Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions about COVID-19 pandemic. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

→

Wrong number of death people in Poland.

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi. Actually in Poland 12 died due to coronavirus, not 1 as in table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A317:6242:3800:1511:A2B6:4606:1651 (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

No source provided. — RealFakeKim T 11:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@RealFakeKim: Actually, Worldometers (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/poland/) says 12 deaths as well. 2607:FB90:7B49:613A:B83C:EC7B:288B:F4A9 (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok but I denied it becuase the user didn't provide any source. It has been updated. In future 2A02:A317:6242:3800:1511:A2B6:4606:1651 uses Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data if you want the table updated. — RealFakeKim T 12:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Too slow or too fast

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think that for Poland sometimes deaths or recoveries are bit too slow or fast like before the first recovery in Poland was edited before it was announced and approx. 2 hours or 3 hours ago it was confirmed that the 9 death happened in Poland but it is still 8. Try to put in the brand new information when it WAS announced not BEFORE or AFTER a long time it was announced. If you don’t understand what I mean then reply to me on my talk page. Hi poland (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

This padge isn't a live counter of the cases nor is the table. If new deaths were put in before they were anounsed that would go against WP:CRYSTALBALL so it should not be done. — RealFakeKim T 13:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on cartoonishness of social distancing graphic used in this article

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Social distancing#Cartoonishness of graphics. Sdkb (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Norway's dead.

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Norway now has 12 dead instead of only 22 can someone fix this ? 16:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC). Florian Duboeuf (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Florian Duboeuf, please resubmit your request using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template and provide a source. Also, the number of fatalities went down? Was it inaccurately reported at first? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 16:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

It appears to have already been edited. MattSucci (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Potential changes to the maps

Latest comment: 4 years ago124 comments25 people in discussion

Cases or Deaths?

The first map in the infobox, showing total cases per country

The second map in the infobox, showing cases per capita

New map, showing deaths per capita

As more European countries are running out of tests, and both the UK and especially the US have had low testing rates from the start — counting cases is likely to poorly reflect the state of the pandemic. However, deaths are likely to be much more accurate, both at the aggregate level and the per capita level. Should we shift at least one of these maps to cover deaths or deaths per capita? Carl Fredrik^talk 11:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It would be a nice map to have but I don't see a need to replace either of the maps there now. Adding a third map to show deaths per-capita would be preferable to replacing one of the existing maps.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Both absolute (total deaths) and relative (deaths per capita) are useful in my opinion, and indeed better than "cases" for which the numbers are completely unreliable. The advantage of the relative map is that countries of different sizes can be compared more easily (and to judge which countries are proportionally more affected). I think it would be a good idea to show both maps (but perhaps not in the lead). Ideally, it would also be nice for the larger countries (US/China) to have the data displayed per province/state in this worldmap . Voorlandt (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should include any death calculations or per capita calculations as while these may seem simple, they are not obvious or correct in their interpretation. The reason for this is that there is a massive lag in this outbreak especially, and due to unreliability of reported figures (undue comparison will be made against disparate health care systems). Both will lead people to me more alarmed or reassured than they should be. In terms of policy this violates WP:CALC specifically. --Almaty (talk) 08:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow."Due to unreliability of reported figures" we should only show the aggregate reported figures? That doesn't really follow especially when the reported figures are those currently listed on the page's chart, most sourced from the WHO. With regard to an alleged "massive lag" (in reported figures or virus symptom onset(?)) and that per-capita maps of deaths or rates of infected persons will "lead people to me more alarmed or reassured than they should be." I don't think it's up to Wikipedia editors to decide what facts from reliable sources Wikipedia readers should and should not be exposed to and certainly not on the grounds that it could makes some of them alarmed. The data here comes from the WHO and World Bank's population estimate figures for 2018.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 09:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

We should only show the raw reported figures, from the WHO. I don't see them anywhere dividing it from the world bank population estimate from 2018, that is WP:OR. That doesn't hide anything, it just prevents us from doing a calculation that the reliable source is not doing. --Almaty (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, Almaty's opinion is clear. Almaty would like to "only show the raw reported figures, from the WHO". Voorlandt and myself disagree with Almaty. Would anyone else like to share their thoughts?Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that per capita statistics should be published in addition to totals. The "per number of people" statistics is routinely published in Wikipedia for occurences of other diseases. The only argument I see provided by Almaty against it is that it would alarm people. I don't see anything wrong with people being alarmed by alarming statistics. Don't see any explanation for Almaty's argument regarding why "per capita statistics" is misleading. That somebody else such as WHO does not provide it does not mean that it is misleading.Roman (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I also support per capita. We are dividing by large numbers (country populations) that are well-estimated and are constant (assuming we are using some recent census), so any error is overwhelmingly due to the error in cases - which we have anyway. The resulting comparison is meaningful and useful. Here is a link for 'usefulness' [1]. Segoldberg (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes but that isn't a clear summary of why. Its not because I only trust the WHO, or I'm a censor (far from it, the opposite), its because per WP:CALC there is not clear current consensus that dividing these figures is a meaningful interpretation of the source. The calculation is simple, but they don't do it, because the answer is misleading. --Almaty (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we need per capita. I see no violation of WP:CALC ("Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. [...]"): the manner of calculation is super straightforward. (As an aside, I see no undue alarm; I only see undue complacency.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Which ever map is chosen, it's probably best they don't look like the player wiped out entire nations in Plague Inc. 73.155.111.138 (talk) 08:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I would be okay with a deaths map and a deaths per capita map being added as part of a package, per my proposal below. Sdkb (talk) 07:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC). ...It would be nice to have a gif showing at each frame the daily situation in the maps.

A statistics predictions for the near futere are welcome...

Deaths per capita map

Deaths per capita

There is now a deaths per capita map. Thanks to @Dan Polansky: I must say it looks excellent! And it does a much better job than confirmed cases per capita of showing the true severity of the regional epidemics, since the testing policies differ a lot between countries. The fatality rate is very much more comparable. Other thoughts? —St.nerol (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I concur that cases data, which was frequently poor already, is becoming ever less accurate. We should therefore de-emphasise it in the text and in the map. Death data is more reliable (albeit not perfect). That said, while moving away from inaccurate cases data, it is still important and useful to describe the spread of the pandemic. The reader should be able to clearly see the global reach of the pandemic. Bondegezou (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Fully agree. As long as we keep the total confirmed cases map, the global spread should be evident. —St.nerol (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Come to think of it, this map also complements the original total confirmed cases better than the cases per capita map: Since both confirmed cases and deaths are important, and both absolute numbers and per capita are relevant, we have four possible maps. But we get as much as possible from just two maps when one is cases in total and one is deaths per capita. Then there's no redundancy! —St.nerol (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky:, do you think you could update the map to reflect the latest data, and give me a ping afterwards? --St.nerol (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no objection to including this map, and I agree that death reporting may be more accurate. Note 1: death data is somewhat biased due to mean age of population in different countries, and to varying quality of available treatment. Note 2: there is a lag (on average, 1-2 weeks) between infection and death. Therefore this map does not represent the severity of infection at the present time, unlike the reported cases map. 77.125.33.156 (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Deaths are very likely underreported in at least two countries that have the darkest shading on that map: Italy nursing home elderly resident COVID-19 deaths appear to be underestimated by a factor of 3 in one case listed in that article, and other cases cited in the article suggest that this is widespread in parts of Italy; the COVID-19 death count in Iran is quite likely, according to many different sources of information (see the article) to be a lot higher than the official value. Despite this, I tend to think that the death counts, despite being delayed compared to the positive SARS-CoV-2 detections, will be more reliable than the positive SARS-CoV-2 detection count in many countries. Adding the map, either normalised for population or not, would be useful. Boud (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@St.nerol: I updated the map yesterday evening. Next planned update of the map is today evening. I see no gain in updating the map more frequently, except perhaps to correct errors should there be any. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@St.nerol: I think the article would benefit from both reported cases per capita and deaths per capita maps. The article needs to contain the best caveat about how both reported figures are underrepresenting the real figures as it can, as far as can be done while meeting Wikipedia verifiability guidelines. As for whether we need absolute counts when we have per capita, some have argued that using colored backgrounds for non-capita map is misleading, or even fraudulent, and I can see what they mean: the colors give impression that we are dealing with density, which only applies to per capita maps. It would make sense to me to only include two maps: total reported cases per capita and total deaths per capita. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky: You're right! I made a miscalculation and didn't see that the map was indeed updated. I'll try to start an RFC here to see how we should use the map. St.nerol (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

As of March 19, in cases per capita the undisputed leader is San Marino (4244), followed by Faroe Islands (1474), then Vatican City (1248), then three more mini states (Iceland, Andorra and Liechtenstein), with Italy being only seventh and just above Luxembourg, according to worldometer.^[1] Cases per capita demonstrate testing per capita rather than the severity of the decease. Deaths per capita seem to be more indicative of the severity (this data is not given on worldometer or any known to me source, except the map of Dan).--Maxaxax (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

(For reference, on 2020-03-19 19:12:38 UTC, the top 3 figures for deaths per million people calculated from WP data were San Marino: 417; Italy: 56.5; Spain: 17. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC))

Can someone please add the number of Moroccan cases up to 109, as confirmed today by the health minister of Morocco — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.253.146.186 (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Deaths map per capita much better than confirmed cases which is literally useless.Php2000 (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The map with "confirmed cases per capita" is indicating higher numbers than reported. For Sweden there are 2272 reported cases by March 24 and we have 10M inhabitants, but the map indicates 1000+ cases confirmed per million inhabitants. That is an exaggeration by 5x and correct visualization should indicate 100-1000 confirmed cases per million inhabitants.

Daily new cases

The daily new cases of COVID-19 on March 13

I propose as a second map that we simply use this map, as it gives more relevant information, does not involve calculations, and it will be able to be updated very easily based on the link provided. --Almaty (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that that Almaty's map "gives more relevant information" than the per-capita infection rate. I think knowing how many people on average in a country are infected with a virus is very relevant information.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I would say that the per capita will be relevant information in a few weeks, but pertinently when they are published by reliable sources. Additionally the map of per capita has a caption that we cannot hope to keep current. --Almaty (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Why will per capita be relevant information in a few weeks and not today?As for keeping the map current there are many maps on Wikipedia that regularly need to be updated and I have updated this one twice already over the past few days.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I rescind comments in relation to undue concern or alarm. I simply don't think that this map is verifiable. In order for it to remain verifiable we have three options IMO.

1. Only use raw figures from the WHO

2. Use another source that is making maps that we consider to be reliable.

3. Waiting until any WP:MEDRS compatible source at least publishes a table showing per capita case rates. --Almaty (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

ALASKA with 500 is Strange, very !

@Almaty: I would be okay with this map being added as part of a package, per my proposal below. Sdkb (talk) 07:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

thanks mate, sounds like a great way to move this discussion forward from a clear stalemate. —Almaty (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Almaty: Have any updates been made to this map? It needs some changes before it'll be ready for mainspace (in my view). Namely: new updated data, conversion to SVG, moving the legend out of the image itself (to parallel the other maps), and switching to red (the color we're using for case counts). I'd also prefer it be a per capita new cases per day map, rather than totals by country (we could always have both). Sdkb (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

here @Sdkb: but I don’t know how to make it SVG. —Almaty (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems like the easiest thing to do if it's possible would be to just embed the map via an iframe (see the "embed" share link). But I'm not sure if Wikipedia can handle that. If not, map creators @Dan Polansky, Wugapodes, Raphaël Dunant, and Ratherous:, would it be possible to import the data listed on the website (ideally keeping the timeline)? Sdkb (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Cases by density

In addition to maps showing number of infections by country & another showing incidence by population, there should be another showing incidence by density (eg cases per hundred sq kms). That would show where it's most concentrated. Jim Michael (talk) 10:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

And dan please read medrs. It is our most onerous policy to adhere to and this article is confusing because many claims can just have a reliable source, but all medical claims must have a medrs source. This is generally review articles, international authoritative statements (from bodies such as the WHO or the DSM) and medical texts. If you find a CFR in one of those please insert it with all the disclaimers. Almaty (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Data sources for maps

Extended content

Are coronavirus maps, should we use Our World in Data as a reliable attributable source, or should we be making calculations not yet published in reliable sources? --Almaty (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)I removed the aggregate new cases map which was included in this history section of the page so that we can discuss it first. There are two major issues with the map. The data does not come from the WHO but from a third-party charity website called "Our World In Data"..."a project of the Global Change Data Lab, a registered charity in England and Wales (Charity Number 1186433)." The map claims that there were 0 new cases on March 13th in Iceland, Norway, Belgium, Portugal, Greece, and a few dozen other countries and that's just inaccurate.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The reason is I have not seen it published in any reliable source with WHO data, to keep the dispute simple. --Almaty (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't claim that, it claims that there were between 0 and 10. --Almaty (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

They claim the data does come from the WHO. Are you able to point to any specific inconsistency in the reliability of this source? --Almaty (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Also they aren't just a charity researchers at University of Oxford, who are the scientific editors of the website content. I strongly propose that unless anyone can point to how any of the data is inaccurate, that we use it. The main reason is because myself and other editors aren't able to easily verify the content of the maps. This will worsen as the outbreak progresses. --Almaty (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Those countries reported dozens if not hundreds of new cases between 12 march and 13 March. That's evident in the table's history page. Belgium for example went from 399 to 559. The map you added shows Belgium with 0-10 cases.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Per capita is absolutely relevant today, as it was a week ago and a month ago. Bed capacity would usually exist per capita, so case totals per capita is very indicative of severity. Furthermore, per capita achieves coloring invariance upon region merge: it is not so badly sensitive to choice of granularity of regions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

If it is a indicative of severity why can't I see it in a WP:MEDRS source using WHO data to date? Ive done quite a search to come up with this current opinion. --Almaty (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Per capita is at worldometers.info; search for "Tot Cases/1M pop". I don't know about WP:MEDRS; I am not really a Wikipedia editor. In any case, as long as WP:CALC applies, we should be fine. ---Dan Polansky (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

User @Bondegezou: and myself concur that WP:CALC is not being fully interpreted and with divisions in particular these may not be "obvious and correct". --Almaty (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Worldometer fails WP:MEDRS so severely, that even its updaters have lost faith in it, it appears --Almaty (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Is the above original research or can you support the above claim with reliable sources? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes User:Dan Polansky I can support that claim with worldometers own website The live counters show the real-time estimate as computed by our proprietary algorithm, which processes the latest data and projections provided by the most reputable organizations and statistical offices in the world. This is not peer reviewed, is an estimate, is not a study, is not even thought to be verifiable or correct by its publisher. ---Almaty (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, your claim is an original observation gained by looking at worldometers.info and using your brain; the claim "worldometers.info is unreliable" is not traced to a reliable source. Of course, your reasoning is very plausible, and one has to take worldometers.info with grain of salt, but is the grain larger than that for WHO data? But my main point is on the meta-level and it stays: you require me to trace the obvious to a reliable source while you do not require yourself to trace the obvious to a reliable source. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Dan Polansky I dont want to argue, but we all have to use reliable sources. I would love to insert things that were my original research and i've tried to before, but we cant. The pillars of wikipedia apply. --Almaty (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:CALC, we can do certain calculation ourselves; Almaty claims we can't. Let the reader read this very discussion alone; I see not a single person agreeing with Almaty, who sets unreasonable high standards on what should be common sense but uncritically defers to WHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, maybe we can't trust the maps there, probably a data quirk if their tables are correct. But can we make maps like it - I want to use their "no data", and I truly think that a map with the number of new cases is more important at this stage, than per capita cases. My opinion of this will change, when anyone can show me a WP:MEDRS source that is showing charts with per capita cases. I can't find one --Almaty (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I find it obvious that per capita is super useful (total cases, active cases, daily new cases, daily deaths, all per capita), and to support the notion, I mentioned that bed capacities would usually be maintained per capita in a country. I do not have WP:MEDRS sources to support what I just said and what I consider to be obvious reasoning. Maybe someone knows where to find such sources. If WP:MEDRS sources do not report per capita, maybe they should wake up from their dogmatic dream and start reporting also per capita right now, before it is too late. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd go so far as to say that the use of the current graphic is highly misleading. Some Europeans have remarked at the Danish government's shutdown when comparing it to the apparent inaction in France or the UK, whereas the reason becomes instantly clear if you consider that the size of population matters a great deal. The only truly objective measure that can be used is the per capita figure. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 17:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Let me add that the name of the game is bed capacities, respirators, breathing machines and such. If there were no risk of exhausting these, it would be kind of acceptable to give up all flatten-the-curve measures, maybe not entirely acceptable, but kind of. And these capacities, the name of the game, the resource nummero uno that you can run out of, is usually maintained on a per capita basis. And the resource does not increase exponentially at 20% per day rate, only the demand for that resource does so increase. Per capita is super meaningful; maybe some has the WP:MEDRS paperwork to support that claim; I supplied the substantive arguments. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I expect that they are doing this in unpublished government data, of course. But that doesn't help our encyclopaedia. Can you even point to a table, let alone a graph or a chart or map that shows per capita? that isn't worldometer? I note that for the second time in 24 hours this has been removed due to errors, once due to the Mediawiki doing it. Its an exceedingly big job, and one I think we need to delegate to the likes of Our World In Data (where their data is verifiable). --Almaty (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Here are links to the data sources for the map. This is certainly not "unpublished government data." Many news websites have map and visualization pages up and running now. There are plenty of examples of per-capita maps out there and the data for making these is widely available at places like: FT[2] and John Hopkins [3]. The Hill even published a list of top map sites[4]Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Monopoly31121993 I dont trust you to be able to keep up with the volume of data that will be coming through in the next few weeks, to be frank. Its not like I dont think you've done a good job so far. Its just that maps will become completely unverifiable --Almaty (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Does Almaty concede now that there are reliable sources publishing cases per capita? That would be a start. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not in this for the argument, trust me, just for verifiability. --Almaty (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

(outdent) So does Almaty concede the point that has been demonstrated? There cannot be any rational argument if one party refutes to play the argument game fairly. Almaty, do you now agree that "there are reliable sources publishing cases per capita?" --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Guys, I wrote a program that can read a dataset and generate an svg map. [5]. It currently fetches data from John Hopkins University, but the dataset doesn't have every country/territory and is updated daily, not as frequent as the current map. I say we generate the maps using a community-maintained list. Ythlev (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, makes perfect sense. Let the script fetch data from locations in Wikipedia, and it is then the business of Wikipedia editors to update those locations to reflect reliable sources. Is Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data good for the purpose? It should be easy to extract the data from there using Python. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how though. I only know how to fetch from pages with data only. Ythlev (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I'll have a look. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

no I’m afraid that I am still yet to see medrs sources showing per capita statistics. And it’s cos they can’t, so we can’t. —49.179.25.69 (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it is possible with Wikidata. Ythlev (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Here's a very quickly written grabber that returns a dictionary where the countries are the keys and the values are list of column values as integers (no work of beauty, but it works and is here right now):

def grabFromTemplate():
   import urllib, re
   url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data"
   allLines = []
   for line in urllib.urlopen(url):
     allLines.append(line.rstrip())
   allLines = " ".join(allLines)
   allLines = re.sub("^.*jquery-tablesorter", "", allLines)
   allLines = re.sub("</table.*", "", allLines)
   allLines = re.sub("<(th|td)[^>]*>", r"<td>", allLines)
   allLines = re.sub("</?(span|img|a|sup)[^>]*>", "", allLines)
   allLines = re.sub("</(th|td|tr)[^>]*>", "", allLines)
   allLines = re.sub("&#91.*?&#93", "", allLines)
   allLines = re.sub(",", "", allLines)
   allLines = re.sub("<small>.*?</small>;?", "", allLines)
   allLines = re.sub("</?i>", "", allLines)

   outData = {}
   rows = allLines.split("<tr> ")
   for row in rows:
     try:
       cols = row.split("<td>")
       cols.pop(0)
       cols.pop(0)
       country = cols.pop(0)
       cols = cols[0:3]
       cols = [int(col) for col in cols]
     except:
       continue
     outData[country] = cols
   #for key, value in outData.items():
   #  print key, value
   return outData

--Dan Polansky (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, with a few modifications, it worked. I can incorporate it now. Ythlev (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

A lot of work is matching those country names to ISO country codes used to colour the map. Ythlev (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky: It's done: [6]. Your code has some bugs though. It does not work for Netherlands for some reason. Ythlev (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev: It fails for Netherlands since Netherlands has "–" in the 3rd column instead of zero. I don't know what "–" means, or else I could just tweak the script to replace it with zero or maybe place None in the list instead of int. Did you also create a per capita map on the world level? File:COVID-19_Outbreak_World_Map.svg is not per capita. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

No. Such a map is being question now. Ythlev (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

NCBI StatPearls link in support of per capita, in addition to actual number [7]. Prevalence, or cumulative cases per capita, is an estimate of the probability for a person in the country to be sick (useful if you are considering walking around in public in that country). Incidence, or new cases per unit time, is useful for tracking rate of new cases. Segoldberg (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, you may already know, but i would like to inform you that the data for the per capita map is wrong, it shows Australia as >0.1 but it is currently at >10 it has actually been >1 since the 1st march so the map is definitely not accurate as of 13th march as it states. I have not checked for other countries but there are probably more mistakes that need fixing. Just your average wikipedian (talk) 06:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

You may know x and y, but you may not conduct operations on them. Just want to say this is the weirdest discussion in history. If a map of cases by country is acceptable based on the data available, then a map of cases per capita causing such trauma because it's OR (no it isn't) or it's somehow fundamentally unknowable information, implies that the wiki page "countries and dependencies by population" also needs deleting. Otherwise, x is acceptable, y is acceptable, but x/y is magically wrong. Funny old place. 165.225.81.57 (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Cumulative cases vs peak active cases

Extended content

If the first map is meant to be more directly sourced, the second should be more reflective of impact. Taking into account the health care systems and "flattening the curve", the second map should be peak active cases per capita. Ythlev (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

If the data is available, I would be okay with this map being added as part of a package, per my proposal below. Sdkb (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

So right now we have two competing per capita maps; one cumulative and one peak outbreak (see above). At the moment, I think that the cumulative map of @Raphaël Dunant: is preferrable. If China had another major outbreak, the peak outbreak map of @Ythlev: would not change a bit, but the cumulative map would reflect the change. Second, the peak outbreak map has a funny scale. How are the cutoff levels chosen?

I appreciate Ythlev's ambition to reflect the intensity of the blow to the healthcare system and the general population. Perhaps this could be accomplished by a deaths per capita map? St.nerol (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Why is "changing a bit" important? Looking at any map so far, can you tell whether the disease is more serious in China than Europe or less? could be accomplished by a deaths per capita map? That's still a third map. Ythlev (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Second, the peak outbreak map has a funny scale. If by funny, you mean not powers of ten, the figures are mostly within 45 cases per million, so compared to the above map, using a smaller scale separates the countries better (e.g. East Africa, South Asia). Ythlev (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Several countries in Europe have over a 100 cases per capita. At the current centre of the outbreak your scale does not separate countries well at all. St.nerol (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

And why should a world map separate Europe better at the expense of other regions? You want to know about the situation in Europe, there is a map of Europe in the corresponding article. Ythlev (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the consensus that if we are to have one per capita map, it should be the cumulative cases one. I can see the value to a peak active cases one, though, and would like it to be included as part of a package, per my proposal below. Sdkb (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The cases per capita map was removed from the article because it needed fixing. A corrected svg was then restored to the article. You have now removed it twice in favour of your own map. I see no consensus for having a peak active cases map instead of a regular cases per capita map. There are also some potential problems with your map that needs to be discussed; @Redav: mentioned some of them.

Total confirmed cases per capita is data readily available from e.g. https://www.worldometers.info/ An illustration of this data clearly has encyclopedic value. The regular cases per capita map should be restored to the page until if a consensus here should say otherwise. –St.nerol (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

As per @Sdkb: and @Redav: (asking for an SVG version of the total cases per capita map) and @St.nerol: comments, the total cases per capita map has been restored. I also feel like total cases per capita has more value to an encyclopedia than peak cases, as it is more useful to know which country have been hit the most, not which countries have been hit the quickest. I am agreeing with the direction the consensus seems to be going, but will abide by any consensus. Raphaël Dunant (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Developing an SVG version

Extended content

I greatly appreciate the efforts of Monopoly31121993(2) to produce a PNG per capita map for the infobox, but there is still an urgent and open request for SVG version that can be updated by all editors, like the primary map. Perhaps the script developed by User:Ythlev and User:Dan Polansky above could be of use to an editor reading this who would like to give it a try? — Goszei (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Copying my comment from the Commons:

Monopoly31121993(2), I appreciate the effort you've put into updating this, but I need to re-emphasize that, at this point, by far the most urgent need is for you to convert this file to an SVG. This is an extremely prominent file on perhaps WP's most prominent article right now, and keeping it as a PNG (as well as not specifying your data source) effectively prevents other editors from being able to make updates and improvements to it. Maintaining this map is too big a task for any one editor at this point, and while you may disagree with some of the suggestions, consider that (a) even the uncontroversial ones, like fixing Greenland, cannot currently be remedied, and (b) WP:OWN applies — WP needs collaboration to function best. If you continue to maintain this map as a PNG, the editors whose concerns have not been adequately addressed are going to increasingly clamor for the removal of the map from the article, nullifying your work and doing a disservice to readers who would be better served by a per capita map. Sdkb (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993(2):@Sdkb: I can agree with what Sdkb writes, and I can confirm that I feel an urge and a repsonsibility to remove the per capita map because also the newer version still has multiple issues concerning a) well-definedness, b) meaningfulnes, c) accuracy, d) verifiability / falsifiability, that I do not see addressed, or at the very least discussed with arguments that might convince, by e.g. Monopoly31121993(2).Redav (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

From Monopoly31121993(2)'s reply on Commons here, it looks like they may not know how to convert a PNG to an SVG. I don't know how myself; is it an easy thing to do? If so, could someone guide them through it? And if not, it looks like the best approach may be for someone else to build a per-capita map from scratch. Sdkb (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ythlev and Dan Polansky: Would either of you be able to explain how one might use the code you wrote above to create a per capita SVG map? I'm not a technical expert, but we very urgently need someone who is to help with this task. If you need it, population data for the world and province-level info is provided in the WHO daily situation reports like this one. Sdkb (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
There is no easy way to convert PNG to SVG; the other way around is easy. PNG is a raster image, like colored tiles in your bathroom; SVG is a vector image, representing shapes as lines, arcs, circles and such. PNG knows no shapes; it is just a huge grid of colored tiles. The script on my talk page already grabs Wikipedia sources and provides calculated output. What I would need to do is to expand the script to 1) download a blank SVG of the political world map from Wikipedia sources, 2) create a mapping from country names to country codes since the calculation uses country names and the SVG map probably has country codes in it, in comments or the like, 3) determine which colors to use for which ranges, 4) use the calculated per capita output to color the blank SVG, 5) save the result to SVG file. In a sense, it is very straightforward, but it still takes effort and attention, and I do not know whether I find time and energy to do it any time soon, in part since I have also to make deliberations, measures, and actions concerning me personally; I do not promise anything. I am happy that I can extract cases per capita and deaths per capita in a snap. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

There are a few thing to sort out first.

What should the map be. As I said, the map should be peak active cases per capita because it reflects the mitigation efforts and health system burden.
Data source. Currently the map (cases map) is just updated by whichever figure is latest for a country. It's quite hard to write a script that can read the current map and update it. What is feasible is to read a community-maintained list of figures. Someone wrote a scrip that can read Wikidata. Alternatively we could just use a single source like John Hopkins University with the drawback that it is only updated daily. Either of these approaches would require consensus though. It means the map can't just be edited by anyone who has the latest figure. Ythlev (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb:@Ythlev: I located what seems to be an svg world map on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Population_density_countries_2017_world_map,_people_per_sq_km.svg. I am hoping my next line will help enlist its author in the map project under consideration.Redav (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: You appear to be the author of an svg world map. There is a request at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic&action=edit&section=9 for an svg world map showing numbers per capita for, among other things, the reported active COVID-19 cases per country / region / dependency / other division type. Would you be able and willing in helping create such a map? Some work on e.g. scripts that calculate the numbers and label them to either country names or country codes, seems to be done already. Thanks a lot!Redav (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Ta da! Ythlev (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Peak active cases per capita

I've included details in case someone wants to check. Ythlev (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev: This looks promising! Again I propose to include in the title the words "reported" and "active" (or another appropriate word if another quantity is going to be presented) and furthermore to mention the source(s). I can see the list on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data is not the (only) source for your current map, since e.g. the total number of infected for (the country of) the Netherlands (which, by the way, is only part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands) mentioned there differs from the 1,413 your table shows, and the Netherlands do not count the recovered. The latter, of course, limits the meaningfulness of a number A = T - R - D for the Netherlands. (Symbols explained above on this page.) Another remark is that your table shows a date of 18 Feb 2020 for the China data. Are there no more recent data available?Redav (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I wish I didn't have to keep repeating this. In a pandemic, people are bound to get sick. What matters is whether they all get sick at the same time, hence the map I made is peak active cases per capita. China is way past its peak. Ythlev (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev: Thanks for your explanation (again, as you say). You seem to address me specifically (although I am not sure you actually do). If that is the case, I cannot see which part of my input you are discussing or arguing with, since I cannot remember inputting any arguments regarding more / less usefulness / uselessness of current and/or peak active cases. If you mean to say that 18 Feb 2020 was the date with the (reported) peak in active cases, and that the data list you provided concerns this quantity, then I can now understand why this particular date is reflected in your list. But I do not remember seeing / reading that the data list was about peak active cases at the respective peak days for the respective countries / territories / division of whatever kind. Maybe I missed it, maybe it was not provided.Redav (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev: Is there a substantial number of divisions (e.g. countries, territories, provinces, etc.) that record the number of recoveries from COVID-19? I know that (country of) the Netherlands does not do so. For such countries, I do not see how a meaningful number of active cases can be obtained. I do, however, agree that a map which presents accurate values of the accurate cases per capita, would be very interesting and meaningful indeed.Redav (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The data is from John Hopkins University, who collects data from various sources, so I have no idea. But they do report 1 recovery from the Netherlands. Ythlev (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev: On https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 (which I think is the source you mean) I see mention of 2 recoveries for (the country of) Netherlands. This number is the same as shown on https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/. Following sources from both websites, I have not been able to find any ultimate source for these 2 alleged recoveries. What is more - and I repeat this message that I already repeatedly gave on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data in relation to the (first) table in the article - is that public health authority RIVM in (the country of) the Netherlands does not count recoveries. This can be read on its website https://www.rivm.nl/coronavirus/covid-19/vragen-antwoorden#nederland (in Dutch). There, the text "Hoeveel mensen zijn in Nederland inmiddels genezen van COVID-19? Dat is op dit moment niet bekend. Er is geen meldingsplicht om door te geven dat mensen zijn genezen van de ziekte. Iemand die 24 uur geen klachten meer heeft wordt als genezen beschouwd." translates as: "How many people in the Netherlands have recovered from COVID-19? At this moment this is unknown. There is no obligation to report that people have recovered. Someone who has no complaints during 24 hours is considered as recovered." Does this convince? Therefore, I can see no reason whatsoever to use a number of recoveries for (the country of) the Netherlands. Does this help to reach a consensus that (secondary) sources mentioning a specific number of recoveries are overriden by what can be considered as the best possible source for data about (the country of) the Netherlands at this point in time? (The Kingdom of the Netherlands - I repeat, or maybe I mention it for the first time on this page - includes and is more than (the country of) the Netherlands.)Redav (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Redav: Well, some countries are thought to underreport figures. Some countries have more tests than others. It's impossible for the map to be perfectly accurate no matter what. Ythlev (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev: Your point in itself is clear to me. In fact, I am convinced that not only some but every country underreports, in the sense that they undertest: not every infected person is tested. On top of that, there may be authorities which deliberately underreport with respect to the figures they know as the outcomes of the tests that they actually (had) carried out. But, as long as we accept to define the quantities used to fill tables and draw maps, as the figures published by the responsible authorities that may be assumed to best know the data (even if flawed by undertesting), in my view there is no reason to accept any figures that deviate from the figures reported by these responsible authorities. So, in the case of (the country of) the Netherlands with the responsible authority RIVM which clearly states they do not count the recovered, I see no reason to accept the number of 2 recovered as mentioned by some. If we would accept such a figure, we would deviate from what I think is probably the most feasible definition of a measured quantity to be presented, and we (would) seem to be following some - not or less well-defined - strategy of, say, estimation. I am not saying estimation is absolutely unhelpful, but I argue that estimated figures be separated from the reported figures, however flawed the latter may be. Contrary to what you write, I am not convinced that the map is bound to be inaccurate, at least not to the degree that I understand you mean. Starting from the definition that what the map and table present are figures reported by the respective responsible authorities, we seem to be able to be certain of at least accurately presenting these reported figures. So, the quantity we would (try to) present are not the actual numbers of active COVID-19 cases - however much we would like to have those figures -, but rather the reported figures just mentioned. The main inaccuracy left is then related to in how far an authority is the only (uncontested) authority for a particular division (e.g. country, province, state, territory).Redav (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Total cases per capita

I added an SVG version of the map with the latest numbers and sources. Feel free to comment and/or adapt the map. Raphaël Dunant (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Raphaël Dunant: Thanks for your work; it's nice to have it back! Regarding possible tweaks, I see a few:

Greenland appears to reflect the data for Denmark, rather than itself.
There's a weird border curving up along the right side.

Also, now that we have a workable map back, it would be nice to start trying to figure out how to integrate province-level data for China, as requested above. Sdkb (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Great indeed to have such a map. Of course, we need to realize that its value is limited by under-testing / under-reporting in the reported confirmed cases, but it certainly helps. As to China's provinces, would any of the svg-maps on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_subdivisions_of_China help? (I do not know how svg maps technically work, and hope the specialists can easily assess that.)Redav (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Sdkb: for the improvement suggestion. The weird border curving has been corrected. Note that Greenland has the correct value of 1 case per 56171 inhabitants , which is different color from mainland Denmark. I also colored French (Guyane, Reunion, etc.) and UK (Jersey, Gibraltar, etc.) dependencies differently than the mainland, with their correct color. For @Redav: remark on breaking down Chinese provinces, then we could argue of also breaking down big countries (Russia, Brazil, etc.)? Note that it will make the map harder to maintain, and that in this case we also need to do it for the total case map. We can open a new Talk session for finer-grained maps. Raphaël Dunant (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Oops, I assumed it wasn't in Greenland yet, but I guess we're at that point.^{We're now officially on track to win the IRL Plague, Inc. /humor} And yes, good thought to make that a separate section; I'll open that up now. Sdkb (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

At User talk:Dan Polansky, I now posted a script that creates an svg fully automatically from data that it grabs from Wikipedia. Maybe someone will find it useful. I suspect there are glitches in region match between the sources of data, but overall, my impression is good. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Raphaël Dunant: It looks great that, as far as I can judge from blowing up the map, at least three of the four constituent countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (namely Aruba, Curaçao and (the country of) the Netherlands) have separate values and colours; I did not yet succeed in discerning the fourth, being Sint Maarten, but that may be caused by the relative smallness of that country. You even created a separate value and colour for one the three public bodies within - i.e. belonging to - (the country of) the Netherlands that lie in the Caribbean, namely Bonaire. Again the relative smallness of the other two public bodies (Sint Eustatius and Saba) may be the cause of me not being able to identify them on the map. These are welcome contributions to me. As to breaking down countries into provinces, states: I have not exactly pleaded for such breaking down of numbers - though I have tried to point to svg maps for China broken down into provinces -, but - of course - interesting it would certainly be, if feasible and accurate.Redav (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Total deaths per capita

(outdent) I now created File:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map Total Deaths per Capita.svg, using code at Commons:File talk:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map Total Deaths per Capita.svg. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The deaths per capita is a nice job! It does seem to indicate the severity of the situation in the respective countries much better than the cases per capita. I hope we can use it! —St.nerol (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the remark about the visibility. I brightened the total cases per capita map to make it more readable. Raphaël Dunant (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Including additional maps in collapsed state

Extended content

Draft:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic/Infobox sandbox Old title: Let's introduce an interactive drop-down menu to switch between maps

As I explained above, I think the per capita cases map is much more useful for readers than the total cases map, and will continue to become even more so as the virus said. That said, I can imagine some readers validly wanting to see a total cases map, as well as a total deaths map, per capita deaths map, total new cases map, and per capita new cases map. As we (hopefully) work on getting the per capita map turned into an SVG, I was wondering whether it would be possible to, instead of having multiple maps above and below each other, display one map by default (I'd prefer the per capita cases map due again to my explanation above, but that's open to debate), and have a drop-down menu that readers could use to switch between maps, ideally including most or all of the ones I just listed. Do any of the more technically-inclined among you know if we could do that? I know it's fancy, but it seems like it would be worth the effort for the top of an article as prominent as this. Sdkb (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be getting engagement. Is that since you all don't like the idea, or just since no one who has seen this yet knows how to do it? If you have an opinion for/against the idea, it'd be helpful to know that, as achieving consensus is a precursor to figuring out technical implementation. Sdkb (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so after looking into this a bit, I think a much easier option that'd have a similar effect would be to include a bunch of maps but just collapse them by default using {{collapsed infobox section begin}} and {{collapsed infobox section end}}. What say you all to that? Sdkb (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: It's a little hard to know before I've seen it. It's probably a good idea, but I think at least one map should be visible without clicking. I started an RfC above about which maps to use, which is relevant with regards to your initiative. St.nerol (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@St.nerol: I've whipped up a preview of what it might look like in the sandbox and added it along the side here. The maps included or not included are obviously open to debate; your RfC should hopefully help clarify that. Sdkb (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion

Latest comment: 4 years ago61 comments34 people in discussion

Proposal: Move moratorium

These requested moves on here are getting disruptive so I formally propose a moratorium. I am neutral on how long it should be. Interstellarity (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Forward dating to prevent auto archiving. Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Further forward dating to prevent auto archiving. Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Support

Support - We need to focus on the content, not the title. What the final title will be hinges on what the end-point of this pandemic ends up being: we should be wary about trying to title the current incident while living through it. doktorb _words^deeds 20:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Support The last move was pretty disruptive, taking the usual editors to move all other related pages and updating them to conform to the new page name of this main article. Let's wait for the pandemic to stabilise first (be it for good or bad). robertsky (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Support a 30 day move moratorium, unless and new consensus to lift this moratorium occurs before then. - MrX 🖋 21:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Support. The renamings 3 time a day is ridiculous. Iluvalar (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Support. This is clearly a long-running distraction that has been affecting this page and its related subpages. Carrots have stopped working, so it's time for the stick. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Support. I think that there are reasonable arguments for COVID-19 rather than coronavirus, but there are also good counterarguments, and any proposal along these lines wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being seen as a priority right now. We can get back to this in six to twelve months' time. The change to pandemic was justified, but any other changes (such as from coronavirus to COVID-19, or in terms of the year(s)), are minor matters compared to the content. I propose at least a 3-month moratorium. Boud (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Support. This is clearly needed now, as yet another RM comes along on yet another triviality. Obviously moratoria are not suicide pacts - if something radically changes in the real world, then of course we're allowed to think again. But for now the current names enjoy solid consensus and we should have the ability to shut down quickly the never-ending attempts at moves between the different names, when nothing has radically changed. — Amakuru (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
support In the last 2 weeks, there have been about 13 requested moves, many of which have been speedily closed per SNOW. In the last RM, some editors supported the idea of a moratorium. Therefore, I request that there be a moratorium for the next 3 months on page moves, as having these daily requests is becoming very disruptive. Three months should be long enough for the pandemic to die down somewhat and by then we should all have the time to look more closely at the requests without being bogged down by the rapidly evolving situation currently going on. Thanks. Mgasparin (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
would support such action--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Support the standard six month moratorium. No move proposals on this page before September. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Support — I thought we had a moratorium already. Carl Fredrik^talk 13:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Support Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Support This talk page is already too enormous, additional move discussions would clutter it up further. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Support See above comments. — RealFakeKim T 08:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

'Oppose': I notice there was some WP:RM recently, but most of them seems to too focus on "wanting to close" despite some merit on the RM starter side. I want to restrict users from attempting to enforce additional rules that would censor voices in RM and prevent users from using vote "Speedy Close" or having it closed for WP:SNOW. Wants them to keep RM open for 7 days no matter how much were started after another. Regice2020 (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Speedy Close As this issue been reviewed. It apparently there is a group individuals wants to prevent name changes unless it fits their "groups" agenda by proposal ridiculous amount rules to restrict voices from the other side. This the regular way to request a move and just make sure no other move are active Request Move Request. The users are following the instructions and these individuals are not allowing it last longer than 1 day for wahtever reason. Regice2020 (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: we moved too slowly on removing "Wuhan" from the article title. A move moratorium is too extreme of a solution to this problem. We should remain adaptable. This may be for another discussion, but I propose we only allow one move request or move review to be open at a time. This makes sense because move requests/reviews technically conflict with each other. For example, we can move from "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic" to "2019–20 COVID-19 pandemic" or to "2019–20 SARS-CoV-2 pandemic" but not to both. In practice, this means any move request started while a request or move review is still ongoing gets closed immediately, and all discussion redirected to the active move discussion. I am still thinking of how to close the loophole of people NACing a move discussion early just so they can post their own. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 07:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: Reflecting accuracy in titles is as important, if not more so, then the content. Sun Creator^(talk) 14:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: we can handle move requests OK. There is no need for a moratorium. Bondegezou (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose this is a current event so there's a reasonable chance of things changing and thus a different title could easily be desirable however maybe we should consider not adding the move notice template added by RMCD bot? Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose vehemently, because it is wrong. Coronavirus is the name of the group to which the virus responsible belongs; COVID-19 is the name of the disease, and the pandemic is of the disease. We absolutely should not enshrine error for an instant longer than necessary. I note that not one of the support !votes is based on a claim that the current title is correct, and the clear consensus in the two following sections following this, and in [on the project's talk page] is that this is wrongly titled. Kevin McE (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment

We have proven that we are able to deal with multiple move requests, and we cannot predict the future. So let’s just be the encyclopaedia that we are, and just deal with them when they arise. —49.195.179.13 (talk) 05:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Instead of a formal move request that puts a notice on top of the page, start an informal discussion on this page first to float the ideas. I think almost all of these move requests are wasting effort. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I support this option. A moratorium on move request notices, not on move discussions. -St.nerol (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Support this as well. --Efly (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I support this. Sdkb (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I think this is just part of a larger issue of settled matters being dredged up again and again on this talk page. It's indicative of the need for a "current consensuses" banner, as has been proposed below, and is basically awaiting someone to create it. Sdkb (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Allowing users follow the "leave it open 7 days rule" no matter what is the best optionRegice2020 (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Even with that rule, we have chaos. That rule alone still allows, for example, three concurrent (and mutually exclusive) move discussions. Furthermore, WP:SNOW closing has proven effective in controlling the discussions. I wanted to propose, in addition to what I have in my oppose !vote, that only admins close move discussions for the next month or so, as RfA usually selects those who have good understanding of policy. Problem is that we'd have to have a few admins watch this page like a hawk, close any new move discussions as they happen, and redirect the existing one...we're already strapped for admins as it is. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Why would you propose that? Have there been any problematic non-admin closes? Carl Fredrik^talk 09:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Second question: no. First question: because I was thinking specifically about my proposal to have only one move request open at a time. That proposal has a loophole: someone could NAC early just to start their own move request. So far, I see two ways to close that loophole: to force move requests to be open for at least seven days or to restrict closing move requests to admins. My above comment explains my preference, if the we had the "only one open move request" rule, for the latter. Of course, restricting closure to admins makes no sense without the "only one move request open at a time" rule I proposed in my oppose !vote above. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Can't the request be closed? It seems to have a majority for Support, and it's been 10 days. I think that's enough time for consensus. 2607:FB90:7B49:613A:B83C:EC7B:288B:F4A9 (talk)

Pandemics are named for the disease, not the virus

Hello. This discussion surrounds the current title and whether it is medically correct or incorrect. Please read the following comments and add your thoughts/votes below. ~ Magna19 (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

In the light of the early closure of my proposed move of this article, please could somebody, preferably one of those who objected to it, provide any medically competent grounds for claiming that a virus, as opposed to a disease, can be the subject of a pandemic? Kevin McE (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Kevin McE the coronavirus caused the pandemic. I don't see what your trying to say. — RealFakeKim T 10:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the virus caused the pandemic, but that is like saying that a match (as opposed to the fire caused by that match) destroyed a garden shed. By definition, a pandemic is about the spread of a disease, not of the virus that causes it. The pandemic should carry the name of the disease. In 1918 there was a Spanish flu pandemic, not an H1N1 pandemic (named for the disease, not the virus). Kevin McE (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough but it is it's most conmmon name so should be the title of the article per WP:COMMONNAME. — RealFakeKim T 15:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 is just as prevalent and precise instead of incorrect. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Support moving to 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic: "A pandemic is a disease epidemic that has spread across a large region." This is a COVID-19 pandemic not a coronavirus pandemic. I also disagree it's the most "common" name. Everybody calls it COVID-19 or Coronavirus disease 2019. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Strongly Disagre It's most commonly refered to as 'the coronavirus' or 'COVID-19'. I have never hear it beeing called 'Coronavirus disease 2019' in the main stream media. I stand behind what I previously said the WP:COMMONNAME is coronavirus. — RealFakeKim T 18:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

We have WHO[8], Johns Hopkins[9], and CDC.[10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm saying the media medical institutions will give it it's proper name. I know you can't uses it as a source but in everyday conversations it's 'the coronavirus'. — RealFakeKim T 08:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with User:Doc James. Let's use those sources. The shorter name is preferable: COVID-19 but the full name is fine (the year might be confusing though) --Gtoffoletto (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Kevin McE: I took the freedom of merging your two consecutive threads. It does not seem very reasonable to have two concurrent and consecutive threads about your objections to move request closure. If you think otherwise, feel free to split them again and sorry for the inconvenience. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I will (and now have) split them again: they are separate questions. They are not merely about objections to a premature closure, but are seeking someone, anyone, to make an informed argument as to why the current name, with the errors it incorporates, is defensible in an encyclopaedia. Kevin McE (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Support: We need to be consistent. COVID-19 is a coronavirus. It is not "coronavirus disease 2019-20". It is "Coronavirus disease 2019", but "2019-20 coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic" would just be confusing. I think that all Wikipedia articles should exclusively refer to this disease as "COVID-19" in both titles and article text. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Support - COVID-19 is a disease caused by a specific coronavirus (SARS-cOV-2). Current title is strange I agree. 1. Has only been a pandemic in 2020, 2. the broad virus group is currently named as being the pandemic when as you say, it should be the disease. Title should be "2020 COVID-19 Pandemic". ~ Magna19 (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Support 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic as the correct and common name —Almaty (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. Coronavirus disease 2019 is the correct "official" name. COVID-19 is an abbreviation for the official name. The current title is clear. Natureium (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I had never proposed a name for the article that included the abbreviation, so I have no idea what you are opposing. I do note, however, that you acknowledge that the name of the disease, and therefore of the pandemic, is not simply 'coronavirus'. It seems extraordinary that when it comes to an alternative title you object to a widely used abbreviation that has probably reached COMMONNAME status, but when defending the current erroneous title, you set the threshold no higher than "clear". Kevin McE (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Because the current name is also a common name. No one is going to be confused by this title. Natureium (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

That would make them equally suitable, if other things were equal, which they are not.

Which brings us back to the challenge with which I started this section: to "provide any medically competent grounds for claiming that a virus, as opposed to a disease, can be the subject of a pandemic". Anything? Kevin McE (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Support - Coronaviruses are a large class of viruses, with the most common types leading to symptoms identical to the common cold. The virus that causes COVID-19 should not be confused for these more common viruses, and therefore I support the move. --Ted Edwards 19:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep page at current name I think it is fine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Pandemic in 2019???

In the light of the early closure of my proposed move of this article, please could somebody, preferably one of those who objected to it, provide some proof of the existence of a pandemic in 2019? Kevin McE (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Kevin McE in your move request you request it's name to be changed to Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic I asume this means you think the pandemic started in 2019. — RealFakeKim T 10:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

No, the name of the disease is 'coronavirus disease 2019'. Your assumption is wrong. It is the title of the argument that posits the existence of a pandemic in 2019, not my proposal. Kevin McE (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok fine about the disease thing. For the pandemic it wasn't labeled a pandemic then correct but the events at the time lead to were we are now. — RealFakeKim T 15:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

The first of those links fails; the second points to a CDC article that consistently refers to the disease as 'Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)' and uses 'coronavirus' on its own onlt when refering to the virus; the third is from a non-medical stats gathering website that contributes othing, and displays its ignorance by refering to 'coronavirus COVID-19' (one wonders what they thought the first two letters of the acronym covid stand for). I'm not sure what anyone was trying to prove by posting this list. Kevin McE (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Support - you're medically correct on both counts. Title should be "2020 COVID-19 Pandemic". Magna19 (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Variation in death rates by country

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

Countries' death rates vary a great deal. For example, Germany has a large number of cases (well over 20,000), yet has a very low death rate of less than half a percent (fewer than 100). What are the reasons for that? Jim Michael (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

There's some discussion of this at Coronavirus disease 2019 and we could bring some of that text over. See Talk:Coronavirus_disease_2019#Case_Fatality_Rate_is_falling_dramatically_and_currently_0.7%_-_from_WHO for more discussion.

Two big problems with measuring the death rate are counting mild cases and time. If you're not doing enough testing, you can miss mild cases, underestimate the denominator and the death rate looks higher. The death rate can look lower if cases were recently infected. It takes time for people to die of the condition, so if numbers are going up rapidly, most of your cases haven't had the condition for long, and your death rate looks better than it should do. As well as those methodological problems, you then have different case mixes. Mortality is higher in older people. A country with an older population (e.g. Italy) will thus have a higher death rate than one with a younger population (e.g. China). There may also be differences in underlying conditions, e.g. because of historical differences in smoking behaviour. After those explanations, there may then be differences in the response of the health services. Bondegezou (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Also currently official reporting in Germany is not reliable/comparable. In Italy over 99% of deaths have preexisting conditions (average death has 2.7 preexisting conditions) so many deaths can be unidentified as covid-19 or a country may chose not to report them. Germany is an outlier compared to most other countries so the above is the most probable explanation. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

There can be variation in how deaths are reported and the accuracy in determining the cause of death, but generally death certification is pretty accurate compared to most things in epidemiology. I would doubt differences in death reporting are the main factor. Bondegezou (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Variations across countries in initial estimates of death rates are common in pandemics. For example, initial country estimates for case fatality rates for the 2009 Swine Flu varied from 0.1% to 5%^[1]. This variation is due to many factors but probably the most important are variations in the sample size and the degree of sample bias^[2] in the testing used by different countries. Many countries have acknowledged that they have focused testing to date mostly on the seriously ill, whereas it is known most people who contract the disease only have mild symptoms or are asymptomatic^[3]. In addition to this sample bias, most countries have done far too little testing. No country has tested more than 1% of their population to date. The highest so far is Norway - they have tested 0.88% of their population to date (population = 5,367,580 tests = 49,451). Norway is also the country with one of the lowest fatality rates so far (0.29%). By comparison, the UK has only tested 0.1% of their population, but has a death rate of 4.95%. There thus seems be a reverse correlation between amount of testing and death rate. Other factors are obviously important too, and the only real solution will be for countries to do a lot more testing. However, in the meantime, some experts advise that it is best to assume that countries that have done the most testing (Germany, Norway, South Korea) - particularly relative to the number of deaths - are probably reporting the most reliable fatality rates^[4]. It should also be noted that reported coronavirus death rates in China have declined over time^[5], and that the final death rate for Swine Flu (0.02%)^[6] turned out to be 5 times less than the lowest initial estimate, and 250 times less than the highest. Surfingdan (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Well done on the Death subsection and its infobox. Just a couple of adjustments: the flag next to "Portugal" is Sweden. And the table collides with the table box above it (showing cases by country) so it displays in the middle of the page instead of by a margin. 70.27.169.176 (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the death subsection please change the sentence "Other estimates of the CFR vary from 1.4%[247] to 2.3%.[248]" to "Other estimates of the CFR vary from 0.2% to 2.3%". Here is a reference for the 0.2% estimate: https://www.cebm.net/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/?fbclid=IwAR36duQ551JpN1g8U8m0HQlwDse5ZElgDW7KIZa8tn9GxMgQ70ZZwHl-nXE I would make this change myself, but my account is not yet confirmed. After this sentence please also add the following sentence: "It has been found in other recent pandemics, such as Swine Flu, that CFR estimates decreased significantly over time (initial estimates ranged from 0.1% to 5.1%^[7], whereas the final conclusion was 0.02%^[8]), and it has also been found that initial CFR estimates for coronavirus in China decreased markedly over time from 17% (for those with symptom onset 1 - 10 January) to 1% (for those with symptom onset in February)^[9]". Many thanks. Surfingdan (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Recovery time

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Guys, I'm new to wiki editing - But i really can't understand why if there are more than 100 000 recoveries - there is no reliable statistics and information about - how long it took to recover? I hope you will draw attention to that matter and find some information and post it. Thank you! ˜˜˜˜˜˜23:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC) Alex Zhi, 24.03.2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.68.207.253 (talk)

I also noticed this as an issue. There is no mention in the main article about time to recovery. Here's an article about the subject from a reputable UK source [11] (Daily Telegraph) but unfortunately it's behind a paywall. It gives an average recovery time of 14 days. Arcturus (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: I moved this from the talk archive page, because old discussions should be re-opened on the main talk page. Revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic/Archive_22&diff=947043212&oldid=947036340 2607:FB90:2429:B9EA:9139:A592:8FEB:88F6 (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Those last links lead to nowhere - I can see no related themes. Was this (moved this talk to..?) done just to close the theme? Or How can I follow, where to look? ˜˜˜˜Alex.Zhi (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC) Alex Zhi, 24.03.2020

@Alex.Zhi: I moved the above comment from the IP editor in Special:Diff/947050843. You started a discussion on an archived page in Special:Diff/947043212. The IP editor moved it here instead. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Mutations and reinfections

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Does anyone have a reliable source that measures the mutability of this virus, or if there is proof that it has already mutated? I believe that we should include that kind of information. Especially, if some reliable source relates how millions (or billions) of infected people would produce more mutations and then, reinfections. --Julian (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Cite errors

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There are a bunch of cite errors at the bottom of the page? Shouldn't the errors be removed?

Text (copy-pasted):

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "AutoDW-162" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "brisbanetimes20200126" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "20200124olympic" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "20200125japantimes" is not used in the content (see the help page).(please sign post)

unfortunately those happen quite abit when references are removed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Oops, I think these may have been introduced when I took out some outdated/insignificant sports content. They look like they're just referenced in the ref section itself rather than anywhere in the article, so they're of no use at this point. So feel free to take them out. Sdkb (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

High quality review article on experimental treatment

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

[12]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Libya data update

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

{{help}} One confirmed case in Libya https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-libya-measures/libya-confirms-first-coronavirus-case-amid-fear-over-readiness-idUSKBN21B2SF

Please add Libya to the confirmed countries and territories list.

It has been added by someone, thanks. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Link to a chart in the embedded video

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a chart/graph in the "video discussing the basic reproduction number and case fatality rate", shown at about 7:30 till 7:43, with a link to London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine's Centre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Disease (CMMID)'s GitHub page with that same chart and more data, probably more recent:

 https://cmmid.github.io/topics/covid19/current-patterns-transmission/global-time-varying-transmission.html#summary-of-latest-reproduction-number-and-case-count-estimates

(The tab titled "Summary of latest reproduction number and case count estimates" needs to be clicked to reveal the chart; doesn't seem to scroll/show automatically.)

Shall this be somehow added in the article? Or, is it linked already?

(Don't know how, or if, the video is related to the CMMID page.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.183.172.66 (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Add graph showing 10 most affected countries using data from WHO

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Semi-log graph showing the change in total count from the first reported date for the 10 most affected countries^[10]
Semi-log graph showing the change in total count(starting from 100) for the 10 most affected countries excluding China
Semi-log graph showing the change in total count(starting from 100) for the 10 most affected countries

This was previously requested. But now it has updated description. Based on previous comments 2 more graphs have been added. But I still think the 1st graph has more information.

I will give my opinion that the lines have to be thicker to be visible and colour identified in the thumbnail. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I have updated the thickness for graph 1.Givingbacktosociety (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Graph 1 looks excellent. Could you also do likewise for graphs 2/3? Thanks!! Mgasparin (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Updated other graphs as well. As the y-axis is in log scale, graph 2 and 3 are not better than graph1. So I suggest to use graph1. Givingbacktosociety (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

You cannot remove old conversations. You can make new threads without deleting the old threads. 2607:FB90:7B49:613A:B83C:EC7B:288B:F4A9 (talk) 03:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

ok.Givingbacktosociety (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Comparing from each country's "day 1", which is different for each country, was a main reason this was previously rejected; it's just not overly useful. That still hasn't changed, despite the other tweaks. Sdkb (talk) 04:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I already explained that it is useful as it can show the diffence in the rate of change in each country.Givingbacktosociety (talk) 04:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Bottom template not being invoked

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The templates at the bottom of the page are not being invoked. They look like links rather than the actual template. I believe this is because of the Wikipedia:Template limits. -Xbony2 (talk) 05:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

See 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Template include size limit exceeded. robertsky (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Bad photo for "Impact on culture" section

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

A sign on a Baptist Christian church that has been temporarily closed, due to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic.

The current photo for the cultural subsection of the impacts section (see right) is pretty bad — it's a boring text message on a door. Any ideas for a better replacement? Perhaps the IOC announcing the postponement of the Olympics, although I'd ideally like something more tied to the kinds of cultural disruption people are experiencing in everyday life. Sdkb (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree it shoul;d be changed and as the Olympics are a global cultural event I think its the only thing to fit the requerments for this global overveiw. — RealFakeKim T 19:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so I found the image for the Tokyo announcement, but it appears there's no freely licensed version of it. The new playground image that has popped up really isn't better than the church one — it's too visually cluttered, not obviously "closed" enough, and (more minorly) also U.S.-centric. Could we perhaps get something like a big "closed" LED billboard on a stadium, or a blocked off entrance to a holy site in Mecca, or closed theatres on Broadway? Sdkb (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I found the right category, and a decent image in it, File:3404926 سایه کرونا بر زندگی شهری.jpg. Sdkb (talk) 00:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't think a photo of the Olympics will work. For example, even if that image above was free I would oppose it. It looks just like some random dude talking. Okay there is an Olympics flag in the background, but it doesn't convey the sense that the Olympics is being postponed. Frankly, the church photo is better. But IMO the mosque photo is the best so far. Okay it may not be clear why it's closed, but it at least it conveys the idea of what is happening. If we did want a sports photo IMO of a team playing in an empty stadium may work, although such things were largely for a short time and so some may suggest they are misleading compared to the fact most have just been cancelled. And of course they didn't have random people in attendance so finding a free one may be difficult. Nil Einne (talk) 07:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Slim down the international aid section

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

A task for anyone who wants to help out (and this is pretty newcomer-friendly): please trim down the international aid section to a much shorter length, including only the most significant examples. It has become badly bloated in its current state. Sdkb (talk) 07:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Done. ~ Magna19 (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Magna19: Awesome; thanks! Sdkb (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: idk, i believe that a new article about it should eventually be created. We are missing out on a ton of stuff, specially since most countries in the world neither speak English nor have large populations (which increases the chance of some people learning it and speaking it) Pancho507 (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Template include size limit exceeded

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

If you care about the template errors from the navboxes at the bottom of the article, I've started a VPT thread about the problem. Jc86035 (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

2,097,152 bytes is unreasonable design-- Moshirk (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm hoping it doesn't get any larger, since it already takes 9.9 seconds to parse. There are other ways it will break besides this one, if it keeps getting larger. From a reader's point of view, it seems quite bloated. In my opinion, the best solution is to split and summarise. -- Tim Starling (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

So we include Transnistria in (the Republic of) Moldova but Northern Cyprus is excluded from (the Republic of) Cyprus. Taxydromeio (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The only countries that recognise Transnistria's independence are other countries that have little to no recognition of their independence but Northern Cyprus is recognised by Turky. — RealFakeKim T 11:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Olympics Postponed

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The IOC and Japan have agreed to postpone the olympics due to the coronavirus pandemic. Can someone add this in the article when an official announcement comes out? MJVAccount (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

With something as big as the Olympics being delayed I'm sure it will be added quickly after the offical annoucment. Thank, — RealFakeKim T 13:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Same with the EURO 2020 it’s postponed to 2021. That could be mentioned somewhere in the article. Hi poland (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect lockdown date for France

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the "Domestic Responses" section for France, the page states "A national lockdown was put in place on 27 March." Kindly note,

The 27 March has not yet occurred(!)
French President Emmanuel Macron announced the national confinement order on the evening of 16 March. It went into effect at noon on 17 March, which is the correct date.

The correct date is referenced here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_France

(Bkknuth (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkknuth (talk • contribs) 14:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Good catch – thank you! Fixed :) Accedie^{talk to me} 15:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

[1] ttps://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

[2] ttps://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/ese.14.33.19309-en

[3] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_bias

[4] ttps://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.18.20038125v1.full.pdf

[5] ttps://www.cebm.net/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/

[6] ttps://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf

[7] ttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-flu-who/world-must-prepare-for-inevitable-next-flu-pandemic-who-says-idUSKBN1QS1EP

[8] ttps://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/ese.14.33.19309-en

[9] ttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-flu-who/world-must-prepare-for-inevitable-next-flu-pandemic-who-says-idUSKBN1QS1EP

[10] ttps://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf

[whosituationreports-11] "Novel Coronavirus 2019 - Situation Updates". WHO. Retrieved 21 March 2020.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]