 data template options (TECHNICAL discussion)

The COVID-19 pandemic topic is running into PEIS issues. An earlier analysis of the topic's size pointed to the COVID-19 pandemic data template as being a significant contributor. Some ideas and possible solutions are discussed here. Two solutions have been suggested for limiting the data transcluded with the table:

  • Limit the top 10 or 20 countries (by cases or deaths) or
  • Keep all countries but exclude all references and notes

In either scenario, we'd direct users to COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory for the full table and references.

Would either solution be technically possible or technically preferable? And any idea how many bytes would be saved by each option? Some key links...

On a related note, it's been pointed out that the COVID-19 data per capita template is handled separately. If a major re-engineering effort is required, it might be a good time to make so that these two tables can be merged in COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory. I'm relatively unfamiliar with template/table development so tagging some of the experts. Hopefully, putting our minds together, we can come up with the best solution and avoid throwaway work. Please tag anyone I missed. I'll kick off a related editorial discussion to see which solution is preferable on that side but it would likely need to be informed by what is technically possible.

- Wikmoz (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Yug, Admanny, Sdkb, Dan Polansky, Tenryuu, -sche, and Boud: Tagging some active editors who contributed to current templates. Please tag anyone I missed. Is there a group of expert template editors who might be able to help? - Wikmoz (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Re "would either solution be technically possible": either is technically possible (e.g. for #2, someone could put noinclude tags around every ref, so they only display on the template itself), but having a "short=" parameter to allow a short version of the table—listing only the top n countries—to be displayed (suggested at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic as something that's already done with navboxes) seems easier and more compliant with WP:V.
    Then again, that policy only says "verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source", not that mere readers can click the little superscript number and see what the source is. We could, as an alternative to the options above, just tolerate the page exceeding PEIS limits, and let readers click the superscript number and just see "1103. ^ Template:Cite news" for the last hundred references in the article—that's probably fine for a low-traffic page on a relatively obscure medical topic. (Aren't our requirements that medical content be sourced already laxer than our requirements that other things be sourced, anyway?) -sche (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Detecting some sarcasm there. Regarding "for #2, someone could put noinclude tags around every ref"... would that still allow the template to be displayed with references on COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory? Ideally, that's where we'd direct users to view the references, not the template page. - Wikmoz (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Would the following help? In the data table, use simple links like this[src] to refer the reader to the source of the data, instead of using the references technique (<ref>...</ref>). It seems functionally adequate: the readers and the editors still know where the data is coming from. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I think the simple solution that @Dan Polansky: came up with, simply changing some of the references in the main text of the article from a cite temple to this [src] is preferable to limited the table or linking to its citations on a different page. Zoozaz1 (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
This works for me. Would it be possible for someone to demonstrate or create a static mockup of what this would look like? Perhaps the superscript links could be placed in the column headers? - Wikmoz (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
It's a really bad idea to downgrade references from templated cites to bare urls. There is guidance at Wikipedia:Citing sources #Generally considered helpful, which explains how full citations aid verifiability, and fight linkrot. You'll probably get editors restoring the full citations as a matter of course, and they'll have policy on their side. There are far better ways of bringing the page under the PEIS limit. --RexxS (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Some citations of course need more information than simply bare links, but as an example, citations like 996, 446, and I'm sure plenty of others can without great loss be reduced to simple links. Unfortunately, all of the other ways presented to bring it under the limit so far delete important content from the page, so unless there are other solutions (which there very well may be) I think this, for specific references, is the best way to go to get under the limit. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree with RexxS on this. The number of cases in Tuvalu is not "important content" DUE for the main pandemic article, but the verifiability of citations is essential for any topic, let a lone a controversial medical topic. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
As a different citation method that includes all of the information, we could do parenthetical referencing instead for specific sources. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikmoz, I did a check using my sandbox page (history here) to see how much PEIS changed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! This is incredibly helpful. I took it a step further to illustrate another alternative that I was picturing. References are totally gone and replaced with a note to users explaining where to find supporting references. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 data table options (EDITORIAL discussion)

Do not discuss technical options related to the data table. For the technical discussion, see the above discussion.

Two ideas discussed here were suggested for limiting the data transcluded:

  • Display only the worldwide total and top 10 or 20 countries (by cases or deaths) or
  • Keep all countries but exclude all references and notes

In either scenario, we'd direct readers to COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory for the full table and references. There's a separate technical discussion as to what is possible but it would help if editors could raise any concerns or suggest other solutions here. Would anyone strongly object to just listing the top 20 countries sorted by total cases with a link to the full table that would have all countries and sort options? - Wikmoz (talk) 05:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I think excluding references and notes is very unlikely to gain support. We need to give readers confidence that what we're saying is true, and references are the way to do that. Maybe we could handle the references by saying "go here to see them", but we have enough trouble getting readers to value references rather than blindly trust whatever they read here even when it doesn't require an extra click. And the notes are essential disclaimers in many cases. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
See rough byte size breakdown above. It looks like we can keep the footnotes and still save a ton of space by dropping the references. I agree that we should encourage users to check references. That said, this may be a unique situation where the benefits of forcing the extra click outweigh the drawbacks. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I support only displaying the top XX amount of countries, 15-20, but that number can be decided on later. I agree with sdkb that we shouldn't remove the references outright. QueerFilmNerdtalk 06:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Edited to add the worldwide total. In this scenario, would the table title remain unchanged and just cut off at 20 with the next row reading VIEW ALL COUNTRIES or something to that effect? I assume we would need to drop the sortable columns. - Wikmoz (talk) 06:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Why not keep all countries and use references without <ref> and without templates? Thus, e.g. trace like this[src], created via [https://wiki.riteme.site [src]]. Can be made into superscript if required. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
If that's a technical solution that enables the full table to be kept, then I support it. Arcturus (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
That works for me. Allows us to drop the references but preserve a familiar superscript link pointing users in the right direction... in addition to a detailed footer/caption explanation. - Wikmoz (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
If this works I'm all for it. Keeping everything on the page, including formatting, without transcluding anything seems like a suitable solution given the situation. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 Doing... Testing this out in my sandbox to see the difference. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Check the unindented comment below for an analysis. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I would strongly object to the removal of all but the 'top x' countries. Apart from the maintenance overhead (technical and/or physical) as the countries in the top x change, to be able to quickly navigate to any country after having obtained the basic figures from the table is incredibly useful. If there's a technical problem with the references, then that should, if possible, be fixed. I suspect very few readers regularly go to the references. They are really only there for anyone carrying out detailed studies. I would think having the references one click away from the table would be fine. Arcturus (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree. I vote for the "Keep all countries but exclude all references and notes" option. WikiUser70176 (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I did some PEIS checking in my sandbox and found the following:

  • The template as is on 12:46 PST, 16 July 2020 (only the table, no edit notices or extra templates): 25.01% PEIS
  • The template after replacing references in the References column with test external links: 5.86% PEIS
  • The template after replacing references in the footnotes after replacing the References column: 2.50% PEIS

Seems like replacing all the {{cite}} templates is a viable idea. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

This is awesome. I took it one step further to illustrate a version without references and multiple callouts to see COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory for references. End result is a 33% the size of the original. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikmoz, in that case, perhaps we can add a {{For}} template right underneath the "Epidemiology" heading to let readers know about the omitted references. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Good idea. I added it to the sandbox page. - Wikmoz (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Other page size solutions (not related to pandemic data table)

 Question: Does anyone know if making "naked" references (that is, a URL sandwiched between <ref></ref> tags) contribute to PEIS? Since almost all of the references use a form of {{Cite}}, perhaps this could be a (temporary) solution to reducing PEIS. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Tenryuu, so i tested it out on a secondary page of mine (it's actually a copy of Riverdale (season 1), I removed just over half the references, here are the results:
  • With {{cite}} template: 295,259/2,097,152 bytes
  • Only <ref> tags: 180,055/2,097,152 bytes
So, it really seems like it could be worth it to do this instead? QueerFilmNerdtalk 05:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
QueerFilmNerd, thanks for checking that out. Wikmoz and I are also entertaining the idea of removing the "References" column from this page and creating a more obvious link to the template page proper through the use of a template like {{For}} to direct interested readers that want verification.
From what I've read from other users, using only <ref> tags for references should probably be considered more of a last resort. They don't look as nice as references that have gone through {{Cite}} or display as much information.
Proposal: What about substituting the {{Cite}} references over? The code is pulled over from the template page directly onto the table and doesn't get transcluded, which should bypass a lot of post-expansion. I can think of two disadvantages right now:
  1. Code might get more unwieldy/longer to load because of the content.
  2. Editing the substituted content is more time-consuming than editing template parameters, especially when a reference needs to be updated.
What do you think? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
This could also look at what other articles with this do. I know the Donald Trump page has hit it many times, and from one such TALK Here some ideas were to trim redundant cites (multiple cites on 1 line), ditching Navboxes at the end of the page, splitting off a chunk of the article, and more work to ID root causes. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Markbassett, thanks for the links. I don't think getting rid of the navbox template at the bottom is going to resolve the PEIS issues on here as that is failing to be transcluded onto the page, but I think it's a subject worth revisiting once we are able to restore the article within PEIS limits. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Test implementations?

Editors who have been active in this discussion (Wikmoz—QueerFilmNerd—Arcturus—Sdkb—Peaceray—Zoozaz1): A recent section below has pointed out the problem still persists. Can we try one of the proposed solutions above first and see how it looks? If it's not okay it can be easily reverted. Perhaps we could try Wikmoz's idea first, where the entire references column is stripped; it is accompanied by a {{For}} template that redirects interested readers to this template. Footnotes are preserved but all citations in them have become a singular explanatory footnote that redirects to this template proper. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Tagging a few more editors who have contributed to current templates (Yug—Admanny—Dan Polansky—Tenryuu—-sche—Boud). Not sure of the usual workflow for creating new templates. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Tenryuu, I support this if others do. This is definitely a problem that needs to be sorted soon. QueerFilmNerdtalk 22:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Tenryuu, Yes, I support this idea as well. Thanks for the work you've done. Arcturus (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I think we might as well try it and see how it goes. I'm for any idea that doesn't sacrifice the article's content, and if that means readers have to go to a separate page/template for references than unfortunately that might be what we have to do. Zoozaz1 (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Alright, so I made a test edit of Wikmoz's proposal (has been self-reverted since), and noted the following:

  • The PEIS limit of the page after implementing Wikmoz's code was 2,007,089/2,097,152 bytes (95.71%), so all references on the article can be viewed.
  • Implementation should be revised. The proposed code is essentially a substitution of the {{COVID-19 pandemic data}} template and it would most likely be frustrating for editors to edit data in two separate places: the template page and this one. If there are functions that can be implemented to exclude the references column from the table during transclusion that would be ideal. <noinclude> tags might be useful, though I have never experimented with them in tables.
  • Some of the quality-of-life functions are absent, such as aligning the table to the right of the article or shrinking the viewable area of the table into a scrollable window element.
  • It added approximately 65k bytes to the article (expected, due to substitution).

Thoughts? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for testing! So this definitely gets us below the limit. What would be the process for someone to create a version of Template:COVID-19 pandemic data with the relevant noinclude tags applied to the last column and some kind of swap code so all references change to <ref name="referencenotice" /> when transcluded? Changing the column span values after removing the last column might be tricky. - Wikmoz (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikmoz, my wikifu is not super advanced, but for the footnotes, what if we wrap the actual citations in <noinclude> tags and all instances of <ref name="referencenotice" /> with <includeonly>? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I know very little about wiki markup. Hopefully, the new topic notice will draw the attention of the markup experts sooner than later. - Wikmoz (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikmoz, this might actually work. Take a look at my test template, User:Tenryuu/sandbox/switchtemplate, and its transclusion on User:Tenryuu/sandbox/switchtemplatetransclude. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Nice!!! Is there a way to override the transclusion instructions so the original content can still be presented in COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory? If so, I think this is our solution. If not, perhaps Help:LST is required. Sorry, I forgot to mention this in the prior reply. Trying to read up on this now. - Wikmoz (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, if it's selective transcluding we might have to implement LST. If that's the case I think we could replace all instances of <noinclude /> with <section />. Thanks for the link!
 Testing it out in my sandbox tomorrow... —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, it might need the #if parser function if we want the redirecting footnotes to not show up on the template... —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Could work. I found WP:CTB, which mentions restricting column display at the top but all the examples are for managing rows. - Wikmoz (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I tried playing around with LST and the hurdle I found was that <section /> unfortunately can't wrap around tags like <noinclude />. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts! I posted a notice on the village pump to see if any other experts can chime in or if it's just impossible. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
One crazy idea... what it we changed Template:COVID-19 pandemic data into its own article or put the whole thing inside COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory? Then we could direct users there for the references. We'd drop references in all transcluded versions but the code would be straightforward. - Wikmoz (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Tenryuu Could that work or would we run into the same section transclusion issue you noted above? - Wikmoz (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikmoz, the issue is that we had to consider being selective with which pages would display the table proper and which would display the footnotes redirecting to the table. If this page and COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory (hereafter in this comment proposed article) are the only pages that this table appears on, then technically speaking this should resolve the issue if we use LST to section off the table. However, there would be some issues we'd need to address (not exhaustive, just the ones I'm foreseeing) if the code is moved:
  • What is the likelihood that another article will pop up and need to use this table? With the proposed transclusion scheme, any new instance of the table would be void of all references and redirect to the proposed article where the code is found. Would that be permissible, even if the other article is well within PEIS limits?
  • How disoriented are editors going to be? On the current template page it's easy to edit the table, but if it were in another article page editors would need to scroll down to the table before editing it.
  • How would we handle attribution? The template page has a lot of history behind it and attribution must be given due to Wikipedia's licensing. I can see leaving an edit summary in the revision that brings the code over to the article.
  • How are edit requests going to fare? Protection wouldn't be as much of an issue since the protection levels are the same. There is currently an edit notice on here that could be amended to point to the proposed article, but pre-existing requests from the template page may need to be copied or merged into the proposed article's talk page for proper archival.
  • Would editors be happy with the load times? Having the code within the proposed article would lengthen page load times when accessing the page, loading up the visual/source editor, any time an editor uses the preview feature, and submitting their revision. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
We'd have to work through all of the above. I think we could either merge this into the cases by country topic or make it a standalone topic. Since it would appear at the very top of the cases by country topic, I don't think it would be too challenging for editors manage there (compared to the current template setup). All transclusions of the table would omit the references. It took a while but I took your solution and applied it to several rows of the table in a new mockup. I ran with the first 10 countries just because it was easier to do but obviously, the full table could be included with all countries. - Wikmoz (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Solution: Move data table into article, transclude without references

One solution discussed above is to keep all countries and footnotes but transclude the table without references. The main roadblock is that we need a location to send readers to view the table with all references and cannot send readers to a template page. The solution below involves moving the full data table out of the template space and into the mainspace (we could create a new article (see mockup) or use COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory). When transcluded, the reference column is removed and all references are replaced with a notice instructing the user to see the main article for references. This approach builds upon the solution developed by User:Tenryuu.

In the mockups below, the country list is limited. In the final implementation, all countries would appear.

- Wikmoz (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I like the addition of the "References" note in its own section. The code page also looks clean and the table is close to the top when opening the page. Maybe we could bring the {{VEFriendly}} template over to remind users that visually editing the table is possible (though it may be a little redundant).
Other active editors in the discussion and on current templates (Arcturus—QueerFilmNerd—Zoozaz1—Sdkb—-sche—Boud—Yug—Dan Polansky—Admanny—Peaceray): What are your thoughts on this? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea that easily allows users to check all the references, view the content, and keep the preferable scrolling format that already exists. The only thing I would suggest is that if we link to COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory that the table with references on that page be more prominent and preferably being able to be seen immediately when opening the page without having to scroll down. Zoozaz1 (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
No no no no no. The history for this page is already difficult enough to follow, with too many bad edits not receiving proper scrutiny. Hosting the data table here would completely torpedo the history. Templates should be hosted at template pages, and while it's not ideal to have to send readers to a template page for references, I'd much rather we do that than host a template on an article page. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Regarding directing readers to a template page, it's not the cleanest solution but more importantly, I've had issues viewing template pages on mobile web and in the app. Is it technically possible to just rename the template page to preserve the edit history and put it in the main article space? Actually, given the number of template subpages, perhaps it's safer to leave that page alone and just replace the table with links to other pages and templates. We could add a link back to that page for editors to access the edit history (see revised mockup). - Wikmoz (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, your thoughts? - Wikmoz (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I think it is possible to rename a template page, but yeah, I'm not sure if that would create any issues. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Only forewarning is if we decide to turn the template into an article, we should probably unlink the template temporarily so that other articles that transclude it end up transcluding everything (unless redirects don't get transcluded like that)? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Given that the table would appear below the fold if incorporated into COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory and would overwhelm the page unless placed in a scrollbox and would make it tougher to track edit history with non-table-related edits mixed in, the best option may be to host on a standalone article page and then transclude into COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory in a floating scrollbox as done today. I've revised the mockup so that the source page looks like a standalone page. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Keep it simple. Move the core table into a real article and do not transclude it at all. (Rename the template as the new article to keep the history.) This allows us to weed out all of the template magic and CSS incantations. Keep the main articles as overviews and reference the data table as you would another article... See also: the current counts of cases, deaths and recovery by country (my sandbox). — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 22:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I think it's preferable to be able to transclude the table into more popular topic pages. But either way, it looks like moving the table to a mainspace page gets us a big step closer. Is it safe to change the namespace of the current template given the dozens of subpages? Do those stay behind when the main page is renamed? - Wikmoz (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Based on WP:MOVE documentation, it seems like the subpages won't be affected so long as that option is not selected... To ensure that these subpages are moved, check "Move all subpages, if applicable" during the move process. After renaming to COVID-19 pandemic cases and deaths(?) we'd then just create a new page at Template:COVID-19 data with a note regarding the move and some links/documentation. Subpages should be unaffected (though I don't know if any of them use bots to collect data from the template). - Wikmoz (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
GhostInTheMachine, I support the idea of renaming (and transferring cross-namespace?) the article, but I am ambivalent about not transcluding the table at all. We have some readers who would prefer to have it on this page if possible, and if that can be done by something like LST, I think that's worth a try. Of course, I don't think it'd waste too much effort on the readers' part to bookmark/watch the article with the template, and leaving a hatnote on this page to redirect to that one should be sufficient. Plus it'd get editors with edit requests to leave them on the appropriate talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
The article is big and it will not get smaller. It is currently broken, so small adjustments will not be enough. There is a need to be bold. The data template is itself big and adds many of the references that are causing parser issues, so convert it into a real article and do not transclude it. Add tabbed navigation to show that the articles are part of a set? Add a navbox with just the world stats and a link to the complete stats? Add a navbox with a small (blury) image of the stats table as a link? If moving the template will be a major pain then create an empty new article, add some intro and transclude the template into it (and only it). Then fix the redirects to go to the articles as nature intended. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 08:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
A right-side COVID-19 data nav box with some stats, a generic chart icon, and an oversized link to view data at COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory could work. Removing the table from the main pandemic article, would reduce its visibility substantially and we could lose some editor support. But maybe we try that first and see if there's substantial pushback? Otherwise, the mockup above would just take about 2 hours of includeonly/noinclude tagging to implement if the table is moved into the mainspace (transcluding without the 300 references cuts the byte size by 66% and gets us under the PEIS limit). - Wikmoz (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Solution: Sidebar directing readers to COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory

A solution discussed above involves creating a COVID-19 data sidebar with some stats, a generic chart icon, and an oversized link to view data at COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory. This solves the PEIS issue and provides readers with clear direction to the table (section hatnote is also included for mobile users). I have put this solution in place for now and invited feedback. If this approach is not adequate then we could pursue the approach discussed above (move data table into article, transclude without references). - Wikmoz (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikmoz, while the specifics by country are gone, I find the general stats to be sufficient for one of the most general articles on the subject. The links to the template are numerous and should get the point across. Nice work! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • One thought that occurs to me seeing the replacement template is that we might want to still include continent-level data, which would be a way of breaking it down at least a little without using up much space. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
    Sdkb, I like this idea, theres one person so far who I've seen is against the removal of the table below in another discussion. I have a feeling that removing it will not be a popular decision. QueerFilmNerdtalk 06:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
    Not sure how interested the average reader is in continent-level totals but I added continent links to make it a little easier to find a specific country. - Wikmoz (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Not to attack, but I feel like its ineffective. You got the sidebar and hatnote in web, and hatnote only for readers. What's the use of the sidebar anyway? Just to make it beautiful? There's one on the left, and there's one on the right, and there's only one for the mobile readers. Personally I think there's no reason to have a sidebar, it just adds the size. GeraldWL 15:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
It's definitely a fair question. The content is of great interest and I think the sidebar helps readers locate the information, at least judging by the target topic's pageviews since we removed the data from this topic. If there's some agreement that the sidebar is not helpful, we could try removing it and monitor the target topic's PVs over a few days to estimate what % of readers don't find it. - Wikmoz (talk) 23:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I still personally don't get it. I need clarification as to what the information needed is. If it is the numbers, you can add it in the lead, where it said something like "As of... there have been [number] cases." Can you clarify the information you're referring to? GeraldWL 04:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, to clarify, I mean cases and deaths by country... the table that is displayed in the pandemic by country article. And to a lesser extent, links to the pandemic breakout article for each county. I edited the layout a bit so that the sidebar takes up less space. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Alright, so it is the numbers. Now, my argument is that the numbers have been repeated above, in the lead (estimated) and the infobox (detailed). It is repetitive and personally, I see no need in it, and as of now, I cannot figure how that could affect readership. For country-level chart, they can just go to the COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory article in the hatnote. For the continent-level article, we can just put it in the hatnote. So, in summary, the hatnote, size (although I appreciate you reducing it), and repetition is the reasons I oppose the sidebar. GeraldWL 07:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with the sidebar being where it is because it's eye-catching and two important numbers (total cases and deaths) draw attention even more. Sometimes readers want to do a quick skim of the article and the presence of a graphic on the right-hand side catches their eye more than scanning an infobox. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Decoratively, yes, I love the sidebar. Wikipedia-ly, no. I tried deleting the sidebar (don't worry, I discarded that edit), and I don't see any difference that could affect readership and understanding. I can see your argument in making things easier, however that's literally the reason an infobox exist. It is also not hard to scroll to the numbers, rather it took an extra time to scroll to that sidebar. I am looking into this statistically. Readership has also gone down even with the sidebar still there. I suggest we experiment, see whether there is an alerting decline. If that happens, I will go blue. GeraldWL 07:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
PVs for the target topic have gone from around 28,000/day to 67,000/day since the table was removed and replaced with the sidebar. I think we can quantify how many users are reaching the destination by using the sidebar by changing the sidebar link to point to COVID-19 pandemic by country. This will still direct users to the current destination page but we can then count the redirects to quantify how many times the sidebar link is used per day. Is that worth a shot? - Wikmoz (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Based on what you say, that can be worth trying. GeraldWL 08:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I changed the link to point to the redirect, which was receiving about 10 PVs per day through today. Two full days will probably be sufficient so I'll plan to stop the test on Monday. - Wikmoz (talk) 08:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
The numbers from pageviews (be sure to check "include redirects") and redirect views to the temporary redirect follow below. On July 22, the data table was removed from COVID-19 pandemic (C-19P) and replaced with a hatnote and sidebar (visible on desktop only) pointing to COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory (C-19PbCaT). The comparison periods selected were the 10 days prior to the move and the 8 days subsequent to the move. A test was also run to determine the usage of the sidebar by directing the sidebar link to a redirect (COVID-19 pandemic by country) starting July 31. Daily PVs to the redirect increased from 195/day to 8,008/day. Roughly 24% of desktop visitors to COVID-19 pandemic, clicked the sidebar link, which seems impossible but at least that's what the numbers suggest.
Average Daily User PVs
All users Desktop only
C-19P C-19PbCaT C-19P C-19PbCaT (via Redirect)
July 12 - 21 (before data table move) 119,280 35,733 64,294 16,393 195
July 23 - 30 (after data table move) 89,162 72,820 47,365 39,919 162
Daily PV change after table move -30,118 +30,087 -16,929 +23,526 N/A
Daily % change after table move -25% +104% -26% +144% N/A
Aug 1 - 5 (redirect test) 73,510 69,685 39,471 38,616 8,746
Feel free to check my numbers or suggest alternate interpretations (the redirect numbers do seem insanely high). Obvious limitations include that the sidebar link test was run on a weekend when traffic is lower and that COVID-19 pandemic PVs have been declining for some time. For now, I'd recommend keeping the sidebar as it appears to be the most clicked item on the page. - Wikmoz (talk) 04:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I left the discussion for a few days so I'm a little out of the loop. From what I understand, the sidebar was kept intact, though the target was changed to determine the number of people clicking on the sidebar. Where are the redirects coming from in the first two rows before the sidebar got retargeted?
The primary question, if I recall, was "Is the sidebar necessary when the hatnote that leads to the same page exists?" I'm not sure that these findings can be used to sufficiently answer that, as there's no information being given for how many people are clicking on the hatnote. Perhaps we can try introducing a new variable—a retargeted hatnote—so that we can compare it with the sidebar redirect? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Where are the redirects coming from in the first two rows before the sidebar got retargeted? I just grabbed an existing low-usage redirect. Not certain where those PVs are coming from. We could do the same to test the hatnote link. COVID-19 by country is a redirect that receives about 10 PVs/day. The only problem is we can't mask the name in the {For} template so users would see For country-level case and death data, see COVID-19 by country. I suppose that's harmless enough though. If there are no objections, I'll point the hatnote there. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikmoz, I should've clarified: a different redirect page than the sidebar that has the same target so that we can determine if clicks are coming from either the hatnote or the sidebar —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
They're different :) The sidebar is pointing to COVID-19 pandemic by country and the hatnote is now pointing to COVID-19 by country so we can compare the click volumes. - Wikmoz (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. The similarities threw me off. :P —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
You mentioned that the hatnote is linking to COVID-19 by country. If you think about it, of course people would rather click the pandemic rather than the virus, because people wanted to see the pandemic in their country, not the virus (if you think about it, not everyone wants to learn about the virus, its underrated). However I can now see a justification for keeping the sidebar, as it is more observable to the readers rather than just plain text. The numbers are also insanely high, as you said.
I'll suggest doing a second test when traffic is busy. But for now, I could see a light in the sidebar. GeraldWL 08:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
To clarify, the COVID-19 by country hatnote link change was made overnight, after the above results were recorded. Going to let everything run until the 5th and then record the results and remove the redirects. To your point, the wording could skew the numbers but the preceding hatnote text "For country-level case and death data, see..." should limit any possible confusion. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I've updated the table to include the additional redirect data for August 1-5. The pattern holds... a massive number of users are looking for the data table and are clicking on the sidebar. For August 3-5, we also have data on users engaging with the hatnote. In that time, there were an average of 8,761 clicks per day to the hatnote and 9,239 clicks to the sidebar. Since the sidebar is generally only visible on desktop, an apples-to-apples comparison is 3,357 desktop clicks to the hatnote and 9,175 clicks to the sidebar. - Wikmoz (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb, Dan Polansky, Tenryuu, -sche, QueerFilmNerd, and Gerald Waldo Luis:... the test is complete. Results above. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikmoz, oh, so that's what the experimental links were about; sorry, I had checked out of this discussion. Those do seem like substantial numbers, although I'm not sure how they compare to other links on the page, and I don't think we want to go back to being in PEIS jeopardy. If some people want to go continue exploring longer-term/more technical solutions to the page limit problem, it might be good to create a separate subpage for that or WikiProject COVID-19 task force, just so all the discussion can stay centralized. I'm hoping that this massive thread will be okay to archive soon. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikmoz, thanks for doing these tests. My answer is still keep the sidebar. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikmoz, really appreciate you doing the test. The only question I have is what do you mean on "apples-to-apples"? Also, seeing a lot of people noticing the sidebar more than the hatnote, I could suggest enhancing accessibility to phone users by making the sidebar visible to phone users. I know that's not possible, but from how the hatnote is designed in mobile web, it is unlikely that users could notice it. Just a shameful lightbulb here. GeraldWL 10:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I just meant that to compare user engagement between the sidebar and hatnote, we have to look at desktop-only engagement since the numbers are thrown off when including mobile (the numbers cited in the sentence preceding the apples-to-apples comparison). Definitely was a worthwhile experiment. I was not expecting these results. - Wikmoz (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Non-COVID-19 data table solutions

While we're still working out the kinks in the solutions listed above, how about some ideas for content other than the table? This is less of an immediate issue, but more for consideration further down the line.

 Question: Does anyone know if using <references /> uses up PEIS? It's a built-in function rather than a template, so there's a chance the PEIS usage (if any) may be considerably less than straight up using {{Reflist}}. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu, tested here, went from 295,259 to 294,747, its a relatively small difference imo. QueerFilmNerdtalk 07:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Argentina is too big for just one colour

The problem in this country is focused in the AMBA (Area Metropolitana de Buenos Aires/Metropolitan Area of Buenos Aires). The rest of the country is really far in number of cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.59.81.250 (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Ugh. When that video popped up, I was like, "yay, this is the first time in forever that someone has tried to add an actually helpful image to the article!" {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Good news, I've gotten it cleared up, the video is in the clear. https://vimeo.com/445027294 (see the comments) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:COVID-19_Airport_Contact_Tracing.webm --occono (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
very good news--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

New Deadly strain

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-07-infectious-strain-covid-dominates-global.html mentions D614G - I can find no reference to this on wikipedia, yet it seems of major importance. We now have a second wave and this appears to be a mutation that has made that second wave more transmissible and more deadly (see Vietnam article). BUT no where is it clearly said that this strain originates from Europe and that ít is now dominating. There is also not scientific consensus as to if this is called a strain (as the Vietnam article implies) or just a mutated version of the Covid-19 strain of SARS. I think that this should be in several places. this article; the virology section and also the SARS article. But it is unclear where and how to add it. The original reference is in Cell journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 00:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

2nd wave increased viral load

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Viral_load seems to be dominated by an HIV dynamic. Yet viral load has been mentioned in respect to Covid-19 and some epidemiological factors. This could be better explained and also referenced in this article, which does not even mention the term as of now. for example this article: SARS-CoV-2 viral load predicts COVID-19 mortality https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30354-4/fulltext shows the relevance. There are also lots on children and viral load. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Table with world history of cases, deaths and recoveries?

Can this page have a table for world wide cases by date, similar to the tables on pages for individual countries, which lists Date, a horizontal bar, # of cases, # of deaths?

Uwappa (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Uwappa, are you referring to {{COVID-19 pandemic data}}? That used to be on here, but due to software limits it had to be removed with a sidebar redirecting interested users to the page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
If you're talking about a time graph from the beginning of the pandemic, that may be a little difficult to pull off as some of the earliest days are most likely not aggregated by countries until a little later. Plus we'd more than likely break PEIS limits again. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, no, that is not what I suggest. That is a table with current data with a row per country.

What I suggest is a worldwide table, with a row per date and world-wide data per row, which is similar to the current tables in country specific tables: date - bar with recov death active - # cases - # deaths. Uwappa (talk) 07:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Uwappa, I addressed that in my addendum above. Again, it's highly unfeasible to display it on this page as it has already experienced PEIS issues that we had just fixed last month. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Tenryuu, The PEIS issues were for a different table, with a row per country and a lot of references.

What I suggest is about a different table, similar in layout to tables on pages of individual countries, date - bar with recov death active - # cases - # deaths, but with world-wide data in stead of country specific data. The pages for individual countries do not run into PEIS issues with such a table, so I expect that should not be an issue for a world-wide version either. Uwappa (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Uwappa, individual countries are easier to deal with because the source is usually the same one for each day. You would have to either find a source that does the same worldwide or cite which sources are being drawn from for date ranges, as some countries have reported it later or have stopped reporting it altogether. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


Tenryuu, I do agree that getting the data will be a challenge and it will never be 100% complete and accurate, just like any other data about covid-19.

Found source, a list of CSV files, one per day at:

https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19/tree/master/csse_covid_19_data/csse_covid_19_daily_reports

e.g. CSV for 11 aug 2020:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19/master/csse_covid_19_data/csse_covid_19_daily_reports/08-11-2020.csv

with required data in columns: Confirmed,Deaths,Recovered

All rows in one CSV for one day will sum into a data feed for one table row, e.g. for 8 aug 2020, date;deaths;recovered;cases:

2020-08-11;741126;12585473;20284882

where shown active = cases - deaths - recovered

Uwappa (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Not sure about the table but I'd caution against putting any focus on active case counts based on all time data. This count was helpful in the first few weeks of the outbreak when cases were closely monitored but summing recoveries is useless at this point. I'd actually favor removing it from existing tables. For a rough approximation of an active case count, a better approach may be to sum new cases diagnosed within the last 14 days. - Wikmoz (talk) 08:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikmoz, I agree that a worldwide active will be unreliable, especially because it is a derived value and some countries do not even register recoveries.

At Hopkins the world map for 'active cases' is wrong for those countries, same problem, though just at a country level.

A rough estimate of new cases in last 14 days? Hmm, a rough estimate is unreliable by definition.

A more reliable alternative would be a simple table with worldwide new cases per date. That avoids the whole problem with unknown recoveries and is as reliable as it gets. And it will still give an indication if the world as a whole improves or gets worse.

But... that data is already shown in the graph: Epidemic curve of COVID-19 by date of report. So I am now in doubt.

Uwappa (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

CFR and IFR estimates

The WHO estimated the total Infection Fatality Rate is 0.6% (750,000 deaths, although this may be an understimate...would it be double at 1.5 million? or even 0.3%)...would this mean there were in range of 110 million to 400 million people were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 or the new name HCoV-2019, they would developed antibodies by now. The 2009 swine flu pandemic article mentioned the range of 700 million-1.4 billion people were exposed to the H1N1 influenza strain, either they were undiagnosed mild or asymptomatic cases. The Case Fatality Rate for COVID-19 is 3.5% globally, again the death toll is not exact when some European countries reported more people died of COVID-19 than it is recorded. 2605:E000:100D:C571:8C36:F847:196F:592 (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

is there a specific question/request your making?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

A request, because the WHO is a reliable source of information regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. There are undercounts of infection rates in many countries, Mexico is an example, because many would cross the US border to get available testing which is not easy to have in Mexico. The states of CA, FL, GA and TX are thought to improperly lower the total number of state COVID-19 cases, this should be mentioned in the article. And the CDC estimates 200-250,000 Americans died of COVID-19 as well a range of 40-100 million Americans could been unknowingly infected. I'm sure there are sources to back the WHO's statement of how many died or were infected of COVID-19, but one may say this statement minimizes the seriousness of the pandemic and still, the WHO doesn't minimize the dangers a new infectious viral disease causes on a global scale. 2605:E000:100D:C571:8C36:F847:196F:592 (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2020

Unprotect 2603:6000:AB40:75D7:68E2:DCBC:B3FD:5106 (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Not an edit request. Alexbrn (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. -- ChamithN (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

2019-2020 outbreak hatnote

A redirect for 2019–2020 outbreak was recently created and the following hatnote was recently added to this topic:

"2019–2020 outbreak" redirects here. For other uses, see 2019–2020 outbreak (disambiguation).

However the source page received almost no traffic in the last 30 days.

Accordingly, I've redirected 2019–2020 outbreak to the disambiguation page and removed the hatnote from this page. Please let me know if I'm missing something though. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikmoz, I definitely agree that we don't want a hatnote for a term that uncommon polluting the top of a page this important. But I do recall seeing Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_August_3#2019–2020_outbreak, so there may be some prior consensus around it. I'd check that out to make sure removing it is Kosher. But we should find some way to do so. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, thanks for pointing this out. Just read through that. Seventyfiveyears notified me that my change to the redirect for 2019-2020 outbreak (short dash) was reverted by 72.189.64.232. No objection as it looks like it's an unused redirect. Perhaps we can deal with the hatnote here and leave the redirect issue alone. - Wikmoz (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
The disambiguation page creation and the hatnote I performed was the result of the RFD discussion. Seventyfiveyears at 11:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Understood. I think this was the right venue to discuss the hatnote but for completeness, I've created a new RFD entry to discuss. - Wikmoz (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Dan Ward citations

I've just tagged a couple of sources as being potentially (MEDRS) unreliable:

  • Ward D (May 2020). "Sampling Bias: Explaining Variations in Age Distributions of COVID-19 Cases". doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.27321.19047/2.
  • Ward D (2020). "Actions Speak Louder than Age: Explaining Wide Variations in COVID-19 Deaths". doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.33339.03363.

These sources appear to be self-published (on ResearchGate), and don't appear to have gone through formal peer review. I'm not asserting that they're incorrect, but they probably don't meet our standards. I've left them in place for the moment, but tagged with {{Unreliable medical source}}. I'd appreciate it if other editors could apply further scrutiny. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 20:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Sweden and herd immunity

Quoting the article in the section about the Swedish response: "the Public Health Agency of Sweden has autonomy which prevents political interference and the agency's policy favoured forgoing a lockdown in an attempt to reach herd immunity", referencing a New York Times article. This is something that has repeatedly been claimed about Sweden in English-language media. However, as COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden states, "Representatives of the Swedish government, as well as its agencies, have repeatedly denied that pursuing herd immunity is part of the Swedish strategy, as claimed by foreign press and scientists in and outside Sweden". /Julle (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I have now updated this based on refs taken from the more detailed COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden. /Julle (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
We need to be careful because it appears there is a lot of fake news about Sweden/COVID.[2] I think what we now have about "no excess deaths in June" is context-free to the point of violating WP:NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Alexbrn: I'm sure that can be far better phrased. What I wanted to briefly address was to give an understanding of how the pandemic had affected Sweden, death-wise – there was excess mortality in the spring, and June was when the number of overall deaths in the country normalised compared to previous years. /Julle (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
We should avoid giving the impression that Sweden "cancelled out" its stock of excess deaths in June. From 'The Economist data I'm seeing there were excess deaths all through June, seeming to suggest that the situation is that by July Sweden's daily death rate had fallen roughly into line with previous years. The sourcing in this whole area is not the greatest, however. Alexbrn (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Alexbrn: The numbers for July 2020 was roughly five percent (7500 compared to 7866) below the average for 2015–2019, according to Statistics Sweden, source-wise for example through Tomas Johansson, quoted in Göteborgs-Posten a few days ago ("Färre döda än normalt senaste månaden", 2020-08-12, pp. 8–9, online as "Dödstalen i Sverige minskar – men fler har dött tidigare än normalt", but paywalled). "End of June" comes from a statement from Public Health Agency of Sweden quoted in w:sv:Dagens Medicin, but sure, that's just a quote. /Julle (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Anyway, you're completely right that "Sweden had excess deaths in spring" should be explicit, not implied, if we're to say something about when excess mortality in Sweden ended. /Julle (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm honestly not too familiar with this controversy but we need analysis from secondary sources. Dr. Anders Tegnell on April 28: "In major parts of Sweden, around Stockholm, we have reached a plateau (in new cases) and we’re already seeing the effect of herd immunity and in a few weeks’ time we’ll see even more of the effects of that." Even if it was not a explicit goal, it seems to have been a pro in the pros vs cons decision making process... In an email on March 15: "One point might speak for keeping schools open in order to reach herd immunity more quickly." On March 22, Tegnell told Swedish TV the outbreak would "calm down" in May but return in the autumn. "It will be important how much of the population is infected... It will determine what happens in the autumn." The hope for herd immunity by Swedish officials doesn't appear to be entirely manufactured by foreign media. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikmoz: This is true, and there's an entire paragraph about this, slightly longer than the entire Sweden part here, in COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden#Strategy: the talk about herd immunity does come from somewhere. Per Sdkb I wonder if this is something we can actually fit in this article though? /Julle (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I haven't read all of the above, but I have concerns about WP:DUE with the section on Sweden getting longer. The agreement to add a section for it was predicated on the understanding that its unique approach was the only thing that made it due, and it should only take a few sentences to describe that. As you go about editing that section, please make maintaining an appropriate length via aggressive trimming a priority. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb: One issue here is that the short snippet as it was concentrated on numbers of deaths for specific weeks, specifying them but not the situation in the long run. This is not helpful for understanding the issue, and actively helps giving a skewed perspective. It can be contextualised or it can be moved to COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden, whichever suits our purpose best. /Julle (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

If anybody is interested, I link to all of the official statistical data from the Public Health Agency of Sweden below. As you can see, despite that Sweden has not had any lockdowns, there has been an enormous drop in the mortality rate to almost nothing currently. I think that this seems extremely important to mention somewhere in this article, so the rest of the world is made aware of the development, but we obviously need some references to articles about this issue in order to do so:

https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6f9f87457ed9aa

https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/smittskydd-beredskap/utbrott/aktuella-utbrott/covid-19/statistik-och-analyser/bekraftade-fall-i-sverige/

David A (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Anyone? David A (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The mainstream media has been suspiciously quiet about the Swedish mortality chart, but I found the following articles that either talk about it or the lessened economic impact:

https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/sweden-the-one-chart-that-matters/

https://www.manilatimes.net/2020/08/18/opinion/columnists/topanalysis/why-did-ph-policymakers-not-study-swedish-covid-strategy/756951/

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200817/COVID-19-Englands-lockdown-vs-Swedens-herd-immunity.aspx

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2251615-is-swedens-coronavirus-strategy-a-cautionary-tale-or-a-success-story/

https://fee.org/articles/bbc-sweden-s-economy-is-doing-way-better-than-the-rest-of-the-eu-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/12/swedens-success-shows-true-cost-arrogant-failed-establishment/

David A (talk) 07:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  • There is a plenty of publications in mainstream sources, like here. The consensus seems to be that although the number of deaths per capita was significantly higher than in surrounding similar counties (but lower than in some other countries), they did manage to control the pandemic, and the number of deaths right now is almost zero (this is noted already on the page in the last phrase in the section about Sweden). Another question is why did they ultimately succeed, but the USA (for example) did not? And publications (link above) give the answer: that's because the population did in fact practiced the social distancing, even though it was based merely on the recommendations rather than on an official order or lockdown by the government. People in the USA did not. This is a big difference in culture and education of the general population. The misinformation from the very top in the USA could also play a role. P.S. Of course there is no herd immunity in Sweden. My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, speaking as somebody living here, I think that we have only been moderate when it comes to social distancing, as we still go to the beach, to buy groceries, and the like, even though there are restrictions against concerts, public gatherings, and amusement parks.
I personally think that the reason for why the death rate has almost reached zero now is that most of the most vulnerable people (very sick, old, or unhealthy) have already been affected here, combined with that less dangerous strains of the virus have an easier time spreading and surviving in the long run.
If the United States is worse affected, it is likely mainly due to bigger health problems with overweight and diseases due to lack of public health care. David A (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Nicotine as counter-measure..

This idea is being floated in some reputable media outlets. The theory is that nicotine inhibits the ability of the virus to function properly. It also appears that statistically, smokers are almost 25% less likely to contract it. Controversial stuff. Worth a mention? Hanoi Road (talk) 09:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

We're not interested in ideas "being floated in some reputable media outlets", we only want WP:MEDRS compliant sources. Unless we have those, then no, it won't go in. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Before spraying your shorts, you might take a look at a few articles. Start with CEBM "The role of nicotine in Covid-19 infection". It's written up by the Oxford Covid-19 Evidence Service Team. Nuffield Department of Primary Health Care. Oxford University. There are several others in professional journals. I don't consider myself qualified to make the selections. Why don't you? Hanoi Road (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
@Hanoi Road: If you mean this one [3], you don't have to be "qualified" to see it clearly says 'the article has not been peer-reviewed' Nil Einne (talk) 07:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
"Before spraying your shorts"? Oh dear, Hanoi Road, you really don't present yourself well with comments like that. And no, it's not up to others to "take a look at a few articles". If you are suggesting including new information, then *you* must present your sources for consideration, and they must be MEDRS compliant. If you don't like being told that, you're not obliged to stay here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes. I'm certain that The Oxford Covid-19 Evidence Service Team needs to be peer reviewed by Brandeis. If you're not happy with that, there are several other journals citing the same findings and perhaps some are peer reviewed. Bear in mind the data is very new. Hanoi Road (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, if there are peer-reviewed sources, then find them and present them here. And if they're good, the information can go in! Don't expect other volunteers to do your leg work for you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@Hanoi Road: If you find a source peer-reviewed by one institution or person (whoever Brandeis is), it's probably not worth bringing to the table. We need sources which undergo proper academic peer review which generally means multiple people who almost definitely come from different institutions. Nil Einne (talk) 08:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Hanoi Road, this is your source? The findings published are new and little. "It is unclear whether this is due to biases, confounding, misreporting, or a potential protective effect of smoking on COVID-19 outcomes." "Some are underway, and this piece will be updated as new findings emerge. In the meantime, the available research literature is mainly in the form of speculative commentaries, with some lab studies also reported." There's little to no correct information that can be given. I'll consider that source a pending reference. Other news coverages only talks about that source, which made me skeptical on other MEDRSes out there. if you can find one, show us. GeraldWL ✉ 08:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
If you look at my original post, you'll notice I didn't suggest a separate header containing a mini-thesis on how Lucky Strikes stop Covid. I simply pointed out that the view was in circulation (academic journals & in newspapers) and asked if anyone thought it was worth a mention. With a question mark. Proprietorial, much? Hanoi Road (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Lockdowns map still commented out

Map of national and subnational lockdowns as of 27 May 2020 (table; more details)[dubious – discuss]
  National lockdown
  Subnational lockdown
  No lockdown

This map has been commented out of the article for a few months now, with the hidden text explanation (which I think I wrote? I forget. Someone not me brought the issue to attention.) This map has been commented out because of concerns raised about its inaccuracy (see "Map of world lockdowns is inaccurate" at talk). Please do not bring it back until they have been addressed. Has there been any progress on getting it fixed up so it can be brought back? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd say delete it. I'm not sure what useful purpose it now serves. The green bits appear to refer to countries that once had lockdown, but that is outdated (therefore useless) and unexplained. The situation is fluid, and I'm not sure if it can be entirely accurate. Someone presumably can make a map in a few months' time (or whenever this finishes, if it ever does) to just show the countries that had lockdowns during the pandemic, but as it is there is no point in keeping it. Hzh (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Hzh, WP:RECENTISM is definitely on my mind. I agree that the best encyclopedic information is what countries had a lockdown at some point, not what the current status is (which we'll leave to journalism outlets). We don't need to wait until the pandemic is over to put up something, though. For instance, if we pegged a date around the peak of the lockdown, we could then use the map for that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
It might be possible to date the map, but this map is still inaccurate even if dated. For example, it is widely reported Sweden is the only Scandinavian country not to impose any lockdown, but the map suggests that its neighbours Denmark and Norway didn't either, which is likely probably false (I think both countries imposed lockdowns in March). Also looking at the map, I'm not sure how they make the distinction between national lockdown and subnational lockdown and what the criteria are. Hzh (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Mitigation outcomes

I think this (paraphrased) is worth adding, maybe in the management section:

In the absence of policy actions, we estimate that early infections of COVID-19 exhibit exponential growth rates of roughly 38% per day. We find that anti-contagion policies have significantly and substantially slowed this growth. Some policies have different impacts on different populations, but we obtain consistent evidence that the policy packages now deployed are achieving large, beneficial, and measurable health outcomes. We estimate that across these six countries, interventions prevented or delayed on the order of 62 million confirmed cases, corresponding to averting roughly 530 million total infections.

— The effect of large-scale anti-contagion policies on the COVID-19 pandemic[1]

(unsigned post)

References

  1. ^ [1]
thank you for suggestion--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Virology Novel Virus IS NOT CORRECT it is a Strain

In the virology section it is claimed that the SARS Corona Virus which causes the COVID-19 pandemic is a novel virus, yet on the linked to page from that section it is not claimed as a novel virus. There it says it is a novel strain, yet further down the Spanish section on the COVID-19 Pandemic article (this one here) says that there were 15 new strains detected. This is confusing. With no mention of antigenic drift nor antigenic shift (nor any links to these) what is a strain is not clear. I propose that in the Virology section the word strain should be included and a link give to that article Strain (biology) which explains this more clearly. As the Spanish reference is in Spanish it is unclear to me if the use in Spanish is the same as the English scientific usage.

WHAT constitutes a new strain? Is the mutation being called the D614G mutation? Which is so called because the mutation alters the position of amino acid at 614, and from D (aspartic acid) to G (glycine), hence, D-614-G A NEW STRAIN? or NOT? It is hard to know what wikipedia is doing here. When I look at the above comment someone is asked for a peer reviewed scientific publication, yet is not wikipedia supposed to be OK with secondary sources OR even to prefer them? Surely peer reviewed studies (rather than a review study) are not secondary sources if they are published research? Yet media articles would be? cf. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_sources "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.30.115 (talk) 06:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 24 August 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. Since it is clear that this RM will not pass, I am closing this early. I will be opening up a discussion on the talk page on how long a move moratorium should be. Interstellarity (talk) 11:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


COVID-19 pandemic → Coronavirus pandemic – While I realize this has had RMs before and I have proposed this when a different title has been suggested we don't appear to have had a RM to this title. Per main articles Coronavirus and Coronavirus disease 2019. "Coronavirus pandemic" gets about 123,000 results while "COVID-19 pandemic" only gets about 20,100 results at BBC. Worldometer calls it "COVID-19 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC". "Coronavirus pandemic" On Google news gets about 141,000,000 while "COVID-19 pandemic" gets about 190,000,000 but indeed this could just be because its abbreviated similar to the fact that "Thames" gets about 8,440,000" while "River Thames" only gets about 220,000 yet the article is correctly at River Thames (with Thames redirecting there). COVID" is an acronym for "Coronavirus disease 2019" but unlike 9/11 conspiracy theories/September 11 attacks I'm not convinced that the shorter term is significantly more common to have it in this title (WP:NCA). While the analogy might not the the same with results for COVID-19 v Thames it does suggest that the full name is used at least often enough to prevent the abbreviation being the WP:COMMONNAME. All the other sub articles like COVID-19 pandemic in Italy should be moved if this is moved. Although there have been other outbreaks of coronavirus this is the only pandemic and is clearly the primary topic anyway and the proposed title already redirects here. Yes we don't need 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic (or similar) per WP:PRECISE/WP:CONCISE the proposed title doesn't include any further description of the year (which would suggest that there were other coronavirus pandemics) but also avoids the abbreviation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:42, 24 August 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.

Move moratorium

There has been some talk in the discussion above about a possible move moratorium. I would like to discuss whether there should be one and if so, how long should it be. Interstellarity (talk) 11:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I suggest indefinite move moratorium since the COVID-19 is most suitable title for the article. Dede2008 (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think a moratorium is really necessary. The move discussion was unanimous, so I doubt anyone else is going to try opening a RM about this for a while. And even if they did it will just be speedy closed. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19 § Very general taking stock of our COVID-19 coverage so far

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19 § Very general taking stock of our COVID-19 coverage so far. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2020

Remove "The unemployment rate in July 2020 for the United States was a staggering 10.2 percent. This is actually a decrease from the past months." from the lead as it is UNDUE coverage of one domestic effect not fit for the lead of this broad article. 150.203.2.194 (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing this out; it was added a few hours ago, and should not have survived in the live version as long as it did. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2020

There were some critical developments in the food supply chain in China that sparked global concerns in June and July:

Traces of COVID-19 were found on a cutting board used on imported farmed salmon in the Wuhan Seafood Market, which sparked a ban on imports of farmed salmon into the country. The ban was later lifted. 

(https://www.intrafish.com/salmon/new-china-covid-19-outbreak-to-directly-impact-salmon-business-around-the-world/2-1-825710)

In July, traces of COVID-19 were discovered on packages of farmed shrimp from Ecuador, which sparked a temporary ban on the products. (https://www.intrafish.com/coronavirus/china-suspends-ecuadorian-shrimp-imports-over-covid-19-traces/2-1-841412) BGOBntlb (talk) 20:06, 1 September 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. Seagull123 Φ 21:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Intermediate Species

Under Epidemiology, para 2, also consider discussing the possibility of an intermediate species involved in zoonotic transmission of the virus from bats to humans as the WHO states that since human interactions with bats is somewhat low, this is more likely. [1] Sakuzyo (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Sakuzyo

References

  1. ^ . para 4. p. 2 https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200423-sitrep-94-covid-19.pdf. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: location (link)

Lead citation overkill

Unless there are claims not written in the article's body, I don't think we need to cite every summary in the lead. The lead is-- as I said-- a summary of the article, and citations are unlikely to be needed. I have never seen citations as much as 34 cited in a 5-paragraph lead, and feel like it is vague, way too vague. WP:OVERKILL for me. Throughout the article, I also see some sentences like "the pandemic has resulted in misinformation and conspiracy theories..." cited with 4 references, for such a simple statement that nobody needs a citation on. What do you think? GeraldWL 17:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as you said, the lead is meant to be a summary of the content of the article, therefore sources are unnecessary for information sourced within the main body of the article. Problem is that people tend to fight over what's written in the lead, so people often give sources there anyway. Having said that, a lot of the information there are not contentious, we can probably remove a lot of them or trim them, for example, only one source is necessary for the statement on symptoms. Also the statement of xenophobia concentrating on Chinese now seems no longer warranted, especially when there were also reports of xenophobia against foreigners in China, and WP:UNDUE in comparison to some of the worst effects of the pandemic. Hzh (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I see. I'll try removing vague citations and maybe copyediting. The first sentence is also apparently cited to a WHO site-- I don't think sentence that basic has to be backed up by a source. Anyone can understand that the pandemic is caused by the disease that's caused by the virus. I'll leave citation 1 where it is for now, waiting for other people's input here. GeraldWL 02:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

It's funny to put Tsai Ing-wen picture.

Why put Taiwanese Tsai Ing-wen picture there? Taiwan is not an UN member, nor is the major place heavily hit by covid19 I should should put the picture of presidents of major countries. (Unsigned comment by 2601:600:8780:13F0:857:CB63:727F:930)

What does Taiwan being part of the UN have to do with it? It's a high-quality photo of a prominent figure wearing a mask, so we use it as an example. The pressure from partisans to remove that photo just because of Taiwan's political position needs to stop. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
So wer're only gonna talk about big countries like US and Canada without going universal? How exclusive... GeraldWL 13:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

new research leads?

Just read this piece which seems (to my untrained eye) adequately sourced: https://elemental.medium.com/a-supercomputer-analyzed-covid-19-and-an-interesting-new-theory-has-emerged-31cb8eba9d63 I'm sharing here in case editors that are focusing on the article see it as potentially relevant. --Vahidmasrour (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Vahidmasrour, I read the article about an hour before you mentioned this. Future reference indeed. We'll see. GeraldWL 07:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
yes, very interesting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Deaths section and reliance on CDC data

Just wanted to bring up some thoughts on the deaths section, particularly in light of the recent hot topic of the reported 'only 6%' of death certificates listing COVID-19 alone. I updated the original wording that this latest information was added with to more accurately describe the information (specifically, that not all the contributing causes listed are pre-existing), as well as adding CDC updates which stated that in 92% of death certificates COVID-19 was listed as the underlying cause of death. My first question is whether this is all a WP:UNDUE or long-term relevant, or if discussing in this level of detail is worth including here at all. On the one hand, it seems to have been added originally during a period of misinformation dissemination. On the other hand, if it's common misinformation of worthwhile weight, we should present a factual description of the data.

The second question is whether the heavy reliance in the first paragraph on US CDC data and statements is pushing the section to be overly focused on the USA. I tend to think not necessarily thanks to being sandwiched between journal studies and articles about Italy and China, but I also think there might be room to not need to spend 3 straight sentences explaining CDC data in this global article. I'd appreciate any feedback. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that it is useful for the public at large to be aware of that statistically speaking people over 70 years of age with other serious preexisting health issues constitute the vast majority of the victims to this disease. It would be useful if we cite official statistics for this from other countries than the U.S.A. as well though. David A (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to clarify again the information in that section. The 94% figure from the CDC was not necessarily pre-existing conditions, just additional contributing causes of death (the second most common cause listed was respiratory failure - in other words, COVID-19 caused the person to stop breathing). If the section remains unclear on this, perhaps it needs further editing to be more clear. The current CDC source does not indicate that "people over 70 years of age with other serious preexisting health issues constitute the vast majority of the victims", and would need to be cited from elsewhere (in addition to defining what constitutes a 'serious' pre-existing condition, and how 'vast' the majority is). Bakkster Man (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, I am going by memory of data from my own country, Sweden, but we preferably need to check for sources from several countries regarding this issue, as I mentioned earlier. David A (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I found the data. Over 90% of the people in Sweden who died from the disease were over 70 years of age, i.e. old and sickly or vulnerable in terms of health: [4] [5] [6] [7]
This information should probably be included in the page somewhere. David A (talk) 05:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Why here? It's already named within COVID-19_pandemic_in_Sweden. On the other hand I wonder about the reports that both people over the age of 80 years, as well as people aged 60-70 with preconditions were refused treatment in order to give the intense care beds to people with better chances of recovery [8]. --Traut (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, since Sweden did not have any lockdowns, the data regarding the evolution of the disease and its effects are virtually without interference, and show what happens when it is left to develop according to a natural cycle. As such, it should be of public interest.
Anyway, yes, unfortunately the report that you read is most likely true. Our government did in fact prepare for a much worse outcome than what we received, and as such they thought that our hospitals would not be able to handle all of the patients in need of care for this disease, so they made a very questionable, and arguably callous, decision early on. I do not think that this procedure has been in effect for quite a long time now anymore though. David A (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Some images

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

While I love using images, there are two is one images image in which its presence in this article is questionable.

Thoughts? GeraldWL 12:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the inclusion of the second image is due to the cultural significance of the statue, which is typically given a scarf during winter - the application of the mask was an inversion of this as a "sign of the times". Can't speak as to whether this is significant enough for its inclusion, although for the record, I like it. Might work better on the UK page though. BlackholeWA (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
BlackholeWA, now I slightly withdraw it, but need some resource. As to "sign of the times" thing, is it referring to anything in Sign of the Times page, or others? Mind clarifying? GeraldWL 13:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I just meant in the general idiomatic sense. Putting a mask on the statue could be seen as symbolic of the impact of the virus on UK culture, although I couldn't give you any specific citation for that right away. BlackholeWA (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
BlackholeWA, something like Paddington? Interesting. Now I see more eligible reasons to keep it. GeraldWL 14:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Gerald Waldo Luis, the headshot of Adhanom definitely isn't the most compelling visual. I support it over nothing, but we can definitely swap it out if we come across something better.
Regarding the Wee Annie statue photo, I like it. We're thinking about images the wrong way if we're only including visuals of the most "important" things as opposed to the most representative, per MOS:IMAGEREL (this was badly misunderstood in the misinformation visual discussion above). The masked statue is indeed the sort of thing you could come across anywhere, and that's exactly what makes it representative and a good choice. I'm not wedded to it if we find a better image for the UK, but we also need to balance out different types of photos (otherwise the page will be flooded with empty supermarket shelves and socially distanced queues, of which we have a million photos of each), and the statue adds some variety. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, yeah. I have changed my mind about the Wee Annie, and looking at it again, I like it. Withdrawn. GeraldWL 06:26, 7 September 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.

The references section

Hello.

The references section for this page currently seems to contain a massive amount of red links, so there is likely a coding error. Can somebody fix it please? David A (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done The immediate problem was caused by I dream of horses's insertion of a {{Reflist}} template, but the underlying problem is that the referencing in this article is a disastrous, inconsistent mess. Alexbrn (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the help. David A (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

GAN

Hi, the article seems to have been nominated for WP:GAN by Some Dude From North Carolina. I don't think you have a single edit to this page - might I suggest requesting the opinions of the major contributers before nominating articles? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

agree w/ all above (maybe in 6 months, also please check authorship for next GAN)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Some lead suggestions

Some suggestions for the lead:

  • "The droplets are usually not airborne, however those standing in close proximity may inhale them and become infected." → "The droplets are usually not airborne, but those standing in close proximity may inhale them and become infected." This usage of "however" is grammatically incorrect
  • "It was first identified in December 2019 in Wuhan, China." → "The virus was first identified..." or "The disease was..." "It" could refer to the virus or the outbreak based on the previous sentence, or the disease (which is probably the intended meaning?)
    • Comment: The source says "The Chinese authorities identified a new type of coronavirus (novel coronavirus, nCoV), which was isolated on 7 January 2020." and "The cluster was initially reported on 31 December 2019, when the WHO China Country Office was informed." This seems to suggest that the disease was reported in 2019, while the virus itself was identified the next year. Thus, I think "disease" is probably the preferred replacement.
  • Addendum to the previous suggestion: I think it could also be rewritten as "Originating in December 2019 from Wuhan, China, the World Health ... ". I think combining these sentences places a bit less emphasis on the origin, which (at this point, anyway) isn't a characteristic deserving its own sentence IMO.

Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Ovinus Real, that all sounds good to me. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Actually, thinking about it, I'm okay with the "it" at the start of the second sentence, since it refers to the pandemic, not the disease or virus. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
The thing is, the pandemic wasn't a pandemic back in December. So it's still a bit inaccurate. (Pinging: Sdkb) Ovinus (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Agreed with all three points. GeraldWL 07:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Some other suggestions (less important):

  • "The virus is spread primarily" → "The virus primarily spreads"
  • "worldwide responded by implementing" → "worldwide responded with"
  • "against Chinese people and against those perceived as being Chinese or as being from areas with high infection rates." → "against Chinese people, those perceived as being Chinese, and those perceived to be from areas with high infection rates." I find this easier to read (and it's the basically same length)

Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Ovinus Real, agreed with the first two. The third "xenophobia" thing has a discussion about it on here. And the first point needs to be edited in the Coronavirus disease 2019 article. GeraldWL 07:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Portal bar border

This is such a minor thing, but a few times I've removed the borders from the portal bar in the See also section, but they keep being added back. Most recently my edit was reverted because "other articles also doesn't use them". That's not true at all. Most of the time the portal bar is used with default settings which includes borders. @Gerald Waldo Luis: Why do you insist on having a borderless version? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Stated in my edit summary, but'll repeat here anyways. I insist on a borderless one to keep it consistent with the other COVID-related articles who also use borderless bars, see Coronavirus disease 2019, COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory, COVID-19 pandemic death rates by country, COVID-19 pandemic deaths, and nearly all the other COVID-related articles. I also think it's better to look at. GeraldWL 16:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

first case outside China

Why is there no info about the first known case outside China? Is it this one?: https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-timeline-is-upended-as-france-discovers-december-case-11588700408 --Espoo (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Espoo, General §3 in the consensus above states [f]or infoboxes on the main articles of countries, use Wuhan, Hubei, China for the origin parameter. There was originally some inconsistency with how infoboxes were either reporting Wuhan as the point of origin for the epidemic or where within the subject's location the first case arose. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Leftist propaganda under "Misinformation"

On "Misinformation", Some editors pushed their propaganda against Trump and the Right. That section looks like it came from the Communist Party of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:19B:31A9:94EC:8DFD:D1A4:2319 (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Content in Wikipedia depends on what is said in reliable sources. The content you are objecting to is very well sourced. You can check those sources for yourself. HiLo48 (talk) 09:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
agree w/ HiLo48--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
First time I've ever heard the Communist Party of China endorse something which says False information, including intentional disinformation, has been spread through social media, text messaging, and mass media, including the ..... state media of countries such as China..... . It has also been reportedly spread by covert operations backed by states such as ..... China to generate panic and sow distrust in other countries. (emphasis added) Nil Einne (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Nil Einne, haha! IrOnIc. GeraldWL 17:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Chart with total cases and deaths

COVID-19 Cases and Deaths vs. 100 000 population

For your information I have merged Case and Death numbers within a single chart. I think it's not worth to include it in the article, but I wanted to show it to you. It's just a comparison of trends within the United States, Spain, Sweden and Germany - four countries which reacted very differently. --Traut (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 daily cases and deaths per 100 000 population

And yet another one with daily cases and deaths --Traut (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Earliest deaths (post-mortem)

From the current Deaths section:

The first confirmed death was in Wuhan on 9 January 2020. The first reported death outside of China occurred on 1 February in the Philippines, and the first reported death outside Asia was in France on 14 February.

How reliable do we consider reports of post-mortem diagnoses of COVID involvement in deaths. I've found two possible cases which would push one or both dates earlier:

USA, February 6 [9]
In the COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States#February_2020 article as "On February 6, the earliest confirmed American death with COVID-19 occurred in Santa Clara County, California, of a 57-year-old woman. It was later learned that nine deaths had occurred before February 6, as the virus had been circulating undetected in the U.S. before January, and possibly as early as November[10]."
UK, January 30 [11]
In the COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_Kingdom#Late_2019_and_January_2020:_suspected_cases article as "In August 2020 the Kent coroner reportedly certified that the death of Peter Attwood (aged 84) on 30 January had been due to COVID-19, making him the first confirmed UK victim of the disease. Attwood had not travelled overseas."

I'm hesitant to add the UK case, as there's limited reporting in the UK press, all seeming around the family member's claim about the death certificate. I'm also loathe to add the California one as the new date if it's not actually the earliest report to date. I'm also considering using several links and leaving it open as "post-mortem investigations have found suspected cases as early as date" with several links to the post-mortem cases we find most credible. Thoughts? Bakkster Man (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Bakkster Man, I think your suggested phrasing is good. If we want to say "earliest", then we need to have a source that says "earliest". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I added just the California case, but tried to leave the wording as a bit less concrete about whether it was the earliest or only case. Please take a look, thanks. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2020

I will add a symptoms section Wiki Artist13 (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Already included in the linked article Coronavirus_disease_2019#Signs_and_symptoms – Thjarkur (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

False positives

AFAICS, there have been only a few isolated minimal mentions of 'false positives' in WP COVID-19 articles or talk pages. From the CEBM, The relation with infectiousness is unclear and more data are needed on this. If this is not understood, PCR results may lead to restrictions for large groups of people who do not present an infection risk.8/5 and PCR Positives might or might not lead to concluding that subject tested positive by PCR is infectious. … Are PCR tests helpful? Figure 5 shows that the peak in PCR positives in March-April does not lead to a peak in deaths at the end of April. … What if we take into account excess deaths instead? … We still see no correlation. 9/17 As summarized by the Euro Weekly:

From a study of 25 PCR Covid tests, it was shown that they were able to detect traces of a coronavirus’ genetic material in the subject’s system for longer than the time is able to remain infectious.

This shows that someone who has a positive result may have caught the virus, but will not necessarily transmit it to others.

Professor Carl Heneghan from the University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-based Medicine is quoted as saying, “Evidence is mounting that a good proportion of ‘new’ mild cases and people re-testing positives after quarantine or discharge from hospital are not infectious, but are simply clearing harmless virus particles which their immune system has efficiently dealt with.”

He also pointed out that increased Covid tests in the UK were creating a greater risk of infection and that this could be one of the reasons that cases are increasing but fatalities are not.

The professor called for an “international effort” to highlight “the dangers of isolating non-infectious people or whole communities”.

Also see this fuller write-up by the CEBM researchers in the Spectator.

Humanengr (talk) 04:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

This also seems worthwhile to include to me. David A (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Lead shortening

For those who have been watching recent edits, you may have know it. Notfifying Sdkb and David A who have been in these edits.

I have a huge problem with the lead. It doesn't summarize the article, but rather summarize each section. Even in that, it doesn't summarize it. In the education sentence, it uses the 72.9 percentage, which will require a citation. This is space-wasting, as the lead gives an in-a-nutshell of the article's content and not a short alternative to said article. Sdkb says that the changes to make it short and brief were "detrimental," when I don't see anything detrimental by making the lead what a lead is supposed to be. I suggest removing the word "extreme poverty and famines," as the recession basically includes the poverty and famines. "Schools, universities, and colleges" is better merged as "educational institutions." Why bother changing "also called" to "also known as," and why bother changing "called it" to a longer "declared the outbreak"? Also, why should we put citations to general claim such as "xenophobia and discrimination." Overall, I suggest we change the lead to a shorter but understandable lead. GeraldWL 02:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The lead could certainly use some tweaks; changing "schools, universities, and colleges" to "educational institutions" sounds good to me, as does removing excess details on the educational impact. But many of the other changes were not so good. And I think we need to have some discussion about where to put citations in the lead and where to leave them out. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the lead could use some adjustments to streamline and make the article more readable. There does seem to be a lot of details concerning the educational impact that is duplicative. In addiction, the "education" section is lacking in citations, namely the number of students globally affected as well as the cancellation or moving of testing online and under "China" there are statements not supported by citations. Jurisdicta (talk) 05:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Jurisdicta, the citations were recently removed; see the discussion above. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I do not have much opinion regarding this other than that it is highly relevant to mention that 100 million people will enter extreme poverty and 130 million will starve because of the global shutdowns. That is extremely serious and should definitely not be omitted. David A (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
This is POV pushing and likely one of the cause of the lede problems. The lede summarizes the article, and not everything gets included, especially this WP:CRYSTAL content you are promoting. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Jtbobwaysf, I have proposed that "poverty and famines" be removed since "economic disruption" says it. See discussion in a thread somewhere below. GeraldWL 16:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
"The pandemic has caused global social and economic disruption" basically also covers poverty and famines, as they are caused by the economy. Interested readers will just learn more on the specific section. GeraldWL 07:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I disagree that social and economic disruption equates to famines; recessions don't imply famines to most people. The reason for "declared the outbreak" is because WHO is issuing an official declaration. That's different than, say, a public health official providing an offhand comment for a newspaper reporter, in which case "called it" would be fine. Larry Hockett (Talk) 07:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I see, thanks for enlightening. However I think we can agree that poverty is economic too.
So let's review the new consensus proposal. If there's any suggestions below that you disagree, please talk about it. 2 proposals in discussion.
  • "Also known as" could be shortened to "also called." checkY
  • "Shortness of breath" and "Loss of sense of smell" could be changed to "dyspnoea" and "anosmia."
  • "Sense" in "loss of sense of smell" could just be erased. checkY
  • "Common" in "Common symptoms include" is vague and could be modified to "Symptoms are usually."
  • "Fourteen" becomes "14," it's best to convert numbers 10 and above as digits. checkY
  • "Antiviral" in "specific antiviral medication" is vague for me, as people will know that COVID-19 medication is "antiviral."
  • "Covering one's mouth when coughing" could be shortened to "Covering mouth when coughing." checkY
  • "Trace contacts of the infected" could simply be "contact tracing." checkY
  • "Poverty" could just be omitted, as "economic disruption" and "the largest recession" is basically it. As to "famines," we could just combine in to be "including the largest recession since the Great Depression, as well as global famines."
  • "Schools, universities, and colleges have been partially or fully closed in 73 countries, affecting approximately 72.9 percent of the world's student population" could just be shortened to "Educational institutions have been partially or fully closed," or maybe with "affecting students" at the end too. checkY
  • Last sentence could be shortened to "Xenophobia as well as discrimination towards those being in highly-infected areas were seen."
GeraldWL 07:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep "Shortness of breath" and "loss of sense of smell" since the lead in article should avoid being too technical and plain language is preferred per WP:EXPLAINLEAD, few casual readers know what "dyspnoea" and "anosmia" means.
  • Keep "antiviral", medication need not be antiviral, for example it may help alleviate symptoms which is what the sentence suggests at the moment, removing it would garble the sentence.
  • Keep "Common symptoms", seems clear enough.
  • Keep "poverty" but remove "famine". I'm doubtful that "famine" is supported by the source, which says "potentially", also linked article mentions other causes, so it may be not COVID-19-specific.
  • Your need to say education establishment "have been partially or fully closed..."
  • Make last sentence a general statement rather than about a specific ethnic group, e.g. "There have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against those perceived as being from highly-infected areas" since focusing on an ethnic group is UNDUE when there are reports of other people being discriminated, including in China against foreigners. Hzh (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Query - do the majority of sources discuss discrimination of, specifically, people being seen as being of Chinese origin? That was my previous impression, and if so, I don't think being specific would be adding undue weight. BlackholeWA (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
BlackholeWA, the sources also says "Anti-Asian hate," so it's safe to assume that it covers the majority of Asians, mostly East Asians (Japan, Korea, China). There are also discrimination against people of color due to the pandemic, so cramming them to simply "xenophobia" is enough. GeraldWL 12:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Hzh,  Half done. For your first suggestion, I have simply changed it to a suggestion on omitting "sense," don't think it's wrong.[1]
I'm also still keeping the "poverty and famine" suggestion the way it is, in case other editors wanna comment. Most of the lead edits were mostly on that sentence, so I'm waiting on a wide view. GeraldWL 09:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Just a note that, as far as I remember, famines were explicitly mentioned by the United Nations source, and as such this particular text should be kept much as it currently is. David A (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
David A, I found this source, which quotes the World Bank Group: "Poverty is hunger. Poverty is lack of shelter. Poverty is being sick and not being able to see a doctor. Poverty is not having access to school and not knowing how to read. Poverty is not having a job, is fear for the future, living one day at a time." Poverty is the lack of vital resource, food is one of them, and so famine is poverty, and poverty is part of economic/social/political disruption. I think just saying "social and economic disruption" is enough to say that there's poverty. GeraldWL 14:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I continue to think that two such prominent organisations as the United Nations and the World Bank giving specific numbers for the sheer scale of the damage that is being done by the global shutdowns is extremely relevant and should definitely be mentioned. This is not negotiable as far as I am concerned. Over a hundred million people are having their entire lives completely decimated by the extremely poor handling of this situation, and they deserve to have their plights highlighted. David A (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
David A, my proposal is on treating "social and economic disruption" as "poverty and famines" too, so we don't have to mention them specifically, and that interested readers who wants to learn more can go to the section talking about it. Doing so will still highlight their current agony. GeraldWL 16:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, I personally think that such extreme numbers seem very serious, but I am not particularly good when it comes to evaluating what is most appropriate when it comes to text formatting at Wikipedia. It is probably best to wait for more opinions. David A (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I think all of us in this discussion can agree on that. I think I could just go ahead and edit it straight up. I'll try keeping this discussion active to not let it automatically archived for the "xenophobia" proposal. GeraldWL 07:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Why did you remove the statistical data? I do not think that we have a consensus yet. David A (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
My bad. Reverted. GeraldWL 08:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
It still seems to be gone from the lead. David A (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
If Gerald will not reinsert the numbers, is it fine if I do so instead? David A (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I handled it. David A (talk) 09:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
David A, I'm sorry for the sudden loss, school is pressuring. Thanks for handling it. Waiting for anyone to make a consensus. GeraldWL 08:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
No problem. David A (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
My preferences for changes vs. the status quo are indicated through which ones I reverted here; I share many of Hzh's views here.
I'm going to suggest (as I already have to Gerald) that starting another discussion about the xenophobia sentence is a really bad idea. The current wording is the result of an extensive and acrimonious discussion, and there's no indication that anything is substantially wrong or has substantially changed that'd require us to go through that again; our efforts are much better spent on improving the page in its several weaker areas than getting into another sprawling fight about that sentence on this talk page. Please just leave it alone. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I get that it is based on a sweating discussion, but Sdkb, sometimes things should change. The xenophobia section only talks about Chinese people, when the citation says "Anti-Asian hate," meaning that it is Asia as a whole, or the majority. If we're gonna talk about xenophobia, we'll also have to talk about Anti-Americanism in China. There's also discrimination against people of color too because of the pandemic. So it's clearly not just Chinese people, and only writing about Chinese people is discriminate. That's why I suggest simply saying "xenophobia and discrimination" only. "Just leave it alone" sounds neglectful and isn't willing to keep up to date; every sentence in this article has an impact. GeraldWL 05:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Gerald Waldo Luis, that exact concern was debated at length in the prior discussion, and the result was unaffected. If there were a glaring problem with the sentence or some major change in the situation, it'd be necessary to reexamine, but that is not the case. Editor energy is finite, and sapping it to stir up a fragile but settled consensus does not make Wikipedia better. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, why should a discussion with so many conversations be the reason to not raise concerns over the subject. Similar to articles, when someone wants to contest a deletion, they shouldn't bring up "I have worked my bloody sweat on this, and you wanna delete it?!" Besides, what I'm asking is only for the sentence to not be China-centric, as if only Chinese people like me suffers from COVID-themed discrimination.[2][3] I also am asking for the citation to be removed from that sentence there, as there's no need for a citation there: interested readers will just go to the specific section. Changing it is not a huge destruction to the lead, rather it reflects on what a lead is: a summary. GeraldWL 06:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Gerald Waldo Luis, because WP:DEADHORSE. Ultimately, I can't stop you from bringing up the discussion if that's what you're determined to do. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, I think only us talking here will lead to nowhere. Need others here, if possible those who participated in the archived discussion. It's not that I refuse to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, it's just that I want it to not be China-centric. WP:CCC. If it is indeed bad to change it to simply "xenophobia and discrimination," fine, I'll back off and will focus on other aspects in this article. Other editors (Larry Hockett, Jurisdicta, David A, Hzh, BlackholeWA), input? GeraldWL 06:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
@Gerald Waldo Luis: It is quite right that the what's written should be revised from time to time given that this is a constantly evolving situation. The part on xenophobia was written months ago when the primary country affected was China, things have moved on and looking at the sentence now, it sticks out like a sore thumb because Chinese are the only ethnic group specially mentioned in the lead, it makes it seems like it was a particular important issue that affected only them, when many millions around the world have suffered various worse effects of the pandemic. The focus now seems wrong and UNDUE. Hzh (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I should also say that not being up-to-date is a general issue involving the rest of the article, for example, little is said about the situation in Russia, Mexico and other significantly affected countries, and not enough is said about India which is still very much in an active phase. Hzh (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
YesY Yeah. As a popular info resource, we must keep, especially this article, up to date, and keeping outdated info the way it is.. is doing a disservice to readers seeking information. GeraldWL 13:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Agree with the xenophobia change per Hzh's reasoning. Ovinus (talk) 08:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Also, agree with Hzh's suggested change above, though highly-infected shouldn't be hyphenated. Ovinus (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia has been praised for its reliable coverage of this topic (good job all) The only thing that has been mentioned is that we have 3 articles with basically the same intro.--Moxy 🍁 23:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I mean, yeah, and there's nothing wrong with it. GeraldWL 13:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
To Sdkb: I think you got my points wrong. I never said that "trace contacts of the infected" is grammatically incorrect. I never said that "also known as" is incorrect. I am saying that it can be SHORTENED. And yes, sorry for claiming consensus, my bad. I hope that clarifies. GeraldWL 06:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Gerald Waldo Luis, what the contract tracing phrase was changed to was incorrect. And "also known as" is fine as is, in my view. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, what do you mean by "the contract tracing phrase was changed to was incorrect"? And regarding "aka," just measure it:
also known as
also called
See, it's shorter. That's what I meant. Oh and it's just one word, cuz why two when one is possible? Sorry for my overdetailed personality-- that's me 😆. GeraldWL 07:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Gerald Waldo Luis, the sentence had recently been changed from Many places have also worked to increase testing capacity and trace contacts of the infected. (correct) to Many places have also worked to increase testing capacity and contact tracing. I reverted the latter because it was grammatically incorrect. Contact tracing isn't a level that can be increased the same way testing capacity is. I also think it's better to spell out what contract tracing is, since it only takes a few words to do so. Yes, it's a few words longer, but when we talk about shortening, the more fundamental goal is concise clarity, and when we shorten so much that we remove things like that, we're actually decreasing readability. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, what if we put it as "...testing capacity and to do contact tracing"? And I don't think a brief definition of contact tracing is needed-- it's self-explanatory, tracing contacts, and the readers can immediately attribute it to the disease. I don't see how it is grammatically incorrect and decreases readability if a to do is added, and I don't see how it suggests as if CT is "a level that can be increased the same way testing capacity is." It's simply stating the facts-- that they do contact tracing. Input?
Also minor note, but I love where this discussion is going. More sterile and not hostile. GeraldWL 16:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I still prefer the current language, sorry; contact tracing isn't that difficult to figure out, but it's worth the few words to remove the need to click through for anyone who hasn't heard of it yet. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
If that's the best, then I support. I can see a sense. GeraldWL 17:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Transmission lead

"The virus is spread primarily via small droplets from coughing, sneezing, and talking. The droplets are usually not airborne; however, those standing in close proximity may inhale them and become infected.[b] People may also become infected by touching a contaminated surface and then touching their face. The transmission may also occur through aerosols that can stay suspended in the air for longer periods of time in enclosed spaces."

Think this should be:
"The virus is spread primarily via small droplets produced during breathing, coughing, sneezing, talking and singing. Many larger droplets rapidly fall to the ground, however some can be suspended in air as aerosols, especially in indoor spaces. It may also be transmitted via contaminated surfaces, although this has not been conclusively demonstrated." See Transmission of COVID-19 where the ECDC ref explains more. --Investigatory (talk) 09:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)  Done --Investigatory (talk) 07:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I could take that as an okay. It must be edited from the Coronavirus disease 2019 article, just a heads up. GeraldWL 09:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Input from any editors? Trying to keep this discussion active here. GeraldWL 15:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Loss of smell (anosmia)". Mayo Clinic. Retrieved 2020-09-07.
  2. ^ McCullough, J. J. "Opinion | Canadian anti-Americanism remains toxic — and Americans are helping". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2020-09-08.
  3. ^ "Herzog: Increased online anti-Semitism since COVID-19 outbreak - Inside Israel". Israel National News. Retrieved 2020-09-08.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_38&oldid=1089043339"