Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

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

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Why is the infobox picture not of UK cases?

Check every other "COVID-19 pandemic in ___" page for a country and the infobox picture will be the cases by the country's state or territory. Why isn't this the case for this article? --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this is a problem. A map is way more neutral and informative than the current lead image of a spitfire. The problem is the latest UK COVID maps on Commons are a year out of date. I still think an outdated map is better than no map at all, so I readded them with "update needed" tags, but other editors removed them again both times. I have flagged an updated map is needed on WP:COVID-19's talk page but no response yet. I don't know how to do it so have not done it myself. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
A new map needs to be prepared - I suggest that you ask at WP:GL/M. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
A chart of cases or deaths would be so much more informative than the current collage of random images.Maria Gemmi (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback! I agree with all points raised here. Always struck me as odd that the US and just about every other country have a map, but the UK got a random image collage. I see no reason why the UK specifically should be the exception, so I hope this gets resolved via an updated list of cases or deaths. --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 09:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I have removed these maps before as they are so out of date as to be misleading and unhelpful - I think these are worse than not having a map. No-one has been updating these maps and I have not been able to find any more recent on WP or the Commons. There are reasonable suggestions of better options above, and I submit that the current maps are unsuitable and make the whole article appear out of date on first impression. |→ Spaully ~talk~  10:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
This has been bothering me so I went to look into updating those maps and have found they are copyright violations of this site which asserts copyright at the bottom of the page. I will remove them from here again, back to the collage for now, and flag what looks like a copyright violation on Commons for the images.
I strongly feel that an out of date map is worse than none, is misleading, and gives the impression this whole article is wildly out of date. Further, a map of case numbers by region is essentially irrelevant at this stage of the pandemic, and this article should be shifting to a more retrospective summary style. Deaths per 100,000 by region in a map form would have more utility potentially, and I will look into finding one we can use or make.
To address the argument that without a map this article is out of place - Most COVID-19 articles by now have out of date maps - the notable exceptions being the global article and the USA one, both because someone is diligently updating them. If we can achieve that then great, but I strongly advocate against having misleading out of date maps as the lead image. |→ Spaully ~talk~  16:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I agree an outdated map is not ideal so I am willing to have a go at a new one using latest official gov data. I also agree that current case numbers not so relevant at this stage, so plan to use the gov's published 'cumulative' metrics (as a rate, per 100,000); however I am happy to be guided by further discussion. I did a map of UK vaccinations early on so it will be similar to that, ie based on UK countries and English regions - I don't have the ability for county level at the moment but, hopefully, it will be a stop-gap until a more whizzy one gets done. Hope to sort very shortly. Thanks. Crep1711 (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

New cumulative cases map now added, as per above - similar offering for cumulative deaths to be added shortly... Thanks. Crep1711 (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Crep171166, this looks nice. Before I came back to the page I had quickly created ones from this site, as it turns out they are under Creative Commons licensing and so fine. I prefer yours with actual numbers, and rates per pop, but I will link the ones I made here in case they are useful elsewhere (better to have too many than too few): File:UK COVID19 cases 20220130.png and File:UK COVID19 deaths 20220131 edited.png. Best wishes, |→ Spaully ~talk~  15:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Many thanks @Spaully: for your kind comments, sorry to step on your toes on this one - often the case that nothing for ages, then two come along at once! I have now also created the map for cumulative death rates. All the best. Crep1711 (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks both @Spaully: and @Crep171166: some updated maps were a long time coming! I personally prefer the actual numbers rather than rates, but happy with the maps currently in place. Could maybe add a composite with the actual numbers maps below? Arcahaeoindris (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

159,158 Deaths

How many died because of Corona, 10.000? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.185.36.54 (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Cases increasing after ending of restrictions

I added well-sourced information on a significant increase in cases, hospitalisations, and deaths in early March 2022 both to the introduction and the third-wave section. Both were deleted, though they are arguably notable. In particular, the increases follow the relaxation of restrictions on 24 Feb 22. Comparison of the article with and without my changes. A source: Russell, Peter (10 March 2022). "New COVID Infections Up By 46% Across the UK". Medscape. for the UK over the last 7 days, the number of new infections was up 46.4%, deaths were up 19.5%, and patients admitted to hospital was up 12.2% ... 1 in 30 People Infected ... Zoe R is 1.1. I have reinstated to the body, but not the introduction, for now. Opinions?

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Pol098, We're trying to keep the length of the history section here to a minimum. A whole paragraph on very recent case changes is out of place and risks turning this article back into a free-for-all of new developments. As a compromise, I'll cut your additions down to one sentence and move the complete version to the main article on the history of the pandemic in the UK.--Llewee (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

International comparisons

Counts (of cases, deaths, etc.) are not comparable between nations for various reasons including count method, demography, population density, population distribution, testing regime, health service, and many others. Here's a BBC article describing the difficulties and why it's misleading to try to do so. As we don't discuss any these problems in the article, I propose we delete international comparisons for now to avoid misleading readers. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that it is misleading for readers or suggests any particular interpretation to outline country's rankings in COVID-19 page lead articles. The longstanding content are just statements of fact after all. This seems to be a typical lead structure for WP:COVID-19 country articles; see Covid India, which is showcased as one of the best articles for the WikiProject. Likewise Covid USA (one of the most heavily edited articles), Covid Indonesia, Covid Malaysia. I don't see why Covid UK should be any exception; maybe take it up with Wikiproject COVID-19. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Saying something is the biggest or smallest in Europe or the World, or wherever, implies on a like-for-like basis. given the warnings and provisos accompanying almost every publication of these statistics and the expert discussion in the RSes about the folly of making such comparisons, we are neglecting our duty under WP:VER and WP:NPOV here by implying that these comparisons are valid. I propose removing them immediately from the lead and tagging them in the body until we can agree how/if this data is unambiguously and honestly presented. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I'll disagree with your proposal and once again refer once again to my above statement in both this section and the one above on testing rates, but worth noting this reflects information that is reliably sourced and factual as per COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory. I think the factual statements in lead are unambiguous and honestly presented as is. COVID-19 articles must adhere to a high standard of reliable sourcing, with particular weight given to WP:MEDRS. I work to update a number of different COVID-19 country articles, and following this introduction structure has not been disputed in any of the others that I have seen, particularly countries that have been hardest hit, i.e. Covid India, Covid USA, Covid Brazil, Covid Russia (although this last one is a mess). And of course, there's no getting around it, the UK is one of the top few in terms of case counts and absolute number of deaths according to WP:MEDRS. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion in WikiProject COVID-19 to get their thoughts too. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
@Arcahaeoindris, comparing bare unqualified numbers is misleading for several reasons. If I read that "As of [some date], there had been x million confirmed cases – the most in Europe and fourth-highest worldwide", I would expect that to mean that we were comparing like-with-like, and that the numbers being compared were collated in exactly the same way and with similar margins of error in every single country in the world. In other words, and based on WP:VER, I would expect to be able to verify that assertion, but I cannot, because we do not explain the pitfalls with the comparisons.
A quick glance through some of the following sources will show the many factors that differ between nations and territories, and which make comparisons between each other similar to comparing apples and oranges:
Before we add any case counts or international comparisons to the new lead (which was created with talkpage consensus, so is still the status quo version and shoild be restored while this discussion is open) we need to discuss the data in the appropriate section in the body of the article and only then summarise it into the lead, if there is consensus about its importance and relevance. These are Wiki policy requirements and what happens in other articles is of no relevance here. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for providing those @DeFacto: It is of course indisputable that countries do have different testing capacities, as is explored in this up-to date entry in OurWorldInData (the modelling here also has the UK fairly high up in the list). I am not disputing that, sorry if that was not clear. However, this does still not refute the WP:Notability and strong evidence that the UK's epidemic has been one of the world's largest. This also applies if we just compare it within Europe, a region with more comparable infrastructure and GBP to the UK, than comparing it worldwide. It's even in the Economist's excess deaths article that you have shared above, where Britain is one of the highest among the selected European countries. Stating the comparisons as suggested, which are all reliably sourced and updated, is a neutral way of conveying this, in my opinion. International comparisons of undercounting of COVID-19 pandemic deaths by country and COVID-19 testing belong in other articles, not this one, unless there are reliable, medical sources that directly relate this to the UK's epidemic. I'll also quote what I previously said above: The first wave was among the world's largest, the alpha variant originated in the UK which further drove up case counts, and in mid-2021 the UK had a consistently high daily infection rate. As with all countries, deaths, and therefore cases, are still undercounted in the UK to a certain extent. We could potentially reinstate the relatively high testing rate as was suggested above if that is desired. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
@Arcahaeoindris, I'm not talking about the UK's position in any list, I'm disputing the validity of the statistical comparisons currently given in the article, they are presented as assertions of incontrovertible fact when that is evidently untrue. If we want to try and compare the 'position' of the UK wrt to other nations or regions, then it should first be done with discussion in the article body, and with due respect to the Wiki policies. Once that has happened, then we might decide it's an important enough aspect of the topic to include a brief summary of it in the lead. We are not there yet though, and some of the points you make above may be candidates for inclusion. We need to be careful too, that we do it neutrally, and not cherry-pick sources to support a personal preconception. Shall we try and do that? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

:@DeFacto: - I disagree with your key point that "they are presented as assertions of incontrovertible fact when that is evidently untrue.". Let's look at the statements in the article, and identify if they are factual and reliably supported:

  • As of 20 December 2021, there had been 13.8 million confirmed cases – the most in Europe and fourth-highest worldwide - supported by Reuters, Johns Hopkins, OurWorldinData
  • By that date there had been 149,630 deaths among people who had recently tested positive – the world's seventh-highest death toll and 28th-highest death rate by population. Supported by Reuters, Johns Hopkins, OurWorldInData
  • This is Europe's second-highest death toll after Russia, and 20th-highest death rate. Supported by Reuters, Johns Hopkins and OurWorldInData
These are neutral, reliable, not cherry picked, and continually updated sources, and do not suggest any particular personal preconception or interpretation of the data. Your tags say "this claim has reliable sources with contradicting facts". I don't see this in the sources. It would be helpful if you could clarify which Wikipedia policies you think this information is in breach of? The statements in the opening paragraph in fact exactly reflects how the data is presented by Reuters. It would also be helpful if you could be clearer about what benefit would be hadby moving this to the body of text rather than leaving it in the lead as is. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The "sound bites" you quote are basically interpretations of data, opinions in other words, by the cited sources, or maybe just a verbatim reproduction of primary data. Per WP:NPOV they need to be balanced with context and other available interpretations of either the same data or other data, and per WP:VER anything presented as fact needs to be verifiably incontrovertible.
Which 'tags' of mine do you mean, I cannot find them?
The reason to put it in the body is so that the arguments about the interpretations of the data can be adequately included. They would be out of place in the lead, which should be a succinct summary only. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
No, they are not opinions, they are factual statements supported by at least three reliable sources using official data that are recognised in Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Sources; you may verify these yourself. What interpretations, other data, or other context do you think is missing from this, ideally from recent WP:MEDRS? I am referring to this edit, where you disputed a factual statement. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Let's say they are factual statements of opinions about the data then. Per the refs I listed, and many others, the raw data can be interpreted and reported in many different ways. Your examples are just one of those ways, and as such, are not the only way, so are subject to WP:NPOV/WP:BALANCE. They need context and a note about their pitfalls and care with which they should be treated.
Thanks for clarifying which tags - they reflect what I just wrote above - what's written are not clearly factual and unique representations of the available data. The reader needs more information to help them understand the meaning of those sentences.
Providing the discussion in the body will help readers to evaluate what they are reading. Why would we not want to give them the context to help them with that? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to having more of a discussion in the body, but you haven't actually provided any up-to-date, medical sources with or specified what information exactly would be important to include in the article. If there are any post-hoc estimates of overall mortality or infections that would be relevant to include in the lead (for instance, something like this that was done for the United States). But I am strongly opposed to your dubious and from what I can see unsupported reasoning for removing these statements altogether, arguing without evidence that what is in the lead is not factual or supported. I will once again refer you to my previous comments and hope that other editors may also provide their thoughts on this in due time. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I supplied a sample of sources for the sort of argument we need to include. That will explain why we don't give comparisons, because we cannot compare apples with oranges. Sure we might also discuss some of the measures being used elsewhere, pointing out why they are fallacious and misleading per the sources. Readers shouldn't be left thinking there's a ranking system that shows nations goodness or badness relative to each other which is what we, in effect, currently have. That is badly out of step with WP:NPOV and WP:VER. Why, for instance, do we choose death toll for the first paragraph in the lead rather than, say, case-fatality or deaths/100K pop which are in the same source, especially as the latter are the two measures primarily used in the cited source? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
A precise statement such as UK has 5.406% more deaths than Italy requires a full analysis of the methodology of collecting the figures. A simple statement that there are more reported deaths in UK than Italy does not. This is because the margin of error is so high. (We are talking about over 8,000 deaths.) Tags saying [disputed – discuss] are not necessary and simply get in the way of the reader.
These tags also encouraged a COVID sceptic to add section here claiming that the real death rate is only 10,000. For these reasons I would like to see the tags removed.OrewaTel (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I completely agree that the tags need to go. As for your suggestion for an analysis, I think fine to have this as a footnote as we do with an explanation of the death count, as long as such analysis does not violate WP:OR. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Excess deaths

@Arcahaeoindris @DeFacto

The lancet has published figures on the number of excess deaths by country. This shows a very different story for the UK than communicated in this page. Excess deaths is usually mentioned as the most reliable measure of the true COVID experience, including by Chris Whitty. As such I suggest we makes changes to this page to to reflect this, but I know this has been contentious in the past, so I thought I'd come here first. https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-new-data-shows-fullest-picture-yet-of-deaths-during-the-pandemic-12572639 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02796-3/fulltext 09:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jopal22 (talk • contribs)

How is it very different? The numbers from the Lancet paper are these:
UK reported deaths: 173 000 (rate per 100,000 = 130·1)
UK excess deaths: 169 000 (163 000 to 174 000; rate per 100,000 = 126·8 (122·3 to 130·9))
Ratio of reported to excess deaths = 0·97 (0·94 to 1·01)
The Lancet paper is clearly important, and could be included as a reference for the figures or warrant discussion in the Statistics article, but I don't see that it tells a very different story. I have been maintaining a graph of this comparison that shows the comparison visually File:ONS_weekly_COVID-19_deaths_for_England_and_Wales.svg. |→ Spaully ~talk~  10:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I was meaning very different in terms of comparisons between countries, which forms a central tenant of the framing of COVID in the UK in this page. Jopal22 (talk) 10:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Third wave passing/figures meaningless?

As per gov.uk figures here, the peak of the so called third wave has passed following the rise after restrictions have been lifted. So I've added half a sentence.

On the numbers as a whole though people aren't expected to test or report or isolate or anything. The figures on gov.uk in terms of cases have failed to mean anything and any case stats produced anymore won't mean anything as a whole going forward. I was the Covid stats coordinator for my authority and we stopped looking at the case numbers in practice as soon as the restrictions were lifted in England.

Thoughts? Sirhissofloxley (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Is this caused by the pandemic or failure to stop the pandemic (which would require some economic disruption but perhaps less severe than that once the pandemic has arrived and then the virus spread widely across the country)

"The pandemic was widely disruptive to the economy of the United Kingdom" Or was the failure of the UK to have adequate border controls to stop the virus coming in, that then meant the Government had to close down the economy on a widespread scale, widely disruptive to the economy of the United Kingdom instead? "Due to failure of the Government to take action, the pandemic was widely disruptive..."? ("Yes but we are an international travel hub and couldn't have had border controls and they only delay the virus not stop it altogether..." I dispute this - as New Zealand showed, the delay could be very substantial indeed and the claim we couldn't have put border controls there is also nonsense IMO as we could have done anything if we had wanted to - it was claimed for a long time prior to the pandemic that working from home was impossible and couldn't be done (when they wanted to stop disabled people from having option to do so and not make arguably reasonable adjustments). It proved perfectly possible, once the Government let the virus in through failure to take measures to stop it doing so for a substantial period indeed, and then had to have people in the country working from home. So it clearly can be done, once the situation forces it, and the claim it couldn't is shown to have been an excuse.) Not edited the actual article, because I know some of what I say will be controversial and not necessarily neutral point of view. But, then, so is claiming the pandemic was widely disruptive to the economy to me.

aspaa (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_9&oldid=1233198877"