Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United States/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

section "Cricticism of slow responses" missing

Internationally the United States are famous (indepenent if it is true) in many countries around the world for failing in this pandemic, from Fake-News, slow testing, not working testing-equipment, late restrictions. Even poorer countries like China or South Korea did better job (at least more tests per citizen), than America is doing now.


I suggest following seciton in 2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_the_United_States#Government_responses

Cricticism of slow responses

Briefing of US-Präsident Donald Trump about COVID-19, January 2020

End of January presient Trump said they have everything under control, on Febuary 26, he said that it's like a miracle and will disappear and two days later he said that the democrats are politicizing and called it a hoax. On March 11. president Trump called the Coronavirus outbreak an "unprecedentted response". On March 13. Trump said that he is not taking respoibility for the lag of testing. Internationally several newspaper around the world reported an outbreak of missinformation during the start of the coronavirus[1][2][3][4][5][6][7], some even call it a failing in leadership[8].

Is there a reason this is missing, or did I just overlooked it?

As far as I can see the governemt in 2014 took Ebola_virus_cases_in_the_United_States much more serious (maybe too serious, can't tell) than this Pandemic in the early stage.

an Austrian Wikipedian  — Johannes Kalliauer - contrib. 23:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

If you ask people here, they will tell you that everything he said to this point was tongue-in-cheek and everyone is stupid for taking things the president says seriously. Today he said this is a nightmare, but I assume that too was tongue-in-cheek. 113.37.159.155 (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
@JoKalliauer: - see the section on 2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_the_United_States#President_Trump. starship.paint (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Trump, Donald J. (2020-03-09). "The Fake News Media and their partner, the Democrat Party, is doing everything within its semi-considerable power (it used to be greater!) to inflame the CoronaVirus situation, far beyond what the facts would warrant. Surgeon General, "The risk is low to the average American."". @realDonaldTrump. Retrieved 2020-03-29.
  2. ^ Ecarma, Caleb. "The Coronavirus Fake-News Pandemic Is Very Real". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 2020-03-29.
  3. ^ Rajan, Amol (2020-03-14). "Coronavirus and a fake news pandemic". BBC News. Retrieved 2020-03-29.
  4. ^ Scott, Mark. "Social media giants are fighting coronavirus fake news. It's still spreading like wildfire". POLITICO. Retrieved 2020-03-29.
  5. ^ tagesschau.de. "Fake News in Afrika: Mit Knoblauch gegen Corona?". tagesschau.de (in German). Retrieved 2020-03-29.
  6. ^ "US-Wahlkampf: So eiskalt entlarvt Joe Biden die Corona-Aussagen von Donald Trump". https://www.horizont.net (in German). Retrieved 2020-03-29. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
  7. ^ tagesschau.de. "Kommentar: Trumps Strategien versagen bei Covid". tagesschau.de (in German). Retrieved 2020-03-29.
  8. ^ Pilkington, Ed; McCarthy, Tom (2020-03-28). "The missing six weeks: how Trump failed the biggest test of his life". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2020-03-29.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2020

Va has 1020 cases

vdh.virginia.gov/coronavirus Yeet3433 (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Now 1250. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2020

In the Virginia data under “Current number of non-repatriated cases by state”, update “1250” to “1484” and update “27” to “34”. Data is from this morning; source is the same as provided. Agmudd (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

internal CDC emails, add?

Internal CDC emails show how public health officials fumbled communication and underestimated the threat of the coronavirus as it gained a foothold in the United States.

X1\ (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

See 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States § Background and preparations. X1\ (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Has this been covered in any other sources? If so, I think it would be worth including. - MrX 🖋 11:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Salon, but it is a republishing of the ProPublica article. Other than that, the best source I have found was the Kaiser Health News one. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

USA Hospitals Requesting Homemade Masks

  • students at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health have started a list.
  • Hospitals Requesting Homemade Masks.pdf
  • GetPPE.org features a map of those hospitals
  • 100 Million Mask Challenge
  • Providence hospital chain in Washington state

—§—T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 11:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

OK. - MrX 🖋 11:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I am assuming that User:T3g5JZ50GLq was attempting to suggest adding this (somewhere) into the article. Is that correct? --Super Goku V (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
@Super Goku V:: that is correct, probably in Production of emergency supplies.
please include this research topic.—§—T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Current number of non-repatriated cases by state

There is no data in this section anymore. Was it moved elsewhere? DrHenley (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Someone removed it last night and claimed they were making a better version, really until they make a better version it probably should be returned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.162.230.27 (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

  • 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. My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • One More vote in favor of restoring it. Alas, I'm not up on the finer points of wikipedia page editing, just a user of the service. Was the section removed by the person who was actively maintaining it? I appreciate it's probably more effort than one might imagine to collate info from various sources into a single chart; but it *was* definitely useful. (User talk:24.5.158.255) —Preceding undated comment added 16:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Agreed, this table should not only be added back, but also put in the first section; cases by state and territory should be its own section at the top to mirror the global page table.

I think the user who keeps removing the table believes it is somehow inaccurate? Just because it's not always updated in a timely manner doesn't mean it is wrong. There is also a seemingly-ongoing battle in the order of the deaths and recoveries columns, which is messing things up. JoelleJay (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we put a clarifying statement next to the chart to that effect? Many times timely data is more important than precise data (within reasonable bounds.) And I wouldn't want to kick off a flame war 'cause someone thought they were being dissed. (User talk:24.5.158.255)

I've restored the table and added a disclaimer above it. @SquidHomme: If you want to remove this table, please discuss the matter here. Kaldari (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, I oppose removing the table without at least providing an alternate method to easily get to the state-level outbreak articles. Kaldari (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
@JoelleJay:I think the user who keeps removing the table believes it is somehow inaccurate? Just because it's not always updated in a timely manner doesn't mean it is wrong.. I'm sorry maybe you should see the template a day ago. Not only was it "not always updated in timely manner," but it also contradicted all the numbers from the reliable sources (JHU, worldometers, etc). An also, update it if you can, instead of blabbering here.
@Kaldari: Add it once the numbers gets corrected. Why you even mention me here? Use me as a culprit or something? I removed it because it was misleading. Return it to where it belong only if it no longer misleading.—SquidHomme (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
@SquidHomme: I've created a technical proposal to address your concerns. Please endorse it there if you support the idea. Kaldari (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
@Kaldari: Ok, I'll look into that, and thank you for putting the concern into something.—SquidHomme (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I think we just need to update the table as frequently as possible. This is developing very fast. Even rank order of states is not obvious. For example, in Michigan [1]... My very best wishes (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps this continued removal of the section table by one (!) user should be considered vandalism, and the user being actioned for it. youdonotneedtoknowmyrealname (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E8:7F15:1401:8100:C7AA:795A:18E1 (talk)

Talk about Bury the Lede: Can this table be positioned at or near the top of the article? CoatCheck (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Done! JoelleJay (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Relevance of the comparison of the US death toll to that of the 9/11 attacks

Needs justification, specially since it's made right on the lead paragraph. Any primary source did it? Also, if the US death toll is indeed at around 3,100 deaths (as given here, in an already used reliable source, as of this writing: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6) then it's no longer the sixth country with the most deaths, but the fourth or third. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:18:185E:CD68:C02D:B384:FF59:7381 (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


References

Chart types for statistics and counting of days

Hello, I noticed that some countries are using chart "type = line" or "type = stackedrect" instead of using "type = rect". This is actually very mixed. What is the standard and how should each individual-country page use it? For daily new cases/deaths I find it very helpful do see numeric evolution (rect) instead of line.

The next topic is if there is a way to show counting of days since Case 1 per country. Does anybody know? tx. A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammadeusy (talk • contribs) 07:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

In subheading 5: Social impacts, there's a map close to the top which has a link in the text area: "Full map including municipalities". I clicked on it and there's an empty map file there. --Dutchy45 (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2020

Maine now has 275 confirmed cases, 3 deaths, 41 recoveries, 231 active cases. (From 211 confirmed, 1 death, 16 recoveries, 194 active) Lewis Christopher S (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

​  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 16:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Lock-down States Map doesn't show Massachusetts

It looks like Massachusetts has been in lock-down since 3/23/2020. The map of lock-down states still shows it uncolored. It would be fantastic to see this updated.

https://www.mass.gov/news/governor-charlie-baker-orders-all-non-essential-businesses-to-cease-in-person-operation

Cortis Clark (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


The following: "Further information: Timeline of the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States" does not appear at all on my Galaxy 8 Android Wikipedia App. 2600:8802:3000:630:100D:76F1:BF09:D3C4 (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Ohio infection and death count (March 31st, 2020)

Ohio is now up to 2199 infected with 55 deaths — Preceding unsigned comment added by XNanoWarriorx (talk • contribs) 22:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

For years, federal officials predicted the U.S. would experience a shortage of ventilators and other medical supplies, add here &/or ... ?

In at least 10 government reports from 2003 to 2015, federal officials predicted the U.S. would experience a shortage of ventilators and other medical supplies if it faced a large-scale infectious disease outbreak.

See 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States § Background and preparations.

X1\ (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Trump administration declined emergency funding from Congress February 5, add ?

Trump administration officials declined an offer for congressional coronavirus funding on February 5. The officials, including HHS Secretary Alex Azar, said they “didn’t need emergency funding, that they would be able to handle it within existing appropriations,” Sen. Chris Murphy recalled. Murphy said the funding he and other congressional leaders wanted to allocate in February would have paid for essential preventative measures, including hiring local screening and testing staff, researching a vaccine and treatments, and the stockpiling of needed medical supplies.

X1\ (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Trump administration donated medical supplies to China weeks after first known case in the U.S., add ?

The Trump administration donated more than 35,000 pounds of “masks, gowns, gauze, respirators, and other vital materials” to China the same day the World Health Organization warned about “the limited stock of PPE (personal protective equipment).” The first known case of coronavirus case in U.S. was confirmed by the CDC on January 21, 2020. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced the donation to China on February 7.

X1\ (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Corruption potential with relief fund, add here &/or ... ?

Trump believes the inspector general Glenn A. Fine overseeing the $500 billion relief fund will first need his permission to make reports to Congress.

In a signing statement, released hours after Trump signed the bill, Trump suggested he can gag the IG and can decide what information the IG could share with Congress.

X1\ (talk) 05:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

failed to follow NSC’s pandemic playbook, add?

The Trump administration ignored a White House playbook that was created in 2016 to help fight back against a potential pandemic.

The National Security Council (NSC) playbook lays out strategies and recommendations that an administration should take, including moving swiftly to fully detect potential outbreaks, securing supplemental funding and considering invoking the Defense Production Act, and making sure there are sufficient personal protective equipment available for healthcare workers. The NSC created the guide — officially titled the “Playbook for Early Response to High-Consequence Emerging Infectious Disease Threats and Biological Incidents” but known colloquially as “the pandemic playbook” — in 2016 and the Trump administration was briefed on it in 2017, but administration officials ignored it, and it never became official policy.

X1\ (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

See 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States § Background and preparations. X1\ (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

And now that US has surpassed China in the number of cases, there is a legitimate question: why? The only answer is the leadership and the system [2]. Note that (a) China was the first (so US could prepare and follow her example), (b) US has/had bigger resources, and (c) the final number of cases in the US can easily be in millions. My very best wishes (talk) 03:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Note that the Trump administration is planning for a pandemic with multiple waves of illness that are expected to stretch into next year [3]... My very best wishes (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Here is an RS who's title hits the nail on the head: The missing six weeks: how Trump failed the biggest test of his life; The president was aware of the danger from the coronavirus – but a lack of leadership has created an emergency of epic proportions 28 March 2020. X1\ (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
And another similarly titled: The Lost Month: How a Failure to Test Blinded the U.S. to Covid-19 March 28, 2020 NYT X1\ (talk) 05:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Beth Cameron was the Senior Director for Global Health Security and Biodefense on the White House National Security Council until John Bolton dissolved her office. She is also the author of the unused government pandemic playbook:

X1\ (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

unshipped Pentagon venilators, add ?

The Pentagon has not shipped 2,000 ventilators because FEMA and the HHS have not asked for them or provided a shipping location. Lt. General Giovanni Tuck there are 1,000 ventilators fully ready to be shipped as soon as the Pentagon gets a destination of where to send them. The other 1,000 can also be assembled and shipped within days of getting the order.

X1\ (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Trilogy Evo Universal ventilator; add here or ... ?

Taxpayers paid $13.8 million to a company to design a low-cost ventilator. Instead, the company is selling it overseas.

X1\ (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

another example Trump's promotion of unproven drugs, add here?

See previous similar at Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States/Archive 5#example of effects of Trump's promotion of unproven drugs, add here?.

The Trump administration is encouraging the FDA to approve another unproven drug as a possible coronavirus treatment, despite career officials’ concerns about the risks and limited evidence that the drug would work. Most recently, Trump has championed Avigan (Favipiravir), a decades-old flu drug, despite global regulators and U.S. researchers expressing concern about the drug’s risks, such as birth defects, and that the Chinese data is insufficient.

X1\ (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Some tariff deferrals; add here &/or ... ?

Trump approved a proposal to delay payment of certain tariffs for 90 days. An executive could is expected as soon as this week and would give the Treasury Department the authority to direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to delay collecting “most-favored nation” tariffs on imports.

X1\ (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Governors status, add here or ... ?

Notable example (Jay Inslee too): Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said her state is not getting the health and safety equipment needed because contractors are sending their products to the federal government, implying that the order came from the Trump administration. On Friday, Trump said he had instructed Mike Pence not to call governors who have not been “appreciative” enough of his efforts on coronavirus. “If they don’t treat you right, I don’t call,” Trump said, adding: “Don’t call the woman in Michigan.”

When PBS's Yamiche Alcindor noted that the President had said he did not believe that governors actually need all the equipment they claimed they did, Trump said, "I didn't say that" — even though he said precisely that on Fox News on Thursday. Later, when CNN White House Correspondent Jeremy Diamond noted that Trump had said he wanted governors to be "appreciative" of him, and that "if they don't treat you right, I don't call," Trump said, "But I didn't say that" — even though he said precisely that at the Friday briefing.

per Daniel Dale and Tara Subramaniam Fact check: Trump falsely denies saying two things he said last week March 30, 2020 CNN

See Veracity of statements by Donald Trump

and

X1\ (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Made One of the Summary Plots a Semi-Log Plot

I added the option "|yScaleType=log" to make the y axis, total cases of COVID-19, a log scale. This makes the information available over the whole timeline, and shows the rate of growth of cases the same way throughout the timeline.

The first time I did this it was immediately reverted on the basis that the ordinary user would not understand what a log scale was and would be misled by the plot. The second time, I added a line of text to explain what a log axis does for this plot, and indeed another editor added a link to logarithmic scale. But someone updating the data for the plot, which is done daily, accidentally broke this plot and the third plot, and published them that way. That editor or another editor fixed both plots, and in the process deleted the "|yScaleType=log" option. So, this time I added comments to the editors on how to keep the log scale if they need to fix a broken chart.

If the people maintaining the data in these plots have problems updating them as log plots, we need to give up and leave them as linear plots or use one of the other chart templates to make them easier to maintain. It has occurred to me that these plots summarize data from

Main page: Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United States medical cases

and I wonder if it is feasible to make these charts update automatically when the source page is updated.

I think the other two charts at the end of the article should be on a log scale too, for the same reasons. But, bar charts are best for linear plots, and I think that they would be best presented as line charts with data symbols, like the first plot. I'll wait for comments here before I change the second two plots. -- motorfingers : Talk 20:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we should bring back the bar graphs for new cases, deaths, and recoveries for the following reasons:
1) Although I kind of get your reasoning, most people find line charts not as visually informative as bars (some psychology stats book, don't remember now where exactly I read that)
2) A log plot is confusing, require additional processing, and if not used correctly, it can be drastically misleading (here I can provide citations, it's another psych stats book). For example, it hides the exponential aspect of the data, which in the case of this pandemic is essential information not only for regular citizens to know what to expect, but also for policy makers with no training in epidemiology. Likewise, a linear chart leads to more estimations ("guesses") than the bar charts because it explicitly requires extra processing to check the Y axis back and forth. So the longer the graph is (which we will unfortunately have), the content is likely lost to the eye even if the trend is better visualized.
3) Keep it consistent across Wikipedia pages; all other countries (or at least the first 20 or so I clicked on) have bar graphs. Keeping data in the same visual format enables quick comparisons between countries.
4) Keep it consistent with the official reporting sites, e.g. CDC https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html.

Please bring back the bar graphs.Elenaschifirnet (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

We *really* need log plots, as they are the representation most likely to demonstrate any positive news. And we need one for deaths. There is one under Statistics (last chart of five), but it is using WHO numbers and has a lag (like WHO, yes?). I can't believe someone removed a log plot as too confusing. Shenme (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
"We *really* need log plots, as they are the representation most likely to demonstrate any positive news." I don't know that a desire to demonstrate positive new is an appropriate reason to make the change. The numbers are what they are, we don't need to try to present them as positive or negative. CUA 27 (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
It was reverted once, almost instantly, as misleading, which tells me that there are smart people that do Wikipedia editing of hot pages like this one who don't grok logarithmic scales. I think I addressed that adequately. So, I'll look at making the other plots log plots in the morning. I will keep the numbers above the dots. All three plots may get a little taller to expand the log scales a bit. -- motorfingers : Talk 00:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
DONE. Found that third plot has factor of 10^3 while first two have five, so the third y axis was stretched relative to the other two; fixed that by shrinking the y axis of the third plot. To make plots clearer, make height=80*<number of factors of 10> so the y scales are all the same, 80 pixels per factor of ten. I'll watch this if the maintainers of the data don't adjust height=* as things progress. I also find that showvalues=1 is not supported on log plots in the template used here :-(. I changed the colors of the first and second plot; they were both medium orange and I made the first one more red and the second one more orange. I added a few to help out the maintainers. The template for these three plots is at Template:Graph:Chart. The log axis isn't in the documentation yet; it was added for us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motorfingers (talk • contribs) 05:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Now that the three plots are in place with log y scales, I'm wondering if we can put all three curves on one plot as a final improvement. This in-line template supports simple maintenance by data updates, and putting them all in one plot may make this more difficult. I'll look at this in sandbox mode before I publish anything. -- motorfingers : Talk 12:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

motorfingers — Given that you have encuontered reverts, as well as a post below opposing your changes, it would be best to use the talk page to gain consensus first before continuing. Thanks. CUA 27 (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Please read below comments under "Edit request on 30 March 2020: bar graphs" about the bar charts. Thank you. Elenaschifirnet (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Logarithmic charts should be avoided if possible

The page has switched to log-scale charts. The majority of the population can't read these, and they hide the exponential nature of trends. If the logarithmic charts are necessary, please try to include standard charts with reduced timeframe as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.128.72.144 (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Elenaschifirnet (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I also agree. CUA 27 (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Disagree. Linear scale isn't well suited to exponential growth. VQuakr (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
The issue with linear scale for exponential growth is well understood by those who can read log-scale charts, but is lost on everybody else. Determine target audience and do what works best for the target. I see a combination out there today, which I think satisfies the need.
Agree. Growth rates in the US have been nearly linear for over a week. Look how flat that daily plot is. Is there a way to have a radio button for viewer choice to log? --That should maybe be a future platform development. But right now it is less clear to the average consumer of this site. If one wants a data analysis environment, they can pull the data in Octave or RStudio and plot it temselves.

Edit request on 30 March 2020: bar graphs

I think we should bring back the bar graphs for new cases, deaths, and recoveries for the following reasons: 

   1) Although I understand that line charts show a trend better than a bar, most people find line charts not as visually informative as bars (some psychology stats book, don't remember now where exactly I read that)
   2) A log plot is confusing, require additional processing, and if not used correctly, it can be drastically misleading (here I can provide citations, it's another psych stats book). For example, it hides the exponential aspect of the data, which in the case of this pandemic is essential information not only for regular citizens to know what to expect and prepare, but also for policy makers with no training in epidemiology. Likewise, a linear chart leads to more estimations ("guesses") than the bar charts because it explicitly requires extra processing to check the Y axis back and forth. So the longer the graph is (which we will unfortunately have), the content is likely lost to the eye even if the trend is better visualized. Remember that the vast majority of Wikipedia readers are not used to reading graphs every day, so we should put up the data in the easiest to understand way, which, in my opinion, is bar graphs.
   3) Keep it consistent across Wikipedia pages; all other countries (or at least the first 20 or so I clicked on) have bar graphs. Keeping data in the same visual format enables quick comparisons between countries.
   4) Keep it consistent with the official reporting sites, e.g. CDC https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html.

That being said, I don't see why we can't have all graphs. Elenaschifirnet (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done line graphs are much easier to present multiple data series. Line vs bar and linear vs log are two distinct and unrelated discussions, BTW. VQuakr (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I am aware of that. Perhaps I have not been clear or I have not posted my reasoning/request in under the right heading. Regardless, why can't we have all three types of graphs, like the South Korea COVID19 page? Elenaschifirnet (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
A link would be helpful to see what you are saying. My first impression is that duplicating graph types would lead to a lot of clutter. VQuakr (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Sure! Here are a few pages that show all three types of graphs at the bottom of the page and they don't look cluttered:
https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_South_Korea
https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Romania
https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Spain Elenaschifirnet (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
The first chart at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Spain#Charts based on daily reports is an example of a poor approach that would would want to avoid. The left half of the chart (as of this writing) is indistinguishable from zero because it covers 4 orders of magnitude of data. VQuakr (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Then don't do those linear charts! Bring back the bar charts. They were fine, they are used by official reporting agencies (CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html, ECDC: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/geographical-distribution-2019-ncov-cases and many others), by local news media, by WHO (https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200323-sitrep-63-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=d97cb6dd_2) and by most other COVID19 wiki pages. I fail to understand why the US COVID page is the only one missing bar charts. I gave the Spain page as an example not for its accuracy, I didn't check that, but for showing you can have all three types of charts without any clutter. People are not able to compare US versus other countries if our page is the only one dissenting from the norm of data visualization! Elenaschifirnet (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
"A log plot ... hides the exponential aspect of the data,"
I strongly disagree. A log plot exposes an exponential trend, since a straight line is the easiest thing to see -- and that's what a log plot makes an exponential function. On a linear plot you can see that a line is getting steeper-steeper-steeper, but you have to eyeball it and guess whether the increase per step is a constant proportion, or more, or less.
—WWoods (talk) 07:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I suggest having both the log plots and the bar charts. A log chart is great for anyone with training in data analysis, but that does not apply to many members of the general public. Wikipedia should be accessible to all, regardless of education level. It can be misleading to show a graph that appears to be solely a straight line, even if there is a properly clear caption attached. In the interest of transparency for all readers, both types of charts should be present. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Totally agree. Why can't we have what Canada has (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Canada)? All their graphs fit in one screen, they have linear chart and line chart log with a neat explanation for the logs. Simple, clear, uncluttered, something for everybody. Elenaschifirnet (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

We Have Multiple Conflicting Suggestions

The purpose of this article is to convey information. That is the priority requirement in writing and editing. I think that if this requires a reference to log scale in a tutorial thumbnail to reach some people, than, if the information conveyed is significantly increased, then this is a good approach that should be considered. I'm not a fan of arguments that we must not raise the bar for understanding common graphics technicques like log scales.

The point that log scales "hide" exponential growth is another consideration. Note that the exponential growth is a single point to be made, while the log scale makes clear what is happening with the data throughout the timeline, something that a linear plot cannot do with data that shows exponential growth.

I'm OK with combining the three log plots into one to make the relationship between the total cases, the new cases, and the deaths clearar. I'm OK with bringing back the bar charts as linear plots with the numbers above, or log charts with the nubers in the bars near the top. My principal concern is that daily maintenance involves extending the date lables in the x axis and editing or replacing the y axis data, and if we have two sets of plots with the same data, the editor that updates the plots must update both plots. With the template we are using now, that can be done with a clipborad copy, but it's still added work.

My personal rule for posting is to present a solution when I present a problem, so in that vein I suggest that we put the three log scale plots on one graphic, and bring back at least one log plot to show the exponential growth. If we put the linear plot that shows exponential growth first anc caption it as showing the exponential growth, it need not be updated daily, or at all. I think this, with an improvement in the log scale tutorial thumbnail, is the best way to satisfy all the comments. -- motorfingers : Talk 21:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with most people on here that we need to bring back the bar graphs. Most people will not intuitively grasp log scales, and really they are good for rates of change not showing exponential growth which is both real and hidden. Mattximus (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mattximus: bar graph has nothing to do with log scale. VQuakr (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I noticed the bar graphs were replaced by log scale line graphs, and agreed with others that it was a poor choice and should return to the bar graphs. Mattximus (talk) 02:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

In an attempt to move toward a consensus, I have duplicated the first chart but on a linear scale, and added a sentence that points out exponential behavior. I've also added for the updater(s) to show which lines can be clipboard copies to update the linear chart when these charts are updated.
@Elenaschifirnet: Please find your old psych book or another reference on the use of log scales. I think that you must look at individual data sets in making decisions about whether or not to use a log scale. In some cases, a log scale is necessary to show the data properly. Comparing the new linear plot at the beginning of this section with its twin that uses a log scale, you can see that in our data here, the linear scale chart completely hides data and the behavior of the epidemic before about March 17, and the fact that the data is beginning to level off in the last few days of March is not apparent on the linear chart.
You can use bar charts in log scales, too, and you can display data in the bar charts too. We can do this if that is the consensus. Combining the three charts into one chart isn't really possible with bar charts, though. Ao, if we put back the bar charts, we can't combine the log scale chartws into one chart. Doing that will prevent us from showing the similarities of the charts, and their shapes.-- motorfingers : Talk 04:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Normally, I would dig up the stats books box. But I'm in the middle of a COVID wave right now. We can debate some other time of the benefits of chart vs bar, log vs linear. But people need information right now. As others have voiced concern over the general population log plot readability level, so I will ask again just one question: why can't we have the linear bar chart and the log line chart, like the other COVID Wiki pages, news agencies, and official reporting agencies? I have yet to hear a good argument against that. Clutter is not a good argument, since other wiki pages manage to have all graphs fit on a regular PC screen (see Canada: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Canada). "You can use bar charts in log scales, too, and you can display data in the bar charts too. We can do this if that is the consensus. " That's great. Forgive my Wiki novice question: how long do we wait until there is a consensus and how many voices need to be heard in order to reach said consensus? It seems to me we are wasting precious time when we can have both type of charts (linear bar and line log) without clutter or fuss and let this discussion proceed until we reach the consensus. Does that sound reasonable? Elenaschifirnet (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I fully agree that the bar graphs need to come back . Almost every country has them and getting used to seeing the data a certain way makes it harder to comprehend the data when inconsistencies appear. I also think that in this particular case bar graphs make it easier to track the progress ...but that's just my opinion Romdwolf (talk) 05:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is a Solution

First, I brought back the bar plots, and put them on a linear axis. Secod, I left the log plots below the original plots.

The format is that the linear scale plots are shown first, then the text with the log scale tutorial thumbnail, then the three log plots. My next change will be to combine the three log plots into one chart, probably later today.

I believe that this will satisfy the many people who will never accept a log scale, while providing information about the pandemic over the entirety of it recent history. Combining the log charts was always my eventual goal, because this shows iformation about how the three datasets are related, something that is not done elsewhere.-- motorfingers : Talk 13:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the bar charts back. Elenaschifirnet (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Now, I've brought back the bar charts and combined the log scale charts onto one graph, and added a text sentence that comments on the log plots chart. I've also reordered the options in the templates and added comments to make maintenance easier. The template that we use here has been improved, so that a y value of 0 doesn't break the template anymore, which also helps in maintenance because exactly the same data can now be used in both linear and log plots.-- motorfingers : Talk 15:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
First, I'm happy as a clam with the linear bar charts. Second, I have a suggestion (mention?) since we're talking about graphs. I have noticed that some other countries' pages also include a graph with the testing administered, like South Korea (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_South_Korea) or Romania (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Romania) (Italy had this too at some point, I think). Data is taken from here I believe: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/COVID-19_testing. The reasoning being the more you test, the more likely it is to see an increase in confirmed cases. I have no argument pro or con. I don't even know if we have enough data or at least enough frequent data to make a graph. Just a thought. Elenaschifirnet (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
This works. Mattximus (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I added a chart for cases of recovered patients. The data for that is available on the spreadsheet page for CDC data,
Main page: Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United States medical cases
so adding a plot is simple. I added a linear scale bar plot with data values for people that want that, and I added another curve on the log scale plot. -- motorfingers : Talk 16:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Well done folks. This is exactly how the talk page is supposed to work. Thanks to all who helped point out problems and solutions and helped work towards consensus. CUA 27 (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the coronavirus United States medical cases table by state

These are copied from the Template_talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_data/United_States_medical_cases_by_state page.

Remove recoveries and active cases, add hospitalizations and number of tested

Most states are not reporting recoveries and active cases, but people are adding them anyway despite lacking an RS for them. Many states however are reporting hospitalizations and the number of tests run, so either of those numbers could be added depending on how useful they are deemed to be. buidhe 21:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Remove active cases, and replace with hospitalizations

Most states are not reporting active cases, but people are adding them anyway despite lack of a primary source. Many states are reporting hospitalizations so those numbers should be added. A major goal of the lock down orders is to prevent the hospitals from being overwhelmed. Recommend recoveries or total released be kept as there are states that still report this. Zygerth 22:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Zygerth, Go a head and do it! No one has objected to adding the column. buidhe 05:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Hospital column has been added. This tracks state reported hospitalizations, and cumulative hospitalization are preferred if that data is provided. ZygerthZygerth23:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Any major objections to remove active cases, and replace with hospitalizations?

Data for hospitalizations is available for 8 out of 14 states where I have checked the state's official data page. Zygerth 02:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I object to removing the active cases — it is a statistic that many people follow, and the statistic is also present in other country articles. I have no objection to adding hospitalizations. CUA 27 (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

American Samoa?

It looks like several maps (including the infobox map) now include cases in American Samoa, but I cannot find any citations to support this and the text and tables do not currently support this. Neither the CDC nor Johns Hopkins report cases in American Samoa. Can anyone find a citation for American Samoa, or correct the maps?--Cincotta1 (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Reversions Should Be Carefully Considered

I recently had a new paragraph deleted by reversion because it referenced CDC data on influenza and pneumonia death rate, then drew conclusions. I removed the conclusions and added back the referenced data and even that was deleted by reversion seconds later. The paragraph that I inserted in State number of non-repatriated cases by date, between the last two charts, is:

The deaths per day from existing endemic seasonal influenza and pneumonia[102] is about 551 deaths per day, averaged over seasonal variations. The death rate from COVID-19 exceeded that on March 30 2020.

I believe that this is a fact, and is referenced properly to a source with high credibility, i.e. the CDC[1]. The last short sentence, "The death rate from COVID-19 exceeded that [of the CDC data for flu/pneumonia] on March 30 2020" pushes the boundary because it is an interpretation, however obvious, and possibly that concluding short sentence should be removed. But the fact that the death rate from COVID-19 now exceeds that flu/pneumonia death rate (average over seasonal variations) does belong here because it addresses the commonly heard argument that COVID-19 is less deadly than the flu.

The reason cited, "original research," implies to me that there is a misunderstanding here. I believe that such problems are best dealt with by better communication. I am struggling to do that. Please reply here what you think. -- motorfingers : Talk 21:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The leading sentence of [Wikipedia published policy on "no original research"] is "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The referenced page provides death rates for seasonal influenza and for pneumonia, but does not address COVID-19 or do any comparisons. So, my interpretation is that the suggested insert with reference does NOT "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" when stated as "The deaths per day from existing endemic seasonal influenza and pneumonia[102] is about 551 deaths per day, averaged over seasonal variations" conforms to policy. BUT, inserted where it is, this invites the reader to do a comparison, which can be construed to imply a possible violation by implication that the reader will draw the conclusion.
A solution may be to put this point somewhere else in the article. The article is vast and comprehensive, and I have not studied most of it; I have looked at the data and its presentation but not the narratives. Your suggestions are welcome here. -- motorfingers : Talk 22:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
+1 This sentence alone without your next sentence which was a little WP:OR is relevant and well sourced. I heard some covid-19 patients die from organs failure ? But as far as I know the majority of the covid-19 death are pneumonia. In the absence of special cases for covid, those deaths have been added to that source. Iluvalar (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I've heard that there are some that have a cytokine storm that kills by multiple organ failure, and this may be why the mortality is so high for younger people. With the 1918 H1N1 second wave, a cytokine storm was the way it killed so many young adults, a demographic that usually has good survival for the flu. But I haven't seen anything definitive, and a decent reference is needed to include that on Wikipedia. Many deaths are announced publicly as "due to side effects of COVID-19 infection" which can mean a cytokine storm, disease-induced circulatory problems, or hypoxia from pneumonia. Back to the subject, I think that putting the mortality of the existing endemic seasonal flue and pneumonia, well referenced, would fill the doubt gap in a significant chunk of people that are looking at mortality stats of COVID-19, which is why I put it where I did. But I must get on to other things now. I don't feel any ownership; feel free to do it yourself. -- motorfingers : Talk 06:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ April 2020 "National Center for Health Statistics Mortality Surveillance System". {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)

Requested move 3 April 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. See WP:SNOW. VQuakr (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States → 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in the United States – À la 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Another move will be conducted in the future when the 30-day moratorium on the umbrella article will go away. Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 10:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Why? The U.S. didn't even log its first case until late January 2020. Master of Time (talk) 10:22, 3 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.

Death rate by age

can we have a death rate by age chart? Jackzhp (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

This would be incredibly informative and useful, something like the gender and age template here which shows that 84% of fatalities in Italy are aged 70+, and over 9% are aged 90+(!)... Sadly, to my knowledge, such data isn't yet available for the US. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
There is no reasonable reason to believe that the data would be that different. The table can be found here : Coronavirus_disease_2019. Iluvalar (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

USA vs. Europe Chart

Enough with the charts! This one is already so wide it's not possible to read on some monitors without scrolling. When this pandemic is finally over, the chart will be three miles wide! -- Veggies (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. This and the charts in 'State number of non-repatriated cases by date' are all way too big. At least make them scrollable or something. Mysticdan (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, this one is unnecessary. VQuakr (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Getting annoyed with delay in images not updating

I know it’s a known issue. Can’t something be done about pictures and graphics taking days to update, if at all? If you click on a graphic and pull up the image itself it shows the updated version but going back to the inline display still shows an older version. Text updates are real time (if the page is refreshed). Why aren’t images?? This could lead to confusion or inaccurate information being gleaned by readers who might not know to click on an image to get the latest updated version. I know that clearing cached data in the mobile app settings prompts the app to get the most recent version of the images. But that doesn’t solve the fundamental problem. Cached data is great for reducing the amount of data downloaded needlessly BUT when an image is changed then the cache needs to ALSO be updated with that new image. It’s so frustrating. Kjpmi (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I just thought the editors were really inconsistent in what they updated. That must be why the data in the different charts seems out of sync, too. -R 75.157.179.170 (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Kjpmi, I guess we should take this as a thought to start creating a template for data collected then? Other pages have been using a template where data is stored and transcluded into a graph. Changing the data there changes the craft at the same time. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 18:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

US House Select Committee on the Coronavirus Crisis, add

Add United States House Select Committee on the Coronavirus Crisis, with Jim Clyburn chair, per

related to Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States/Archive 6#Corruption potential with relief fund, add here &/or ... ?

X1\ (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

More recovered than actual cases?

It looks that there are more recoveries than cases. For example, if we assume the shortest infection duration of about 14 days, we can see 8878 recoveries on April 1. These people should have been confirmed cases, at the latest, on March 16. According to the graphs, there were not that many cases in the country then. Or tests performed. And that's just for one day. But if we add the last few days of recoveries, for sure it does not match the total (cumulative) confirmed cases at the time there was supposed to be an infection. Confirmation of both infection and recovery is based on the PCR test, right? Am I missing something or is our data quite wrong? The data would make sense only if the case confirmation/recovery is based not a positive/negative test, but on presence/lack of symptoms. I hope I'm making sense.2601:240:D780:C190:24D0:CE65:99E5:CE49 (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

On other countries' pages (Canada, Italy) the green recovered graph is daily recoveries, but on the USA page it shows cumulative recoveries, which is confusing. At least, the 8878 recoveries is in line with sources I see reporting about 10k recoveries for the USA, and the statistical likelihood of there being exactly 15 recoveries for that many days in a row made me realize that the numbers on that graph are cumulative, and that was simply a stretch during which no recoveries were recorded. - R 75.157.179.170 (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

So they are cumulative, not daily. Thanks! Whoever can edit, please add the word "cumulative" on that graph. Thanks! WikiUser70176 (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
It probably makes more sense to change our graph to be daily recoveries, similar to the graphs immediately above and below it. VQuakr (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
AgreedWikiUser70176 (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

There are loads of blanks on the table, and I know Illinois has 2 recovered patients, but someone keeps reverting my edits. NatChu666 (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

We're not talking about the table, but the green bar graph between the daily deaths and the daily new cases. - R 75.157.179.170 (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Outflow of medical supplies from the U.S., add ?

The coronavirus task force placed a moratorium on the USAID’s overseas shipments of personal protective gear after officials discovered that aid to foreign countries wasn’t being coordinated with U.S. requests for aid from those same countries. Roughly 280 million masks in the U.S. were purchased by foreign buyers on Monday the 30th, according to Forbes. Vessel manifests maintained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection show a steady flow of the medical equipment needed to treat the coronavirus being shipped abroad as recently as March 17. FEMA, meanwhile, said the agency “has not actively encouraged or discouraged U.S. companies from exporting overseas,” and has asked USAID to send back its reserves of protective gear stored in warehouses for use in the U.S.

X1\ (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

health insurance coverage / Obamacare / funding, add ?

The Trump administration (currently) plans to use the federal stimulus package to pay hospitals to treat uninsured people with the coronavirus. Hospitals would have to agree not to bill the patients or issue unexpected charges. Trump, meanwhile, hinted that he is considering using Medicare and Medicaid to pay for health care for the uninsured after he decided to not reopen the Affordable Care Act’s insurance markets.

Previously (recently);

The Trump administration will not reopen the Affordable Care Act’s marketplace to allow uninsured Americans to purchase health care coverage during the coronavirus pandemic. Americans who recently lost their jobs will still be able to obtain health insurance – people who lose job-based insurance qualify to enroll, but are required to provide proof that they lost their coverage. A special enrollment period, however, would have made it easier for people to enroll and would have provided an option for people who chose not to buy health insurance this year but want it now. Instead, Trump has promoted short-term health insurance alternatives, which allow enrollment year-round, but the plans offer skimpier coverage and typically exclude insurance protections for preexisting conditions.

Related to Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States/Archive 4#alteration in Obamacare enrollment considered, add here?

X1\ (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Trump hasn't ordered any ventilators from GM, rm item / but 3M ...

Removed this: He first invoked the act to direct industry production on March 27, instructing the HHS to compel General Motors to manufacture ventilators, after negotiations with the company stalled. He also appointed Peter Navarro to oversee enforcement of the act.[1] regarding the Defense Production Act of 1950, per John Fritze and Jayne O'Donnell Trump hasn't ordered any ventilators from GM, despite saying he was using wartime powers to force production April 3, 2020 USA Today X1\ (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Instead, include:

Trump signed a Defense Production Act order requiring 3M to prioritize N95 respirator mask orders from the U.S. government, cutting off 3M’s ability to export face masks abroad. 3M also said the administration asked it to stop exporting masks to Canada and Latin America, which the company said raises “significant humanitarian implications” and will backfire by causing other countries to retaliate against the U.S.

Trade and legal experts agree that new mandates could cause other governments to clamp down on exports of masks, ventilator parts and pharmaceuticals that the U.S. needs.

Related to #Outflow of medical supplies from the U.S., add ? X1\ (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Clark, Dartunorro (March 27, 2020). "Trump invokes Defense Production Act to force GM to make ventilators for coronavirus fight". NBC News. Retrieved March 29, 2020.

PREDICT pandemic early-warning funding cut, ended September 2019; add?

Regarding 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States § Background and preparations:

per Trump administration ended coronavirus detection program March 2, 2020 LATimes.com

The Trump administration ended the PREDICT (USAID) pandemic early-warning program in China two months before the coronavirus started spreading in Wuhan. The PREDICT program identified 1,200 different viruses that had the potential to erupt into pandemics, including more than 160 novel coronaviruses. It also trained and supported staff in 60 foreign laboratories. Field work ceased when the funding for PREDICT ran out in September 2019, and organizations that worked on the program laid off dozens of scientists and analysts.

Related to Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States/Archive 5 § U.S. cut CDC expert job in China months before virus outbreak, add?

X1\ (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

X1\, Yes, I'd support that. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
How about a sentence after the September 2019/Linda Quick and Reuters reported/March 2020 sentences; i.e., the end of that paragraph, Mdaniels5757?
Took a first shot at it here. X1\ (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Strategic National Stockpile's purpose redefined per Kushner then website change, add?

The Trump administration changed its description of the Strategic National Stockpile after Jared Kushner suggested that the stockpile wasn’t meant for states to use.

“And the notion of the federal stockpile was it’s supposed to be our stockpile,” Kushner said during the White House coronavirus task force press conference. “It’s not supposed to be states’ stockpiles that they then use.” The HHS website previously described the stockpile as the “nation’s largest supply of life-saving pharmaceuticals and medical supplies for use in a public health emergency severe enough to cause local supplies to run out.” After journalists noted that Kushner’s claim contradicted the program’s description, the website was updated to say “The Strategic National Stockpile’s role is to supplement state and local supplies during public health emergencies. Many states have products stockpiled, as well.”

For the centrality of Kushner:

X1\ (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Related: update Stockpile status?

Half of the national stockpile of ventilators have been distributed and there are now fewer than 10,000 still available. An estimated 32,000 ventilators may be needed by mid-April, when crisis is expected to peak. Meanwhile, FEMA said most of the 100,000 new ventilators that Trump promised won’t be available until the end of June “at the earliest.”

X1\ (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

about 32%: unemployment could reach as high as 47 million, add here &/or ...?

Also posted at Talk:Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic:

Economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis project that the number of unemployed Americans could reach as high as 47 million – about 32% – as a result of the coronavirus. St. Louis Fed economist Miguel Faria-e-Castro wrote in a research paper last week that this is “a rather unique shock that is unlike any other experienced by the U.S. economy in the last 100 years.”

X1\ (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

May be WP:CRYSTAL to go too much into the weeds here. --Calthinus (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Just FYI, I understand that clearing cached data in the app will allow the images to update but that doesn’t fix the fundamental problem! If an image is updated, it should be flagged somehow by Wikipedia so that the app doesn’t just default to the cached image. Cached data is great for limiting data from being downloaded every time a page is visited but if content is actually updated the cache should be updated for that image as well! Kjpmi (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I know that clearing cached data in the mobile app settings prompts the app to get the most recent version of the images. But that doesn’t solve the fundamental problem. Cached data is great for reducing the amount of data downloaded needlessly BUT when an image is changed then the cache needs to ALSO be updated with that new image. It’s so frustrating. Kjpmi (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Kjpmi, did you intend to locate your two comments (above) elsewhere? X1\ (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Trump's change from dismissive to "hard days that lie ahead" analysis, add?

Trump learned that his close friend, 78-year-old New York real estate mogul Stan Chera, had contracted COVID-19 and fallen into a coma at NewYork-Presbyterian.

X1\ (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Trump brags about his tv ratings, add?

Trump bragged about the ratings of his coronavirus task force briefings, tweeting that the rise in ratings is driving the media “CRAZY” while suggesting that the viewership is fueling discussions in the media about ending the practice of broadcasting them live. Trump sent about a half-dozen tweets touting the high television ratings while selectively citing an article that compared them to "The Bachelor" and "Monday Night Football." News outlets have struggled with how to cover Trump’s coronavirus press briefings live because Trump "has repeatedly delivered information that doctors and public health officials have called ill informed, misleading, or downright wrong."

See Veracity of statements by Donald Trump and Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. X1\ (talk) 05:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

What can one say? Probably only this. My very best wishes (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Related weakness:
Trump insists on congratulations while America braces for the worst. The President’s bullish, self-congratulatory rhetoric – a staple of a presidency that has divided the nation – is still jarring with the desperate reality of a fast-worsening pandemic that is running out of control.
X1\ (talk) 06:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Also see Talk:Donald Trump#SARS-2 response appropriate mentality, add? and
X1\ (talk) 06:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Nebraska has an extra column in the fatalities table

Nebraska has an extra column in the fatalities table — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skagraw (talk • contribs) 00:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

more undercutting of Trump's "no one could have known" defense, add?

Regarding 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States § Background and preparations:

Trump administration officials HHS Secretary Alex Azar and Tim Morrison, then a special assistant to the President and senior director for weapons of mass destruction and biodefense on the National Security Council, listed the threat of a pandemic as the issue that worried them most at the BioDefense Summit in April 2019. Trump, meanwhile, has repeatedly claimed that “Nobody knew there’d be a pandemic or an epidemic of this proportion.”

per

X1\ (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


Related: February 3 Army briefing fatality projections (more contrary to Trump), add?

A February 3 prepared unclassified Army briefing document on the coronavirus projected that “between 80,000 and 150,000 could die.” The estimates also correctly stated that asymptomatic people could “easily” transmit the virus, that military forces could be tasked with providing logistics and medical support to civilians, including “provid[ing] PPE (N-95 Face Mask, Eye Protection, and Gloves) to evacuees, staff, and DoD personnel.”

On Feb. 24, Trump tweeted, “The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA” and two days later, Trump claimed that 15 known cases of coronavirus inside the U.S. “within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that’s a pretty good job we’ve done.”

X1\ (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

White House economists published a study in September 2019 that warned a pandemic could kill a half million Americans and devastate the economy. The study specifically urged Americans not to conflate the risks of a typical influenza and a pandemic.

X1\ (talk) 05:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

See Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. X1\ (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Related to Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States/Archive 3#Government response — Preparedness (to a lesser extent Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States/Archive 6#failed to follow NSC’s pandemic playbook, add?)

X1\ (talk) 08:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

unemployment rate is probably around 13%, add?

Regarding 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States § Employment effects:

See related Talk:Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § U.S. employment impact, add?.

The unemployment rate is probably around 13% – higher than at any point since the Great Depression; per https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/03/upshot/coronavirus-jobless-rate-great-depression.html

X1\ (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


Added to this is: Americans are underestimating how long coronavirus disruptions will last, public health experts warn. While coronavirus cases are expected to peak in mid-April, quickly reopening businesses or loosening shelter-in-place rules would inevitably lead to a new surge of infections, they said; per Helen Branwell April 3, 2020 Statnews.com

X1\ (talk) 08:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

As of 3 April 2020, Maryland Statistics are WRONG

If Wikipedia doesn't have the capability to keep the state-by-state statistics up-to-date, then don't log the numbers, and let Johns Hopkins do this job. I don't understand why Google is sourcing numbers from a fricking half-assed Wikipedia page. Inaccurate statistics are more dangerous than no statistics at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.208.224 (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? What about the numbers here is incorrect, and what source(s) are you using which disagree with the page's numbers? Michelangelo1992 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I have to add, those numbers are useless at best for the common reader. They do not reflect the number of people infected, only the number of cases detected which until we reach the cap (see italy and spain numbers for instance) are just representative of the amount of tests done so far. All we know is that there is up to 10% of the people walking with it so far, and we are just grinding trough a relatively slow test. The half a day of lag we experience between sources is not "dangerous". Iluvalar (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: Recoveries chart daily cases instead of cumulative

The recoveries chart is the only one that shows cumulative cases instead of daily cases like the other charts. In the interest of consistency both with the other charts on our page and similar charts on other countries' pages, could we have the recoveries chart also showing daily new recoveries instead of a cumulative number? For more detail on why the cumulative graph is confusing, see the "More recovered than actual cases?" section above. Thanks to whoever is doing the editing of the page. I appreciate your promptness in keeping this page updated and solving issues in a very timely manner. WikiUser70176 (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Cut the separate accounting in the table

With 239,000 cases in the U.S., I think it's time to cut the separate accounting for repatriated and Diamond Princess cases out of the table "Cases in the United States per the CDC" in the "CDC reported U.S. totals". 49 cases out of a quarter of a million really is well below the noise level. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2020

Change to States with a lockdown order or advisory Virginia - June 10, 2020

[1] 24.214.226.2 (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

information Note: Unarchived an open edit request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/all-releases/2020/march/headline-855702-en.html
 Already done enacted March 30. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

"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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Racial disparities

Numerous sources including BBC News are now reporting that (in those jurisdictions that are including race in their reporting of cases), a hugely disproportionate percentage of cases and deaths are African American: [4]. Numerous contributing factors have been put forward. 97.116.51.145 (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there an update on the unshipped Pentagon venilators (from the end of March)?

From Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States/Archive 6 § unshipped Pentagon venilators, add ?:

Is there an update on the unshipped Pentagon venilators? X1\ (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Social impacts | Lockdowns | Oklahoma lockdown date citation request

In the table under Social impacts | Lockdowns, where a citation was requested, I did not find a reliable reference that confirms the date. The current date for the Oklahoma lockdown appears to be wrong. Please change April 2, 2020 to March 24, 2020.[1] --vann_ish 07:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

information Note: Another unanswered request that I'm unarchiving. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.sos.ok.gov/documents/executive/1919.pdf
 Not done for now: The table "States with a lockdown order or advisory" under "Social impacts" is for states that have a statewide order for lock-downs or advisories. The link provided is where Oklahoma's governor declared a state of emergency but didn't declare a lock-down, advisory or a stay at home order. As per this source which the table is using only 5 cities in Oklahoma have stay at home orders in place while the governor advised the elderly and high risk to stay at home only. In order for the state to qualify for inclusion in the table the entire state has to be under a lock-down or advisory to stay at home. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 07:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States/Archive_6&oldid=1249935159"