Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United States/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

must work with potential coronavirus exposure since cut off from unemployment benefits, add?

Several states warned residents who are called back to work that they may be cut off from unemployment benefits if they refuse to return because they don’t feel safe. Concern about exposure to coronavirus is typically not a sufficient enough reason to stay home and continue collecting benefits, according to a recent guidance from the US Department of Labor.

• https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/29/politics/states-reopening-unemployment-benefits/index.html

X1\ (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Add New Study to Trump Section

In the following section:

On March 17 a French doctor made an online report of a small clinical study claiming good results treating coronavirus patients with the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine. On March 18 the German drug manufacturer Bayer offered to donate millions of doses of the drug to the FDA.[403] The next day, March 19, Trump promoted hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine during his daily briefing as potential treatments by prescription for COVID-19.[404][405] For the next several weeks Trump continued to promote the drug as a potential "game changer" in treatment of the virus.[406] Within days of his first mention of the drug, a shortage occurred for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in the United States, while panic buying occurred overseas in Africa and South Asia.[407][408]

Add the following: One study found that public demand for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine massively increased after endorsements by Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.178.212 (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

References

As you noted, the article already has sources for the impact of Trump's mention of the drugs. However, the study notes Elon Musk's comments on March 16, which is not in the article at all. Interested in whether other editors think another sentence is desirable. GoingBatty (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the last sentence in the existing paragraph already implies what the new sentence does.--Light show (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Unexplained mass deletions by an editor

User:Buidhe, a new editor to the article, has mass deleted text from the article without any reasonable rationale. A few examples: here, here, and here. They wholesale deleted about 3,000 words of detailed, highly relevant text having dozens of current citations. That editor was asked a number of times to discuss such mass edits, instead of their quick rationale, UNDUE info that belongs in another section or not at all and rm UNDUE quotebox, unrelated info.

Their deletions were reverted and they chose instead to ignore the request and continued deleting the material without discussing. As such, their wholesale unexplained deletions appear to violate the warning posted at the top of the article's editing page, intended to be seen by anyone "who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour..." --Light show (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• I am following Wikipedia guidelines, specifically WP:Article size (after deletions, the article is still well above the recommended size), WP:ONUS (which says that the onus for including content is on the editors arguing for inclusion), WP:Summary style (which says that details should be in sub-articles), and the commonsense rule that the US article should not try to go into what is happening in other countries in order to keep the article readable and relevant. buidhe 07:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  The examples below are misleading, since I did not delete all the content. I retained the most relevant information and refactored to be more concise and helpful to readers. WP:Summary style should be used here because one article cannot have all the information on coronavirus. buidhe 08:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Your mass deletions without requested discussion should all be restored. --Light show (talk) 08:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

You're the one who needs to prove consensus for the INCLUSION of this content, per WP:ONUS. buidhe 08:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

For any interested editors, I've opened a discussion about this here. --Light show (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Example 1

From the section, Drug therapies, the editor deleted the following material with the rationale: not sufficiently relevant to US.

There is also concern that if the virus mutates as does the yearly influenza, there could be a new strain each year.

There are many fake medications advertised which are unproven and have no medical benefit. In addition, some medical products and methods that claim to diagnose, prevent and cure COVID-19 are also considered a sham. Fake medicines sold for COVID-19 may not contain the ingredients they claim to contain, and may even contain harmful ingredients. As a result, the WHO has requested member countries to immediately notify them if any fake medicines or other falsified products are discovered. People in less developed countries such as India, Venezuela and China, have turned to using alternative medicines, often with governments promoting them as remedies that may have existed for centuries.

References

@Light show: - removed the non-deleted content [1] from the quote box. starship.paint (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Example 2

From the section Measuring case and mortality rates, they deleted the material below with the rationale that it was "undue and irrelevant."

The New York Times on March 26, reported that the U.S. led the world in having the highest number of confirmed cases, which made it the epicenter of the pandemic. An analysis of coronavirus cases per capita (per million population) show a different picture, as while the U.S. had the highest number of cases in the world, at that time it was low on a per capita basis. According to one publication, "comparing the number of cases per million residents tells a different story about which countries are hardest hit by the pandemic," noting that the U.S. total was low on the cases per capita basis at that time.

The BBC reported on April 21 that the five largest countries in Western Europe, having a combined population close to America's, had over twice its per capita death rate. The BBC attributed such totals to the differences in how countries recorded their deaths, noting that there is no accepted international standard for how deaths are measured for this pandemic. For example, France includes deaths in care homes in its daily headline numbers, but the daily figures for England only include deaths in hospitals. While Belgium is including all potential deaths in nursing homes, even if Covid-19 has not been confirmed as the cause of death.
In mid-April, a tally by the New York Times found that at least 7,000 deaths from the pandemic took place at nursing homes, or 20% of all deaths nationwide. A survey by the Wall Street Journal found at least 10,700 deaths at nursing homes of the 46,000 deaths nationwide. As of April 23, the Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that 27% of deaths have occurred in nursing homes from data reported from 23 states. Outside the U.S., the WHO estimated that up to 50% of coronavirus-related deaths in Europe had occurred within nursing homes, which the WHO's top official in Europe described as an "unimaginable tragedy."

References

@Light show: - removed the non-deleted content [2] from the quote box. starship.paint (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for revising. BTW, I do you, or any other editors reading this, also agree that the 3rd paragraph in the box is "undue and irrelevant"? --Light show (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

We don't need to quote several estimates of deaths in nursing homes, one will do. buidhe 23:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Light show: - I think that deaths in nursing homes are relevant. which the WHO's top official in Europe described as an "unimaginable tragedy." is not needed. Luckily WaPo did compare the rate in U.S. vs Europe, so the first part of the last sentence is fine. starship.paint (talk) 05:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

So you guys feel that the chance of 50% of deaths having happened at nursing homes is only relevant enough to devote a few words to, while a recent addition like the one below, in an overly long article, should take space priority due to it's clear relevance to the pandemic:--Light show

On April 25, it was reported that of 35 daily coronavirus task force briefings over the previous three weeks (held since March 16), Trump spoke for 13 of the 28 hours—including two hours spent on attacks and 45 minutes praising himself and his administration, but just ​4 1⁄2 minutes expressing condolences for coronavirus victims. Trump said something false or misleading in nearly a quarter of his prepared comments or answers to questions.[388] On April 26, it is reported of the approximate 260,000 words Trump has spoken at the briefings about the virus, the most recurring utterances are self-congratulations, roughly 600 of them, which are predicated on exaggerations and falsehoods. Trump credits others (more than 360 times) for their work, but he also blames others (more than 110 times) for response inadequacies. Trump's attempts to display empathy or appeal to national unity (about 160 instances) amount to a quarter of the number of times he complimented himself or a top member of his team.[407]

Light show (talk) 07:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of splitting that content to Trump administration response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic as proposed above. buidhe 09:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Light show: - 50% of deaths having happened at nursing homes in Europe. Of course that isn't worth much mention. I didn't say trim the nursing home deaths in the U.S. I agreed with you that they are relevant. starship.paint (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Light show and Buidhe: - I have restored much of the last paragraph. [3] starship.paint (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Example 3

From the section on Timeline of US cases, they deleted the following text with the rationale of "UNDUE info that belongs in another section"

Alex Azar said the offer to send a team of U.S. health experts to China was repeated multiple times, but as of January 28, they had not received China's approval. Nor had the WHO yet been to China to perform its own investigation despite weeks of requests. Meanwhile, on January 28, the CDC updated its China travel recommendations to level 3, its highest alert. On February 8, the WHO's director general announced that a team of international experts had been assembled to travel to China and that he hoped officials from the CDC would also be part of that mission. However, as of April 23, neither the CDC nor any American scientists have been allowed to visit to gather data.

At that same time, a number of U.S. organizations began sending personal protective equipment to China in late January. Boeing announced a donation of 250,000 medical masks to help address China's supply shortages, while the United Church of Christ (UCC) and American Baptist Churches USA joined an ecumenical effort of American churches to provide much-needed medical supplies to China.

By late January the U.S. State Department also took steps to help China. Deputy Secretary of State Steve Biegun offered America's "deepest compassion" to the Chinese as the State Department organized a "robust effort to help the Chinese people get their arms around this outbreak". The State Department said on February 7 that it has facilitated the transportation of nearly 17.8 tons of medical supplies to China, including masks, gowns, gauze, respirators, and other vital materials. On the same day, U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo announced a $100 million pledge to China and other countries to assist with their fights against the virus, though on 21 March, China said it had not received epidemic funding from U.S. government and reiterated that again on 3 April. A few weeks later the State Department offered to help Iran fight its own outbreak, as their cases and deaths were dramatically increasing.

On February 7, Vice President Mike Pence, said he had spoken to Chinese President Xi Jinping in a telephone call and repeated that the United States was ready to help China. And Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar, submitted names of U.S. experts to the WHO that would hopefully assist China with the outbreak response upon China's approval. He also told them the U.S. would cover their expenses and would provide $105 million in funding, adding that he had requested another $136 million from Congress.

European countries began reporting cases in January, including Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom, and by March 12 there were cases reported in all 27 EU countries. Britain, Japan and Germany advised against non-essential travel to China, while Singapore became the first Southeast Asian nation to do so. During December, January and February, at least 3.4 million people from other countries had traveled to the U.S. In mid-March 2020, the European Commission's president Ursula von der Leyen and other EU leaders condemned the U.S. decision to restrict travel from the coronavirus-affected European Union to the United States.

References

--Light show (talk) 08:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Light show: - as can be seen from the diff you provided, not all of the text you quoted above was deleted. As such, your quote above is misleading. starship.paint (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to point out the text not deleted. In copying the 10,000 character section of 1,300 words that it seemed were deleted, it's possible some were incorrect. Which ones did you notice, and I'll delete them from the quote box? --Light show (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Light show: - I've removed from the quote box [4] the text which was not deleted. starship.paint (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Extensive info on US efforts to help other countries has little relevance in this article and is better in an article on US federal govt response. Info about cases in other countries should be kept to a minimum. And we should avoid as much as possible duplicating info from timeline that is covered later in the article (in sections dealing with govt response and so forth). buidhe 09:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, the material can be moved to another section. There seems to be no reason to censor delete those few paragraphs. They describe US efforts to help other countries, such as China, with funds and PPE, and offers to send them medical teams to help their investigation as to the source and treatment of the new virus. And seeing that that there is currently another massive article- nearly 12,000 words- devoted mostly to criticizing our administration, some positive information should likely have more than "little relevance," IMO. --Light show (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Is an RfC necessary as an admin mentioned after an ANI?--Light show (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Light show and Buidhe: - an RfC is only needed if the dispute is continuing. Is it? starship.paint (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't see how US sending supplies to China has any effect on how the epidemic proceeds in the US, which is the subject of the article. If you think the other article is too critical of Trump and fails NPOV, that article should be fixed rather than be used to include information elsewhere. buidhe 04:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The article concerns the past, present, and future. For instance, had China asked or allowed the WHO and CDC to assist in sourcing and containing the outbreak, some experts feel it could have been stopped there. Instead, the best the U.S. could do in early Jan. was to warn travelers to avoid animals, animal markets and products. Even researchers at University of Southampton, found that if interventions had started a few weeks earlier, cases could have been reduced by 95 percent. --Light show (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Example 4

From the section Vaccine research, they deleted the following material as "undue and unrelated info."

A vaccine to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is currently the best hope for ending the pandemic.

China is also doing vaccine research and has three vaccines entering advanced development, and hope to have a vaccine available for widespread use next year.

A few countries in Europe are also making progress, including the UK, where a team at Oxford University developed a potenial vaccine in less than three months, and which it is currently testing. And researchers in Switzerland have planned their own vaccine tests for August 2020.

References

--Light show (talk) 08:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Light show: removed the non-deleted content [5] from the quote box. starship.paint (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

CDC/model projected death/cases increases, add?

The CDC projects that by June 1, the coronavirus death toll in the U.S. will reach about 3,000 daily deaths – nearly double the current number of about 1,750 – and COVID-19 cases will surge to about 200,000 per day – up from about 25,000. The draft report, based on government modeling and put together in chart form by FEMA, predicts a sharp increase in both cases and deaths beginning around May 14. The White House and the CDC, however, disavowed the report, which carries the logo of the CDC and HHS and DHS, calling it an “internal CDC document” that had not been presented to Trump’s coronavirus task force.

Separately, a coronavirus model frequently cited by the White House is now forecasting that 134,000 people will die of COVID-19 in the U.S. – nearly double its previous prediction. The increases in both models are tied to relaxed social distancing and increased mobility as states, including Florida, Colorado, Indiana, Nebraska and South Carolina, have eased restrictions. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

Note: The U.S. reported its deadliest day with 0 people dying of COVID-19 in 24 hours over this past weekend. The next highest U.S. daily death toll was 2,471 reported on April 23.[14]

X1\ (talk) 04:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

HHS IG Christi Grimm outgoing, add?

See previous Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United States/Archive 7#IGs and PRAC (from 9 April 2020) ...

Grimm was removed as acting IG on May 1 for issuing a report highlighting supply shortages and testing delays at hospitals during the coronavirus pandemic.

Trump moved to replace the top watchdog at the HHS after her office released a report highlighting supply shortages and testing delays at hospitals during the coronavirus pandemic.

The White House waited until after business hours to nominate a permanent inspector general to take over for Christi A. Grimm, the principal deputy inspector general who has run the office since January. Grimm was publicly assailed by Trump at a news briefing three weeks ago. The White House nominated Jason Weida. X1\ (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@X1\: did Grimm really lose her job though? She is the principal deputy inspector general. Trump nominated a permanent inspector general. starship.paint (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Originally I title this section outgoing, but I saw the fired used in another wp article.

Did you look at the (more current) MSNBC ref, Starship.paint? X1\ (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@X1\: I did. We shouldn't use MSNBC, anyway. Have you seen this CNBC source? It quotes HHS as saying Grimm isn't being fired. She remains as #2, while Weida is nominated to be #1. We can simply report, "Grimm was fulfilling the duties of the empty health inspector general position at the time. On May 1, Trump nominated Jason Weida, an assistant U.S. attorney, for the position of health inspector general." starship.paint (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with not using the MSNBC ref. Do you think it should be removed/replaced at United States Department of Health and Human Services? Do you have a more current ref than the CNBC one? X1\ (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Both (of the older) NYT & WaPo refs say "replaced". X1\ (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

United States Department of Health and Human Services has got it wrong. NYT: ... announce the nomination of a new inspector general for the department who, if confirmed, would take over for Christi A. Grimm, the principal deputy inspector general WaPo: White House nominated a permanent inspector general to take the reins from Christi A. Grimm, the principal deputy inspector general who has run the office since January She is being replaced as the person in charge. That's not the same as being fired. I have CNN on May 2, which says that Weida will fill the hole in leadership that's being temporarily held by Christi Grimm, the principal deputy inspector general for HHS. The office has been without a permanent inspector general for nearly a year .. HHS Office of Inspector General spokeswoman Tesia Williams ... confirmed that Grimm will continue to serve as principal deputy IG. That backs up my version of events. starship.paint (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@X1\: pinged starship.paint (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Well Grimm has been the acting HHS IG, so it may be a matter of verb nuance? X1\ (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's nuanced. starship.paint (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, since continue to serve as principal deputy IG, using the word fired is misleading. I have changed the section title back. X1\ (talk) 06:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

FYI, I have changed the HHS wp article accordingly. X1\ (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I change the above fired description, as to not mislead Readers; but kept the MSNBC ref, as to not confuse Readers. X1\ (talk) 06:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Global virtual vaccine summit ignored

"LONDON — World leaders came together in a virtual summit Monday to pledge billions of dollars to quickly develop vaccines and drugs to fight the coronavirus. Missing from the roster was the Trump administration, which declined to participate..." WAPO Also covered in the NYT [15] ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Death toll/Worldometers

Worldometer reports a somewhat higher death count than the ones of the CDC and John Hopkins University. I am also not sure about the "including probable deaths" - it seems that some US states (ex. New York) include probable deaths in their counts, but many others do not. --Pesqara (talk) 09:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The death toll

The CDC removed 30,000 deaths from the death toll. since the CDC is one of your sources you need to update the information — Preceding unsigned comment added by FL Gatorman (talk • contribs) 15:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• So far in the CDC website there are 38,576 COVID deaths. It's been widely known that the COVID19 death counts in the last 2 months have been hugely inflated - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm CDC website. Many states are inflating their death counts to get extra federal government aid to carry them forward after the virus pandemic subsides. There should be exact figures and the probable cases and death counts should be made separate. F2Milk (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • That's only a "widely known" conspiracy theory. "No, The CDC Did Not Revise Down The Number Of COVID-19 Deaths" – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • On the contrary. What is widely known is that most countries heavily hit by the pandemic are underreporting deaths, as shown by the difference between reported COVID death numbers and excess deaths compared to the previous years. It would be useful to have some data on excess deaths in the USA as well; maybe it'll shut up those who keep being in denial even in the middle of the catastrophe. Or more likely it won't, after all that's the sort of people who only listen to those who confirm their distorted views. --Pesqara (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The CDC also has this page with the more up to date death count. The page with the lower total comes with this explanation:
    • NOTE: Number of deaths reported in this table are the total number of deaths received and coded as of the date of analysis and do not represent all deaths that occurred in that period. ... Data during this period are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed, submitted to NCHS and processed for reporting purposes. This delay can range from 1 week to 8 weeks or more, depending on the jurisdiction, age, and cause of death
  • The page with the larger total has this note (with me making some style changes to make it work in Wikipedia templates):
    • As of April 14, 2020, CDC case counts and death counts include both confirmed and probable cases and deaths. ... A confirmed case or death is defined by meeting confirmatory laboratory evidence for COVID-19. A probable case or death is defined by one of the following: (1) Meeting clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19, (2) Meeting presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence, (3) Meeting vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID19
  • I hope this helps explain the discrepancy. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• • Buzzfeed News is not a legitimate news source, more on the sensationalize side when it comes to reporting. Even if there is a delay of 1 to 8 weeks, the time range from the CDC table is the week ending 2/1/2020 to 5/2/2020. It is stated in their notes section that - When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death – or when it is listed as a “probable” or “presumed” cause — the death is coded as U07.1. This can include cases with or without laboratory confirmation Which is surprising there is a wide disparity of the 60000+ figure and the 38576 figure. That is why the death counts should be separated into 3 sections. The John Hopkins figures I feel should be left alone. F2Milk (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

    On the contrary, Buzzfeed News is reliable. Buzzfeed is sensationalist, but distinct from Buzzfeed News. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

    Meanwhile, you have failed to provide a single reliable source for your little conspiracy theory... --Pesqara (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Graphs are getting too wide

The bar graphs that note cases per day (and the like) are starting to get too wide for some screens to display without scrolling. This pandemic is not anywhere close to abating. We're going to have to find a way to truncate the graphs. I think it's a great resource and I don't want to get rid of them, but as they are designed now, every day, they get a little wider. When this pandemic is over, they'll be 8000 px wide. -- Veggies (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Does anyone know how to specify graph width in terms of percentage of the page, rather than pixels? It should be possible to somehow just set it to 100%. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Someone just put it at 1000px again. Don't do that. We can't have horizontal scrolling on the page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead section too long

The lead for this article has gotten bloated in my view. It goes into unnecessary detail on things like the whole earlier-death-identified discovery in the first paragraph. Should we slim it down? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb - what do you propose? starship.paint (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I propose shortening it to a length more comparable to the pandemic article. Are you asking about specific lines to cut? I think that's best just done boldly. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 12:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: - go ahead then. I may revert what I disagree with. starship.paint (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure. I want to give others a chance to comment first, but if no one else takes a stab at this I'll most likely be back in a day or two and do it myself. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 12:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: - I've trimmed it a bit. starship.paint (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the lead is bloated, especially with 41 separate citations, when a lead is supposed to have none. So tightening and updating is a good idea. But for reducing bloat, I also think that the article you created, 2020 United States anti-lockdown protests, with a list of news stories with minutiae from every state, could all be summed up in a few sentences in this article. --Light show (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The protests article should be discussed at the protests article, but I somewhat agree with you. I didn't write it (apart from the lead), I just split it off. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Well, I do not think it is really too long or problematic in terms of content for such big article. It could be improved just a little. However, the lead failed to notice the single most important fact: that USA is the country with the largest numbers of infections and deaths in the world. My very best wishes (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

But as the world's third largest population, that's not as significant as it being the 10th highest per capita. --Light show (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Based on the number of cases [16], it is even 14th because Andorra has more infections per capita. Still, the people are usually looking for the absolute number. This is the reason main table on our page 2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic does provides absolute numbers. So, I think both rankings are important. Most peole simply want to know where the infections are. We now have 1/3 of all world cases in the USA. This is something to include to the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Both are important, in my view. We should have a table with per capita information as well, but development on that is currently stalled. Does anyone want to try copying Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United States medical cases by state to make a per capita table? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: I've made a proposal relevant to this at the main table template. Please see Template_talk:COVID-19_pandemic_data#Proposal:_Add_a_check_box_to_display_per_capita_data. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Why does it need columns for hospitalized, recovered, and population sizes? BTW, are there any U.S. editors that find the list of all 50 states useful? I asked that question about some graphs a few weeks ago and no one commented.--Light show (talk) 09:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

“Passed” or “died “

The article includes the sentence “ The earliest known death from COVID-19 occurred on February 6 in Santa Clara County, California, in a 57-year-old woman who passed from complications caused by coronavirus which apparently led to a ruptured heart.” “Passed” seems like a lazy way of saying “passed away,” which is a euphemism. Wouldn’t “died” be more encyclopedic? Edison (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Edison, yeah, WP:EUPHEMISMs are not allowed. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Most cases in the world

This isn’t meant to state my own views, political or otherwise, but would it improve this article to add a section describing the controversy surrounding claims that the US only seems to have the most cases in the world because it has done the most testing? The president has said this, and discussions seem to be ongoing about this topic. Again, I’m not making any statements about what I think, but I was just wondering if this would be a worthy addition. Thanks. MrSwagger21 (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Projection charts not updated since May 13th

Please update these charts.--Oltemative (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Graphs per capita, rather than total numbers

I think it would be much more helpful for the readers looking at cases reported state by state to chart the total cases per capita rather than as a gross number. That way, the reader could see the difference between the states in a much more accurate and understandable way. -- Veggies (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2020

The covid death rate for the United States is incorrect. On wikipedia it is listed at over 79,000. As per the CDC website the total Covid 19 deaths are 39,910. I have included the link to the CDC website.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

This is accurate as of May 5, 2020. I applaud wikipedia for trying to stay accurate, but it would be nice if the numbers listed for the united states are reported correctly so that we may use Wikipedia as a reliable source when writing articles. Thank you and have a great day. 167.206.158.130 (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• The CDC maintains two counts. They also has this page with the more up to date death count. The page with the lower total comes with this explanation:
  • • NOTE: Number of deaths reported in this table are the total number of deaths received and coded as of the date of analysis and do not represent all deaths that occurred in that period. ... Data during this period are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed, submitted to NCHS and processed for reporting purposes. This delay can range from 1 week to 8 weeks or more, depending on the jurisdiction, age, and cause of death
  • The page with the larger total has this note (with me making some style changes to make it work in Wikipedia templates):
    • As of April 14, 2020, CDC case counts and death counts include both confirmed and probable cases and deaths. ... A confirmed case or death is defined by meeting confirmatory laboratory evidence for COVID-19. A probable case or death is defined by one of the following: (1) Meeting clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19, (2) Meeting presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence, (3) Meeting vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID19
  • I hope this helps explain the discrepancy – Muboshgu (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

non-Trump Administration knows the problems that Trump is denying exist, add?

On the same day Trump praised himself for solving “every problem” and taking care of “all of the things,” members of his own administration privately warned that states were still experiencing shortages of masks, gowns, and other medical gear.

A May 1 recording of an inter-agency conference call between FEMA and HHS officials began with the director of the CDC’s influenza division saying: “The numbers of deaths definitely will be high.” Other officials discussed their ongoing struggle to keep up with requests from governors for more medical equipment and PPE. Meanwhile, Trump was telling the public that the federal government had “loaded up hospitals with things to take care of people” and “We’ve ensured a ventilator for every patient who needs one. The testing and the masks and all of the things, we’ve solved every problem. We solved it quickly.”

• Alice Miranda Ollstein and Adam Cancryn, Trump touted reopening. Privately, his team sounded alarms. Tapes of conference calls of FEMA and HHS officials across the country reveal widespread worries about new waves of Covid-19 infections. 6 May Politico

X1\ (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Trump: “The one thing that the pandemic has taught us is that I was right.” add?

Trump: “The one thing that the pandemic has taught us is that I was right.” In a New York Post interview, Trump said he thinks Americans are “starting to feel good now.”

• https://www.vox.com/2020/5/5/21247823/trump-coronavirus-claims-was-right-americans-worried-polls

In contrast with:

• https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/president-unraveling/611146 by Peter Wehner

X1\ (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Fringe questions

This comment was moved to this talk page as it concerns the article:

Why did you insert a poorly sourced bogus claim, take it out of context and synthesize to stealthily support an unsubstantiated fringe theory, and then hide the contradicting facts in a footnote? Prolog (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

--Light show (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The text you deleted as supposedly bogus:

"However, as of May 3, neither the CDC nor any American scientists have been allowed to visit to gather data, stated Secretary of State Mike Pompeo."

Prolog, here are some other RSs which can also be used: You can do your own search for more RSs, such as the Wall Street Journal, CNN, Bloomberg, etc.

As for the material moved to notes, they were essentially tangential or off-topic nor did they "contradict" anything. They actually should have been removed, but were simply added to notes.

References

--Light show (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The aforementioned claim that you added is false and not supported by the source as Pompeo is referring to his fringe theory regarding the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The actual statement, and its source, have nothing to do with WHO's international team or the section topic. How exactly is it "essentially tangential or off-topic" to have two sentences about U.S. and WHO experts in China when there are four sentences about them wanting that to happen? At least two American scientists, one of whom was from CDC, visited China and had access to a "massive data set", so there obviously is a contradiction to the claim you added. The original question was posted at your talk page as the edit was worrying enough to make me believe there might be a larger underlying issue. Your reply suggests my concern was warranted. Prolog (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Your personal opinion seems to contradict your speculation. After all, some might consider your personal opinion that a statement by the U.S. Secy of State is "his fringe theory," as implying "larger underlying issues," by you. Can you support that any RS considers his statement as a "fringe theory"?

In addition, if he, our CDC and many administration health leaders have stated that they have yet to be allowed in to assist China in their investigation, your example of a doctor who was given a personal tour of a "hot zone," would not contradict that. When the CDC goes in to a country to assist, its team might be dozens of experts, chosen by our CDC, not the WHO. For example, within 30 days of the Ebola outbreak in Africa, the CDC already had 50 medical experts working there, and kept an ongoing total of at least 200 of the CDC team there during the entire outbreak. The CDC has 11,000 employees.

And your own text implies a visit, when you explained that he "toured five cities in China," ie. hot zones.The article you cited likewise implies more of a tour, than a serious official investigation. The expert was later asked:

Q: How did the Chinese scientists on the mission and the international team work together? A: We really didn’t have much interaction until after all the site visits when we got together to put the report together.

There is also an implication that you may be trying a bit too hard to undermine citations and U.S. statements. As when the Secy. of State announced a pledge to donate funds, you felt compelled to add that six weeks later "China said it had not received epidemic funding from U.S."

In any case, I will not revert your improper deletion of a sourced statement or your notes, since a search for "Pompeo says ‘enormous evidence’ shows coronavirus began in Wuhan lab" returns over 8 million Google results. --Light show (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

As noted here, "virus researchers say there is virtually no chance that the new coronavirus was released as result of a laboratory accident in China or anywhere else." Pompeo's statements have been called "unfounded propagandizing" and a "conspiracy theory." Something could be added about the Trump administration's theorizing and the reports that it "has sought to pressure U.S. intelligence agencies to search for proof of a link between the Wuhan lab and the outbreak", but it must be written in accordance with WP:FRINGE and placed in the appropriate location.

As for the WHO mission, the second article I cited shows there was a review of Chinese data and an official WHO report was compiled by 25 experts. The fact that China has resisted international assistance is already covered in the section, and further details do not belong in an article titled "COVID-19 pandemic in the United States." I do not recall the U.S. being in a trade war and in a "new Cold War" scenario with a competing superpower in Africa, so the Ebola comparison does not seem relevant here.

I did not add China's response to the U.S. pledge; that was you. I merely undid the moving of it into a footnote. Both China and the current U.S. administration have a history of making false claims, so it makes sense to present both sides of the story. Prolog (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

States reopening don’t meet the criteria recommended by the White House (which Trump has encoured them to violate), add?

More than half of the states that have started to reopen don’t meet the criteria recommended by the White House for resuming business and social activities. The Trump administration’s guidelines are nonbinding, but they recommend that states have a "downward trajectory" of either documented coronavirus cases or new positive test results. Most of the 30 states currently in the process of reopening not only fail to meet those basic criteria, but also have either upward trajectories for case counts, positive tests, or both. Most of the states are reopening with more new cases or a higher share of positive tests than two weeks ago. The guidelines also recommend that states should wait for a decline in the number of patients with coronavirus symptoms and a return to normal hospital capacities before reopening, standards which many states also fail to meet.[17]

Context:

States moving forward with reopening are seeing an increase in new coronavirus cases. However, states that expect to keep social distancing restrictions in place have seen drops in the number of new daily cases relative to a month ago.[18]

Trump defended his decision not to wear a mask during a tour of a mask production facility, saying “I didn’t need it” and that he had been told it wasn’t necessary. A sign posted at the facility, however, said: "Please wear your mask at all times."[19][20]

X1\ (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

comparison to Canada, add?

• Zack Beauchamp, Canada succeeded on coronavirus where America failed. Why? Canada beat the US on coronavirus because its political system works. May 4, 2020 Vox.com

X1\ (talk) 03:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Any statistics for Tribal Nations?

Has there been any reports on statistics on Tribal Nations?★Trekker (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

In contrary to Trump publicly questioning the need for testing at all, the WH now testing everyone daily; add?

White House staff will now be tested for the coronavirus on a daily basis. “In addition to social distancing, daily temperature checks and symptom histories, hand sanitizer, and regular deep cleaning of all work spaces,” the deputy White House press secretary said in a statement, “every staff member in close proximity to the president and vice president is being tested daily for COVID-19 as well as any guests.”[21]

X1\ (talk) 08:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Trump officials' dysfunction harms delivery of coronavirus drug, add?

A breakdown in communication and coordination within the Trump administration has undermined the distribution of remdesivir, a promising treatment for COVID-19. Gilead Sciences, the company that makes remdesivir, donated hundreds of thousands of doses to the federal government after the FDA authorized it as an emergency treatment for coronavirus patients. More than 32,000 doses of remdesivir, however, were shipped, but many of these doses went to “less impacted counties” instead of the high-priority hospitals where it’s most needed, an administration official said. Administration officials reportedly responded by shifting blame and avoiding responsibility.[22]

X1\ (talk) 08:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

questions about "Project Airbridge", add?

White House’s pandemic relief effort Project Airbridge is swathed in secrecy and exaggerations. Almost six weeks after its launch, Project Airbridge has completed its 122nd flight, having cost taxpayers at least $91 million. But its impact on the pandemic is unclear and shrouded in secrecy: The White House, the FEMA and the companies involved have declined to disclose where supplies have been delivered.[23]

X1\ (talk) 08:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

For background on "Project Airbridge" (as apparent Trump Administration corruption):

• Pritzker: Federal government has delivered less than 10 percent of PPE Illinois requested on YouTube published April 6, 2020 PBS NewsHour, interview with Governor of Illinois, J. B. Pritzker

X1\ (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2020

Update the data table of cases. 96.242.156.42 (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

How so? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Epidemiology in U.S.: who dies in higher percentages, non-whites and the poorer; add?

• Adam Serwer, The Coronavirus Was an Emergency Until Trump Found Out Who Was Dying; The pandemic has exposed the bitter terms of our racial contract, which deems certain lives of greater value than others. TheAtlantic.com May 8, 2020

X1\ (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Fauci blocked by White House from testifying in the US House but not the US Senate, add?

The White House is blocking Dr. Anthony Fauci from testifying before the House Appropriations Committee, which is investigating the coronavirus outbreak and response.

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/05/01/congress-fauci-coronavirus

X1\ (talk) 07:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Trump blocked Dr. Anthony Fauci from testifying before the House because, he claims, it’s “a setup” with a “bunch of Trump haters.” Trump, however, confirmed that he will allow Dr. Fauci to testify before the Republican-controlled Senate sometime next week. The White House told the House that members of the coronavirus task force won’t be allowed to testify, claiming it would divert resources from the pandemic response.[24][25][26][27][28][29][30]

X1\ (talk) 06:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Fauci and Dr. Robert R. Redfield will testify before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee over video conference. The White House Office of Legislative Affairs sent a memo to all House and Senate committee staff directors last week that bars all members of the White House Coronavirus Task Force from appearing before a congressional committee without the permission of chief of staff Mark Meadows.[31]

X1\ (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

contradictory (unsafe) orders & mixed messages to White House staffers, add?

The White House encouraged staffers to come into the office, including the aides who travel with Trump and Pence. All White House staffers, however, received a conflicting memo, which instructed them to “practice maximum telework” and to “work remotely if at all possible.” The memo also told employees to quarantine for 14 days if they leave the Washington region and to report all travel. Trump, meanwhile, expressed concern that aides contracting coronavirus undercut his message that the outbreak was waning and states should begin reopening. Trump also reportedly asked why his valets weren’t ordered to wear masks before this week after one of his personal valets tested positive for the coronavirus.[32][33][34][35]

X1\ (talk) 07:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The White House directed most officials – but not Trump – to wear masks at all times inside the building except when sitting at their desks. The memo also directs officials to restrict in-person visits to the White House unless they are necessary.[36][37][38][39]

X1\ (talk) 08:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

“Guidance for Implementing the Opening Up America Again Framework”: Docs show top WH officials buried CDC report; add?

• Jason Dearen AP Exclusive: Docs show top WH officials buried CDC report May 8, 2020 AP

Was signed, but suppressed.

Emails show that top White House officials buried Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance for reopening communities during the coronavirus pandemic. The document, titled “Guidance for Implementing the Opening Up America Again Framework,” included detailed flow charts aimed at helping business owners, educators, and state and local officials navigate whether to reopen or remain closed. As early as April 10, CDC Director Robert R. Redfield had emailed the guidance to Trump’s inner circle: Jared Kushner, Kellyanne Conway, Joe Grogan, assistant to the president for domestic policy, Dr. Deborah Birx, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and other task force members. White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said that the documents had not been approved by Redfield, but the new emails show that Redfield had cleared the guidance.

X1\ (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Trump: Katie Miller contracted the virus “out of the blue”, add?

Trump appeared puzzled that aide Pence's press secretary Katie Miller had contracted the virus “out of the blue” after testing negative several times during routine White House screening program put in place last month. Miller is married to one of Trump’s closest advisers, Stephen Miller, who is not expected to come into the White House for the foreseeable future. Stephen tested negative for the virus this past Friday after his wife’s positive diagnosis earlier in the day.

Pence will not self-quarantine because he “has tested negative every single day.” During an event with GOP members, Trump suggested “the whole concept of tests isn’t great,” but said he was satisfied with the procedures in place to protect him and his top aides.[40][41][42][43][44]

Regarding testing, see Abbott Laboratories.

X1\ (talk) 08:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2020

In the second-to-last sentence of the last paragraph of the intro section (the one that begins with the sentence, "The CDC warned that widespread disease transmission...), I'd like to add that disproportionate numbers of cases and deaths have also been noticed among some Native American communities, along with the already mentioned disparities of cases observed among African-Americans. It provides more detail and context of the situation. I have included a link to a reference below:

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-navajo-nations-infection-rate-10-times-higher-than-arizonas-2020-4 70.162.60.81 (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Interstellarity (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be NPOV?

"Political analysts anticipated it may negatively affect Trump's chances of re-election in the 2020 presidential election."

I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be a neutral website, but that sounds a little like political bias, don't you think? Just saying. I won't remove it to cause an edit war, but when people say stuff like that, especially when it's a news article, it looks like it's bias. One of the sources is the New York Times, which is known for left-wing bias. I'm not perfect but I'm almost (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not perfect but I'm almost, how is it political bias if that's what the political analysts are saying? NPOV doesn't mean taking both sides, it means neutrally reporting what the reliable sources report. Wouldn't we be remiss from pointing out on the 2016 POTUS election pages that the political analysts expected Hillary to win? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

A Republican might think that Wikipedia is liberal based on what they say about Republican things, such as rock singer Ted Nugent's article saying that his political views are racist (I read that earlier). I'm not perfect but I'm almost (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Lots of Republicans complain about left-wing bias on Wikipedia, but like I said, we follow what the reliable sources say. Perception of bias does not mean there is bias. And we only discuss what is on Ted Nugent at Talk:Ted Nugent, not here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hospitals laying off people, some even going out of business

Is this topic covered anywhere? In areas where hospitals were not overwhelmed, the efforts to make sure they could handle all the patients meant there wasn't enough work and not enough revenue.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Source.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Bar graphs under progression charts

Despite five users (Timflamink, sikander, Michelangelo1992, 2605:6000:1027:A499:1C0F:B5A5:17B5:BD25 and Oltemative) within two days disagreeing with the graphs for daily cases, daily deaths and daily recoveries under progression charts having been changed from bar graphs to line graphs, the task of actually changing them, seems to be too challenging – for example (following the argument that the graphs are too 'overloaded') discarding of the value points from a period when they were still low and cannot actually make sense on the line graphs without value labels anyway (it's probably more important to see an undefined, undefinable picture than a depiction of values that actually have some meaning), having scrollable graphs (if that's possible) or having a separate chart for each month (which would then probably be argued as 'overloading' the article). The first workaround (a bit cumbersome, but with certain victory) is to follow the link [Main page: COVID-19 pandemic data/United States medical cases] and acquire the values from the tables. The second workaround (apparently not yet possible) would be to find a non-arrogant, non-vegetable entity in a non-vegetative state (sometimes user names eventually prove to be certainly priceless) - who has a lot of common sense and skill – to find a solution for not having 'overloaded' bar graphs. . The third workaround (the simplest, fastest and easiest) is to discard of all this nonsense and Wikipedia politics and revert to Worldometer: Several updates a day, not any senseless figures such as negative values for reported cases or deaths (without an explanation), not a lot of contradictory figures when information about the same issue is looked up in different articles (or even the same one) in Wikipedia, the history of the figures easily attainable, et caetera. Bon voyage. Timflamink (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Offices will never be the same again

Source.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, that headline was misleading. I'm not sure we can use it. But it would be helpful to know where the information would go.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

How much money would the U.S. government save?

I just saw this help desk question which came before the various stimulus plans. I'm not sure what the person was trying to ask. Maybe the person thought the U.S. government could save money on Social Security if more people died. I was referred here but I'm not sure this is the right place to ask either.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Think the individual was trying to use wikipedia as a search engine. They asked a question like one would use Google to do so. Consequently, your query is not clear either. If you are suggesting an edit, you would need to provide sources. Shawnqual (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The suggested articles didn't have any information. I could probably find sources but it seems the bigger question would be how much money this is all going to cost the U.S. government.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, please provide reliable sources covering the topic in question; only then can editors determine if the information is worth adding. Talk pages are not for discussions on conjectures or 'what ifs'.Shawnqual (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

They are for pointing me to the correct article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll give up on trying the answer the Help Desk question. I added this about the effect on the federal deficit but I'm pretty sure it's in the wrong place. There just wasn't an appropriate section already in place and I'm not sure where it would go.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Discrepancy in figures

I apologise if this question has already been answered, but it would take too long to search all the archives to check. This article is currently showing 1,380,763 cases and 78,031 deaths. The table of countries in COVID-19 pandemic shows 1,436,690 cases and 85,846 deaths. This is the only country article I have come across which uses different sources and shows different figures from the main article. Should not editors of the two articles agree on one source rather than show different figures on such a crucial subject? (I raised the reliability of the source for the main article on its talk page and was informed that it had been agreed after extensive discussion.) Dudley Miles (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Read on this talk page under 7. The Death Toll. It explains the discrepancies in the figures. Timflamink (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

That is about discrepancies between different CDC figures. My query is about discrepancies between the figures for the US in COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and COVID-19 pandemic. Figures in Wikipedia articles should be consistent, not based on different policies on sources in different articles. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I beg your pardon - looking at it again, I now remember having had the same trouble a week or two ago. I found people using five sources on Wikipedia - CDC, Johns Hopkins, 1point3acres, Worldometer and a table derived directly from the different US states reporting their figures. I've decided that the figures are all more or less wrong anyway: one reads the term 'suspected cases' and Dr Fauci explained about the spread and death toll that have to be much higher than reported - that's apart from probably only a few confirmatory tests being done on dead people. One is forced to take your own pick here - and apart from Worldometer being the most updated and the sources explained, seeing some of the other figures are merely interesting. I agree with you, though, as I've mentioned under 39 Bar graphs under progression charts - contradictory figures on the same website is not quite acceptable. When one looks at the huge arguments about far lesser issues than the basic figures, is it any wonder that each editor thinks that his sources are the most correct? My impression of Wikipedia overall has taken a huge bump in the past three weeks. Timflamink (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Progression charts

The cases per day, deaths per day and recoveries per day charts under the progression charts have changed from bar charts with value labels to line charts without value labels. This was a convenient way of getting those figures, which are now defunct. Please change this back to what it was - among the many contradictory wikipedia figures, these at least were sort of consistent. Line charts may be necessary to avoid confusion where more than one factor are included, but with all of these it's only one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timflamink (talk • contribs) 21:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I much prefer the previous bar charts with value labels. These new charts force you to guess what the number is and that is very unnecessary. // sikander { talk } 🦖 21:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Bar charts are more effective than line charts at showing this data. Can someone please change it back? Michelangelo1992 (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Besides the wikipedia pages about the covid-19 pandemics in most if not all other countries use bar charts with value labels. Does anyone defend the change, and on what grounds ? Nardoel (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

THIS HAS NOW MOVED INTO A DIFFERENT REALM OF CONVERSATION - Please see Bar graphs under progression charts and the endless arguments upon arguments under I disagree with removing the bar graphs. Timflamink (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2020

For the caption of the photo of Trump & Whitsett, please delete the misleading final phrase "mainly because of the anti-lockdown protests", which is not supported by the article text or by a citation. The rest of the caption seems reasonable enough to keep:

"Donald Trump looks into Michigan State Rep. Karen Whitsett talking about her recovery from the COVID-19. Black Americans in Michigan have suffered from significantly higher rates of infection and mortality than White Americans in the state mainly because of the anti-lockdown protests."

Many thanks. —72.68.81.107 (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done! I also changed "Donald Trump looks into..." to "Donald Trump listening to..." GoingBatty (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)