Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United States/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Confirmed active cases and deaths

We say this in the first paragraph of the lead:

As of April 20, 2020, the U.S. has the most confirmed active cases and deaths in the world.

Sources

That statement certainly seems lead-worthy, and it has been there for a long time. But I can’t find that information in the body of the text anywhere! Is it there and I missed it? It should not be in the lead if it is not in the body. If it currently isn't there, where should we add it? (I noticed this problem because we were discussing, above, whether to add a qualification to this statement, to the effect that some world leaders say China probably has the largest death toll. At this point there doesn't seem to be anyplace in the text to add that qualification, if we decide to do it.) -- MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• @MelanieN: - I just added [1] the following to the Timeline section: On March 26, the U.S. became the country with the highest number of confirmed COVID-19 infections, with over 82,000 cases ... On April 11, the U.S. became the country with the highest official death toll for COVID-19, with over 20,000 deaths. starship.paint (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Starship. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Support for placing the above in the first paragraph of the lead. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the simple sentence that we already have in the first paragraph of the lead is enough. IMO we shouldn't clutter up the lead with time-line-style dates. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I am indifferent to where it goes but I am unable to find it anywhere in this page now, has someone removed it or am I looking in the wrong place? WallabyWombat^{Let's Talk!} 20:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It was there. Looks like User:Light show removed it. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

True. The rationales were "Not in body and being discussed on talk page" and "Questionable validity discussed on talk page" --Light show (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe there is another question to consider @MelanieN:, namely whether it makes sense to even compare case and death counts with other countries. Below are a few recent articles that imply any kind of comparison would be questionable at best. My thought is to keep totals for the U.S. posted in this article, but avoid any ranking or comparison statements, like highest, due to all the variables. --Light show (talk) 05:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Yes, the numbers are hard to compare from country to country - even from state to state. But so many reliable sources are citing those figures about reported cases and deaths in the US compared to the rest of the world [2] that I don't think we can leave them out just because we have doubts about them. Maybe we can find a place in the text to put in a paragraph about totals and reporting. Someday historians will sort it out. But for now, the data we have is the data we have. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this not go into the lead. It is far too complicated to make any sort of factual statement about comparisons of how each country fared in the ongoing pandemic. It will be months if not years before we have anything that is reliable. In the U.S. for example, some states have reported only deaths that were confirmed with testing at the same time that testing kits were either not available or testing was routinely refused even when the cause of death was almost certainly due to the coronavirus. Also, we have no idea how many coronavirus related deaths occurred in the person's home rather than in a hospital and went unreported. The only way to ever come up with a guesstimate will be to compare the number of deaths in a certain locale during the pandemic to deaths prior to it. Also, a recent test of antibodies done in Los Angeles found that 4% of the population tested positive[3] which would obviously raise our rate up substantially. Let's see, also we need to compare any figures from various country rates to the number of people that actually live in that country. Plus, I am sure, many other factors that don't come to mind right off the bat. Gandydancer (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

This is indeed a knotty issue. Gandydancer makes some good points. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Should we mention the comparative cases and deaths in the body of the article?

OK, here's where we stand. After a little discussion here, Starship.paint added the "most confirmed cases in the world" and "highest official death toll in the world" information to the body of the article, in the Timeline section. Light show then removed it per their argument above. How do we feel about including this information in the body of the article? We have already agreed it should not be in the lead. (Discussion can continue above, I just want to get a rough sense of how we feel about mentioning it at all.)-- MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Include in the article, because even though the numbers may be shaky, they are widely reported by Reliable Sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Include with warning: If we include it because the news did, then we should also explain that some have likened it to comparing apples with oranges. A recent site sums it up nicely: "...very much relies on data that has become more difficult to compare. As the coronavirus pandemic developed across the world, countries already used different methods to count fatalities, and they sometimes changed them during the course of the pandemic."[4] But still, for most questionable news items, a qualified statement might be enough for balance. But a statement like that one would likely need an entire section to explain. It may eventually get down to comparing a nation's level of transparency with another nation's ability and accuracy in reporting its diseases.--Light show (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

We at one time had, and could re-add here, the following qualification: although some world leaders say China probably has the largest death toll.

• Include per MelanieN. I invite Light show to write up a warning in less than 100 words, which is reliably sourced as well. starship.paint (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

That can be done, but it may have some unwanted side-effects. By stating a ranking along with valid qualifications about why it's likely unreliable, it might affect the reliability of WP itself. Some might even wonder why such a questionable comparative ranking is given or needed at all, being that this isn't a sports event or contest. In any case, stating that the U.S. has the most cases, when we're already the 3rd most populous country, behind China and India, isn't stating anything that meaningful. As when NY City had the largest number of cases, how significant is that fact when NY City is the nations most populous city? So while including it with a qualifier is OK, I think just avoiding the ranking statement is a better idea. Should this article be required to have qualified material with cites such as, "Scientists have reportedly told Johnson that China could have up to 40 times the number of cases it says.", it will please no one.--Light show (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Light show By stating a ranking along with valid qualifications about why it's likely unreliable, it might affect the reliability of WP itself. - I don’t see it that way. Sources have made the comparison. If we explain how this is unreliable, we educate people. We in fact become more reliable (just like a newspaper acknowledging corrections) If we sweep it under the rug, nobody learns. In this case let’s avoid the “Scientists reportedly” articles, and have articles where people actually openly say things. starship.paint (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Understood. But if you read the article I linked, you'll notice that a lot of people were saying things. Do we really want to stoke the flames to simply quote a news item about who's apparently on top? --Light show (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

From the sources posted in this section, I don't see how it can be said that World leaders say China probably has the largest death toll. Only one of sources say this - and that is a transcript of Trump's remarks from a press briefing. In aggregate, the sources do seem to say that China's reported cases and reported death rate are not accurate.

And frankly, I am tired of going over this again, so please drop the stick (WP:STICK). And, I think we can discount Trump's remarks at the press briefing on the White House website because that is merely an opinion and in this case it is a primary source. In my opinion it is unreliable and not supported by the aggregate of RS. Also please add a signature to your post. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The article you linked cites The Daily Mail, a tabloid known for its fabrications (WP:DAILYMAIL). Newsweek is also considered generally unreliable (WP:RSP). Prolog (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Include. this information has been widely reported in the RS and Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say. I don't think we need to have a warning or a caveat for each number. The way each country and region tabulates their numbers seems trivial and not for us to worry about. I recommend a blanket statement that these numbers do not necessarily reflect what the real country by country count is , and there is no way of knowing what that number is.

Also, it could be that China has underreported by 40% but only one posted source says that and it is speculation because no one really knows. In any case, there is no reason to get bogged down on who is underreporting and who isn't. I am guessing that every country has underreported numbers because the virus is moving much faster than institutions are able to test. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Comment Am I missing something? It seems so obvious to me that the stat in the lead that shows the U.S. placement according to populations is the only one that matters. Gandydancer (talk) 02:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• The per-capita stat has been promoted by the White House, but it does not have much coverage in reliable sources. Countries and continents are at different stages of the outbreak; for example, Italy is two weeks ahead of the U.S. and has a population density six times higher as well. Prolog (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't recall the White House mentioning per capita figures. But even if they did, they'd have sources to support them, such as Statista, Worldometers and Johns Hopkins Univ.. As country population sizes are extremely different, I'd agree with Gandydancer, that per capita figures are the only ones that should really matter. --Light show (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

A certain president recently conceded that the "fake news" media reports "more death", calls U.S. "number one" and "you don't hear" about per-capita statistics. AP Fact Check was not impressed with his push to change that. This is a question of weight, not verifiability. Your edits erased the majority view from the article and inserted the minority view into the lead, even though it is not even in the body. Prolog (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Section related to per capita has been added. --Light show (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Include. The articles on the countries that follow the U.S. in deaths and infections, Italy, Spain and France, note the high totals and the comparison in the lead. Reuters is not known for its colorful language and they state that the "United States is the world’s worst-affected country" in several reports. We currently convey a very different message across articles and in relation to reliable sources. Prolog (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Please update AZ statistics. Currently from April 12

Can someone please update the statistics for Arizona? The AZ Dept of Health updates AZ numbers daily at https://www.azdhs.gov/preparedness/epidemiology-disease-control/infectious-disease-epidemiology/covid-19/dashboards/index.php Today's number of cases: 5769 Deaths: 249 thanks! Tony1AZ (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Moved from #RfC on placement of cumulative cases bar chart and US cases by state

Hello, I'm a newbie, and I'm here because I was searching for current stats in AZ. All the local sources in AZ were reporting 249 deaths, yet Google displayed the default result as 209, sourced wikipedia. I tracked it back to this page to find out that the AZ total is from April 12. That's really old, folks. I read above that JoelleJay said that many people come to this page daily to see the statistics. Are they thinking that the state table updates by itself? I noticed several other states also horribly out of date. Stay strong, all.Tony1AZ (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC) Tony1AZ (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tony1AZ: I'm assuming you're referring to the numbers in this table: Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United States medical cases by state. I updated the numbers based on the source you provided. Once your account is ten days old and you've made ten constructive edits, you will automatically be able to update the numbers yourself by going to Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United States medical cases by state and clicking the "edit" button. Also, please keep in mind that all of us who are trying to keep the COVID-19 pages up-to-date are only volunteers, so we might not be able to update everything right away. I hope you will think about becoming a Wikipedia contributor so you can help us keep the numbers and other information updated. Thanks, Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Update Virginia numbers in State Table, not updated last 3 days

<refhttp://www.vdh.virginia.gov/coronavirus/></ref>

Virginia Department of Health showing 8,537 cases as of yesterday, with 1,422 hospitalizations and 277 deaths

"Corona in the United States" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Corona in the United States. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

"Corona in America" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Corona in America. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

International aid to the United States is too short

Please someone add to this section so we can say something other than one Chinese billionaire helped the United States. This is a short section and sounds like propaganda.

For example, Russia sent a plane: https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/02/politics/russia-medical-supplies-us-propaganda/index.html

I'm sure many other countries have sent supplies.

I couldn't find confirmation that the Chinese billionaire's aid was ever received in the US. Sailing californium (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-masks-test-kits-donated-093000357.html - "The first shipment of Chinese billionaire Jack Ma's donation of 1 million masks and 500,000 coronavirus test kits to the United States arrived in the US on Monday morning." and https://dailymemphian.com/article/11756/jack-ma-donation-corona-virus-test-kits-masks-memphis-airport-fedex - "Chinese billionaire Jack Ma’s donation of test kits and masks was flown into Memphis, where FedEx provided ground support including customs clearance, sources said. It was destined for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." LetterOpener (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

All this has been removed from a prior post. Needs to be restored.

"Chinese billionaire Jack Ma is shipping coronavirus test kits and masks to the U.S." CBS News. March 16, 2020.
Holland, Steve (April 2, 2020). "U.S. paying Russia for entire planeload of coronavirus equipment: U.S. official". Reuters. Retrieved April 11, 2020.
"Russian plane takes off for US with coronavirus help on board". Al Jazeera. April 1, 2020.
"Where Has Russia Sent Coronavirus Aid Around the World?". The Moscow Times. April 1, 2020.
Reuters (April 3, 2020). "Russian Ventilators Shipped to U.S. Made by Firm Under U.S. Sanctions: RBC". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 3, 2020.
"India says it will ship hydroxychloroquine to U.S. after Trump threatens retaliation". Los Angeles Times. April 7, 2020. Retrieved April 12, 2020.

India sold hydroxychloroquine to the US. That's not aid. Sailing californium (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Sailing californium, aid doesn't necessarily equate to charity. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Oxford "material given to a place of need, help or support". When you buy a burger from McDonalds, they should list that sale on their corporate aid page? Sailing californium (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

They're offering goods and equipment to curb a disaster for monetary compensation. Aid can be charitable, but it doesn't have to be. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Amazon "offered [me] goods to curb a disaster" when I bought a first aid kit. Sailing californium (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Good for them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

If we pay for something, it doesn't count as "aid". It's a business transaction. Looks like we paid Russia and India. Maybe we need a little more research on that Chinese billionaire's 'aid'. Could turn out to be like the "ventilators" donated to hospitals by Elon Musk that turned out to be CPAP machines.[5] -- MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

BTW here's a list [6] of what some billionaires are giving, or say they will give, for coronavirus relief. Jack Ma, for example, gave lots of money to Chinese and Australian companies toward development of a vaccine. His donation to the U.S. is described as "sent shipments of face masks and testing kits to parts of the United States and Africa". Maybe not such a big deal? More research needed. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Apparently that planeful of aid from Russia was partly "aid". NYT says US and Russia split the cost.[7]. But I'm really finding very little as I search for foreign donations to the U.S. Maybe we should just delete the section? Right now it consists of one sentence. IMO there isn't enough to say on the subject of foreign help to be worth inclusion here. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)-- MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I see that someone moved this “International aid” section to be a subsection (a one-sentence subsection) under the “Production of emergency supplies” section. I would like to see it removed altogether. Or at least remove the subsection heading and leave the Jack Ma thing as a sentence in the general section. Anyone agree? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I think MelanieN is correct about removing it. Also "aid" from Russia may be part the purported enrgy deal in which Trump claimed he could offer Putin and MBS reductions in U.S. crude oil production. Unless we have a source that tells us there was a gift, I see no reason to dwell on that possibility. SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Not exactly on topic here but I'd be plenty happy to see the entire section on U.S. aid to China removed as well. Two churches give some aid, Boeing donates some masks, and the U.S. promises one million that China says they never received. This all does not seem very newsworthy to me. Gandydancer (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Cumulative cases bar chart Statistics

The statistics for the U.S. on the page 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic are quite far off from those presented in this page. I appreciate that figures are not wholly reliable and will never be accurately known, but I think that across Wikipedia, there should be a consensus about whose numbers are going to be deemed definitive, and use those across multiple pages. At the very least, there should be some explanation of the difference, so that a readers move from one page to another they are not seeing 20 percent variations. Jaedglass (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Updates on many states lacking: at least NY, NJ, MI, LA, FL, MA, GA, TX, CT, WA, IN, CO, OH, MO, WI, UT, IA, AK, NE, SD, ND

I’m sorry to take volunteers to task, but several states’ statistical record have been only irregularly updated. (I am writing this issue at 23:18 Pacific time, thus well after the final hour of record for 90% of the country.)

Is it that volunteers who perform updates are under-appreciated? Let it be known widely that your voluntary work is relied on day-to-day by many readers as a contribution to an eminently convenient source of consolidated information. Tgkohn (talk) 06:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you referring to the cases by state table? We are unfortunately pretty inconsistent with updating this, especially since the table doesn't autosum so whenever you update a particular state you have to manually add those numbers to the totals as well, which people forget to do. My approach has been to just update everything en bloc by going to the reference for each state, finding the newest numbers, keeping track of them in a spreadsheet until I'm finished, and then manually entering the new stats in. This takes around two hours for me since most states only display the newest numbers via horrible interactive dashboards that take a while to load. If you are an autoconfirmed user you can update the stats that interest you whenever you notice a discrepancy. JoelleJay (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2020

There is a line "By March 28, on a per capita basis, America, with the world's third largest population, led the top six countries in confirmed cases, while it ranked last in terms of coronavirus deaths per million people, with 4.32, compared to Italy (146.37), Spain (98.65), Iran (28), and France (25.03)"

However, the cited source (#282) for the aforementioned line is misdirected to a unrelated story titled "Did Hillary Clinton Just Celebrate the Spread of Coronavirus to 'Own' Trump? Sure Looks That Way". The cited source is misleading and has nothing to do with the line it claims to source, which is a story by a right-wing website called PJ Media.

Since PJ Media has been called out multiple times for publishing false and misleading right wing slanted conspiracy stories, and that one of PJ Media's paid writers is also a Wikipedia editor who has according to their record log has made edits to their website in the past as well, then should PJ Media even be allowed to be considered as a legitimate cited source for Wikipedia at all? Of course that decision is for a consensus of higher editors to decide on. 2600:8803:FF08:100:698A:1581:647B:D8C4 (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC) 2600:8803:FF08:100:698A:1581:647B:D8C4 (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Updated with better sources. --Light show (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Antibody study from New York

According to a recent study, New York has 2.7 million people infected with the virus and ~ 260.000 confirmed cases, so only 1/10 of the people with infection gets the diagnosis Covid-19. --VietnamSongAgainstCoronaRocks2 (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

It's notable in part due to information on who was exposed. Alas, where some bill it as proving who is infected, that is confusing the reality that it only reveals who was exposed and not who has an active infection.Wzrd1 (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Assuming the results of these tests were not false-positives (they might be), it means these people have indeed been infected for at least a few days because time is needed to develop the specific antibodies. How well these people are protected from the secondary reinfection is a different question that needs to be studied [8]. My very best wishes (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Yale: "Will Politicization of COVID-19 Crisis Erode National Consensus On Response?"

See [9]. I'm not sure if it's of interest and I'm not editing this article, but I just found it in my email. Doug Weller talk 17:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not really "politicization", but a serious life matter for people who lost their jobs, etc. I think it is already eroded, and the "distancing" alone is not the best response. My very best wishes (talk) 03:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC on placement of cumulative cases bar chart and US cases by state

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

Consensus was reached to keep the charts at the top. Light show (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Where in the article should the total US cases chart and the US cases by state table be located? At the end of the article in the Statistics section as they are currently, or in a section at the beginning of the article (example revision is here[[10]])? Are the data in these templates informative/relevant/compelling enough to readers to warrant being in the first section? JoelleJay (talk) 07:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

My contention as the requesting editor is:

a) these templates are likely the biggest draws to the article for most readers, and especially for repeat viewers. The cases by state table is analogous to the cases by country and territory table on the main pandemic page, which was the 12th-most visited wiki page in March, despite having almost zero content aside from the table. As I referenced in a previous talk section, multiple editors and readers have remarked on how informative the table is and have requested it and the cases chart be moved to the beginning of the article.

b) The cases charts are all at the beginning on the Spain, Italy, Germany, and France pandemic articles; we should be consistent in these areas. JoelleJay (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Can we stop with the switching already and place it at the top, were it belongs, like in every other article about the pandemic spread? No one is interested in going through the entire article every single time they want to see an update on its spread. If they want to delve deeper in the timeline behind the spread they should be able to scroll down. Not the other way around. Sirtywell (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree: should be at the beginning. The logical flow should be information about the pandemic first, then the analysis of the details of progression and what went wrong with preparations. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Better kept in Statistics section at the end of article. There's no context in the article that would benefit from a link to any of the minutiae in that chart. If there was, a simple link like #Statistics from the text could be used. In addition, having any kind of 6-column technical chart at the beginning of this article IMO, acts as a wall, or barrier, to those want to read the article. That would be especially true on a portable screen.

And for an article about human beings and disease, I'd also prefer a lead image closer to the one used for Spanish flu, which is more humanistic than cold demographic charts. The lead image now, which can easily be described in a few words about which states have the most cases, and is followed by mostly infobox numbers, is already oriented to the technician, not average citizens. I actually think an image like this one might be an improvement. --Light show (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you are severely underestimating the number of people who visit this article exclusively for updates on the case numbers and visual representations of the trends. While there are several sites that give this information (JHU, 1point3acres, etc.), Wikipedia has the advantage of being extremely familiar to the average person and likely the first place a plurality would think to visit. Additionally, Wikipedia's format makes it way more accessible than any of the other sites, including (maybe especially?) the official state pages. For example, the New York COVID tracker literally displays "####" instead of numbers if your browser window isn't some arbitrary width, and inexplicably puts the death count on a separate page. Other states' "dashboards" suffer similarly with slow-loading dynamic pages running GPU-intensive software; cluttered, claustrophobic data presentation; embedded maps that zoom in if you accidentally scroll over them; inappropriate fonts and sizes; data scattered across multiple pages in non-intuitive order; and improper rendering. I mention all of this to illustrate how valuable the static charts and tables in this article are to people who just want a clear, comparative overview of the situation in each state and an easy chart for visualizing trends. It is much more user-friendly to the "average citizen" to have these data at the beginning of the article (where people are linked to when they google "US coronavirus cases"; Google literally uses our table as their source on state data!) than buried at the bottom beneath a literal wall of text. Speaking of which, what is this hypothetical reader base that is interested in consuming 35,000 words of medical equipment procurement minutiae, but is overwhelmed by a bar chart with three color-coded variables and a table an 8-year-old could interpret?

And while I would be happy to discuss why I think a per capita map is a more informative and relevant image for an ongoing pandemic than a stock photo of someone in a mask is, this RfC isn't the place for it.JoelleJay (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned Google, which I think most people would use for quick info. But right now, when someone searches it for either coronavirus cases or deaths in the U.S., they get 2 Billion results, with WP on page 2. While at the top of page 1, is a simple graph and all the key figures for cases or deaths by state or country, using a simple drop-down menu. All the facts, figures, and graphs, and recent articles that anyone could want is right at the top - clean, simple, and fast.

I still can't believe that last month, all of the massive charts and graphs in the stats section were actually at the top of the article. It was the ugliest entry to a fact-based article that I'd ever seen. So I moved some of them to a new statistics section. The few that were left up top were still a barrier, but at least they didn't overwhelm the article. But now that the pandemic is in its 4th month, and the figures are posted everywhere online daily, hogging up the top of the article with such 6-column charts is no benefit, IMO. Especially with the infobox giving the key figures.

I'm not afraid of charts and graphs, however. They can be totally useful. That's why I created the articles, Table of food nutrients and List of data breaches. In any case, I'd prefer to keep the ones here in a Statistics section and simply linking to them if and when there is any context for those details. Just my opinion. --Light show (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I also added a hatnote at the top of the first section pending this RfC, so the option to get the raw details is a click away.--Light show (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Move back to the top I (and I suspect others) who visit this article frequently are first interested at the latest trends and would prefer to find this information near the top. Eventually, when this becomes a historic article with no day-to-day interest, then yes, it would belong under statistics, For now wp:Ignore all rules and put it up top where the reader expects it. -- Tom N talk/contrib 22:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Move back to the top The statistical charts absolutely belong at the beginning of the article. I was amazed when I came to this article that I could not initially find out what was happening. It took me some time to realize that someone had buried the most salient information about the pandemic at the very bottom of the article. That was the last place I expected to find it. While the epidemic is building, the statistical trends are the first thing any reader with any numerical awareness is going to want to look at. The issue of how the pandemic is proceeding in essentially a quantitative issue, and the placement of the core information should not allowed to be decided by a mere power play between the numerically aware and the numerically unaware. The numerically unaware can simply skip over the section, and there is no sense in them trying to diminish people who are more numerically aware by characterising them as defective human beings. Light show is attempting above to move the article away from grounded presentations of the actual situation and towards uniformed drama and fear mongering. They dismiss the quantitative presentations of what is actually happening as "cold demographic charts". They then characterise people who are less numerically aware as "more humanistic", and the people who are more numerically aware as mere "technicians". That is a personal attack, beyond absurd, on persons with some numerical awareness. — Epipelagic (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Move back to the top This is a page I visit daily, and the cumulative cases bar chart is the information I'm primarily interested in. Having to scroll pages after pages to find it is extremely annoying. Alternatively, move it at the very bottom, so I can easily scroll to the end and find it. 109.166.128.38 (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Based on an apparent preliminary consensus above, I moved the total US cases chart back up to the Timeline section. This now closely matches the layout of most other country articles. However, I left the US cases by state table down in the statistics section because it seemed to be less of a fit for Timeline. Do we still want to move that up to the top or is Light Show's link to the statistics section sufficient? -- Tom N talk/contrib 00:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Tcncv I think a lot of people come here daily specifically to check on the state cases chart (I cited 5 or so people in the talks I linked earlier). I think if we just renamed "Timeline" to "Timeline and Cases by State" it would fit. JoelleJay (talk) 04:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Some questions: Is it necessary to have the chart take up 2/3 of the section width? I'm used to seeing illustrated material like this off to the side, more like those in Ebola virus cases in the United States or Spanish flu. If not, can we allow those actually wanting those figures to get them with a drop-down, as in this example? One more question, since any illustration, especially a large graph, is meant to support the article's context, and usually the section it's in, what context is there for the chart in either the article or the section? I couldn't see any that reflected showing precise daily counts and percents over 14 days.--Light show (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The width depends on the screen size and scaling. For me it's about half the article width and is (was) consistent with most of the top 10 countries I looked at. The {{Medical cases chart}} template has a planned Collapsible parameter, but this is marked was WIP and is not yet available. I did find a barwidth parameter in the underlying template. With a couple of changes, I was able to shrink the width of the chart on this page by about 25%, while leaving the chart unchanged elsewhere. That's the best I can do while leaving the content conveniently located here at the top of the Timeline section. -- Tom N talk/contrib 03:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, That helps. --Light show (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Soon after saying thanks for reducing the chart to only take up half the width, someone decided to add that other giant space-hogging, and IMO useless chart, giving minutiae of every single state. In contrast to the UK's article, for example, which is much cleaner with similar charts kept near the middle or end, or in their "Statistics" section. Can the chart be made into a drop down? I'm a U.S. editor and find this state minutiae chart up top an uninviting barrier to readability, as mentioned. Are there any U.S. editors that find it useful? --Light show (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

A good example I just came across is in today's Washington Post, which has a drop down for cases and deaths by state, combined with a bar chart for the U.S. No subscription needed to view it. --Light show (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the state chart a drop-down. If there's a way to remove some of the white space, that might help. I haven't checked it on any mobile devices. If someone can revise the CSS to show about 10 rows after dropping down, I think that would work.--Light show (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate that you made the table a dropdown, but as you said, the white space is an issue and imo basically negates the intended effect of collapsing rows in the first place. The solution I was working on before this, but that I don't have the background to really resolve, was just making the table smaller, like how it appears in the California article. But until we figure out how to reduce the size/collapse the table, the white space is a bigger aesthetic problem than viewing the table itself, so I'm going to change it back to non-dropdown. JoelleJay (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The latest size change to the state table broke the show-all function, so I have restored the prior version. While I know many editors have worked hard to fill the article with quality information and that work is much appreciated, I believe many readers may just stop by regularly to check on the latest statistics for the nation and their state - information which (up to a couple of days ago) has been consistently and conveniently located near the top of the article. Can we end the conflict between text and charts and let the two co-exist? -- Tom N talk/contrib 05:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I pointed out the best solution is to copy how they're used in the the UK's article. I also asked whether any U.S. editors found them useful? As they say in real estate, location is everything. The placement of these two graphs IMO, as possibly the only U.S. editor commenting, is terrible. The previous hatnotes linking to them were the best solution, and of course the TOC already linked to the page. I do not believe that "convenience" for someone who "may just stop by" is relevant.

Simply look at the article as it appeared few weeks ago. And click on the template in the section "State number of non-repatriated cases by date," which was also near the top. Then ask me whether I think all that was intentionally created and placed there for "convenience." --Light show (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

As I linked in the previous talk section, multiple editors have commented that they find the chart and table useful and that they should be at the top, hence why the RfC had a consensus... I'm not sure why you think you're the only US editor? And anyway, it's the readers who should be guiding the structure of the article; the ones who "drop by" are the ones visiting regularly for updated information. I gather from the numerous comments people have made about the chart and table over the last month that many readers come here every day to check on the numbers and expect those items to be at the top. Why would they think to click on or even notice the hatlinks if the content appears to have been removed, as it did when the chart and table were moved to the bottom. Also, UK counties aren't equivalent to the US's semi-autonomous states, so the articles can't really be compared like that. JoelleJay (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand. By "popular request", you took this page and revised it by posting this handy little group of charts to the top of the article to help those who like to stop by for updates.--Light show (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I never moved those particular tables anywhere, nor have I ever promoted their inclusion in the article. They were replaced with a hatlink well before I moved the stats. No one visiting the page would be seeing those charts unless they clicked the link, so I don't see how that was obtrusive? JoelleJay (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

As these charts are already linked in the top section with a hatnote in, Timeline, they don't need to be duplicated at the top of the article. --Light show (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Since some people prefer to have it show in widescreen, which takes up more of the lead, it should be removed or relocated it where it will be less intrusive. --Light show (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

As I've mentioned multiple times, moving the table and other stats was in response to what seemed to be a consensus:

• This discussion requesting a state cases table, which actually already existed in some form but people didn't notice it because it was buried at the bottom of the article.
• My initial request to move the table up, which was supported by Bluegreenmagenta
• This complaint about the table not being at the top

  Frankly, this is the only thing on the page I am interested in, and probably it's the same for many other people.
  — User:DrHenley 16:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Chaosquo and Jcaron complaining about the chart being hidden at the bottom.
• Please move the daily chart of infections and deaths to the beginning and expand timeline information

  It's weird that the timeline is an entirely separate article for the US and that statistics are buried at the end of the article.
  — User:207.140.171.16 12:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Please place statistics at the top of the page

  All pages of other countries about covid-19 have the statistics on the top section. ... For USA, the same bar-graph well hidden at the bottom of the page; one has to scroll a lot to find it. Especially on the phone this is hard to find.
  — User:Ceigel77 13:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Multiple threads of users and editors reacting negatively when the table was removed by someone:

• Where did the state data, tables, and charts go?:

  Strongly agree that this table should be restored unless there is a very good reason. I use it daily as do several of my colleagues.
  — User:Ceolas 21:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• the useful, data-driven table of cases by state has been removed:

  This is a degradation of quality and transparency for this page, which used to provide quick visibility and navigation to the current pages of the states of interest.
  — User:Johnson.eric.d 05:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC

• Current number of non-repatriated cases by state:

  Please restore this table about cases by states. Everything else on this page is relatively insignificant. I occasionally checked this page only to look at this table.
  — User:My very best wishes 16:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I first moved the table to the beginning in response to this thread, and specifically this request:

Talk about Bury the Lede: Can this table be positioned at or near the top of the article?
— User:CoatCheck 03:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• Tables:

  That table provided quick navigation to state pages. It mirrors the experience users have on the world page. ... The table, for navigation purposes alone added substantial value. Can we please add the table back?
  — User:Johnson.eric.d 06:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Not to mention the thread where I laid out much of my argument and supporting citations, and where another user voiced their support. JoelleJay (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I realize that after the charts were moved they can be tricky find. After all, the fact that the very first section of the article, at the top of the TOC, Timeline and U.S. cases by state, has only a hatnote linking to them, yet might still be confusing. All of the commenters complained that the charts were hidden or buried or way at the bottom, not realizing they had to click on the hatnote. So how about adding something like this to the hatnote:

Click here to instantly see charts and graphs: .--Light show (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Please, can an uninvolved editor step in and decide whether this is a productive discussion worth continuing or if it is time to WP:CLOSE this RfC? -- Tom N talk/contrib 04:24, 26 April 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.

Racial disparities section shows no account for poor personal hygiene and social habits

"It has been acknowledged that African Americans were more likely to have poor living conditions (including dense urban environments and poverty), employment instability, chronic comorbidities influenced by these conditions, and little to no health insurance coverage—factors which can all exacerbate its impact."

Poor personal hygiene and social liberalism are far more contributing to the racial disparity than any reasoning listed at this time. Don't allow political correctness to propagate a problem which will bite you on the backside if it continues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.185.73 (talk) 11:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Placement of sections

The sections on Testing, Drug therapies, and and Medical supplies are neither restricted to the government or to the medical industry. Any good ideas on where to place them, instead of Government responses or Medical industry responses? starship.paint (talk) 08:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• I have changed the name of the larger section to Medical matters until someone can think of a better name. starship.paint (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2020

Change "3,500 million masks" to "3.5 billion masks" under the subheading "Medical supplies" because it is easier to understand and 3,500 million isn't actually a number. The source article itself states 3.5 billion. 2601:448:C300:860:A589:E6E8:2757:1194 (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Capewearer (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to edit

You are cordially invited to edit Draft:Mismanagement of the 2019-20 COVID-19 pandemic. Calmecac5 (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Stay-at-home orders

There should be one table containing the list of states with stay-at-home orders that include enactment dates, expiration dates, summary feedback, and of course, reliable sources. 9March2019 (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we should apply WP:10YEARTEST. When all is said and done the most detail we will need is maybe what states was first and last and when. Then the same data for restarting the economy. Otherwise it might look like an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Great after I said that I found this: Social distancing measures related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic - Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

billion face masks etc from U.S. to PRC in January/February encouraged Trump Admin., add?

U.S. manufacturers shipped just over a billion face masks and more than 25 million protective suits to China in January and February with encouragement from the Trump administration. In those two months, the value of protective items exported from the U.S. to China grew more than 1,000% — from $1.4 million to about $17.6 million.

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/us-sent-millions-of-face-masks-to-china-early-this-year-ignoring-pandemic-warning-signs/2020/04/18/aaccf54a-7ff5-11ea-8013-1b6da0e4a2b7_story.html

X1\ (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• It looks as though this got lost in the news cycle. I don't recall coming a across this before. This is another factor worth mentioning, imho. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Saving good references from parts we’ve deleted or plan to delete

Gasparro, Annie (2020-04-24). "She Polices Social Distancing at Kraft's Mac-and-Cheese Factory During Coronavirus". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Archived from the original on 2020-04-29. Retrieved 2020-04-25.

Wall Street Journal is a fine source, but requires some kind of login to read bulk of article. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@FriendlyRiverOtter: - just use https://archive.is to archive the source, and ta-da! It works for Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times. starship.paint (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

————-

Whitley, Angus (2020-04-24). "How Coronavirus Will Forever Change Airlines and the Way We Fly". Bloomberg. Retrieved 2020-04-25.

Good source, but more about worldwide passenger travel than just U.S. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2020

Please update Arizona's numbers: Current Deaths = 304, Current Cases = 7202. Thanks - Tony1AZ (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Tony1AZ (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

References

@Tony1AZ:  Done using the reference already in the template. Next time, please request at Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United States medical cases by state. GoingBatty (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2020

Change the Stats in the first map, from CDC retrieved on April 23, to today, April 29. Tony1AZ (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Tony1AZ (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

References

@Tony1AZ:  Partly done: I updated the caption to read April 28, since the map was updated to April 28. To request the map itself be updated, please discuss at Commons:Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United States medical cases by state. GoingBatty (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Logarithmic Graph

The log graph has several problems. First and foremost, it is woefully out of date. Second, it doesn't state what population it's for (50 US States? 48 lower states? States & Territories?). Third, it has drawn lines which are, at the very least, original research. Fourth, the asymptotic lines fail to indicate the time where they become estimates. Fifth, the estimates (after Mar 26) must be based on some model/assumptions, and that too is not mentioned. Sixth, over a 3rd of the x-axis is an extrapolation - and it is wrong. (The deaths were over 50,000 on April 27, the line shows them to be 40,000. The cases were well above 1 million on that date, the graph suggests there were about 950,000.) The graph should, imho, be removed. The other option is to first label it correctly and second remove the extrapolated (and incorrect) portion. If the creator or someone else wants to keep it, the part that is extrapolated should be dashed (for example, other ways to indicate the transition from data to extrapolation are possible). The straight lines should be removed - they add *nothing* to the graph (except confusion). But since the graph is a month old, it seems likely that it will not be maintained and should be removed.174.130.70.61 (talk) 10:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Removed. buidhe 23:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The chart that you removed doesn't match the description given above (the removed chart didn't have straight lines showing asymptotes, though it was about 2 weeks out of date). The only log chart I can find with asymptotes is File:CoViD-19 US.svg (in the Timeline section of the article) but it was last updated April 27 so it's not a month old. That chart also has lots of details on its file page regarding the data source and the purpose of the asymptotes. Maybe the original poster could clarify which chart they meant? 68.7.103.137 (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Content should be identified as relevant by reliable sources in 2020

There is currently content in the Preparations made after previous outbreaks section which is only sourced to references which have existed before the current outbreak even started. To establish that such content is WP:DUE, we need references to sources in 2020, which identify past events as currently relevant to the current outbreak. Content without current sources reflects editorial judgment of Wikipedia editors identifying them as relevant, not the editorial judgment of reliable sources, and thus violates WP:NPOV. I will be removing such content and listing it below. If you wish to re-add this content, please find sources from 2020. Thank you. starship.paint (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

1. Obama Administration increased planning and analysis that focused on deficiencies in the government's response to outbreaks - source from 2014, while the 2020 source does not verify this information at all
2. Global Preparedness Monitoring Board warning - source from September 2019
3. WHO's Margaret Chan's warning - source from 2016
4. National Biodefense Strategy - sources from 2018 to January 2019
5. pandemic plans and guidelines [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] - sources from 2006 to 2017
6. military's estimate of resource gaps in January 2017 - source from 2017
7. Scenario testing can help create models of potential epidemics and pandemics - source from 2017
8. In 2018, the WHO also ran a simulation exercise - source from 2018
9. MERS vaccine - source from July 2019
   • starship.paint (talk)

These edits are helpful but the removed content might be helpful on a dedicated article as background. Shouldn't we consider splitting it off as Background of the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States or similar? buidhe 06:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: - I have no objections to a background article. Nevertheless, even in the background article, the content still has to be linked by 2020 sources to the current outbreak. starship.paint (talk) 06:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Your interpretation is wrong. Earlier material can have a place - even here. Rmhermen (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rmhermen: - earlier material means that Wikipedia editors are the only arbiters of what is relevant to the current pandemic. Current material means that the sources have a say in judging what is relevant. I don't agree that we should be making the connections when the sources haven't. starship.paint (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Split?

Should content from this article be split to Trump administration response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in order to help reduce WP:Article size? We already split off state and local govt response. buidhe 06:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: - would the federal response be too interwoven for a proper split? There will be some content from Preparations made after previous outbreaks, some content from Medical responses, some content from Other government responses, some content from Removing economic lockdowns.... starship.paint (talk) 06:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

These are all aspects of the federal government response. buidhe 06:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but no. The administration response is much too integral to the whole subject to pry it out and split it off by itself. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)