(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)
Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Chinbrad (talk | contribs)
66 edits
m request for different stats
Line 563: Line 563:
[https://unherd.com/2020/04/how-likely-are-you-to-die-of-coronavirus/ This] is a nice lay explanation of the problems with calculating mortality. [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 09:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
[https://unherd.com/2020/04/how-likely-are-you-to-die-of-coronavirus/ This] is a nice lay explanation of the problems with calculating mortality. [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 09:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


Given the enormous differences between testing regimes in different countries, any statistics involving reported cases are surely invalid, and the only figure that means anything reliable is the change in daily deaths per million in each country, which provides a visual guide to how effective those different countries' strategies are, and to how long it might take for things to return to normal. [[User:Chinbrad|Chinbrad]] ([[User talk:Chinbrad|talk]]) 07:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
== Unclear references for future predictions in image ==
== Unclear references for future predictions in image ==


Revision as of 07:46, 2 April 2020

Skip to top
Skip to bottom

    Template:Vital article Template:COVID19 sanctions

    New to contributing?

    Welcome to Wikipedia; we're glad you're here! Please feel free to join discussions on this talk page, but be aware that, due to the volume of edits at this page, it is one of the more difficult places to jump in for newcomers. You may find it easier to edit a different COVID-19-related article (such as the one for your home country) or to help out with other tasks on Wikipedia.

    Highlighted open discussions

    Current consensus

    NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
    [[Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
    To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

    01. Superseded by #9
    The first few sentences of the lead's second paragraph should state The virus is typically spread during close contact and via respiratory droplets produced when people cough or sneeze.[1][2] Respiratory droplets may be produced during breathing but the virus is not considered airborne.[1] It may also spread when one touches a contaminated surface and then their face.[1][2] It is most contagious when people are symptomatic, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear.[2] (RfC March 2020)

    02. The infobox should feature a per capita count map most prominently, and a total count by country map secondarily. (RfC March 2020)

    03. The article should not use {{Current}} at the top. (March 2020)

    04. Do not include a sentence in the lead section noting comparisons to World War II. (March 2020)

    05. Include subsections covering the domestic responses of Italy, China, Iran, the United States, and South Korea. Do not include individual subsections for France, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia and Japan. (RfC March 2020) Include a short subsection on Sweden focusing on the policy controversy. (May 2020)

    06. Obsolete
    There is a 30 day moratorium on move requests until 26 April 2020. (March 2020)

    07. There is no consensus that the infobox should feature a confirmed cases count map most prominently, and a deaths count map secondarily. (May 2020)

    08. Superseded by #16
    The clause on xenophobia in the lead section should read ...and there have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people and against those perceived as being Chinese or as being from areas with high infection rates. (RfC April 2020)
    09. Cancelled

    Supersedes #1. The first several sentences of the lead section's second paragraph should state The virus is mainly spread during close contact[a] and by small droplets produced when those infected cough,[b] sneeze or talk.[1][2][4] These droplets may also be produced during breathing; however, they rapidly fall to the ground or surfaces and are not generally spread through the air over large distances.[1][5][6] People may also become infected by touching a contaminated surface and then their face.[1][2] The virus can survive on surfaces for up to 72 hours.[7] Coronavirus is most contagious during the first three days after onset of symptoms, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear and in later stages of the disease. (April 2020)

    Notes

    1. ^ Close contact is defined as 1 metres (3 feet) by the WHO[1] and 2 metres (6 feet) by the CDC.[2]
    2. ^ An uncovered cough can travel up to 8.2 metres (27 feet).[3]
    On 17:16, 6 April 2020, these first several sentences were replaced with an extracted fragment from the coronavirus disease 2019 article, which at the time was last edited at 17:11.

    010. The article title is COVID-19 pandemic. The title of related pages should follow this scheme as well. (RM April 2020, RM August 2020)

    011. The lead section should use Wuhan, China to describe the virus's origin, without mentioning Hubei or otherwise further describing Wuhan. (April 2020)

    012. Superseded by #19
    The lead section's second sentence should be phrased using the words first identified and December 2019. (May 2020)
    013. Superseded by #15
    File:President Donald Trump suggests measures to treat COVID-19 during Coronavirus Task Force press briefing.webm should be used as the visual element of the misinformation section, with the caption U.S. president Donald Trump suggested at a press briefing on 23 April that disinfectant injections or exposure to ultraviolet light might help treat COVID-19. There is no evidence that either could be a viable method.[1] (1:05 min) (May 2020, June 2020)
    014. Overturned
    Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article. (RfC May 2020) This result was overturned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, as there is consensus that there is no consensus to include or exclude the lab leak theory. (RfC May 2024)

    015. Supersedes #13. File:President Donald Trump suggests measures to treat COVID-19 during Coronavirus Task Force press briefing.webm should not be used as the visual element of the misinformation section. (RfC November 2020)

    016. Supersedes #8. Incidents of xenophobia and discrimination are considered WP:UNDUE for a full sentence in the lead. (RfC January 2021)

    017. Only include one photograph in the infobox. There is no clear consensus that File:COVID-19 Nurse (cropped).jpg should be that one photograph. (May 2021)

    018. Superseded by #19
    The first sentence is The COVID-19 pandemic, also known as the coronavirus pandemic, is a global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). (August 2021)

    019. Supersedes #12 and #18. The first sentence is The global COVID-19 pandemic (also known as the coronavirus pandemic), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), began with an outbreak in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. (June 2024)

    RfC - Limiting the countries covered in the domestic responses section

    This page is already longer than it ought to be, and it's very much at risk of becoming bloated further. The domestic responses section is particularly at risk since everyone seems to want to add their home country (Egypt was just added, and I'm sure things are bad there as they are everywhere but we just don't have room). I can add a hidden warning to achieve consensus at talk before adding further countries, but that'll only do so much to stem the tide. Therefore, I think we need to come up with some criteria for which countries get a section and how long those sections can be. I think it's obvious that we need some individualized coverage of e.g. China, Iran, and that countries like e.g. Finland, Peru can safely be shunted to the "other" subsection, but there's a middle ground between them with e.g. the UK where I'm less sure. What are all your thoughts? Sdkb (talk) 05:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I would remove Japan, as many other countries are more affected, and as Japan is otherwise also not specifically notable for its response (unlike South Korea). Voorlandt (talk) 08:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it a problem if this section includes summaries on every country that cares to add one? This might be the only page downloaded by some people for offline viewing, and as such the single only/best place to get an idea of the kind of responses from each country, at a glance? Also, what makes the US or UK special in any way? 169.0.60.231 (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Too many countries have cases of coronavirus, it is simply impractical to give all of them. I would say keep South Korea because it is cited in multiple notable sources as an example of a successful strategy in dealing with the outbreak. UK is not really necessary, although it attempted something quite different early on that seemed interesting, but it has since abandoned that. Japan is also unnecessary, although I think a brief mention (say a sentence or two) under the "Other countries" section may be warranted if the Olympics get cancelled. Italy as a separate entry is necessary I think, although I think perhaps a new section on other EU countries (or Europe) may be possible since many EU countries have seen significant outbreaks, and Italy can be placed as a subsection in that. Other individual European countries like Spain or Germany would not then not need their own separate sections. Hzh (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Only the more severe outbreaks (judged by the death numbers) should be listed. In my opinion, that includes at the moment Italy, China, Iran, Spain. And possibly France. Then optionally the US and the UK. The fact France, and its lockdown, is absent from the page while the UK is described is quite strange. Mayfoev (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, the fair way to do it would be to only list those countries whereby the situation in that country was/is noteworthy and comparatively unique. Whether that be particularly bad outbreaks (China, Italy, Iran) or for some other reason, like particularly effective strategies (e.g Singapore), or like in the UK where the government defied the strategy of most other countries in their response and received backlash. Naturally this will include countries like the US (Trump controversy etc.) and exclude other ones (Germany, France etc.). Countries with moderate outbreaks, or those which had/have responses that are similar to many other countries are not noteworthy and should therefore be only explained fully in their own separate article. Please say if you agree/disagree. How will we know when we have consensus on this? Magna19 (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Magna19: Good question. I've added polls for specific countries below to better gauge that. Sdkb (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sdkb: Thank you. I have replaced Japan with Singapore using above criteria for now. I will vote below. Would it be better to use 'include' instead of 'keep' and 'exclude' instead of 'remove' given some countries listed here are not currently included in the article? Magna19 (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it would, thank you. I've refactored. Sdkb (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Magna19: This edit has created a poorly-formed RfC. Whilst the statement (courtesy of Sdkb) is certainly neutral and brief, it completely lacks context in the RfC listings. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Redrose64: feel free to refactor my statement if you want to give it better context. Thanks for your efforts to tidy things up; hopefully it'll make it easier to discuss the issues at hand. Sdkb (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Redrose64: Not my statement unfortunately. Magna19 (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Country Polls

    Please vote below with either Include or Exclude for each country. Please keep explanation minimal, and discuss overall criteria above. Sdkb (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Italy - include
    Italy
    Iran - include
    Iran
    Spain
    France
    United States - include
    United States
    UK - include
    United Kingdom
    Hzh - Though still technically in Europe as a continent, it would just get continually changed due to editors' Brexit opinions etc (sigh), better and easier to leave as separate section. Magna19 (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Germany
    South Korea - include
    South Korea
    Japan
    Singapore
    User:Gtoffoletto, although most countries will inevitably end up with lots of cases, I would say it would be right to add one country thought by most to have best tackled the crisis. At the moment, Singapore fits that criteria the best. Please consider changing response based on this, if not then I would be happy to replace it if a more suitable country can be suggested and agreed upon? Magna19 (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Magna19 South Korea is the country you are thinking of. Over 50 million population and cases declining fast from a major outbreak without lockdown. Cases in Singapore are growing fast unfortunately and pop is tiny. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Gtoffoletto, thanks for the info. I will remove sub-section on Singapore for now but will add again depending on any additional votes. Magna19 (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    European Union
    It is better to use Europe because a number of European countries aren't in the EU, like the UK, Norway and Switzerland. Hzh (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Includebut title "EUROPE" so we can cover the rest of Europe without having to give them their own headers. QueerFilmNerdtalk 20:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exclude. There's no coordinated European response, no coherence in how the epidemic is handled (compare Italy and Sweden, for example, with drastically different measures), there's a plethora of health care systems, no coherent philosophy around testing. /Julle (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary

    Include: China, Iran, Italy, South Korea, US, UK

    Exclude: Australia, Netherlands

    2 quick final votes if possible before we make the edits?

    @QueerFilmNerd: , @Hzh: , @RealFakeKim: , @Sdkb: , @Gtoffoletto: , @Bondegezou: , @MarioGom: , @Calthinus:

    Europe section to be called Europe or European Union?

    • European Union - Vast majority of European countries not in the EU don't seem too noteworthy anyway. Magna19 (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Europe. The individual governments seem to be the ones mainly coordinating the response rather than the EU, so it makes sense to use the geographic grouping of "Europe" rather than the arbitrary political grouping of the EU that excludes Switzerland for no good reason. Sdkb (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Europe - per Sdkb (the UK and Switzerland btw) — RealFakeKimT 08:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • European Union - as in the "political and economic union of 27 states" which is coordinating several countries in a similar way to the US and individual states. It would be crazy to include individually each US state (although they each have their own individual response). Monetary policy is an example of how the response is being coordinated at the EU level. Switzerland is not included and not relevant IMHO as well as other small countries not included. The only relevant individual country within the EU is Italy that could have a sub section within the EU section as it was the first with major cases (this might change). Germany France etc. just treated within the general section.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Switzerland has one of the highest per capita rate of infection outside of tiny countries. Hzh (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Outside of Hubei, Italy and Spain I think. I don't think number of cases is relevant in this as they are subject to change and soon many countries will have a lot of cases.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Europe - We don't really know which other European countries will become notable enough to be mentioned in the future, and this will cover any potential ones worth mentioning. Italy should have its own section under Europe, Spain possibly, but not Germany or France which merit a paragraph each under the Europe section. Hzh (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If Europe, is the UK noteworthy enough for its own sub?

    The situation may develop in such a way that that is no longer the case.--Calthinus (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • UK -- yes, European Union not "Europe" if we have to use it. Hundreds of millions of people live in non-EU European countries. We cannot simply lump them in... if we are "lumping at all" (eventually I foresee us being at a point where it is "Other countries" and not "Europe" that is the "leftovers basket" section). --Calthinus (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Other Eurpoen countries have in some cases 10 times the cases of the UK. — RealFakeKimT 08:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral: their "herd immunity" response was unique. They have given it up now though apparently so No is acceptable too. I guess I'm abstaining here! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No but may be mentioned in a paragraph under Europe on account of its early approach (which has since been abandoned, therefore not worth looking at in details). It can change if cases escalate there. Hzh (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Can always re-visit at a later date and adjust where necessary but most are pretty unanimous for now, would normally wait longer but given the fast moving picture and significance of article, should be at its best soon as practical IMO. Magna19 (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with Hzh. The polls so far align pretty well with what's in the article currently, so the page will be fine. We don't yet have a clear consensus on the more borderline cases. It's fine to start fleshing out what a Europe section might look like, though. Sdkb (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The problems now is that with the summary added, people think it has concluded and stopped adding their votes. Perhaps remove the countries listed in "include" and "exclude" in the Summary section, and wait for a day or so first and see if anything changes. True, it can be revisited later, but there is really no need to hurry here. And yes, keep the discussion on Europe/EU going in the meantime. Hzh (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus seems strong for several. Some are contentious (Singapore and Spain). However Spain is included in the EU discussion. Can we "Close" the non contentious ones and only keep Singapore open and continue with the EU discussion only? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've collapsed the ones with clear consensus (unanimous or near-unanimous with sufficient votes and is unlikely to change). A few others like European Union could be collapsed as well, but we'll see. Hzh (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ordering

    Another question we need to answer that seems to be somewhat arbitrary in the article currently: how do we order the countries we do include? I think it definitely makes sense to list China first, given that chronologically it was facing this before anywhere else. After that, we could go either by first reported case to try to keep some semblance of chronology, or by highest case/death count to list the most prominent examples first. What's your preference? Sdkb (talk) 05:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I think by first reported case is probably best. Saves changing the order if one of the countries overtakes another in case numbers. Magna19 (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree --Gtoffoletto (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It’s poorly worded because doc james wants it clear that it isn’t known to be airborne, but we agree to want to make it clear that it can be transmitted via exhalation in the lead . An alternative would be “primarily small droplets produced during coughing, sneezing, and talking. These droplets can be transmitted through breathing, but only during close contact, and not over large distances “ Almaty (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Which maps to include

    Okay, so as we start to figure out consensus on which countries to include, the next step is to determine how long each section should be. One big part of that is whether to include a map of the country with cases per capita in different regions. I see several possible ways to go about this — we could include maps for all or none of the countries we list, we could include only for the most severely hit and/or largest countries, or we could take into account how much regional variation there is in the virus's prevalence throughout a country. What's the right strategy here? Sdkb (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think there could be a fixed length for any section. China and US can be trimmed somewhat, but otherwise the other section are fine for now and should not get too big. I don't feel that any map is necessary since that should be in the individual articles, and you'd need to remove other images or tables otherwise it gets too crowded. Hzh (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to add a map for Europe since it seems to merit one and replace the U.S. map with the better per capita one, since that section has room for it and the U.S. is big enough for there to be regional variation. I wouldn't be opposed to adding a map for China, since it's also a geographically big country with a roomier section here, but as it's not there currently I won't add it. Sdkb (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Mortality rate

    How should we summarize the mortality rate as this is also going back and forth a lot.

    WHO on Mar 6th states "While the true mortality of COVID-19 will take some time to fully understand, the data we have so far indicate that the crude mortality ratio (the number of reported deaths divided by the reported cases) is between 3-4%, the infection mortality rate (the number of reported deaths divided by the number of infections) will be lower. For seasonal influenza, mortality is usually well below 0.1%. However, mortality is to a large extent determined by access to and quality of health care."

    In my opinion this is better than a letter published in Nature on March 19th https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0822-7

    Or a viewpoint in JAMA from Feb 24th https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762130

    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    no viewpoints no views WHO doesn’t meet medrs either when they are doing individual studies. No mortality rate. —Almaty (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Table

    Country Cases (23 March) Deaths Case fatality rate
    (CFR)
    Mainland China 81,093 3,270 4.03%
    Italy 63,927 6,077 9.51%
    United States 44,011 560 1.27%
    Spain 35,068 2,299 6.56%
    Germany 29,056 123 0.42%
    Iran 23,049 1,812 7.86%
    France 19,856 860 4.33%
    South Korea 8,961 111 1.24%
    Switzerland 8,795 120 1.36%
    United Kingdom 6,661 335 5.03%
    Netherlands 4,769 214 4.49%
    Austria 4,474 21 0.47%
    Belgium 3,743 88 2.35%
    Norway 2,570 10 0.39%
    Portugal 2,060 23 1.12%
    total
    195 countries    		 378,601 16,505 4.36%

    Isn't it a bit redundant and somewhat confusing to have this table? The only thing that it has that the template next to it doesn't is each country's case fatality rate. Sometimes the figures in each table don't match. Could the case fatality rate be incorporated into the template? If so, it might be a bit less crowded on this page.

    And when did Portugal adopt the Swedish flag? Kelisi (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    On the template, consensus has generally been against adding any more columns, so I doubt there would be support for adding the death rate there. I do agree, however, that the table here is redundant. Especially the apparent lack of updating it gets compared to the template. United States Man (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Kelisi portugal corrected. Yug (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding this table, I believe per MOS:FLAG, there shouldn't be any flags as they do not increase understanding of the subject, and also it could be beneficial to only include the worst affected countries on the table (bit like the one to the right of this discussion), and have a separate article for all countries. --TedEdwards 19:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. The flags are unimportant and should be removed. Perhaps the left column could thereby be shortened, which will reduce crowding of the text to the left, esp. on small monitors. Kablammo (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree, I believe the flags are useful and give a quicker way to survey the table. Additionally flags are use in nearly all tables of country data on Wikipedia. However, they tend to use the {{flag}}-form instead, which takes much less space. It does not take extra space compared to text, for example: {{flag}} ->  Germany.
    Carl Fredrik talk 06:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @CFCF: About your comment that flags are used in nearly all tables, I'd like to point out that just because nearly all articles do something, that does not mean it's the best thing to be doing. Indeed in MOS:FLAG there's a section #Consistency is not paramount. I've found a discussion from 2007 (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 66) where I think several good points have been made why flags don't really help. --TedEdwards 15:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm not buying the points from a 13-year old discussion that didn't result in any policy or guideline change, especially when we have a different technical situation with bigger screens, better color separation etc. today. I didn't find the examples of similar flags confusing in the way it was expressed there. Also, to the point about consistency: I find it preferable and helpful to use flags — so the point about it not being paramount is moot, it was never my sole argument. Carl Fredrik talk 16:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose the table, propose to use Graph of changing CFRs by country. I put it in the diagrams. This has been done with ECDC data by the WP:MEDRS compatible source Our World in data, and I propose if at all possible linking to their streams of data for each country or just using country specific graphs of this type. They’re all commons so it’s a treasure trove. It needs to have all the disclaimers, but it gives you a real good idea of where health services are struggling in comparison - Germany’s coping well, Italy isn’t, China remains the same, etc. —Almaty (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Case Fatality Rate

    The new Case Fatality Rate table seems mostly nonsense unless we're trying to estimate how bad testing is country-to-country. Tom Ruen (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Deaths
    Yah it has been added a number of times. Okay have removed it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not see a reason not to include this, this appears in other outbreaks' pages. But for now it should be named "crude CFR" or "naive CFR" according to the medical literature and it should be explained that this is a temporary number that could change significantly as more data comes in [1][2]. Damperin99 (talk) 04:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think saying, "Here's a number, but it's useless and you should ignore it" is a good strategy. These numbers are misleading. We should remove all CFR tables. They are WP:OR. There are plenty of WP:MEDRS we can cite. Bondegezou (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is a source from the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Damperin99 (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Doc James and Bondegezou here, the numbers don't really reflect anything useful. It's enough to give the range.
    Before antibody testing is properly implemented we will have no way of knowing what the true number of infected individuals is, so comparison is useless.
    WP:OR states that simple numerical calculations and comparisons are exempt. However, because there are so many different reasons that the numbers vary — which we need to explain thoroughly: it's simply a question about WP:DUE. The tables might be okay on another article, but they aren't informative enough to be included here. Carl Fredrik talk 16:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is already Template:2019-20 coronavirus pandemic data/Case fatality rate template table updated from time to time (as it is not linked anywhere). Could you please include it? --😷 garyCZEk 📢 ✍ ｛🧒👧👦🚲💻🚗🍣｝ 14:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Tom Ruen The table is WP:OR since no reliable sources are publishing these figures. Actually it's not a CFR, it's a crude mortality rate. CFR calculation is much more complex - take a look at some of the cited sources or at [[3]] Robertpedley (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    the cfr is very problematic, I think as I did way back At the start of the outbreak in China, it is easiest to show the changing rate by country, in graphical format, to convey the uncertainty. No tables and no overall case fatality rate. People can make their own conclusions from the original graphs. No mortality rate. Luckily, our world in data has done the graph that I was trying to do back in January, under an appropriate license. It’s in the diagrams now :) —Almaty (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    also Our world in data has advised that they have been correcting WHO errors, leading to WHO errata on the situation reports, and now only use ECDC data for this reason. The ECDC collects data for the world also. So I consider Our World in Data to be a very WP:MEDRS compatible source. —Almaty (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Our World in Data does a very good job. Happy to see them used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Infection mortality rate (IFN)

    In section 1.1, this number - which is most important in order to estimate the severity of the disease - is indicated with 0,2 %, referenced by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. But their calculation is very poor and arbitrary: "Therefore, to estimate the IFR, we used the estimate from Germany’s current data 22nd March (93 deaths 23129) cases); CFR 0.51% (95% CI, 0.44% to 0.59%) and halved this for the IFR of 0.26% (95% CI, 0.22% to 0.28%) based on the assumption that half the cases go undetected by testing and none of this group dies."

    By the first step, they contradict their own warning above on the same page: "There may be delays between symptoms onset and deaths which can lead to underestimation of the CFR." You have to relate deaths until 22nd march to infections at least one week ago, where about 4.800 cases had been tested and registered. The second step is completely arbitrary, whereas there are statistical approaches to estimate the number of unknown infected.

    The number of 0,2 % might be a reasonable estimate (compare the estimate 0,3 - 0,7 % reported by German virologist Christian Drosten on 2nd March). But it has to be substantiated much better. Who knows a good source? --Jwollbold (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for providing a new source. But sorry: It doesn't mention infection mortality rate. - I'll try to look for better evidence today or tomorrow. --Jwollbold (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively." This editorial in the new england journal of medicine should help. It seems they don't speek explicitly about IFR, but either they understand CFR as IFR, or their value is an upper limit for IFR. Who can check more in detail? Sorry, I don't have much time today. --Jwollbold (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There are so many assumptions. Germany has a lot of ICU beds. Germany is not currently overwhelmed. Etc etc. Currently has only lately seen their outbreak increase. WHO is simple a better source of the global situation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Might there be a way to work in infection rate into the article, or at least find a way to relate the two articles? 14:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC) It may be helpful to harmonize them with Incidence (epidemiology). --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Robertpedley, I don't think the content I added suffers from the issues debated here. Those figures are calculated based on the Diamond Princess (a closed system) and mainland China (distinguishing between Hubei and outside Hubei). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Kautilya3 Two issues with this - first of all, were 100% passengers and crew of the DP tested for antibodies? The answer has to be no, because an antibody test was not available at that time; they used PCR which only picks up active infections. So cases could have been missed, some could have had asymptomatic infection. Second, to what extent were the passengers & crew of the DP typical of a more general population? Cruise liner passengers are generally older than global average and more affluent. Crew do not include children (I hope). So it's an interesting statistic but it can't be applied to populations as diverse as the slums of Mumbai or the residents of Monaco. The original article in medrxiv [4] discusses some of these issues, and give the basis for some of the statsitical approximations. It goes into the pot with other estimates, and we'll have many more coming along soon. Germany, for example, has widespread testing and apparently low mortality; Spain the opposite. That will be interesting when the dust settles.Robertpedley (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Fatality/mortality rates

    Wikipedia has taken a kitchen sink approach to fatality statistics. I'm worried that this is not helpful to the general reader and sometimes entirely incorrect. Can we find some consensus on a short paragraph citing recent estimates that can be included in both topics with an editing note?

    2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § Deaths

    A number of measures of mortality are being tracked. The WHO estimated the global crude mortality rate (cumulative deaths divided by cumulative reported infections) to be 3% to 4% as of 6 March 2020.[259] The case-fatality rate (CFR) is the proportion of persons diagnosed with a particular condition (cases) who subsequently die from that condition,[260] having been adjusted for the time lapse between infection and death;[261][262] estimates of the CFR vary from 1.4% to 2.3%.[263][264] The infection mortality rate (IFR) incorporates a further adjustment to allow for undiagnosed and/or asymptomatic infections; as at 22 March 2020 it has been estimated at 0.20%.[265]

    Coronavirus disease 2019 § Epidemiology

    The case fatality rate (CFR) depends on the availability of healthcare, government measures/responses, the typical age and health problems within the population, and the number of undiagnosed cases.[172][173][174] Preliminary research has yielded case fatality rate numbers between 2% and 3%;[7] in January 2020 the WHO suggested that the case fatality rate was approximately 3%,[175] and 2% in February 2020 in Hubei.[176] Other CFR numbers, which adjust for differences in time of confirmation, death or remission but are not peer reviewed, are respectively 7%[177] and 33% for people in Wuhan 31 January.[178] An unreviewed preprint of 55 deaths noted that early estimates of mortality may be too high as asymptomatic infections are missed. They estimated a mean infection fatality ratio (IFR, the mortality among infected) ranging from 0.8% to 0.9%.[179] A peer-reviewed article published on 19 March estimated the overall symptomatic case fatality risk as 1.4% (IQR 0.9–2.1%).[180] The outbreak in 2019–2020 has caused at least 495,086edit confirmed infections and 22,295edit deaths.[6]

    Hopefully, we can land on something that explains the CFR ratio and that it will vary by region based on testing volume, population characteristics, and healthcare system quality and availability? I don't know that it adds anything to also include mortality rates. This article from Our World in Data does a great job of summarizing things. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd propose something like this...
    In effect, eliminating all of the pre-March estimates and remaning vague on everything other than CFR. - Wikmoz (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Qualified Agreement it's a lot longer than the current paragraph.
    I'd prefer to cut out the crude mortality rate, no reliable source is quoting it except for single mention in a WHO sitrep 3 weeks ago. Your definition is different though?
    The IFR is the most important (but least reliable) statistic. Robertpedley (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Retract previous opinion Robertpedley (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree your definitions are incorrect.
    • Crude Mortality Rate is cumulative deaths divided by cases at any date.
    • Case Fatality Rate CFR - the number of deaths (ordinator) is a subset of the number of diagnosed cases (denominator). This will vary over time, e.g. 100 people diagnosed today. 1 dies tomorrow, CFR is 1%. Another dies the next day, 98 of the group still alive; CFR is now 2%. After about a fortnight it should be stable.
    • Infection Fatality Rate IFR is like CFR but adjusted for undiagnosed cases, e.g. as above but assume only 50% of infections are diagnosed, remainder asymptomatic. IFR will be 0.5% on day 1, 1.0% on day 2.
    Robertpedley (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The definitions are the same as yours with exception of crude mortality rate. Not sure where your definition comes from but it's incorrect. Per CDC, "The crude mortality rate is the mortality rate from all causes of death for a population." From Our World in Data, "The crude mortality rate – sometimes called the crude death rate – measures the probability that any individual in the population will die from the disease; not just those who are infected, or are confirmed as being infected." - Wikmoz (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ack. You're correct regarding the CFR not being time-based. So the WHO number is more accurately described as the 'death-to-case' ratio. I've revised the text accordingly. - Wikmoz (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is controversial and not supported by WHO. "Given the high percentage of infected individuals who remain asymptomatic" Some have also used the term "crude" to mean "rough".
    Why "Lastly"? More can be said. We do not need words like "greatly" and can just say varies. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I struck out the text you note is problematic. Is "crude" or "rough" the correct term? I've seen crude used in several places though the CDC's definition indicates it's for deaths attributable to any cause and "cause-specific death rate" is the more appropriate term. - Wikmoz (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I went ahead and changed "crude" to "cause-specific". - Wikmoz (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    I like the structure of your proposed edit. I don't think your text makes it clear enough that in the CFR & IFR calculation the deaths must be a subset of the case count.Robertpedley (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good catch. Removed "during a given time interval" from IFR. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How's something like this? - Wikmoz (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Any additional thoughts? - Wikmoz (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's good. "Infection fatality rate" please not "Infection mortality rate". Go for it! Robertpedley (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    We are not talking about "quantify disease severity" we are talking about estimating deaths. These numbers also vary over time in a single population due to many factors.
    This can be condensed further. Why "The most frequently-cited number is"? Just list them. We do not need "greatly" just say it varies. If the various was not significant we would not be mentioning it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Corrected and shortened as suggested. I do think it's worth conveying the degree ("greatly") to which the numbers vary, if only to discourage other editors from generalizing local estimates but I guess we can revise if needed in the future. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Doc James: What is meant by "overtime" in your edit? Working overtime? Or is there meant to be a space, to mean they vary over time? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GorillaWarfare yes varies over time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I've adjusted the wording accordingly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. Only issue is "The death-to-case ratio is the number of deaths divided by the number of diagnosed cases at a given point in time." All numbers reflect a value at a given point in time. The death-to-case ratio is unique from other stats in that it measures deaths and cases recorded over a specific time interval. Here, the implied interval is from the start of the outbreak through 25 March. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, "within a given time interval" as in your draft above, seems more understandable. And the China study reported a "crude CFR" or "crude fatality rate", respectively. Obviously that's what is defined as death-to-case ratio. I corrected both sentences. --Jwollbold (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Cases 770,000 Deaths 36,900 Recovered 160,000 Beratademaj21 (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a nice lay explanation of the problems with calculating mortality. Bondegezou (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Given the enormous differences between testing regimes in different countries, any statistics involving reported cases are surely invalid, and the only figure that means anything reliable is the change in daily deaths per million in each country, which provides a visual guide to how effective those different countries' strategies are, and to how long it might take for things to return to normal. Chinbrad (talk) 07:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Unclear references for future predictions in image

    I removed the image at right to here, because before reinsertion it would need either adjustment or more clear references for its claims of future cases and deaths. The image page links to [5] here but I did not readily find the future predictions there. In particular, one red line points to about 1 million deaths at about April 10. I made a crop of the image yesterday to avoid WP:Crystal ball and WP:Verifiability, but that was reverted in the next image update, so I found this removal necessary. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks fine to me, the straight line is simply a projection from the curve based on the current data. The line will change when the trajectory of the curve changes. For example, there are two lines for the red curve, one for the early part of the curve, another the later part. The April 10 one is for the early part of the curve, therefore it won't happen. It's interesting to see how things can change, and can't say that it is wrong. It is however debatable if the straight lines are necessary because some people may not understand what they mean. Hzh (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The cases marked in a blue dotted line already seems to deviate from the straight line, though. Mikael Häggström (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but we can't say for sure until it becomes clearer. There may be a new line when it is clear, which may or may not happen soon, in the mean time it's just doing a best fit of the data. But, as I said, some people don't know what the line means, so it might be better to remove the straight line if it confuses or misleads people. Although personally I don't think drawing the straight lines is wrong as such, there is an element of WP:OR if there isn't a source for drawing them - simple plotting of curve is not OR if it is based just on the raw data, but some may consider doing anything more with the data such as extrapolation to be OR (it's just mathematical calculation, but there is also an element of personal judgement there on how to do it). You can just ask the person who drew the curve to remove the straight lines. Hzh (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's OR anyways, since there are projections out there such as here. I'll notify the creator. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing original in those lines, it's a standard feature of spreadsheets. My only creative addition is to decide which segments (if any) are linear enough to be approximated by a straight line. Micheletb (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether it is a feature of spreadsheets is neither here nor there, it is more than the simple calculation that is exempted from OR (see WP:CALC), and as already mentioned, there is an element of personal judgement on how to do it. Personally I don't mind, I find it useful, but others can object to it as OR. I don't know if there has ever been any discussion on this by community on something like this, maybe look into it and see if there was any consensus about it. Hzh (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no claim whatsoever about any kind of prediction this is just your own conclusion, and they are wrong, of course. The only point is to help visualise the tangent to the actual curve, and help appreciate how and when it departs significantly from a straight line - which it eventually will do, of course, since in the end the curve will be horizontal, although too slowly. As you can see, the red line has already departed from its initial tendency but is still pretty unchanged since ~ two weeks, and the blue one is just starting to do the same. Just because you misread the plot does not mean that it is meant to be interpreted that way (although, of course, an extrapolation on a few days can give an order of magnitude of the probable very short-term outcome). Micheletb (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Reader error or not, I think the linear model may be used for a couple of days into the future, but any figure or line reaching more long-term on the x-axis would require external sources such as these predictions. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Extrapolations is WP:OR. Update the graph to remove extrapolations.Givingbacktosociety (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed revision of the Transmission section

    Although the content of the Transmission section is good, the structure is poor. Paras 1,2, and 4 deal with droplets, para 3 mentions feces and severity of symptoms.

    I propose revision as follows:

    Para 1 - Brief introduction; severity of symptoms, droplets (main), feces (possible)
    Para 2 - Airborne droplets
    Para 3 - Droplets on surfaces (fomites)

    How does that sound? Robertpedley (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    also asymptomatic needs a section. Do u know what this ample research is from prof Macintyre?—Almaty (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I support a reorganisation and also removing the technical terms respiratory droplets and airborne, whilst including de-emphasised exhalation (as part of the main method). Although you, doc james, and I know what we’re talking about, the a world sure doesn’t. 

    It is primarily spread via small droplets produced during coughing, sneezing, and talking. The virus can also be transmitted via breathing, but only during close contact, and not over large distances.

    please see this WHO tweet and also the twitter replies as to how confused the world is by our current wording. —Almaty (talk) 09:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Drbogdan your opinion will be welcome.Robertpedley (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robertpedley: yes - agree - a better wording and related may be indicated - your own suggestions above seem *entirely* ok with me at the moment - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! Drbogdan (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    OK - here's my first draft.

    Notes:

    1) I have only used existing cited sources - CDC reviewed 4 March, WHO revised 28 March, ECDC updated 31 March. Some of these are more recently updated versions than currently appear in the page. I've left the citations out of the text below.

    2) None of the sources give talkng or breathing as a source of droplets.

    3) There's currently a detailed paragraph on disinfecting surfaces - I propose to move this into the "Prevention & Control" section.

    Research is ongoing into the transmission of COVID-19. There is consensus that COVID-19 is mainly transmitted from one person to another through respiratory droplets produced by a person with symptoms, for example by coughing or sneezing. There may be a risk of transmission in this way from people who are infected but do not yet display COVID-19 symptoms. These droplets then come into contact, either directly or indirectly, with another person’s mouth, nose, or eyes.

    Respiratory droplets may remain in the air between 1 and 2 metres (3.3 to 6.6 feet) under normal circumstances and directly cause infection if they come into contact with another person. In order to avoid infection, minimum physical distancing of 1 metre is recommended by WHO and ECDC, while CDC recommends 2 metres.

    Respiratory droplets may also cause infection if they land on objects which are subsequently touched by an uninfected person, and then transferred to that person’s mouth, nose or eyes. The virus can survive in this way for hours or possibly days.

    While there are concerns it may spread by feces, this risk is believed to be low. Some medical procedures such as intubation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) may increase the likelihood of airborne spread.

    Robertpedley (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A recent research paper suggests to increase the recommended distance from 3 to 6 feet to 23 to 27 feet.

    In the latest World Health Organization recommendations for COVID-19, health care personnel and other staff are advised to maintain a 3-foot distance away from a person showing symptoms of disease, such as coughing and sneezing. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a 6-foot separation. However, these distances are based on estimates of range that have not considered the possible presence of a high-momentum cloud carrying the droplets long distances. Given the turbulent puff cloud dynamic model, recommendations for separations of 3 to 6 feet may underestimate the distance, timescale, and persistence over which the cloud and its pathogenic payload travel, thus generating an underappreciated potential exposure range for a health care worker. Peak exhalation speeds can reach up to 33 to 100 feet per second, creating a cloud that can span approximately 23 to 27 feet. [1] Givingbacktosociety (talk) 04:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Critical voices of experts

    Hardly noticed by the "official" media landscape. https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/28/10-more-experts-criticising-the-coronavirus-panic/

    Thank you very much for the link. I call to wikipedia editors to edit the article considering that important information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.208.224 (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A few divergent opinions - there will always be dissenters, sometimes they will be right, but not always. Nothing in there that warrants inclusion at the moment. Robertpedley (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dissenters such as Nobel prize in Chemistry winners... every wikipedia article has its critic section, and this article has got more than 800 references, I see no point to avoid it. 83.39.208.224 (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Close to a thousand citations in this single article???

    Please cut them down to reasonable.--TMCk (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    As I’m sure you know, it’s a hugely major subject.
    Now, we currently have a mega list in “Reference,” rather than our references in the article itself like most Wiki articles. The result is that deleting or updating a reference is a much more major project. For example, changing the date when WHO or CDC updates one of their articles is no longer easy to do on the fly. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    Yes, and some of the citations which were added a few weeks ago have been superseded by new events/research. The answer, IMHO, is to spin off content into new or subject-specific pages, and compress/summarise content so as to shorten this page. But editors who have added content don't like to see it disappear. Robertpedley (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    good luck User:Robertpedley I did summaries upon summaries a month ago, with no objections, it’s so much time and effort, but needs to be done! —Almaty (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Coronavirus outbreak redirect notice

    The topic includes the following redirect notice:

    "Coronavirus outbreak" redirects here. For other outbreaks of coronaviruses, see Coronavirus § Outbreaks.

    It seems entirely unnecessary. Is it safe to remove? - Wikmoz (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    support removal as entirely unnecessary —Almaty (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC on the lead transmission first two sentences

    is it reasonable to summarise the sources of the WHO ECDC and CDC as they stand today with the following two sentences:

    The virus is primarily spread via small droplets produced during coughing, sneezing, and talking. It can also be transmitted via breathing, but only during close contact, and not over large distances. —Almaty (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ps done, as I believe that being a major contributor to the previous rfc, this still is consensus. Also we need to avoid technical language. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to reply to this new rfc. —Almaty (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have restored the prior consensus as noted at the top of this page. The sources support primarily coughing and sneezing and less so simple talking. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    yes but we can get rid of the technical words . —Almaty (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am happy to go with "small droplets" rather than "respiratory droplets". Addressing airborne if we are talking about simple breathing was the balance we agreed to. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I bunch of people agreed on the prior consensus including you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But no numbers ? !
    We can be timid, I guess, if we want to. But this is just too important a topic to be anything other than very straightforward. We have numbers from WHO, CDC, and medical journals regarding what is “close contact,” and we should use those numbers.
    WHO says at least 3 feet social distance. U.S. CDC says at least 6 feet. Yes, this is awkward, perhaps even embarrassing. But I’ve come around to embracing it. With a new disease, it’s to be expected that authorities will have differing views. Even if views later converge, we should still probably include this as an example of the initial uncertainly surrounding COVID-19. We shouldn’t be embarrassed about it, or try to paper it over.
    And regarding coughs, we have at least two medical articles saying, quite a bit further than 6 feet. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:FriendlyRiverOtter no numbers in the lead or in the body? We could have them as a hatnote in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doc James: When I closed the last discussion, I made sure to mention that if someone wanted to discuss further changes they could start a new discussion (that one had grown very large and any hope of getting new participants to read it all was going to be small). I see nothing wrong with addressing the changing landscape our sources are providing too: I know a number of media outlets (including CNN on their front page today) has said officials are starting to think it was a mistake to advise people not to wear masks. That goes hand-in-hand with noting what the WHO has noted since our last discussion: you can spread this by simply talking. Consensus can change. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I have no problem discussing consensus changing. But do not think it is fair to everyone involved in the discussion to change everything without discussion and a new consensus.
    The recommendations around people wearing masks is somewhat separate from the discussion on how it spreads. IMO wearing a simple cloth mask should be recommended for everyone. Keeps people from beathing out / coughing and contaminating their environment. Expecially with the 72 hours on surfaces. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Locke Cole: and simply by talking . . . certainly sounds airborne to me! (over short distances and brief time periods) And yet, WHO are other public health authorities, like a band of 1st century Christians, seemed to have gone the route of dogma. The public health “establishment,” as it were, seems to be insisting that COVID-19 is not generally airborne. And this seems to turn on a purely linguistic issue that in public health circles “airborne” is taken to mean highly airborne. Wow. And that is just really confusing. I mean, it’s bad to take a common word and use it in a restrictive, technical sense. That’s a lot worse than just introducing and using a pure technical term. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The WHO has emphatically said it is NOT airborne. The part where they mention talking is that those who are contagious can inadvertently contaminate surfaces by normal talking. NOT that it lingers in the air. That's where the use of masks earlier, as in a number of Asian countries, could have helped significantly slow the spread. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Locke Cole: when WHO says it’s not airborne, they are not speaking English. When they say not airborne, they mean not highly airborne in the fashion of measles. Don’t know how they’ve made such a muddled mess of the whole thing.
    I’m going to post a link to Wired magazine which nails it. And sometimes you need someone outside a field to nail a problem or issue. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They Say Coronavirus Isn't Airborne—but It's Definitely Borne By Air, Wired, Roxanne Khamsi, 14 March 2020.
    ’ . . When health officials say the pathogen isn’t “airborne,” they’re relying on a narrow definition of the term, and one that’s been disputed by some leading scholars of viral transmission through the air. . ‘
    I believe that this "Respiratory droplets may be produced during breathing but the virus is not generally airborne." balances the fact that it can spread via simple breathing but is not technically airborne.
    Anyone object to changing respiratory droplets to "small droplets"?
    What about changing "not generally airborne" to "not generally highly airborne"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Virology - household soap kills the virus?

    Hi, just noticing that someone's seen an excellent description from NZ of how washing your hands stops the virus but they've written on the wiki that it kills the virus - I think it just breaks it down. I'm wary of editing the page directly but if someone else thinks this should be changed I will! TreeReader (talk) 09:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    we are writing for the general reader. It kills the virus ( I know it technically inactivates it) but for the general reader it kills the virus, as per the wp:medrs source —Almaty (talk)


    I would go for inactivation, but then our other article has: "An inactivated vaccine (or killed vaccine) ... The virus is killed using a method such as heat or formaldehyde..." Zezen (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    I would prefer to say "inactivate" or "destroy". I'd also prefer a source which gives a reasoned explanation - there are a number of them, reliable sources such as NYTimes, BBC Science, Guardian. BUT I don't want to change someone else's work. Robertpedley (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    We follow medrs, and we have medrs source saying killed. —Almaty (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    many of our readers are second or third language English speakers who may not understand the word inactivate or destroyed. And it’s a bonus that the medrs source says killed. —Almaty (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    furthermore I’m certain that the general reader does not care for the technical debate as to whether viruses are “alive” or not. —Almaty (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    UN Secretary-General calls pandemic greatest test since formation of UN

    UN Secretary General António Guterres today called the COVID-19 pandemic "the greatest test that we have faced together since the formation of the United Nations."

    I believe that this is a significant and historic statement which deserves to be mentioned in the opening. While he did not explicitly mention World War II, the implication is clearly that this is the greatest test for the world since WWII, as the UN was formed at its conclusion and in response to it. As such, I propose adding the following sentence to the opening section, which includes both his direct quote and also mentions the implication after the quote in a very neutral manner:

    United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has called the pandemic "the greatest test that we have faced together since the formation of the United Nations," which took place in 1945 at the conclusion of World War II.

    (I have said "at the conclusion of" WWII rather than "after" WWII as the UN Charter was signed on 26 June 1945, which was after the surrender of Germany but before the surrender of Japan, and came into force on 24 October 1945, by which time the surrender of Japan had taken place and the war was considered over. As such, the precise date of "formation" (the word used by the Secretary-General) of the UN is somewhat ambiguous, so I have used the more ambiguous phrase "at the conclusion of" WWII rather than "after" WWII.) --Z117 (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It would have been significant if he had said it a month ago. Now, even babies know it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added further quotation and changed the citation to an official UN source (https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/03/1060702). --Z117 (talk) 11:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see WP:RS, especially WP:SECONDARY and WP:PRIMARY, for how such sources should be used for Wikipedia. Additional detail, as you say, may be irrelevant to Wikipedia. Please refrain from WP:Edit warring. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2020

    Flipkart to Resume Sale of Essential Products Amid Lockdown Portgyaan (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done, it is not clear what you want done. — Yours, Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • Talk∕Contribs 18:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I was googling, looking for information on death rate calculation. Found this article. The problem I have is that I get no sense of how up-to-date any of the information in the article is. I suggest dating each "news" item if possible. If not, start the article with a statement about currency of information. Thanks, Bdbluesman (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Firstly, I don't think that article has a place in this article per WP:NOTNEWS, as well, most of the information is as up to date as it can be, the citations note when they were retrieved and some sections do divide it up by the date as the news changed. If you're looking for chronology pages, we have one for each month. QueerFilmNerdtalk 18:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As well as that, all the news citations are dated. There isn't a message (template {{current}}) at the top because of a discussion at WikiProject COVID-19. — Yours, Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • Talk∕Contribs 18:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Why was information-dissemination edited to only have a misinformation subsection?

    Open access journals, distributed computing platforms for researchers to support with CPU processing, video games for designing proteins, etc. These were potential areas where people could help (while being in the comfort of their own home), and it was related to covid-19 and actually trying to achieve some changes. Why was it taken down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:73A2:C300:9971:DAD7:EF5A:7857 (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It is a little confusing what you mean, can you provide some context? — Yours, Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • Talk∕Contribs 18:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Should there be an active infection/death/recovery chart?

    I think there should be an active chart recording all these numbers, if not by country it can be recorded by region or continent or as whole? Rahbab Chowdhury (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Above discussion by User:MRC2RULES refactored from Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk page archiving

    We're getting so many talk page messages, I think that the bot should be set to archive more frequently, perhaps to every 12 hours. I wanted to see if anyone agreed with this, because there are way to many messages on the talk right now. — Yours, Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • Talk∕Contribs 18:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    every 12 hours should be about right...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with every 12 hours. QueerFilmNerdtalk 21:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with every 12 hours, my only concern would be if new Wikipedians come to the page they may get confused. Can we add in a message about the archive in the "New to Wikipedia" template (on the right at the top of the talk page)? JenOttawa (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2020

    I recommend adding a section regarding age categories of dead patients. 14.42.205.228 (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi! This talk page is archived regularly as it is very active. On a quick check, I see a previous string on this as well. Thanks for posting here! Here is one example (from earlier in March: Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic/Archive 15) but there may be some that I missed. You can search the archive at the top of this talk page JenOttawa (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is here Coronavirus_disease_2019#Prognosis Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Epidemiology section graphic malformats text

    Example from article: Note that the text size is large but in the normal range for readability. (Laptop into TV via HDMI).
    Reposted from two days ago as post was improperly removed, and not even archived

    There is wide art (images or graphics) in the article that pinches text until the text is too narrow. Such art should be narrowed, or placed under its own section separate from article text.

    In the previous post user RealFakeKim incorrectly commented that the reason for this effect was my use of a large font size.

    -Zahadan (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You appear to be on a narrow screen. Try the mobile view. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Zahadan, try https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic , it's the mobile interface which was designed for narrow screens like yours. Yug (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But the screen I'm using isn't a mobile device, and it's not a narrow screen, it's a 32 inch 720p TV with a 16:9 aspect ratio. The problem is that the template is too wide. I suggest narrowing it like on the Covid-19portal page and allow users to scroll horizontally. (Resumed discussion from archive 26). -Zahadan (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you fill out a phabricator ticket technical folks may help. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Modify a graph

    Replace

    with

    • Graph showing the daily and cumulative count
      Graph showing the daily and cumulative count

    Reasons: Simpler graph with less and clear information.

    It is easy to modify the graph to simple one. If the consensus is for the simple one, I can modify the graph. It is quite rude to replace the long standing graph with a quite similar one without asking for modifications.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing wrong in modifying a graph to make it more clearer. Unlike text graphs cannot be directly edited so replaced it.Givingbacktosociety (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ Turbulent Gas Clouds and Respiratory Pathogen Emissions Potential Implications for Reducing Transmission of COVID-19
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic&oldid=948654784"