Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Pandemic

This has been discussed extensively prior. --Almaty (talk) 00:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

and WHO still has not classified it as such, if Im not mistaken--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

No they haven't. They have said that the risk of global spread is very high. But it hasn't become their definition of a pandemic yet, and they are hoping it may be contained. --Almaty (talk) 01:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm assuming that this is just continuing the previous archived discussion, and not being revived to bring up any important points? I will say that as much as I believe it has, by the definition the WHO gave the term 10 years ago, become a pandemic, nothing's going to change on here until they officially proclaim it as such. --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 01:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

When this does become a pandemic, will there be a name change of the wiki to '2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic'? (User:Foxterria User tal:Foxterria 1:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Foxterria strongly oppose per WP:NOTNEWS --Almaty (talk) 01:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Also we should look at precedent, it took a long time for 2009 flu pandemic to be named as such from memory --Almaty (talk) 01:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2020

Just go with me on this one. Please. It is for the greater good.

Please add the following items to the CAUSE of the outbreak:

Main transmission vectors are: - Shark fin dishes. It is well known that even cooked the shark fin has the amazing ability of containing large amounts of corona viruses. - Rhinoceros horns. An even more potent reservoir of corona viruses. - Pangolin-based dishes. The original source of the virus. Gfarca (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

None of this has been confirmed at all. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. OhKayeSierra (talk) 00:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Citation needed. --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 01:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 coronavirus outbreak by country and territory

Requesting a return of the daily global statistics, as all which seems to remain, moved to other pages, is China exclusive. Be it as it was or be it like the graph of http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:2020_coronavirus_patients_in_China.svg . Also the addition of death and recovery percentage columns, for an easier way to check how things are. And maybe a row colouration, if all confirmed cases have graduated to deaths or recoveries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.193.48.176 (talk) 01:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

An Iran section or paragraph is needed

The Iran outbreak deserves more prominence in this main article, probably even in the lead: it's second only to China. The number of positive cases is much too small for the formally declared number of deaths, suggesting that the real numbers are much bigger, and there are no sources suggesting that the epidemic there is anywhere near being under control.

See 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Iran#Estimates: Uni Toronto researchers estimate statistically, based on travel patterns and the known spread from Iran to UAE, Lebanon and Canada, that the Iranian number of SARS-CoV-2 cases must be about 18,000 - second only to China. The 95% confidence limit is 4,000 to 53,000: still much higher than Italy or South Korea.

The Iran case now is like mainland China in early February. With the big difference that the non-Hubei China daily cases peaked around 27 January or so, and the Hubei daily cases peaked around 2 Feb or so. And that happened after China had been taking drastic quarantining and other measures against the epidemic for several weeks. Ahmad Amirabadi Farahani's claim of 50 deaths for Qom alone, multiplied by a factor of a few for other cities in Iran, also corresponds roughly to 27 January or so on the China total deaths curve. The Iran cases and deaths counts are almost certainly going to overtake the China ones, once they are probably counted by the authorities.

One percent of all Iranians would be about 700,000 deaths.

Once the Fobtown/Sleath56 edit war is over (or someone WP:3RR's them), I suggest that something on this (the sourced part, not my stating-the-obvious OR part) goes back on this main article. Boud (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate the reminder, I've desisted in that regard.

Are you suggesting something like a #Domestic response in Iran section? Everything's been spun off to the 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Iran page along with other countries such that an expansion there would also need equivalent coverage for other hotspots like South Korea and Italy. While there's certainly credible speculation that Iran's numbers are not what they appear, because of the lack of information coming out, until there is definitive numbers for Iran cited by WP:MEDRS, at the moment it's enough to say with a mention that many experts in RS have objected to them on grounds of accuracy. Sleath56 (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sleath56: I'm not suggesting a '#Domestic response in Iran' section. If you look at 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Iran - lead second paragraph and Non-government estimates subsection - you'll see that there are now three independent non-Iranian-govt sources that give estimates of the order of 200 deaths and 20,000 SARS-CoV-2 cases (UToronto 18,000 cases; Amirabadi 50 deaths for Qom alone; BBC 210 deaths nationally). It seems to me that it deserves a place in the lead of the main article: this dwarfs the situations in Italy and South Korea by a factor of 10. Boud (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I've extended note e in Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data - but it still seems to me that it should also be in the prose part of the lead? Boud (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Boud:I think that's the best that can be done for now. The WHO and other WP:MEDRS are accepting Iran's numbers in their datasheets for now so that's what should be adopted. The lead seems to have been drastically trimmed per supposedly a WP:SUMMARY request, so adding anything about this there isn't really necessary. I've expanded the section in 'Iranian government' to include the numbers skepticism nonetheless. Sleath56 (talk) 01:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

"China outbreak" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect China outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 03:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2020

202.159.153.112 (talk) 06:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I have been following this page on a daily basis and am dismayed to see the the graph showing the numbers and overall daily increase rate, which was located under Epidemiology has been taken away completely.

Could you please reinstate it. It is highly valuable and informative in completing the overall picture of what is happening.

I did notice that it appeared to become somewhat unstable on the page but it was still readable.

Georgina.west@insearch.edu.au

Thanking you,

Georgina

Hi Georgina, I added it back. I'm not aware of any discussion that occurred in which consensus was reached to remove it so I'm not sure of what happened Mgasparin (talk) 09:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Fix spelling

Please harmonize/harmonise the spelling in this article. I found words like "criticizing" and "antagonizing" in some places, and "specialises" and "practising" and "colours" in others. 208.95.49.53 (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Go nuts with either, fine by me! just working in multiple spellings. Someone picked US English for this article, I don't think you'll find anyone minding if you standardis(z)e to that --Almaty (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not terribly bothered either way, but the article was begun in British English and Wikipedia policy is that we now stick to that. Bondegezou (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! --217.149.169.160 (talk) 12:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

1st confirmed case of COVID-19 in New Zealand

https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus

The first case of COVID-19 is now confirmed in New Zealand. Travelling from from tehran via bali . Arrived on the on 26th feb, person in their 60's. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12312691 (news article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.202.15 (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

thank you for link--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Significant duplication of China content

There is significant duplication of content relating to the outbreak in China. This has resulted in poorly maintained content in 2020 Hubei lockdowns and 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak in Mainland China.

Any thoughts on how to best resolve or should we just leave as is and revisit/consolidate after things settle down?

• 2020 Hubei lockdowns

• 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak in Mainland China

• 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak § Domestic responses in China

- Wikmoz (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem right now is that everything has been divided into their own individual country articles which makes navigating to follow key themes of the outbreak rather difficult, so as such, I feel the intent should be to further organise reincorporating the disparate subjects into topical articles.

The parts in "2019–20 coronavirus outbreak in Mainland China" about Wuhan and Hubei can frankly just go into "2020 Hubei lockdowns"

A large part of the section in "2019–20 coronavirus outbreak § Domestic responses in China" should be spun off to "2019–20 coronavirus outbreak in Mainland China" after that, especially since the only other expansive section 'Socio-economic impacts' has been moved now, with WP:SUMMARY style here. After that, sections here on the other hotspots like Italy, South Korea, and Iran could warrant development.

What I supported in the no consensus RM on the Hubei Lockdowns talk was to create a "Travel restrictions related to the 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak" to incorporate the haphazardly split entries in the various country pages and the cruise ship pages together. If the "2019–20 coronavirus outbreak in Mainland China" feels still too expansive after incorporating "2019–20 coronavirus outbreak § Domestic responses in China," the sections on travel restrictions quarantines could be incorporated into that further article. Sleath56 (talk) 02:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I support moving the 'Domestic response in China' content to the Mainland China article. I'm still unsure of the benefit of splitting the Hubei information into the separate Hubei lockdown topic. It's not a trivial part of the China outbreak subject. It's 90% of the topic. - Wikmoz (talk) 03:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Splitting the Hubei or whether it should be can wait until the merger discussion on the Talk there concludes. Pinging @Almaty: and @Paintspot: as previous transfer editors, though for this page, considering WP:BRD has been taken with other sections incl. the Socio-economic impacts recently, I'd say the same approach can just be followed.

For later development on this page, I'd support a "National response measures" section after so that the other hotspot countries can have reciprocal coverage here afterwards. Sleath56 (talk) 03:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Made a rather rough section by incorporating the country pages entries. They could do with more revisement after this. Sleath56 (talk) 18:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Input on the misinformation article would be helpful

Please input at Talk:Misinformation_related_to_the_2019–20_coronavirus_outbreak#Refining_what_this_article_is_about. What is this article about, what should it cover? Bondegezou (talk) 08:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding an "Ongoing Confirmed Cases" Column to the Infected Country Chart

Adding a column that has ongoing cases adds clarity to current situation. It would be deceiving if someone were to say that 80,000+ people are currently affected when the actual ongoing cases are much lower. Just a thought, but in my mind it is well needed. It will be simple since it will just be subtracting the confirmed infections from the recoveries. A con I see, however, is that the chart will constantly need to be updated for every new infection there is. StickyKeys (talk) 05:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

such a column may just add to additional confusion...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Why did we remove the daily case count table

2020 coronavirus patients in China

COVID-19 cases in Mainland China  ()
     Deaths        Recoveries        Tested        Clinically diagnosed (C.D.)        Tested or C.D.

20192019202020202021202120222022

DecDec

JanJanFebFebMarMarAprAprMayMayJunJunJulJulAugAugSepSepOctOctNovNovDecDec

JanJanFebFebMarMarAprAprMayMayJunJunJulJulAugAugSepSepOctOctNovNovDecDec

JanJan

Last 15 daysLast 15 days

Date			Number of cases (excluding C.D.)	Number of cases (including C.D.)
2019-12-31				27(n.a.)
⋮				27(=)
2020-01-03				44(+63%)
2020-01-04				44(=)
2020-01-05				59(+34%)
⋮				59(=)
2020-01-10			41(n.a.)
2020-01-11			41(=)
2020-01-12			41(=)
⋮			41(=)
2020-01-15			41(=)
2020-01-16			45(+9.8%)
2020-01-17			62(+38%)
2020-01-18			121(+95%)
2020-01-19			198(+64%)
2020-01-20			291(+47%)
2020-01-21			440(+51%)
2020-01-22			571(+30%)
2020-01-23			830(+45%)
2020-01-24			1,287(+55%)
2020-01-25			1,975(+53%)
2020-01-26			2,744(+39%)
2020-01-27			4,515(+65%)
2020-01-28			5,974(+32%)
2020-01-29			7,711(+29%)
2020-01-30			9,692(+26%)
2020-01-31			11,791(+22%)
2020-02-01			14,380(+22%)
2020-02-02			17,205(+20%)
2020-02-03			20,438(+19%)
2020-02-04			24,324(+19%)
2020-02-05			28,018(+15%)
2020-02-06			31,161(+11%)
2020-02-07			34,546(+11%)
2020-02-08			37,198(+7.7%)
2020-02-09			40,171(+8%)
2020-02-10			42,638(+6.1%)	48,315(n.a.)
2020-02-11			44,653(+4.7%)	55,220(+14%)
2020-02-12			46,472(+4.1%)	58,761(+6.4%)
2020-02-13			48,467(+4.3%)	63,851(+8.7%)
2020-02-14			49,970(+3.1%)	66,492(+4.1%)
2020-02-15			51,091(+2.2%)	68,500(+3.0%)
2020-02-16				70,548(+3.0%)
2020-02-17				72,436(+2.7%)
2020-02-18				74,185(+2.4%)
2020-02-19				75,002(+1.1%)
2020-02-20				75,891(+1.2%)
2020-02-21				76,288(+0.52%)
2020-02-22				76,936(+0.85%)
2020-02-23				77,150(+0.28%)
2020-02-24				77,658(+0.66%)
2020-02-25				78,064(+0.52%)
2020-02-26				78,497(+0.55%)
2020-02-27				78,824(+0.42%)
2020-02-28				79,251(+0.54%)
2020-02-29				79,824(+0.72%)
2020-03-01				80,026(+0.25%)
2020-03-02				80,151(+0.16%)
2020-03-03				80,270(+0.15%)
2020-03-04				80,409(+0.17%)
2020-03-05				80,552(+0.18%)
2020-03-06				80,651(+0.12%)
2020-03-07				80,695(+0.05%)
2020-03-08				80,735(+0.05%)
2020-03-09				80,754(+0.02%)
2020-03-10				80,778(+0.03%)
2020-03-11				80,793(+0.02%)
2020-03-12				80,813(+0.02%)
2020-03-13				80,824(+0.01%)
2020-03-14				80,844(+0.02%)
2020-03-15				80,860(+0.02%)
2020-03-16				80,881(+0.03%)
2020-03-17				80,894(+0.02%)
2020-03-18				80,928(+0.04%)
2020-03-19				80,967(+0.05%)
2020-03-20				81,008(+0.05%)
2020-03-21				81,054(+0.06%)
2020-03-22				81,093(+0.05%)
2020-03-23				81,171(+0.1%)
2020-03-24				81,218(+0.06%)
2020-03-25				81,285(+0.08%)
2020-03-26				81,340(+0.07%)
2020-03-27				81,394(+0.07%)
2020-03-28				81,439(+0.06%)
2020-03-29				81,470(+0.04%)
2020-03-30				81,518(+0.06%)
2020-03-31				81,554(+0.04%)
2020-04-01				81,589(+0.04%)
2020-04-02				81,620(+0.04%)
2020-04-03				81,639(+0.02%)
2020-04-04				81,669(+0.04%)
2020-04-05				81,708(+0.05%)
2020-04-06				81,740(+0.04%)
2020-04-07				81,802(+0.08%)
2020-04-08				81,865(+0.08%)
2020-04-09				81,907(+0.05%)
2020-04-10				81,953(+0.06%)
2020-04-11				82,052(+0.12%)
2020-04-12				82,160(+0.13%)
2020-04-13				82,249(+0.11%)
2020-04-14				82,295(+0.06%)
2020-04-15				82,341(+0.06%)
2020-04-16				82,692(+0.43%)
2020-04-17				82,719(+0.03%)
2020-04-18				82,735(+0.02%)
2020-04-19				82,747(+0.01%)
2020-04-20				82,758(+0.01%)
2020-04-21				82,788(+0.04%)
2020-04-22				82,798(+0.01%)
2020-04-23				82,804(+0.01%)
2020-04-24				82,816(+0.01%)
2020-04-25				82,827(+0.01%)
2020-04-26				82,830(=)
2020-04-27				82,836(+0.01%)
2020-04-28				82,858(+0.03%)
2020-04-29				82,862(=)
2020-04-30				82,874(+0.01%)
2020-05-01				82,875(=)
2020-05-02				82,877(=)
2020-05-03				82,880(=)
2020-05-04				82,881(=)
2020-05-05				82,883(=)
2020-05-06				82,885(=)
2020-05-07				82,886(=)
2020-05-08				82,887(=)
2020-05-09				82,901(+0.02%)
2020-05-10				82,918(+0.02%)
2020-05-11				82,919(=)
2020-05-12				82,926(+0.01%)
2020-05-13				82,929(=)
2020-05-14				82,933(=)
2020-05-15				82,941(+0.01%)
2020-05-16				82,947(+0.01%)
2020-05-17				82,954(+0.01%)
2020-05-18				82,960(+0.01%)
2020-05-19				82,965(+0.01%)
2020-05-20				82,967(=)
2020-05-21				82,971(=)
2020-05-22				82,971(=)
2020-05-23				82,974(=)
2020-05-24				82,985(+0.01%)
2020-05-25				82,992(+0.01%)
2020-05-26				82,993(=)
2020-05-27				82,995(=)
2020-05-28				82,995(=)
2020-05-29				82,999(=)
2020-05-30				83,001(=)
2020-05-31				83,017(+0.02%)
2020-06-01				83,022(+0.01%)
2020-06-02				83,021(=)
2020-06-03				83,022(=)
2020-06-04				83,027(+0.01%)
2020-06-05				83,030(=)
2020-06-06				83,036(+0.01%)
2020-06-07				83,040(=)
2020-06-08				83,043(=)
2020-06-09				83,046(=)
2020-06-10				83,057(+0.01%)
2020-06-11				83,064(+0.01%)
2020-06-12				83,075(+0.01%)
2020-06-13				83,132(+0.07%)
2020-06-14				83,181(+0.06%)
2020-06-15				83,221(+0.05%)
2020-06-16				83,265(+0.05%)
2020-06-17				83,293(+0.03%)
2020-06-18				83,325(+0.04%)
2020-06-19				83,352(+0.03%)
2020-06-20				83,378(+0.03%)
2020-06-21				83,396(+0.02%)
2020-06-22				83,418(+0.03%)
2020-06-23				83,430(+0.01%)
2020-06-24				83,449(+0.02%)
2020-06-25				83,462(+0.02%)
2020-06-26				83,483(+0.03%)
2020-06-27				83,500(+0.02%)
2020-06-28				83,512(+0.01%)
2020-06-29				83,531(+0.02%)
2020-06-30				83,534(=)
2020-07-01				83,537(=)
2020-07-02				83,542(+0.01%)
2020-07-03				83,545(=)
2020-07-04				83,553(+0.01%)
2020-07-05				83,557(=)
2020-07-06				83,565(+0.01%)
2020-07-07				83,572(+0.01%)
2020-07-08				83,581(+0.01%)
2020-07-09				83,585(=)
2020-07-10				83,587(=)
2020-07-11				83,594(+0.01%)
2020-07-12				83,602(+0.01%)
2020-07-13				83,605(=)
2020-07-14				83,611(+0.01%)
2020-07-15				83,612(=)
2020-07-16				83,622(+0.01%)
2020-07-17				83,644(+0.03%)
2020-07-18				83,660(+0.02%)
2020-07-19				83,682(+0.03%)
2020-07-20				83,693(+0.01%)
2020-07-21				83,707(+0.02%)
2020-07-22				83,729(+0.03%)
2020-07-23				83,750(+0.03%)
2020-07-24				83,784(+0.04%)
2020-07-25				83,830(+0.05%)
2020-07-26				83,891(+0.07%)
2020-07-27				83,959(+0.08%)
2020-07-28				84,060(+0.12%)
2020-07-29				84,165(+0.12%)
2020-07-30				84,292(+0.15%)
2020-07-31				84,337(+0.05%)
2020-08-01				84,385(+0.06%)
2020-08-02				84,428(+0.05%)
2020-08-03				84,464(+0.04%)
2020-08-04				84,491(+0.03%)
2020-08-05				84,528(+0.04%)
2020-08-06				84,565(+0.04%)
2020-08-07				84,596(+0.04%)
2020-08-08				84,619(+0.03%)
2020-08-09				84,668(+0.06%)
2020-08-10				84,712(+0.05%)
2020-08-11				84,737(+0.03%)
2020-08-12				84,756(+0.02%)
2020-08-13				84,786(+0.04%)
2020-08-14				84,808(+0.03%)
2020-08-15				84,827(+0.02%)
2020-08-16				84,849(+0.03%)
2020-08-17				84,871(+0.03%)
2020-08-18				84,888(+0.02%)
2020-08-19				84,895(+0.01%)
2020-08-20				84,917(+0.03%)
2020-08-21				84,939(+0.03%)
2020-08-22				84,951(+0.01%)
2020-08-23				84,967(+0.02%)
2020-08-24				84,981(+0.02%)
2020-08-25				84,996(+0.02%)
2020-08-26				85,004(+0.01%)
2020-08-27				85,013(+0.01%)
2020-08-28				85,022(+0.01%)
2020-08-29				85,031(+0.01%)
2020-08-30				85,048(+0.02%)
2020-08-31				85,058(+0.01%)
2020-09-01				85,066(+0.01%)
2020-09-02				85,077(+0.01%)
2020-09-03				85,102(+0.03%)
2020-09-04				85,112(+0.01%)
2020-09-05				85,122(+0.01%)
2020-09-06				85,134(+0.01%)
2020-09-07				85,144(+0.01%)
2020-09-08				85,146(=)
2020-09-09				85,153(+0.01%)
2020-09-10				85,168(+0.02%)
2020-09-11				85,174(+0.01%)
2020-09-12				85,184(+0.01%)
2020-09-13				85,194(+0.01%)
2020-09-14				85,202(+0.01%)
2020-09-15				85,214(+0.01%)
2020-09-16				85,223(+0.01%)
2020-09-17				85,255(+0.04%)
2020-09-18				85,269(+0.02%)
2020-09-19				85,279(+0.01%)
2020-09-20				85,291(+0.01%)
2020-09-21				85,297(+0.01%)
2020-09-22				85,307(+0.01%)
2020-09-23				85,314(+0.01%)
2020-09-24				85,322(+0.01%)
2020-09-25				85,337(+0.02%)
2020-09-26				85,351(+0.02%)
2020-09-27				85,372(+0.02%)
2020-09-28				85,384(+0.01%)
2020-09-29				85,403(+0.02%)
2020-09-30				85,414(+0.01%)
2020-10-01				85,424(+0.01%)
2020-10-02				85,434(+0.01%)
2020-10-03				85,450(+0.02%)
2020-10-04				85,470(+0.02%)
2020-10-05				85,482(+0.01%)
2020-10-06				85,489(+0.01%)
2020-10-07				85,500(+0.01%)
2020-10-08				85,521(+0.02%)
2020-10-09				85,536(+0.02%)
2020-10-10				85,557(+0.02%)
2020-10-11				85,578(+0.02%)
2020-10-12				85,591(+0.02%)
2020-10-13				85,611(+0.02%)
2020-10-14				85,622(+0.01%)
2020-10-15				85,646(+0.03%)
2020-10-16				85,659(+0.02%)
2020-10-17				85,672(+0.02%)
2020-10-18				85,685(+0.02%)
2020-10-19				85,704(+0.02%)
2020-10-20				85,715(+0.01%)
2020-10-21				85,729(+0.02%)
2020-10-22				85,747(+0.02%)
2020-10-23				85,775(+0.03%)
2020-10-24				85,790(+0.02%)
2020-10-25				85,810(+0.02%)
2020-10-26				85,826(+0.02%)
2020-10-27				85,868(+0.05%)
2020-10-28				85,915(+0.05%)
2020-10-29				85,940(+0.03%)
2020-10-30				85,973(+0.04%)
2020-10-31				85,997(+0.03%)
2020-11-01				86,021(+0.03%)
2020-11-02				86,070(+0.06%)
2020-11-03				86,087(+0.02%)
2020-11-04				86,115(+0.03%)
2020-11-05				86,151(+0.04%)
2020-11-06				86,184(+0.04%)
2020-11-07				86,212(+0.03%)
2020-11-08				86,245(+0.04%)
2020-11-09				86,267(+0.03%)
2020-11-10				86,284(+0.02%)
2020-11-11				86,299(+0.02%)
2020-11-12				86,307(+0.01%)
2020-11-13				86,325(+0.02%)
2020-11-14				86,338(+0.02%)
2020-11-15				86,346(+0.01%)
2020-11-16				86,361(+0.02%)
2020-11-17				86,369(+0.01%)
2020-11-18				86,381(+0.01%)
2020-11-19				86,398(+0.02%)
2020-11-20				86,414(+0.02%)
2020-11-21				86,431(+0.02%)
2020-11-22				86,442(+0.01%)
2020-11-23				86,464(+0.03%)
2020-11-24				86,469(+0.01%)
2020-11-25				86,490(+0.02%)
2020-11-26				86,495(+0.01%)
2020-11-27				86,501(+0.01%)
2020-11-28				86,512(+0.01%)
2020-11-29				86,530(+0.02%)
2020-11-30				86,542(+0.01%)
2020-12-01				86,551(+0.01%)
2020-12-02				86,567(+0.02%)
2020-12-03				86,584(+0.02%)
2020-12-04				86,601(+0.02%)
2020-12-05				86,619(+0.02%)
2020-12-06				86,634(+0.02%)
2020-12-07				86,646(+0.01%)
2020-12-08				86,661(+0.02%)
2020-12-09				86,673(+0.01%)
2020-12-10				86,688(+0.02%)
2020-12-11				86,701(+0.01%)
2020-12-12				86,725(+0.03%)
2020-12-13				86,741(+0.02%)
2020-12-14				86,758(+0.02%)
2020-12-15				86,770(+0.01%)
2020-12-16				86,777(+0.01%)
2020-12-17				86,789(+0.01%)
2020-12-18				86,806(+0.02%)
2020-12-19				86,829(+0.03%)
2020-12-20				86,852(+0.03%)
2020-12-21				86,867(+0.02%)
2020-12-22				86,882(+0.02%)
2020-12-23				86,899(+0.02%)
2020-12-24				86,913(+0.02%)
2020-12-25				86,933(+0.02%)
2020-12-26				86,955(+0.03%)
2020-12-27				86,976(+0.02%)
2020-12-28				87,003(+0.03%)
2020-12-29				87,027(+0.03%)
2020-12-30				87,052(+0.03%)
2020-12-31				87,071(+0.02%)
2021-01-01				87,093(+0.03%)
2021-01-02				87,117(+0.03%)
2021-01-03				87,150(+0.04%)
2021-01-04				87,183(+0.04%)
2021-01-05				87,215(+0.04%)
2021-01-06				87,278(+0.07%)
2021-01-07				87,331(+0.06%)
2021-01-08				87,364(+0.04%)
2021-01-09				87,433(+0.08%)
2021-01-10				87,536(+0.12%)
2021-01-11				87,591(+0.06%)
2021-01-12				87,706(+0.13%)
2021-01-13				87,844(+0.16%)
2021-01-14				87,988(+0.16%)
2021-01-15				88,118(+0.15%)
2021-01-16				88,227(+0.12%)
2021-01-17				88,336(+0.12%)
2021-01-18				88,454(+0.13%)
2021-01-19				88,557(+0.12%)
2021-01-20				88,701(+0.16%)
2021-01-21				88,804(+0.12%)
2021-01-22				88,911(+0.12%)
2021-01-23				88,991(+0.09%)
2021-01-24				89,115(+0.14%)
2021-01-25				89,197(+0.09%)
2021-01-26				89,272(+0.08%)
2021-01-27				89,326(+0.06%)
2021-01-28				89,378(+0.06%)
2021-01-29				89,430(+0.06%)
2021-01-30				89,522(+0.1%)
2021-01-31				89,564(+0.05%)
2021-02-01				89,594(+0.03%)
2021-02-02				89,619(+0.03%)
2021-02-03				89,649(+0.03%)
2021-02-04				89,669(+0.02%)
2021-02-05				89,681(+0.01%)
2021-02-06				89,692(+0.01%)
2021-02-07				89,706(+0.02%)
2021-02-08				89,720(+0.02%)
2021-02-09				89,734(+0.02%)
2021-02-10				89,736(=)
2021-02-11				89,748(+0.01%)
2021-02-12				89,756(+0.01%)
2021-02-13				89,763(+0.01%)
2021-02-14				89,772(+0.01%)
2021-02-15				89,788(+0.02%)
2021-02-16				89,795(+0.01%)
2021-02-17				89,806(+0.01%)
2021-02-18				89,816(+0.01%)
2021-02-19				89,824(+0.01%)
2021-02-20				89,831(+0.01%)
2021-02-21				89,842(+0.01%)
2021-02-22				89,852(+0.01%)
2021-02-23				89,864(+0.01%)
2021-02-24				89,871(+0.01%)
2021-02-25				89,877(+0.01%)
2021-02-26				89,887(+0.01%)
2021-02-27				89,893(+0.01%)
2021-02-28				89,912(+0.02%)
2021-03-01				89,923(+0.01%)
2021-03-02				89,933(+0.01%)
2021-03-03				89,943(+0.01%)
2021-03-04				89,952(+0.01%)
2021-03-05				89,962(+0.01%)
2021-03-06				89,975(+0.01%)
2021-03-07				89,994(+0.02%)
2021-03-08				90,002(+0.01%)
2021-03-09				90,007(+0.01%)
2021-03-10				90,018(+0.01%)
2021-03-11				90,027(+0.01%)
2021-03-12				90,034(+0.01%)
2021-03-13				90,044(+0.01%)
2021-03-14				90,049(+0.01%)
2021-03-15				90,062(+0.01%)
2021-03-16				90,066(=)
2021-03-17				90,072(+0.01%)
2021-03-18				90,083(+0.01%)
2021-03-19				90,087(=)
2021-03-20				90,099(+0.01%)
2021-03-21				90,106(+0.01%)
2021-03-22				90,115(+0.01%)
2021-03-23				90,125(+0.01%)
2021-03-24				90,136(+0.01%)
2021-03-25				90,147(+0.01%)
2021-03-26				90,159(+0.01%)
2021-03-27				90,167(+0.01%)
2021-03-28				90,182(+0.02%)
2021-03-29				90,190(+0.01%)
2021-03-30				90,201(+0.01%)
2021-03-31				90,217(+0.02%)
2021-04-01				90,226(+0.01%)
2021-04-02				90,252(+0.03%)
2021-04-03				90,273(+0.02%)
2021-04-04				90,305(+0.04%)
2021-04-05				90,329(+0.03%)
2021-04-06				90,341(+0.01%)
2021-04-07				90,365(+0.03%)
2021-04-08				90,386(+0.02%)
2021-04-09				90,400(+0.02%)
2021-04-10				90,410(+0.01%)
2021-04-11				90,426(+0.02%)
2021-04-12				90,435(+0.01%)
2021-04-13				90,447(+0.01%)
2021-04-14				90,457(+0.01%)
2021-04-15				90,468(+0.01%)
2021-04-16				90,483(+0.02%)
2021-04-17				90,499(+0.02%)
2021-04-18				90,510(+0.01%)
2021-04-19				90,520(+0.01%)
2021-04-20				90,541(+0.02%)
2021-04-21				90,547(+0.01%)
2021-04-22				90,566(+0.02%)
2021-04-23				90,575(+0.01%)
2021-04-24				90,588(+0.01%)
2021-04-25				90,599(+0.01%)
2021-04-26				90,610(+0.01%)
2021-04-27				90,622(+0.01%)
2021-04-28				90,642(+0.02%)
2021-04-29				90,655(+0.01%)
2021-04-30				90,671(+0.02%)
2021-05-01				90,686(+0.02%)
2021-05-02				90,697(+0.01%)
2021-05-03				90,714(+0.02%)
2021-05-04				90,721(+0.01%)
2021-05-05				90,726(+0.01%)
2021-05-06				90,739(+0.01%)
2021-05-07				90,746(+0.01%)
2021-05-08				90,758(+0.01%)
2021-05-09				90,769(+0.01%)
2021-05-10				90,783(+0.02%)
2021-05-11				90,799(+0.02%)
2021-05-12				90,808(+0.01%)
2021-05-13				90,815(+0.01%)
2021-05-14				90,829(+0.02%)
2021-05-15				90,847(+0.02%)
2021-05-16				90,872(+0.03%)
2021-05-17				90,894(+0.02%)
2021-05-18				90,908(+0.02%)
2021-05-19				90,920(+0.01%)
2021-05-20				90,944(+0.03%)
2021-05-21				90,954(+0.01%)
2021-05-22				90,973(+0.02%)
2021-05-23				90,991(+0.02%)
2021-05-24				91,006(+0.02%)
2021-05-25				91,019(+0.01%)
2021-05-26				91,038(+0.02%)
2021-05-27				91,045(+0.01%)
2021-05-28				91,061(+0.02%)
2021-05-29				91,072(+0.01%)
2021-05-30				91,099(+0.03%)
2021-05-31				91,122(+0.03%)
2021-06-01				91,146(+0.03%)
2021-06-02				91,170(+0.03%)
2021-06-03				91,194(+0.03%)
2021-06-04				91,218(+0.03%)
2021-06-05				91,248(+0.03%)
2021-06-06				91,267(+0.02%)
2021-06-07				91,300(+0.04%)
2021-06-08				91,316(+0.02%)
2021-06-09				91,337(+0.02%)
2021-06-10				91,359(+0.02%)
2021-06-11				91,394(+0.04%)
2021-06-12				91,428(+0.04%)
2021-06-13				91,451(+0.03%)
2021-06-14				91,471(+0.02%)
2021-06-15				91,492(+0.02%)
2021-06-16				91,511(+0.02%)
2021-06-17				91,534(+0.03%)
2021-06-18				91,564(+0.03%)
2021-06-19				91,587(+0.03%)
2021-06-20				91,604(+0.02%)
2021-06-21				91,629(+0.03%)
2021-06-22				91,653(+0.03%)
2021-06-23				91,669(+0.02%)
2021-06-24				91,693(+0.03%)
2021-06-25				91,718(+0.03%)
2021-06-26				91,732(+0.02%)
2021-06-27				91,753(+0.02%)
2021-06-28				91,771(+0.02%)
2021-06-29				91,780(+0.01%)
2021-06-30				91,792(+0.01%)
2021-07-01				91,810(+0.02%)
2021-07-02				91,833(+0.03%)
2021-07-03				91,847(+0.02%)
2021-07-04				91,869(+0.02%)
2021-07-05				91,892(+0.03%)
2021-07-06				91,949(+0.06%)
2021-07-07				91,966(+0.02%)
2021-07-08				91,989(+0.03%)
2021-07-09				92,015(+0.03%)
2021-07-10				92,039(+0.03%)
2021-07-11				92,066(+0.03%)
2021-07-12				92,095(+0.03%)
2021-07-13				92,119(+0.03%)
2021-07-14				92,147(+0.03%)
2021-07-15				92,183(+0.04%)
2021-07-16				92,213(+0.03%)
2021-07-17				92,246(+0.04%)
2021-07-18				92,277(+0.03%)
2021-07-19				92,342(+0.07%)
2021-07-20				92,364(+0.02%)
2021-07-21				92,414(+0.05%)
2021-07-22				92,462(+0.05%)
2021-07-23				92,497(+0.04%)
2021-07-24				92,529(+0.03%)
2021-07-25				92,605(+0.08%)
2021-07-26				92,676(+0.08%)
2021-07-27				92,762(+0.09%)
2021-07-28				92,811(+0.05%)
2021-07-29				92,875(+0.07%)
2021-07-30				92,930(+0.06%)
2021-07-31				93,005(+0.08%)
2021-08-01				93,103(+0.11%)
2021-08-02				93,193(+0.1%)
2021-08-03				93,289(+0.1%)
2021-08-04				93,374(+0.09%)
2021-08-05				93,498(+0.13%)
2021-08-06				93,605(+0.11%)
2021-08-07				93,701(+0.1%)
2021-08-08				93,826(+0.13%)
2021-08-09				93,969(+0.15%)
2021-08-10				94,080(+0.12%)
2021-08-11				94,161(+0.09%)
2021-08-12				94,260(+0.11%)
2021-08-13				94,326(+0.07%)
2021-08-14				94,379(+0.06%)
2021-08-15				94,430(+0.05%)
2021-08-16				94,472(+0.04%)
2021-08-17				94,500(+0.03%)
2021-08-18				94,546(+0.05%)
2021-08-19				94,579(+0.03%)
2021-08-20				94,599(+0.02%)
2021-08-21				94,631(+0.03%)
2021-08-22				94,652(+0.02%)
2021-08-23				94,687(+0.04%)
2021-08-24				94,707(+0.02%)
2021-08-25				94,733(+0.03%)
2021-08-26				94,765(+0.03%)
2021-08-27				94,786(+0.02%)
2021-08-28				94,819(+0.03%)
2021-08-29				94,842(+0.02%)
2021-08-30				94,879(+0.04%)
2021-08-31				94,898(+0.02%)
2021-09-01				94,926(+0.03%)
2021-09-02				94,954(+0.03%)
2021-09-03				94,982(+0.03%)
2021-09-04				95,010(+0.03%)
2021-09-05				95,028(+0.02%)
2021-09-06				95,064(+0.04%)
2021-09-07				95,083(+0.02%)
2021-09-08				95,111(+0.03%)
2021-09-09				95,128(+0.02%)
2021-09-10				95,153(+0.03%)
2021-09-11				95,199(+0.05%)
2021-09-12				95,248(+0.05%)
2021-09-13				95,340(+0.1%)
2021-09-14				95,413(+0.08%)
2021-09-15				95,493(+0.08%)
2021-09-16				95,577(+0.09%)
2021-09-17				95,623(+0.05%)
2021-09-18				95,689(+0.07%)
2021-09-19				95,738(+0.05%)
2021-09-20				95,810(+0.08%)
2021-09-21				95,851(+0.04%)
2021-09-22				95,894(+0.04%)
2021-09-23				95,948(+0.06%)
2021-09-24				95,986(+0.04%)
2021-09-25				96,015(+0.03%)
2021-09-26				96,050(+0.04%)
2021-09-27				96,081(+0.03%)
2021-09-28				96,106(+0.03%)
2021-09-29				96,128(+0.02%)
2021-09-30				96,162(+0.04%)
2021-10-01				96,203(+0.04%)
2021-10-02				96,231(+0.03%)
2021-10-03				96,258(+0.03%)
2021-10-04				96,284(+0.03%)
2021-10-05				96,310(+0.03%)
2021-10-06				96,335(+0.03%)
2021-10-07				96,357(+0.02%)
2021-10-08				96,374(+0.02%)
2021-10-09				96,398(+0.02%)
2021-10-10				96,423(+0.03%)
2021-10-11				96,435(+0.01%)
2021-10-12				96,457(+0.02%)
2021-10-13				96,478(+0.02%)
2021-10-14				96,488(+0.01%)
2021-10-15				96,502(+0.01%)
2021-10-16				96,522(+0.02%)
2021-10-17				96,546(+0.02%)
2021-10-18				96,571(+0.03%)
2021-10-19				96,601(+0.03%)
2021-10-20				96,622(+0.02%)
2021-10-21				96,665(+0.04%)
2021-10-22				96,715(+0.05%)
2021-10-23				96,758(+0.04%)
2021-10-24				96,797(+0.04%)
2021-10-25				96,840(+0.04%)
2021-10-26				96,899(+0.06%)
2021-10-27				96,938(+0.04%)
2021-10-28				97,002(+0.07%)
2021-10-29				97,080(+0.08%)
2021-10-30				97,151(+0.07%)
2021-10-31				97,243(+0.09%)
2021-11-01				97,314(+0.07%)
2021-11-02				97,423(+0.11%)
2021-11-03				97,527(+0.11%)
2021-11-04				97,605(+0.08%)
2021-11-05				97,660(+0.06%)
2021-11-06				97,734(+0.08%)
2021-11-07				97,823(+0.09%)
2021-11-08				97,885(+0.06%)
2021-11-09				97,939(+0.06%)
2021-11-10				98,001(+0.06%)
2021-11-11				98,099(+0.1%)
2021-11-12				98,174(+0.08%)
2021-11-13				98,263(+0.09%)
2021-11-14				98,315(+0.05%)
2021-11-15				98,337(+0.02%)
2021-11-16				98,368(+0.03%)
2021-11-17				98,403(+0.04%)
2021-11-18				98,427(+0.02%)
2021-11-19				98,450(+0.02%)
2021-11-20				98,467(+0.02%)
2021-11-21				98,505(+0.04%)
2021-11-22				98,524(+0.02%)
2021-11-23				98,546(+0.02%)
2021-11-24				98,570(+0.02%)
2021-11-25				98,583(+0.01%)
2021-11-26				98,608(+0.03%)
2021-11-27				98,631(+0.02%)
2021-11-28				98,672(+0.04%)
2021-11-29				98,711(+0.04%)
2021-11-30				98,824(+0.11%)
2021-12-01				98,897(+0.07%)
2021-12-02				98,993(+0.1%)
2021-12-03				99,083(+0.09%)
2021-12-04				99,142(+0.06%)
2021-12-05				99,203(+0.06%)
2021-12-06				99,297(+0.09%)
2021-12-07				99,371(+0.07%)
2021-12-08				99,454(+0.08%)
2021-12-09				99,517(+0.06%)
2021-12-10				99,604(+0.09%)
2021-12-11				99,679(+0.08%)
2021-12-12				99,780(+0.1%)
2021-12-13				99,856(+0.08%)
2021-12-14				99,923(+0.07%)
2021-12-15				100,000(+0.08%)
2021-12-16				100,076(+0.08%)
2021-12-17				100,201(+0.12%)
2021-12-18				100,284(+0.08%)
2021-12-19				100,386(+0.1%)
2021-12-20				100,467(+0.08%)
2021-12-21				100,544(+0.08%)
2021-12-22				100,644(+0.1%)
2021-12-23				100,731(+0.09%)
2021-12-24				100,871(+0.14%)
2021-12-25				101,077(+0.2%)
2021-12-26				101,277(+0.2%)
2021-12-27				101,486(+0.21%)
2021-12-28				101,683(+0.19%)
2021-12-29				101,890(+0.2%)
2021-12-30				102,083(+0.19%)
2021-12-31				102,314(+0.23%)
2022-01-01				102,505(+0.19%)
2022-01-02				102,666(+0.16%)
2022-01-03				102,841(+0.17%)
2022-01-04				102,932(+0.09%)
2022-01-05				103,121(+0.18%)
2022-01-06				103,295(+0.17%)
2022-01-07				103,454(+0.15%)
2022-01-08				103,619(+0.16%)
2022-01-09				103,776(+0.15%)
2022-01-10				103,968(+0.19%)
2022-01-11				104,189(+0.21%)
2022-01-12				104,379(+0.18%)
2022-01-13				104,580(+0.19%)
2022-01-14				104,745(+0.16%)
2022-01-15				104,864(+0.11%)
2022-01-16				105,087(+0.21%)
2022-01-17				105,258(+0.16%)
2022-01-18				105,345(+0.08%)
2022-01-19				105,411(+0.06%)
2022-01-20				105,484(+0.07%)
2022-01-21				105,547(+0.06%)
2022-01-22				105,603(+0.05%)
2022-01-23				105,660(+0.05%)
2022-01-24				105,705(+0.04%)
2022-01-25				105,749(+0.04%)
2022-01-26				105,811(+0.06%)
2022-01-27				105,875(+0.06%)
2022-01-28				105,934(+0.06%)
2022-01-29				106,015(+0.08%)
2022-01-30				106,073(+0.05%)
2022-01-31				106,139(+0.06%)
From 10 February 2020 onwards, the data includes the cases in Hubei that were not tested for the virus but clinically diagnosed based on medical imaging showing signs of pneumonia. The lab-tested data was also separately available for 10–15 February 2020. Data from 16 February 2020 onwards did not include a separate number of lab-tested cases. From 19 February 2020 onwards, only new lab-tested cases were counted towards the total (but clinically diagnosed cases counted earlier were not discarded). On 17 April 2020, following the Wuhan government's issuance of a report on accounting for COVID-19 deaths that occurred at home that went previously unreported, as well as the subtraction of deaths that were previously double-counted by different hospitals, the NHC revised their cumulative totals dating to 16 April, adding 325 cumulative cases and 1,290 deaths. Data sourced from NHC daily reports. (In another link before January 25, on Wuhan MHC website before January 10)

I thought that table was a good summary. Why did we remove it?John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't remove it but I think it was because Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/China medical cases chart is for Chinese cases only, and it could be seen as Wikipedia:UNDUE as the outbreak spreads globally. Mkwia (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I had assumed it was a global table. I guess I should look more closely.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Johnpacklambert We have a graph here [1] Which shows the same thing but takes up less space. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I think replacing with a global chart with the ability to overlay country subset data could be helpful. 17:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Yah if someone wants to make a chart like this but for global numbers would support replacing it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Have removed the second one. We really do not need both. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Could we return the daily new confirmed cases comparing China and ROW (Rest Of World) on a semi-log graph? It needs to be on a semi-log graph to see if the trend stays exponential or not. Also, there needs to be a separation between China and ROW, because the trend is going sharply down in China, while it is increasing sharply in ROW, so if they are combined the underlying trends severely obscure each other.

References

Pageviews

• User:Pietadè: You may also find interesting the views stats including redirects, which I believe are even higher. See here: Redirect Views (click both list and chart versions). History DMZ (talk) 18:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

cool StickyKeys (talk) 18:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

MANkind is a kind of interesting “kinds”, species, being (involuntarily) a member of this ~8 billion "community", what should I add, except for: glad to be A human, 50000000 billion years from “neighbouring” species of our kind, let's go there; and, say: We lv U, with some 8000× Hiroshima-like handshakes...—Pietadè (talk) 19:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Global outlook required

For numerous reasons including wiki policies, I must reiterate the need for summarisation and a global outlook for the page. As I just attempted to do for the WP:LEAD. Many English speakers from many countries (for instance Nigeria as already proven with spread) many sub-Saharan countries may be relying on this as a very important resource. --Almaty (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Almaty not sure what you are proposing here? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

1. Avoiding the use of jargon where possible for clarity, as we have mostly done. Some things we can work on.

2. Further discussion around the use of the WHO and national health authorities.

3. Summarizations to continue, not all need consensus in advance, can follow WP:BRD. --Almaty (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with User:Almaty. All country-specific sections should be moved to the respective page, leaving this page to provide a top down view.
  • the trajectory of the outbreak
  • summary of virology and epidemiology
  • global responses and impacts Robertpedley (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

North Korea?...

I know that they closed their borders in January and that the country is famously xenophobic and insular even in the best of times but it just doesn't seem possible that all the countries surrounding North Korea have cases of COVID-19: China's the epicenter of this health crisis, South Korea has more new cases than China, Russia has even reported a few, the Southeast Asian region has so many...but North Korea has somehow escaped? Here are some recent articles: BBC, CNN. Forbes. The BBC article especially speaks to the improbability that there are no infections/cases in North Korea. Shearonink (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I've had the same thought, but it's speculation at this point. They don't really have much international travel, and they were one of the first countries to close their borders. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Though, you have to admit. Would glorious leader, Big Kim, actually say that is country is being ravaged by the virus? I don't think so. . . StickyKeys (talk) 18:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

That NK has been infected is a 100% certainty. Getting any confirmation in the news ... that will no doubt be problematic, if/until they "request" help or contact their Chinese allies. China and NK have a long border that is constantly having unauthorized foot-traffic to and fro. 50.111.9.62 (talk) 21:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

WHO

@FobTown: Can you stop breaking the section? I'm not sure what you're doing. The "allegations of cover-up" and the "delayed reporting" you keep inserting and burying the original paragraph opener down in preference for in the National Post article is about the Chinese government, not the WHO. Your edits have also displaced the refs for the sentences you've been randomly moving around. Sleath56 (talk) 05:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sleath56: You might want to use {{URL to diff}} if you want third parties to form independent opinions on edit conflicts like this. This is a heavily and rapidly edited article, so searching for who did what and when is heavy work without that. Boud (talk) 08:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Boud: It seems like they've desisted for now so furthering the drama seems unnecessary.

Nonetheless for reference, cutting out accredited critics like WHO and CDC officials for an anonymous UN diplomat (not even WHO):1.

Displacing refs and bumping their inserted entries in front of the first paragraph after revising by other editors:2

Large cleanup by other editors after their edits: 3 Sleath56 (talk) 17:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@FobTown: Again, stop. 4

You reverted my edit 5, so you must have read the summary which said: "This section is about the WHO. The charges of delayed reporting are about the Ebola outbreak as @Akira CA: says, and the cover up is about the Chinese government. Removed the NYT link for Taiwan which is a dead link." Sleath56 (talk) 23:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 29 February 2020

The mass graves claim in the third paragraph of the article, that "There are many outstanding allegations that the country's government is covering up mass graves and continues to deny the spread of the disease," is unsupported by either of the cited sources, which I've linked to here (and which currently appear as #24 and #25).

Additionally, National Review Online isn't exactly known for its NPOV, and it would be better to find some other source whenever possible.

Yah trimmed some of it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Canadian Cases

There are now 20 confirmed cases in Canada, up from 16.

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection.html

This page is updated frequently by the Canadian government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BluePurr (talk • contribs) 23:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Updated Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2020

Please remove the misinformation in the current article "management" section that favipravir was approved for therapy of COVID-19, and remove accompanying reference 124 "China approves first anti-viral drug against coronavirus Covid-19". The referenced article is itself incorrect and appears to be due to a translation error. Favipravir was approved to start clinical trials, not approved as therapy. This is explained here: http://www.koreabiomed.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=7488

Also, I suggest that in the same "management" section, the following is added: "Chloroquine was reported to have shown evidence of efficacy against COVID-19 in 10 clinical trials in China" with the following references:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32074550 http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-02/17/c_138792545.htm

I also suggest that the sentence "There is currently no vaccine or specific antiviral treatment" in the first paragraph be changed to "while there is currently no vaccine, and clinical trials of antiviral treatments are ongoing with preliminary evidence of efficacy", again with references:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32074550 http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-02/17/c_138792545.htm 2605:A601:153:C900:257A:4127:87E8:94E0 (talk) 20:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Have trimmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, some of them have been approved, but for treatment of other diseases. Fixed, with a much better ref. My very best wishes (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

National responses section

Since the Socio-economic impact section has been spun off along with the sub-sections on individual countries that had, I've developed a new 'National responses' section for the other major hotspot countries. It seems like the flow for this article is trending towards spinning off sections with summary left here to their own articles, so as such I've merged some information from the country pages as a starting point, but the intent as I've developed it would be to later provide a summary here of response measures here with greater focus best appropriate in the main country articles. Sleath56 (talk) 19:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

'National responses' section seems like a good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2020

Please change the numbers of confirmed cases in Sweden from 12 to 13, since a new case has been validated in Stockholm by the Swedish public health agency (Folkhälsomyndigheten). Source: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/utrikes/senaste-nytt-om-coronaviruset SVT (Swedish national public television broadcaster). Sincerely, NoahSWE. NoahSWE (talk) 20:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

This has already been done. 39cookies (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Mass deletion of low-quality maps

I invite everyone (especially infographic editors and map-makers) to participate in this discussion on Wikimedia Commons. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

For the commons, if a picture is in use, it is in scope. So in order to delete images, you have to achieve consensus that they should not be used in every page it is used. Big job, for later. --Almaty (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Masks

"The use of masks by healthy members of the public is not recommended outside China. [...] By limiting the volume and travel distance of expiratory droplets dispersed when talking, sneezing, and coughing, masks can serve a public health benefit in reducing transmission by those unknowingly infected."

Great recommendation. How do I know if I am healthy or "unknowingly infected"? --87.150.0.161 (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

if you create an editor account you can then edit any text you feel is questionable--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The statements are not contradictory but it's a little confusing as that sentence has been shuffled around. The sentence previously followed the statement that healthy individuals in some Asian countries wore masks in public. The sentence explained one benefit of healthy people wearing masks. - Wikmoz (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Virus passes how?

We stated in the lead that the virus primarily passes by droplets (sneeze, cough), but there's now evidence of passage by contact, oral-fecal, urine and aerosols, i.e. substantially more virulent than initially supposed. Studies are running behind, but anecdotal evidence is piling up. Time to add this content? Sbalfour (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Sbalfour which source are you thinking? IMO we should list the primary method of transmission in the lead with other methods in the body. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

--Ok. Here's the one for aerosols (Xinhua):[2]. Sbalfour (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The CDC says "Between people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet)"[3]

User:Sbalfour is that what you want to get across? What wording do you propose? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think you're referring to droplets, i.e. because a sneeze disperses droplets up to 2m. I'm thinking more like the Amoy Gardens SARS outbreak, in which vented sewer gases spread virus-laden aerosols up to 300m and infected downwind complexes. ...the SARS virus in this case was spread primarily through the air. from [4].Sbalfour (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I think we should stick with major health organizations rather than popular press for this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

--Here's the one for fecal-oral: [5].

References used in that part of the lead (CDC and WHO) still say "risk of catching COVID-19 from the feces of an infected person appears to be low". We should wait until this position is reassessed per WP:V. Mkwia (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the risk appears low from feces should go in the body of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

WHO says "The main way the disease spreads is through respiratory droplets expelled by someone who is coughing." So even mentioning breathing as a big risk is likely not appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I just read the citation and it says: The disease can spread from person to person through small droplets from the nose or mouth which are spread when a person with COVID-19 coughs or exhales. It says that essentially twice, again in 5he next paragraph. Has the source been updated? Sbalfour (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

So the disease can spread by a number of methods. The primary one is "respiratory droplets expelled by someone who is coughing"

That is two sections lower User:Sbalfour Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes strongly support removing "exhale" or "breathe" from the lead for reasons noted. Can have qualifiers and also can have further detailed rapidly updated information in the body per WP:MEDRS User:Sbalfour User: Doc James --Almaty (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Almaty you want to make the edit? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I would like someone to explicitly agree with me first. Another option is "The virus primarily passes from one person to others via respiratory droplets produced from the airways, usually during coughing and sneezing" --Almaty (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, the current wording I am currently "happy" with (lol happy is not the adjective) is The virus primarily passes from one person to others via respiratory droplets produced from the airways, often during coughing or sneezing. I recognise all points of view. --Almaty (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Almaty I think we can shorten to "The virus primarily passes from one person to others via respiratory droplets produced during coughing and sneezing"

But happy with "The virus primarily passes from one person to others via respiratory droplets produced from the airways, often during coughing or sneezing" aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

agree w/ Doc James wording above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Added (similar to influenza) cos found it by the WHO without WP:SYNTH. I primarily use this ref only at present for the lead because it is the least technical to the general reader. It also allowed for a lot of expansion of the transmission section without WP:SYNTH --Almaty (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Also to clarify when I added produced from the airways that was so that it includes the word "exhale" which is primarily a WHO and ECDC word, not yet used by the CDC. So it covers all bases. --Almaty (talk) 06:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia Case Numbers

Just saw someone updated the case numbers to 50-someting infected and 40 dead, is there anything underground occuring in Saudi Arabia that's surfacing or was that a rogue estimate? - Foxterria (talk) 06:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Not in source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.209.244 (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Multiple zoonotic events??

The text says: Epidemiological analysis of the outbreak has shown a probable pattern of a "mixed outbreak" – there was likely a continuous common source outbreak at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in December 2019, potentially from several zoonotic events.[7][8][36]. None of the three papers cited directly supports the point. Phylogenetic analysis is pretty conclusive that there was a single zoonotic event on or before Dec. 1, 2019, followed by continuous human-human transmission.[6][7]. The statement is confounding at best; there's no evidence of such mixed outbreak, as originally proposed by China to support the multiplicity of cases, in conjunction with their suppression of knowledge of ongoing human-human transmission. If there's concurrence, I'm going to redraft that paragraph and possibly the following one. Sbalfour (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou for picking this up User:Sbalfour. This is a perfect example of how no editors edits should be considered up to date or indeed a reliable summarisation of the sources quoted. I admit WP:SYNTH and/or not following WP:MEDRS here by using the unpublished document. Please as always, all editors, if you see something needs correcting, WP:JUSTDOIT. --Almaty (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take care of it. I'm not a doctor, and I want to be extremely careful in this volatile article. Sbalfour (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Sbalfour The problem with this is that it is under the section titled "epidemiology". and the studies you've cited are earlier with less cases. We have to follow WP:MEDRS here, namely we have to use review articles where available. There are some now so I'll redraft again --Almaty (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem here is that review articles are not available. Leaving a reference to a Chinese bioresearch lab as the only possible source is rumor-mongering. It didn't come from nowhere, and there appears to be general consensus in China and elsewhere that it's a mammalian virus. That was the whole purpose of shutting down the wet markets and banning live animal trade throughout China.Sbalfour (talk) 21:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The Science source says: "The scenario of somebody being infected [by an animal] outside the market and then later bringing it to the market [or] that the origin was a group of infected animals or a single animal that came into that marketplace." The Lancet paper says merely that "the source needs further study", but the refs supporting that statement are studies on animals, specifically bats. Via those, The Lancet is indirectly affirming that it's an animal source. Sbalfour (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:refactor-ed-comment - I found a good review that states what we were both saying, simpler and follows WP:MEDRS. Much can be expanded from this review if it hasn't already --Almaty (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Review article

Much can be updated based on this review article per WP:MEDRS. Have started on epi. Similar with COVID-19 page. --Almaty (talk) 08:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Rothan, Hussin A.; Byrareddy, Siddappa N. (February 2020). "The epidemiology and pathogenesis of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak". Journal of Autoimmunity: 102433. doi:10.1016/j.jaut.2020.102433. ISSN 0896-8411.

Incorrect information?

There was another column started in the table fire Ireland. However, would this not be included under United Kingdom?

There have been confirmed cases in wales and etc and I’m pretty sure they all fall within the 23 in Uk XmeggiewX (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Ireland is an independent country. doktorb _words^deeds 09:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Remove section "Xenophobia and racism"

There is very little value in it and I think we shouldn't give room to the ideological agenda which is trying to make a race war out of everything. Rhodo07 (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Where I live, possibly the biggest effect so far of the the virus has been the xenophobia and racism, with examples such as people refusing to let their children be treated by doctors of Chinese appearance (among many other incidents). The section should stay. HiLo48 (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of RS, including WHO, that say that this is a notable sociological aspect of this event. Boud (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• How so? This is a real and extremely serious consequence of the outbreak on the ground, as the percieved threat to personal safety brings out the worst of people across the world – racism, xenophobia. It affects not only China vs The West, Asian diaspora in western countries, within Asian communities in the orient, but also used as political arguments by the "extreme right" parties in Europe. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 21:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

 Disagree. Disease outbreaks of this scale usually affect attitudes to certain culture and or races, particularly to the culture/race of origin. Nations like Italy, Japan, and China are suffering economical losses (current or projected) such that there is an article (Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak) already created for it. --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 01:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think it should stay as it is, but does not require an expansion because we have a separate page about it. Hence I reverted this edit [8]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

If possible, we expand the section into sub-sections differentiating the Chinese cases, Italian (or European with France and Germany included), Iranian, West coast states of the US, Koreans, etc. As you can read here and here, Italians are now being shunned by the rest of the world. Pretty much the same as the Chinese case.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 10:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Confirmation rate

Confirmation rate information should be added to this article.--김지성1 (talk) 03:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

thank you for suggestion--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Sneezing, runny nose?

The graphic showing Covid-19 symptoms lists sneezing and a runny nose, and quite a few news media articles mention those symptoms, but a runny nose doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in the text, and I've seen sources explicitly stating that unlike the common cold, this coronavirus strain does not (usually?) trigger those two symptoms. Prevalence 14:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The coronavirus primarily affects the lower respiratory tract but a runny nose can happen though are less common (i.e. less than fifty percent of the cases present with it and I believe it's less than 10%). It is not mentioned whether those symptoms are causes by SARS-CoV-2 or a secondary cause. Sneezing can spread the virus. Tsukide (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

(nuked, came through eventually, see below)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2020

I don't know wether or not the map for this article is updated by a wikipedia editor, but if so, I have the following suggestion: Add another color for the countries with no more confirmed cases (which means all confirmed cases recovered or died). The current map can be misguiding about the threat posed by this disease, at first glance you may think India is in the same situation as Iran or Italy. Temudhun Khan (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: It takes 14 days at most for symptoms to arise, therefore that could not be done reliably. JAZHAZHANDZWIKI (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Political map in International responses section is wrong

Please use a map, which does not support illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia. It is not recognised by civilised world and Wiki should not support it either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuantumPotatoDynamics (talk • contribs) 22:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not illegal from the Russian point of view. What's good for the goose, isn't necessarily good for the gander.;) —SquidHomme ^(talk) 00:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It’s a map about travel bans. Chinese are restricted from entering Crimea because there are Russian border guards there, not Ukrainian. Therefore, this map is as accurate as possible for its purpose. Benica11 (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Avoiding touching the eyes nose and mouth with unwashed hands =

This is a pretty universal recommendation that I think deserves prominence in the lead. It was summarised by the writer as "avoid touching ones face is recommended to prevent the disease", which is still in COVID-19. Thoughts? --Almaty (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

No, this is too much of "how to" for the lead. That aside, why did you reinsert this ref as a proof of racism? Why do you think this is racism, rather than merely a precaution to prevent the transmission of the disease? My very best wishes (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

OK. User:My very best wishes if that was me reinserting the reference pertaining to racism, it was an accident. I will generally not touch these super controverisal parts of the article. --Almaty (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The amount of how-to in the article is what I had addressed earlier, but I've noticed that almost all of the copyedits I made yesterday to rewrite them as Passive voice statements attributed to health bodies have been stealthily removed and replaced with reprints of "official" statements written as instruction. Wikipedia does not give health advice, and I feel that use of such verbatim wording violates the spirit of the general disclaimer. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Change sources

We should change sources to WHO/Local Health Agencies as possible. JAZHAZHANDZWIKI (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Change them from what? --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 18:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2020

Hello. I have been reading the article carefully and have found a few errors. I have several suggested changes. Please:

• change "has" to "have": "though the animal involved and the mode of transmission has not been identified"
• delete duplicate period: "that single-use masks be disposed immediately after they are removed, and not reused.."
• delete first "and": "face masks have been widely used by healthy people in Hong Kong, Japan, and Malaysia, and Singapore."
• change "an" to "a": "The Cyberspace Administration (CAC) declared its intent to foster an "good online atmosphere,"".

Thanks. Zana Kebab (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing these out Mkwia (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Medical advice in lead.

Our content and medical disclaimers firmly state that Wikipedia does not provide medical advice. However, there are statements in the lead that implicate medical advice and preventative measures. I think they should be reworded as to attribute the source of the statements and not present them as a call to action. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I think this is fine. We only summarize what the majority of the sources say about the preventative measures. Should a summary of such measures be included to the lead? Yes, because that is what many readers are looking for and because this is proper summary. No need in explicit attribution because that is what almost all sources say. My very best wishes (talk) 16:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Lead says to not "address" the reader. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

User:ViperSnake151 I think these are always carefully worded not to address the reader and not provide medical advice, each of them has been discussed on many occasions - particularly the transmission mode and achieved consensus. Basically, until there is a reliable treatment, prevention is key for the lead. --Almaty (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2020

Please alter the numbers of confirmed cases of coronavirus in Norway from 15 to 17, due to two new cases has been uncovered in the University hospital of Oslo. Source: https://www.nrk.no/norge/to-nye-tilfeller-av-koronasmitte-pa-ulleval-1.14924230 Sincerely, NoahSWE. NoahSWE (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Number has been increased by someone to 19 per BNO. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2020

The number of cases for India has changed in the table by mistake I believe from 3 to 100 and death from 0 to 32. Please check and edit accordingly. Thanks. 2A02:908:170:66A0:F477:31C0:2182:2025 (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Currently it says 3 and 0, so that matches your request. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• 2020-01-31 Warning outside medical centre in Sydney due to outbreak of coronavirus.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

WHO guidelines for Frontline healthcare and govts ?

We have included WHO stated guidance for individuals , but in the responses their is no specific WHO guidance mentioned for health ministries or health facilities with regards to preparations . Does anyone know if the WHO has given specific written guidelines on pandemic preparation for facilities and govts ? If so , we should mention here . I looked and found a few high level questions for health ministers and a tabletop thought exercise for healthcare but nothing detailed, actionable or prescriptive. Personally relevant to me to as I am slated to meet the Indian healthcare ministry this week regarding preparedness. Gegu0284 (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

"Healthcare Professional Preparedness Checklist For Transport and Arrival of Patients With Confirmed or Possible COVID-19". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 11 February 2020. Retrieved 1 March 2020.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

MAP

Personally I prefer this Map with some corrections. Because all red seems a red alert all world which is not yet so dramatic like Walking Dead Series.. some Regions in Blue with the red contrast seemed more realistic. Though the Blue areas are not that much. Alaska had no cases or none informed until now. Then it is not in whole USA. It is not also in whole Brasil, but just in S. Paulo region the most cases. Even to Australia, not in all country. So it must imo be painted the areas of the countries to be more precise. It is how I see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiChata (talk • contribs) 22:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC) : I in particular loved this table, already removed, with a compare about the Sars in 2003 and some four more. However seemed removed. Up to you guys, great job. :)

What new country was infected?

I remember it being 67 countries earlier and now it is 68. I am keeping the dates on when each country was infected and it doesn't look like any more countries were added. What was the additional country? StickyKeys (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Luxembourg? Ireland? 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Europe. Boud (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

It was changed back. Good. StickyKeys (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2020

195.244.186.67 (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

In belguim there weer 3 people infected 1 of wich is recoverd

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. OhKayeSierra (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Cases in French outer territories in Caribbean

Actually, three of the 130 cases registered in France are located in fact in the French outer territories in the Caribbean : 2x in Saint Martin (French side of the island) and 1x in Saint Barthélemy, see here (in French) >  : do you think we must distinguish them ? For me, yes. ManuelParis (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected revert vandalism request on 2 March 2020

Revert vandalism/censorship after ID 943460438 to 00:41, 2 March 2020 version. The follwing changes are considered vandalism/censorship:

01:01, 2 March 2020‎ My very best wishes 377,943 bytes -1,596‎ →‎Misinformation: we need only short summary here since there is a separate page about it thank

00:59, 2 March 2020‎ My very best wishes 379,539 bytes -1‎ →‎WHO thank

00:53, 2 March 2020‎ My very best wishes 379,540 bytes -71‎ →‎Deaths: including chart per consensus on talk; removed two other charts because they add very little to 2nd chart currently on the page thank Vitdom (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Vitdom: I' m totally ok with the fact that the case fatality graph was removed. But I just don't understand why? The source data is the China CDC, which is used elsewhere as a source. The CFR by age is valuable info, which is not stated in the article (except for at a very aggregate level). And understanding the low mortality for people under 40 will help people understand the disease better and possibly allay panic. ---- Gegu0284 (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

My view is data on case fatality rates are estimates that will be updated as more research comes to hand. So CFR and a discussion of uncertainty and implications belong in a Prognosis Section. Galerita (talk)

Chinese data needs to be interpreted differently than worldwide data

Not to lecture, but the basic reproduction number is modified by the control measures in any outbreak. So considering the Chinese had/have such a different approach to control, their R0 is likely lower.
this is a particular reason why all non WP:MEDRS compliant graphs need to be removed ASAP. --Almaty (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2020

Hi there, I have been following this page since the outbreak.

Judging on the current situation, I think to be fair and reduce public panic as most public aren't scientists or mathematicians, I would like to suggest the following changes to "2019–20 coronavirus outbreak by country and territory[32] Table"

1) Add a new column called "Hospitalized" or "Under treatment". This is an important column at this moment of time. Just use the Recoveries minus Confirmed cases. It will help ordinary Public to understand the situation better and not be frighten by the raising numbers. This is also to be fair to the territories that succeed in reducing the number of confirmed cases.

2) Column Title: Confirmed change to Accumulated Confirmed.

3) If possible, add an asterisk (*) on new territories over the last 24 hours. This will help readers easier to track.

Thank you very much

I really appreciate your hard work of keeping us update. 2401:7400:6004:6D8C:29A1:A3F8:B624:706 (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

People who have not recovered are not necessarily hospitalised or under treatment. Many will be self-isolating at home with mild illnesses without any specific treatments. Bondegezou (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Did Trump really cut CDC?

The article currently states "The Trump administration has come under criticism for its cuts of $15 billion in overall health funding in 2018, including those for an Obama-era global health security task force that would have been focused on pandemic response. In 2018, the Centers for Disease Control was forced to slash 80% of its global disease outbreak program as CDC funding was cut." But I have been reading in some pretty reliable sources (like Associated Press and ABC News and Politifact-dot-com) that Trump only TRIED to impose these cuts but the Congress blew him off. I know for certain that something similar happened in his very first budget proposal as President: he proposed a 19% cut to NIH but Congress ignored him and increased funding for NIH. (This was particularly remarkable because it was before the 2018 election and Republicans still had the majority in both houses of Congress at the time.)

Can anyone who really knows the facts on this-- whether Trump really did cut CDC or whether he only tried to cut it-- please weigh in? I'd do the research myself but it is bedtime now.

Thank you, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Snopes summarises the situation. Trump proposed cuts. Congress pushed back. 2021 funding hasn't been resolved yet. Bondegezou (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

This "fact" is spreading like wildfire, so maybe this should be added to some misinformation section unless it already is.StickyKeys (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems like the overall funding cuts to the CDC and the NIH were indeed proposed but stopped by Congress, but the CDC axing "80% of its efforts combating disease outbreaks overseas" because of depleted funds is correct. Cuts did seemingly occur, apparently with Trump's admittance: "The president said some of the experts targeted by the cuts "hadn't been used for many years" and that additional federal money and new medical staffers could be obtained swiftly since "we know all the good people.""1 Sleath56 (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• In brief, yes, he did. As Snopes (link above) writes, "It is also true that in 2018 the Trump administration fired key officials connected to the U.S. pandemic response, and they were not replaced. Also in 2018, news reports circulated about an 80% reduction in the CDC’s program that worked in various countries to fight epidemics. That was the result of the anticipated depletion of previously allotted funding. “Countries where the CDC is planning to scale back include some of the world’s hot spots for emerging infectious disease, such as China, Pakistan, Haiti, Rwanda and Congo,” the Washington Post reported in 2018."

So, Here is this Washington Post report from 2018, entitled "CDC to cut by 80 percent efforts to prevent global disease outbreak". My understanding, that yes, it had happen because this is something the Congress could not stop (unlike every year funding for the NIH). As former CDC director said, “Like terrorism, you can’t fight it just within our borders. You’ve got to fight epidemic diseases where they emerge.” My very best wishes (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

This may be true, but clearly does not tell the whole story. Budgets from past fiscal years are available here [9] Comparing the budgets from 2014 to 2018 shows that spending on the CDC as a whole went up from $ 6.8 Billion in 2014 (the earliest year available) to $7.2 Billion in 2019 (enacted budget). Both years have line-by-line allocation plans, which show that spending on Global Health in 2014 was $416 Million, and $495 Million in FY2019. The 2019 fiscal year is broken down in greater detail than the 2014 chart is, so it is hard to tell if sub-items of the global health budget were increased, created, or reduced relative to a previous administration. However, the 2019 chart does show the 2018 levels for the different global health initiatives, (Global HIV/Aids, Tuberculosis, Immunization, Parasitic Diseases, and Disease Detection/other) and all 5 of these categories show an increase in levels from 2018 to 2019, except for tuberculosis, which stayed even at $7.2 Million. Global health spending did dip a little from 2017 to 2018 (434 Million to 432 Million--although the 2019 tables show this latter value at 494 million), but regardless of these, it is not at all clear where the Washington Post got its 80% reduction figure, which according to the article occurred in an area called "epidemic prevention activities," a sub-category not listed as a program on the CDC budget sheets. In all fairness, the news article is worded in the future tense--e.g. "to cut"--so while this cut may have been proposed, it is not at all clear that it actually did occur, or if funding was restored soon afterwards. So yes, it is true that there are "news stories" about 80% cuts, but it is not at all clear to me that the cuts actually happened, or if they did, that the conclusions drawn from this statistic are valid, since funding in the areas of zoonotic and respiratory diseases are up in the same FY, and significantly so since 2014 ($390 Million in 2014 vs $612 Million in 2019 in the case of the zoonotic illnesses, of which this coronavirus is). Since the implications of this detail are of importance to US public policy debate on the matter, the truth of the 80% cut claim and its actual impact on the level of US government preparedness for the 2019 coronavirus outbreak need to be verified before it is presented in the article in the manner in which it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.38.197 (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, this section already has a "Center for Disease Control (United States)" section, as well as a "United States Government" section. Since the CDC is an agency of the US Government, these two sections should probably be combined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.38.197 (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Cited sources do tell that about cuts. We should simply say what they say. Speaking on the essence of the problem, this is not the cuts, but the fact that the overall funding was grossly insufficient. It had to be significantly increased because the pandemic like that and worse are inevitable from the biology perspective (in Nature, they always appear to limit any population that undergoes an unlimited expansion). Who is guilty? Obviously, not so much the POTUS as the Congress because the funding is the responsibility of the Congress. My very best wishes (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the article should simply say what the sources say, but I disagree that the sources say what the article says they say (if both are read very carefully, side-by-side), and have questions about the accuracy of the sources that are cited. Specifically, the accuracy of the sources is called into question by the CDC budget data, but also by works such as BMC Public health, Vol 19, Supplement 3, Montgomery et al, which not only properly names the program as the "Global Disease Detection Program," but also paints a very different picture of the CDC's ongoing efforts, which have been coordinated out of ten CDC global regional centers since at least 2004 (not 2014, as the article states). I'll leave it to you to read this article on your own. Lastly, this section of the main article also contains data about (1) deaths in the WA elder care facility and the (2) governor's declaration of a state of emergency there. Regardless of your opinion on the "80% cut" issue, I think we can agree that neither of these last two are "criticisms of the United States Government," and hence should be moved to a different section of the main article. Best wishes to you as well.

Alcohol based hand sanitizers

We mention in the hands washing section that alcohol based hand sanitizers are recommended. But on reading the source page, it is unclear whether these recommendations are specifically for Covid 19 or for general avoidance of respiratory disease. Other studies, on the nih website and others seem to indicate that ethanol based hand rubs inactivate enveloped viruses, while is isopropanol is better for bacterial infection. Can we put more detail on this ? Gegu0284 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Recommended in a healthcare environment when the hands are not obviously soiled. But general recommendation not specific to COVID19 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19

On which person coronovirus may attack most? Mukhtar Hussain Wani (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I think your question is "what part of the population in general is most susceptible to the virus?"--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

2 Florida Cases

https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/region-sarasota-manatee/first-coronavirus-case-confirmed-in-florida StickyKeys (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

yes Manatee county apparently--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

New death In USA

A Sixth death has been reported in seattle XmeggiewX (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Already done --Philipwhiuk (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Unknown case

A unknown case is in Poland but do not yet put it into the animated map as a confirmed case because the Polish government is still not sure if the person has the virus. 2A00:23C5:9489:6901:11E3:40D0:51F:AD65 (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Suspected, quarantined and monitored counts are increasing rapidly in Poland - see 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Poland. We are not going to add information without reliable sources. The figures are not published every day (and they only seem to be published through press conferences and tweets that then get reported by the press; the Polish Health Ministry is not (yet) following the standard of the Singapore Ministry of Health). Boud (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Oman

Fix the flag of Oman. Instead of showing the correct flag, it's showing the flag of Czechia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Council of Soviet Socialist Wikipedians (talk • contribs)

 Not done The Oman flag the flag of the Czech Republic. Not sure what you're talking about here. Mgasparin (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Breakup of passengers data by country

Is there a break up of passenger data available by country? Also is there a clarity on how passenger dying in specific country be counted? e.g. Currently it shows 6 passenger from cruise as died, does that mean - all of them died in Japan? Chirag (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

No, sorry. In the sources, the passengers aboard the ship are all counted together, not as separate nationalities. Mgasparin (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Any Vaccine available against Coronavirus ? Any experiments going on? any updates ?

Please inform

(Wingapluck (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC))

Read the article. In short, no. Mgasparin (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism of semi-log plots

My very best wishes said when removing the daily cases and daily deaths semi-log plots that he/she " including chart per consensus on talk; removed two other charts because they add very little to 2nd chart currently on the page". There was no such consensus and in fact the consensus was to keep the plots. Furthermore the charts compare Hubei, the rest of Mainland Chinese and International cases and deaths, so they do add far more than included in the chart "currently on the page". Additionally the semi-log charts allow comparison of changes over several orders of magnitude unlike the linear charts.

Fatality rates by age are estimates not actual counts from one study. They belong in a prognosis section, should My very best wishes choose to create one.Galerita (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, we need the semi-log plots. I check them daily to see whether the grow is still exponential. Malanoqa (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The semi-log plots were among the most informative parts of the article. Please keep them, even if the information is imperfect (detailed information on this outbreak is never going to be perfect). --2A01:E35:39F6:9670:C40A:1C95:491C:6D03 (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Galerita and Malanoqa: See Talk:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak#Proposal: restore the two semi-log graphs that were removed without consensus below. Boud (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

NOTE: Boud and others. I spend an hour each day updating the semi-log plots. The Chinese data are easy. I only need to translate http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/list_gzbd.shtml And their errors are few. Even they sometimes correct the previous days numbers! The world data are are nightmare. My only way of matching daily BNO news counts (https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/02/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/) is to track each country and check that the totals match the BNO numbers. BNO updates in real time - they don't give a daily total - and sometimes BNO correct numbers reported a day or two in the past. It's a nightmare! Galerita (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Trends in real time data comparing Hubei, rest-of-China and ROW matter. For example, they already show daily cases in ROW dominate those in China. They will soon show daily deaths in ROW dominate China. In late March they are likely to show TOTAL cases and deaths in ROW dominate China. The detailed country comparisons, which I have but don't plot, are useful to see the regional spread of disease.Galerita (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

In the real world I am a biostatistician analysing coronavirus survival and recovery and offering advice about policy to save peoples lives - lots of people. I CANNOT afford the time to undo repeated vandalism of the semi-log plots. Galerita (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll repeat this in other parts of the discussion section so it's clear. This "hobby" takes time away from saving lives.Galerita (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I recognise you have expertise as do other editors, unfortunately or fortunately that doesn't exempt anyone from following medrs. That's also particularly important as experts disagree Almaty (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

new cases

2 cases in Georgia

Gov. Brian Kemp confirms 2 new cases of COVID-19 in Atlanta https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/first-cases-coronavirus-confirmed-georgia/4P22YK37OBF2ZIC5VY2YOX7KDE/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaisersauce1 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

New Hampshire Case

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/1st-confirmed-case-of-coronavirus-in-nh/2084452/StickyKeys (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

map in infobox

Map needs 10,000+ scale added. Doyna Yar (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Ask for that here: commons:File_talk:COVID-19_Outbreak_World_Map.svg. It may need a 100,000 level too. But any update to existing colours require changes on many pages. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

New map suggestion

Could someone create a new animated map showing where and how much deaths happened in each county with the Coronavirus? 2A00:23C5:9489:6901:28B0:9414:BB61:9A7D (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Why do we need this section?

The virus spread to other countries and regions. In no particular order,[45] these were Thailand, Japan, Macau,[46] South Korea, Taiwan, the United States, Hong Kong, Singapore, France, Nepal, Vietnam, Australia, Malaysia, Canada, Cambodia, Germany, Finland, Sri Lanka, the United Arab Emirates, India, Italy, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, Russia, Sweden, Spain, Belgium, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Oman, Algeria, Austria, Brazil, Croatia, Switzerland, Greece, Pakistan, North Macedonia, Georgia, Norway, Romania, Denmark, Estonia, Northern Ireland, San Marino, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Belarus, Lithuania, New Zealand, Mexico, Azerbaijan, Iceland, Monaco, Qatar, Ecuador, Luxembourg, Ireland, Armenia, the Dominican Republic, the Czech Republic, Andorra, Indonesia, and Tunisia

This can be easily seen in the chart so this paragraph is nothing but redundant. StickyKeys (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree reasonable to remove. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Seconded that its reasonable to remove, I have been the predominant editor summarising that sentence. --Almaty (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

All graphs should not be used / Discuss semi log plots

I rescind my previous opinion in regard to all graphs. The situation changes day by day, and I propose that all graphs need to follow WP:MEDRS strictly. This means that all current graphs are removed unless they are a direct replication of WP:MEDRS compatible sources. --Almaty (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: as a WP:MEDRS expert. --Almaty (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

nb - done, for now. --Almaty (talk) 08:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Almaty . What does "direct replication" indicate? If the data is in tabular format in the primary source. The graph would also need to be in tabular format ? ---- Gegu0284 (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

What I personally mean as a non WP:MEDRS expert, is that we can only include graphs that have been published in reliable sources. --Almaty (talk) 09:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Images (photographs, maps, graphs, etc) are best thought of as being illustrations of (or visual support for) what the reliable sources say... not as being sources themselves. Additionally, MOS:MED#Graphs allows for inclusion, so I'm not entirely sure how you came to the conclusion that all graphs need to be removed (which also created a bunch of citation errors, fwiw). I don't really have a dog in this fight. I'm just geniunely confused by your rationale on this. OhKayeSierra (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The graphs have been appearing daily and are a valuable resource, perhaps the best available. In a fast-changing situation, a competent compilation of data from uncontroversial sources, presented well, is simply useful. I suggest that they be replaced by graphs published in other reliable sources (if allowed) when such graphs are found and permissions gained. In other words, we should not replace valuable information with nothing. Harold f (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I recognise that you're all far more expert on the policies than me, but as an expert, today, I found them uninformative and misleading. --Almaty (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

"from uncontroversial sources" - Chinese official stats are, I'd claim, controversial.

"we should not replace valuable information with nothing" - is it valuable if it's from a source (China) which has a fast and loose relationship with unfavourable statistics? 88.108.216.123 (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

That’s an important consideration, but the sources can be named. The same Chinese statistics appear in many other sources, since they are the best available. Harold f (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The sources are named. Question is how much they merit relying upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.216.123 (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm no MedRS expert, but I find that the graphs to be tremendously helpful in following the epidemic. I certainly hope they stay. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

They don't help follow at this stage unfortunately, see below. --Almaty (talk)

Semi-log charts removed: What is an "All graph"? Why is this talk section leading to the conclusion that there is a consense to remove two of the semi-log charts by user Almaty? Why is removing of the semi-log charts not discussed in the talk section about "Semi-log charts" still open? cc Galerita Boud Thanks Malanoqa (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS allows graphs. The data in the graphs has to be reliably sourced, just like any content.

I believe the point Almaty is raising, which we've discussed before, is about what sort of graphs to show. Graphing data a certain way involves choices that can go beyond WP:CALC and into WP:OR. If a MEDRS-compliant source plots a certain type of data a certain way, that gives us the confidence to do so too. If we have graphs that bear no resemblance to what's in MEDRS-compliant sources, I would be concerned whether those graphs are appropriate, even if the data they use is impeccably sourced. Bondegezou (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-log parts are pretty standard in tracking epidemics that scale from a few to potentially millions of cases. It might be better to include two versions, but that’s no reason to drop this one. See the logarithmic plot option on the Johns Hopkins page. Harold f (talk)

I believe that removal of the daily new cases semi-log is a serious loss for this article, as it allowed at a single view to understand the trend. At the very least a link to find it elsewhere should be provided, I would do so if I knew where to look. The addition of the one about deat per age bracket is interesting, but would benefit from not using all caps. I guess I can fix that, right?YamaPlos talk 18:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

request that the daily new cases semi-log be restored, or at least a link provided to where to find it YamaPlos talk 18:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I haven't been following the ins and outs of this, but there used to be a semilog plot showing total cases in the world (not China/ROW) which seems to have been vandalised/ deleted. Maybe I am missing something but why has this been done? Is someone being pedantic? It was extremely useful to check the virus' overall progress.Theeurocrat (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I too think the daily-cases graphs are useful, for showing the progress of the disease. —WWoods (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes they're useful but I removed them because I'm of the opinion that we need to publish the exact format published by the WHO or reviews. Its not being pedantic, my main reason other than WP:MEDRS is that I don't think we can directly compare china and other countries. --Almaty (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Well that is getting unreasonable. If we copy exactly then it is a copyright infringement. Though I agree that we cannot compare China and rest of world. So we need two sets of graphs, China and ROW. It is far too slow to await reviews for this article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak#Proposal: restore the two semi-log graphs that were removed without consensus below. Boud (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

NOTE: Boud and others. I spend an hour each day updating the semi-log plots. The Chinese data are easy. I only need to translate http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/list_gzbd.shtml And their errors are few. Even they sometimes correct the previous days numbers! The world data are are nightmare. My only way of matching daily BNO news counts (https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/02/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/) is to track each country and check that the totals match the BNO numbers. BNO updates in real time - they don't give a daily total - and sometimes BNO correct numbers reported a day or two in the past. It's a nightmare! Galerita (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Trends in real time data comparing Hubei, rest-of-China and ROW matter. For example, they already show daily cases in ROW dominate those in China. They will soon show daily deaths in ROW dominate China. In late March they are likely to show TOTAL cases and deaths in ROW dominate China. The detailed country comparisons, which I have but don't plot, are useful to see the regional spread of disease.Galerita (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

In the real world I am a biostatistician analysing coronavirus survival and recovery and offering advice about policy to save peoples lives - lots of people. I CANNOT afford the time to undo repeated vandalism of the semi-log plots. Galerita (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll repeat this in other parts of the discussion section so it's clear. This "hobby" takes time away from saving lives.Galerita (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, in addition to your dayjob. —WWoods (talk) 07:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Note attempted to clarify my concern here --Almaty (talk) 07:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2020

A new case of the coronavirus has been confirmed in Stockholm, so please change the numbers of verified cases in Sweden from 14 to 15. Also, please change the numbers of confirmed cases of the coronavirus in Finland from 6 to 7. Sources: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/utrikes/senaste-nytt-om-coronaviruset and https://svenska.yle.fi/artikel/2020/03/02/thl-ett-till-fall-av-coronavirus-bekraftat-i-finland Sincerely, NoahSWE NoahSWE (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Mgasparin (talk) 08:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

2019-20 coronavirus outbreak definition

The current introductory defines that "an ongoing public health emergency of international concern". It does not mention the outbreak. It is better to say "viral outbreak" across the world. The Supermind (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I concur that this needs to be re-written. I have drafted many versions of the first sentence, it changes day by day. if I were you, WP:JUSTDOIT. --Almaty (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't edit this page because the server didn't respond. The first statement still unchanged. The article talks about the outbreak, not public health concern. The Supermind (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes the first sentence has gone through numerous drafts. Effective consensus appears to be that we defer to the PHEIC, which I disagree with. An outbreak is not a PHEIC. I won't bold it again, I already tried yesterday. Please note WP:BRD generally also involves discuss, and I haven't seen much discussion about that one yet --Almaty (talk)

China changed the ways of counting infection 16 times since the outbreak

I think this is something needed to be discussed in this wiki, eventually changes the reported numbers by a lot.

It's partially due to the constraints of having to deal with patients using up a larger share of staff, who's symptoms don't necessarily change once a virus has been identified, combined with more and more information about how the virus behaves allowing identification based on new factors. Tsukide (talk) 10:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2020

change 29 to 36 on confirmed cases in Malaysia Rawwrrrr (talk) 09:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

 Already Done if you were referring to the number in the table. 1.02 editor (T/C) 10:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Children.

I'm not sure why someone removed that children are showing very few cases? Sourced per WP:MEDRS Pls explain --Almaty (talk) 09:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Very few paediatric cases have so far been reported; is this due to lack of testing or a true lack of infection/susceptibility? --Almaty (talk)

There are a lot of demographic quirks to the epidemic. This information about the children is (or should) be included in the paragraph/data about age-related demographics. Tsukide (talk) 10:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Done for now. I think probably because my previous insertion was a little WP:SYNTHy --Almaty (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 3 March 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: speedy close. This particular proposal seems unlikely to gain traction, but there's no prejudice against proposing it again. However, this is one of the top-watched articles on Wikipedia (with almost half a million views each day), so formal RM discussions – which get advertised at the top of the article – can be disruptive to readers. Therefore it is highly recommended that subsequent proposals are first discussed in an informal manner and escalated to a formal RM only if viable. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

---

2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → Coronavirus disease outbreak – Common name that is least ambiguous. Also I assert that given this is a novel virus, with so much spread and likely worldwide spread to come, it will likely forever be known as this for historians. I only propose to "Coronavirus disease outbreak" (a technical and common name) other options are "COVID-19 outbreak" (what the WHO uses, technical but more succinct). The common name is Coronavirus outbreak. That is to ambiguous for me, but if final consensus is that, I support it. This is now the first outbreak of the COVID-19 virus, and I suggest this event will forever be known as such, unlike past pandemics such as 2009 influenza pandemic or Spanish flu --Almaty (talk) 11:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy oppose - For epidemics and pandemics, we usually insert the year the outbreak happened for differentiation. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)\

Yes I recognise that, I'm suggesting that we don't need to, per the common name and the Spanish flu precedent. Due to the spread --Almaty (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

And also cos its novel. So we don't need to give it a date. It may become pandemic, or even worse endemic, but at those points we would discuss. --Almaty (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose searching Google for this term, very few use it, even with those words it is going to be prefixed with "novel" or "new" or "global". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose We went through like 20 title changes and "2019–20 coronavirus outbreak" seems to be the most fitting title for the article so far.Alexceltare2 (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes I'm trying to achieve two things 1. making sure the title is common and unambiguous, and 2. removing the date for reasons outlined above, particularly spanish flu precedent.
I read through the previous move discussions. I think if we really need to we can call it "coronavirus outbreak" period, I just don't like the ambiguity. --Almaty (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose and add moratorium. We finally have a reasonable, encyclopedic title here. The proposed title is not more recognizable, concise, or precise. The proposal also seems to be mixing up the disease (COVID-19) and the virus (SARS-CoV-2). The current title applies to both ("coronavirus disease" and "the coronavirus"), which is to its merit. Dekimasuよ! 12:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

user:Dekimasu the WHO "mix up" the disease and the virus in their literature, it is their intended branding to call it the "COVID-19 virus" for the general reader. And its much commoner than SARS-COV-2 intentionally. --Almaty (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support if we should move it to SARS-CoV-2 outbreak or COVID-19 outbreak, it is a better sounding name aside from the fact that it is official. But Oppose if we should move it to Coronavirus disease outbreak because it is a too common name and the fact that 2003's SARS and another type of flu is also caused by another strains or types of coronavirus makes it confusing.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 12:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

As I state in the move request, I hope that the discussion remains open until any consensus. My aim is to remove the date based on Spanish flu precedent, and also deambiguify the title with the commonest WP:PRECISE name possible. --Almaty (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Simple Coronavirus Outbreak seems OK. Of course is a Disease ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiChata (talk • contribs) 12:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy Support 'coronavirus outbreak' is consistent with spanish flu precedent.

FVk2Yy6eQj (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Are there multiple outbreaks in this epidemic/pandemic?

http://www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson1/section11.html

"Occasionally, the amount of disease in a community rises above the expected level. Epidemic refers to an increase, often sudden, in the number of cases of a disease above what is normally expected in that population in that area. Outbreak carries the same definition of epidemic, but is often used for a more limited geographic area. Cluster refers to an aggregation of cases grouped in place and time that are suspected to be greater than the number expected, even though the expected number may not be known. Pandemic refers to an epidemic that has spread over several countries or continents, usually affecting a large number of people."

http://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/23/world/europe/italy-coronavirus.html

"CASALPUSTERLENGO, Italy — Europe confronted its first major outbreak of the coronavirus as an eruption of more than 150 cases in Italy prompted officials on Sunday to lock down at least 10 towns, close schools in major cities and cancel sporting events and cultural touchstones, including the end of the Venice carnival."

http://time.com/5789596/south-korea-coronavirus-outbreak/

"How South Korea’s Coronavirus Outbreak Got so Quickly out of Control"

It's an epidemic of multiple outbreaks, in China, South Korea, Italy and Iran. The Iranian and Italian outbreaks have spread to the Middle East and Europe respectively.

Though this may soon become a pandemic too.

Tsukide (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree: this could be seen as multiple (linked) outbreaks within one epidemic/pandemic. So, what changes do you suggest? I think the title should move to 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic once RS agree this is a pandemic. Bondegezou (talk) 10:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

"The 2019-20 coronavirus epidemic is an ongoing public health emergency of international concern involving four major outbreaks of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Central China, South Korea, Italy and Iran, that have spread across the Asia-Pacific, Europe and the Middle East, with sporadic cases throughout the rest of the world." Tsukide (talk) 11:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not think we should be trying to put this all in one sentence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I read somewhere (sorry, not very helpful here) that the Italians had detected two meaningfully different strains of the virus among those tested. This attempt to count the foci of the epidemic by countries feels like it will need constant edits until it becomes meaningless when there are several others (as it looks like ti will be). Yes, strains or variants are probably more meaningful but, alas, I have not much info to offer, just the concern regarding this matter. YamaPlos talk 16:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)