Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 26

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 24

→

Corpses/Burial/Funerals

Hello all- do corpses get checked for the virus, or all corpses of people not known to have the virus just cremated for safety reasons? I'd like to make a general inquiry about whether or not any cases were found post-mortem. How would they be shown on this page if they did exist? What if they died in a car accident, but they had undiagnosed coronavirus? Can we get some funeral/burial/etc material on this page? Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not a forum.Php2000 (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

If a reader has a question that might also be asked by other readers, it should be taken as a suggestion for improving the article. Here is a possible source [4] Jehochman ^Talk 14:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Boris Johnson

Boris Johnson has Coronavirus and add a section including all well known people and famous people who have Coronavirus. Hi poland (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

That list is potentially endless. Php2000 (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention pretty pointless. (The list, that is, just to be clear...) DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Heads of state who have been infected could go in the section about that country. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Possible effect on November U.S. presidential election

The Impacts section of this article contains the following statement:

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

Cited is a single article, now two weeks old, in the New York Times.

This article should not be a place to host the speculations of two journalists on the possible outcome of a national election over seven months away. If we do, we open it up to completing prognostications, tracking polls, or day-to-day changes in approval ratings (and Trump's ratings on his handling of the crisis has lately has been increasing, according to some polls). The U.S., although powerful, has less than five percent of the world’s population. Should our article contain similar speculations on the politics of other countries?

The statement does not belong in this article. It contributes nothing to our understanding of this global tragedy. Kablammo (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

2020 United States elections#Impact of coronavirus on 2020 elections. DMBFFF (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The advent of the virus has severely undercut Trump's planned central pitch for his reelection campaign, namely the strength of the economy. Reliable sources like the cited NYT [5] are recognizing that, plus things like betting markets. [6] Regarding speculation, WP:NPOV permits us to include it when it's sourced/attributed to prominent sources as it is here. And regarding significance, the U.S. elections are significant enough to me to warrant inclusion. We do talk about the political impact in other countries as well in that section, and if we're missing any big ones, I'd be fine adding those as well. Sdkb (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Belongs in the US article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

No lockdown in Sweden - but the virus isnt spreading any worse...

Sweden has not had a major lockdown but the virus there seems to be spreading no faster than in countries with a "full" lockdown. Shouldnt that point be quite a major point in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.29.159.134 (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

It's far to early to say. It may be that it turns out to be notable, but we do not yet know what the effect will be. There are a few sources in the international press, but it would be better to cover this first at 2020 Coronavirus pandemic in Sweden. Carl Fredrik^talk 21:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Also want to add something similar is happening in Germany - they haven't locked down but have limited gatherings of more than 2(?) people. Jccali1214 (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Third color for recovered?

There is one color for deaths (I'm not a fan of using black for reasons that I would think would be obvious) and one for how many have the disease.

At some point, those who did not die recovered. Is there some way to illustrate how many recoveries there have been at any given time?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to black for death (for obvious reasons as well) but I support a 3rd color! Maybe green? Jccali1214 (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Approximately.

Does anyone object to the use of approximately, in the lede, when referring to the quantity of deaths? Seeing as two sources are being used, and the fact that not all deaths can be attributed 100% to the effects of the virus, I think its use would be preferable. MattSucci (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Support per nom — RealFakeKim T 12:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
The current text uses "more than": we know these numbers are flawed, but we know the inaccuracy is in one direction. The numbers are certainly underestimates. So does "more than" convey that better than "approximately"? Bondegezou (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
@Bondegezou: what's your basis for the assertion that the numbers are almost certainly undercounts? If that's the case, I'd agree with you that "more than" is the better option. Otherwise, weak preference for "approximately", since it neither minimizes nor catastrophizes, and since it communicates the numbers are close, whereas "more than" could potentially mean "much more than". Sdkb (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
There are errors either way potentially, but with cases we know there are very significant reasons why the reported number is an undercount. In many places, testing isn't even being attempted for many people. Throughout, we know there has been spread through unknown people, so there must be cases we've not detected. There are citations given in the article contrasting probable case numbers with reported case numbers, e.g. in the UK, the true number of cases is probably ~10x reported numbers. Bondegezou (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I think that's what is beneficial about "approximately" as it leans neither to the plus nor minus side and also takes into account the space between the hundreds. It isn't of game-changing significance, just a matter of preference. Anymore thoughts from other editors? MattSucci (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Support perfectly reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Support. We can only go with what's reported when reality is most likely skewed from that. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 04:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
weak support. The "at least" bit might be a little sensationalist and/or POV, and, yeah, we really aren't absolutely sure about numbers. DMBFFF (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose I going make this simple. I do not think its necessary. Regice2020 (talk) 03:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2020

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On the Infobox, the source states "possibly bat or pangolin" and does not state a source. It should be rephrased to "bats or possibly pangolin" because it is a definite that the disease started in bats, but uncertainty to the statement about pangolins.

These references could be used: ^[1]^[2] (copy-pasted from main article) 2607:FB90:5429:2D75:B5E5:E07F:CB6D:D6F0 (User talk:2607:FB90:5429:2D75:B5E5:E07F:CB6Dkb (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

References

^ WHO–China Joint Mission (16–24 February 2020). "Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)" (PDF). World Health Organization. Retrieved 8 March 2020.
^ Cyranoski D (26 February 2020). "Mystery deepens over animal source of coronavirus". Nature. 579 (7797): 18–19. Bibcode:2020Natur.579...18C. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-00548-w. PMID 32127703.

This seems like a good request to me. Can someone with medical expertise confirm so we can implement? Sdkb (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Done Seeing no replies, I implemented the request. Sdkb (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Numbers

Figures discrepancy: infobox vs. Epidemiology

Apologies if this has been discussed before, but: why is there a difference in the cases and deaths figures between the infobox and the Epidemiology section? It's not a huge difference, but a difference all the same. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe this is due to the fact the infobox is updated more frequently and this page is only semi protected but the table is extended. The table is also only updated one country at a time. — RealFakeKim T 17:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Moved to Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data § United Arab Emirates cases

– — RealFakeKim T 06:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Response section

One major aspect of the international response seems to be missing: why is the response so much greater than for other pandemics of recent times, SARS, AIDS, Swine flu and the rest? Any epidemiologists or social scientists editing this article might care to suggest here why there's been such an overwhelming international response and from where information about this response can be reliably sourced. At the moment the Internet is full of conspiracy theories as to the scale of the response, and some hard facts here might just help a little. Arcturus (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Here are some relevant articles:

It seems that SARS-CoV2 is more contagious. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Some interesting articles. Presumably some of this material is relevant to the article, but as a layman I'm not sure which source is best, and how the information should be disseminated. Arcturus (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

New section on "Increasing health care capacity" needs expansion

I created a section on Increasing health care capacity using sources from the WHO Europe and the ECDC. There is very much to go through in those reports, and the section could do with considerable expansion. I haven't been able to find non-general reports from other WHO offices or other countries apart from Taiwan. I don't think we should add non-COVID-specific sources, but if anyone can find any, that would be excellent. Carl Fredrik^talk 14:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The article is pretty much at its size limit and several sections were already spin-offed. Suggest maintaining only most important information in a given section or subsection. Brandmeister^talk 16:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I think this section is probably more important than a detailed run-through of the how the outbreak is going in China, Italy or the US. Carl Fredrik^talk 16:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Have shortened to health care capacity Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Current consensus discussion

Should be fixed as per the new consensus with the sentences and it’s not clear which sentence has consensus. Doc james and I agree on the first two that’s all I know —Almaty (talk) 10:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Item 1 says "the first sentence . . . " and then goes on to quote four sentences. I'd have to go through the background, but it seems that the intent is to refer to the first sentence, specifically. Holy (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The intent was for all 4 sentences. The first sentence needs the second sentence to clarify it. And the third and 4 sentence provide weight to other aspects. So yes the intent was all 4. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Almaty and HolyT: I'm not sure how many admins are monitoring conversations this page. Either we need more of them to start doing so to keep this list complete/accurate or the list needs to be lowered back to EC protection (where the Trump list is currently at) so that us mopless ones can maintain it ourselves. Pinging TomStar81. Sdkb (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb, HolyT, and Almaty: I've actually just answered a question about the protection level. I'm starting it at admin only levels, but if consensus emerges to drop that to a lower level then it trumps my level so thats what we'll go with. (Admittedly, I'm a little paranoid, so I like full protection when possible.) In the mean time tell me what you want tweaked and I'll deal with it. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

TomStar81 I think it would be good to drop it so new consensus can be added quickly. A lot of people who are EC patrol this padge so iff another EC user vandalises it can be undone quickly. For now if you can do what HolyT said that would be much appreciated. — RealFakeKim T 13:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

can we please add that the date of the disease starting being traced back to November is unverified and one journalist only of nameless government documents —Almaty (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)h

That's not a consensus and see the discussion below, please. — RealFakeKim T 14:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

there was clear previous consensus, I think a few times —Almaty (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@TomStar81: From WP:PP: Wikipedia is built around/with the principle that anyone can edit it, and it therefore aims to have as many of its pages as possible open for public editing so that anyone can add material and correct errors. However, in some particular circumstances, because of a specifically identified likelihood of damage resulting if editing is left open, some individual pages may need to be subject to technical restrictions (often only temporary but sometimes indefinitely) on who is permitted to modify them. The placing of such restrictions on pages is called protection. (emphasis added). I also asked you to identify which policy or guideline supports your full protection decision, as I don't see being "a little paranoid" as one of the accepted reasons on WP:PP. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@HolyT: Yeah, I made that mistake when adding it to the list in place of the original language. It should simply say "the first X sentences of the second paragraph" (X being replaced with 3 or 4 or however many sentences were in the linked consensus). However, it was fully protected without sufficient reason before I realized my error. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Locke Cole, Sdkb, HolyT, and Almaty: It seems I owe you all an apology, as I had though that the answer to your questions concerning protection was obvious, but the more I read through this the more I realize that the answer is in fact so overt...its covert. Lets walk through this together than, and I'll explain why the consensus list is perma-locked. Back when the list was adopted on March 22, the consensus was to use a consensus list like the one in place on Donald Trump. Everyone seemed to agree that was a good idea, but the lost fact in that discussion is that the Donald Trump consensus list is permanently protected, therefore if you had a discussion about implementing a consensus list like Donald Trump's here then by default you were also having a discussion about that list being permanently protected UNLESS consensus at the time of the implementation was to not do that - which was in fact not part of the discussion per se, so in the absence of an explicit decision to alter or abolish the protection level consensus for the implementation of a consensus list like Donald Trump included a permanent protection clause. Happily, that is something easy to fix, but to reduce the level requires consensus that while the Donald Trump consensus list is needed, the Donald Trump consensus list protection is not. Once you have that decided then the current consensus for reduced protection trumps the already agreed to unspoken consensus to have the list fully protected, and we can start making some progress on that road. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
@TomStar81: The current consensus list at Donald Trump has been extended-confirmed protected since June 2017. As an update for everyone, the list here has been reduced to EC protection after I put in a request at RPP linking to this discussion. Please go forth and expand it to better cover all the conversations we've had on this talk page, just please stay objective about where consensus is at and don't abuse the privilege. Sdkb (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Wait, the consensus page is actually down to semi-protection now, per Wugapodes: "I actually don't think I'm authorized to use ECP yet per the protection policy." @Wugapodes: I think this is a time to employ WP:IAR to raise it back to ECP, as current consensus lists are a unique and unusual circumstance, and the one precedent we have for them at Donald Trump uses ECP. There's no reason for an autoconfirmed-level user to edit the consensus list—assessing consensus is one of the most difficult tasks on WP, and not something I'd trust anyone with <500 edits to do. Sdkb (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I think TomStar81's protection was good, and agree that permanent protection is within our protection policy. Tom's explanation is a little different than the one I would give (as a highly visible template, it can be permanently protected at any level, even if not in template space), but still correct. As to Sdkb's request of me, I'm not comfortable ignoring the rules on this one. I'll request a review at WP:AN though. — Wug·a·po·des 00:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_review_of_my_page_protection — Wug·a·po·des 00:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

the virus is not controlled by Donald trump —Almaty (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

They aren't saying that they are just making comparisons to this page and trumps talk page. — RealFakeKim T 15:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

off-topic discussion

The part "the virus is not airborne" is quite irritating for me, as the article airborne disease includes droplet transmission. Utonsal (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

These four sentence are IMO a good summary and I think it is reasonable to keep them as consensus. What do people want to change them to?

The virus is not considered airborne but lots of reputable organizations. Airborne and contact / droplet precautions are different. We just finished a massive RfC about this. If we are going to say that these droplets spread by breathing, which we do, we must also say that it is not airborne. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

India numbers and source mismatch

Moved to Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data § India numbers and source mismatch

– — RealFakeKim T 20:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Software solutions

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

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

I think listing software solutions to combat the pandemic might be useful. Here's a few. [7] [8]

-- {added by 2001:14ba:984a:f200::8ea on 27 March 2020}

Here is a list of visual presentations of data related to this pandemic. Source.

World map of data, containment measures, testing and treatment information

Visualisations of global spread of different strains, Nextstrain

Visualisation of global data, Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE), John Hopkins University

Visualisations of data per country, BBC

Visualisations of economic data, BBC

Difference between quarantine and no effort, Washington Post

+several others. TGCP (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, these are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a how-to guide or a chat site. Imagine if the World War Two article was giving instructions on how to navigate to an air raid shelter. Not really a thing that an encyclopedia article should contain.

Of course Wikipedia could change its mission from an encyclopedia to a general how to do things today. But before that change occurs, I suggest not. 85.76.76.47 (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Economic stuff may be okay in other articles about this topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Entire sections of various medical and psychological wiki-pages have "treatments" as an entire section worthy of an encyclopedia (especially a living-online encyclopedia). I wonder what happened to the open-source/citizen science section of covid-19; it seems that there are so many people at home, you would want to outsource computer science/problem-solving tasks to the vast workforce that is at home... but again, using your example, having an instructional page to get an airbase shelter is not a bad idea, if you want to save lives in WW2; I don't see how good information of treatments/outsourcing-problems, is any different.Mr Robot 2020 (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

File:DSC05532 (49675496857).jpg

This image is mostly out of focus. There must be far better images that could convey the intended message. Ironically even the exact described subject matter of the image (being the lack of shop inventory) is out of focus and as such indiscernible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.67.188 (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit war notification

Please see doc james talk page. —Almaty (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

What seems to be the problem? Please calm down User:Almaty and explain yourself properly instead of just making wild accusations or no-one will listen to you. Wikipedia is based on WP:CIVILity and Assuming good faith--Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Almaty is now blocked for threatening an edit war. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

And I have unblocked after Almaty appears to have stated that they will not edit war. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The article still states "Respiratory droplets may be produced during breathing" I don't know what the fuss is about. — RealFakeKim T 14:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
said user no longer edits Wikipedia . Sorry guys good luck. —Almaty (talk)
- Appears to be this edit[9] which I have rolled back. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  - These are stressful times. Let's all remember to take a deep breath and assume the good faith of all our fellow editors. We are all trying to do our best. I hope you will reconsider leaving the project User:Almaty. Take a step back if you need to. There is no rush. We all have your back here and will do our best. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. The numbers are not same as that of source cited. Please correct it. Trojanishere (talk) 05:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Wanted: Table with numbers per capita

We focus too much on absolute numbers! Number of deaths or cases in relation to population are more important to know, as they indicate how many weeks a country or region is after for example Italy or Wuhan in its development. I miss a list of countries with number of cases per capita, and number of deaths per capita. This may be achieved either by adding or replacing columns in current table, or by compiling a new chronological table, for example with one week per column and one row per country. Diagrams are also interesting but would be too extensive and can not show exact numbers.Tomastvivlaren (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

New cases & deaths charts

I've substituted the semi-log graphs which compared Hubei with the rest of China and the world with the graphs I suggested on this page on 23 March (archive 22). New countries will be coming into the picture every few weeks so it will attempt to feature the current hotspots.

I'm happy to update this on a daily basis but I've so far failed to come up with an SVG plotting system on my Mac (having failed with gnuplot and GraphViz2) so if anyone can help me, please contact me by email. Chris55 (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Ireland recoveries

The number seems very low. In other countries there are more recoveries than deaths. Can someone please double check the Ireland numbers? (Fran Bosh (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC))

Problems in Poland

I think someone is putting in false information into Poland’s section about recoveries. Currently there is only one recovery in Poland and there is NOT 12 recoveries. I think someone is using information from Google and from there is wrong info or people are randomly changing this article and I think the security level could be a bit better. It could be changed form Semi-Protected to its next protection level. Hi poland (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

More generally, recovery data seems to be under-reported, so it's understandable if editors are scrabbling around to find something. As for the next level of protection, that would exclude just about everyone from editing. Arcturus (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

As of my post, it's apparently now up to 7. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/poland/ DMBFFF (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Lawsuit

Doesn't this deserve a mention in this article (other sources can also be cited as references)?—Souniel Yadav (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Read this some days ago, it's interesting, but I don't think it will amount to much, since a country can't be sued - [10]. Unless it blows up to something bigger (e.g. if Trump demands that China pay for the pandemic), it's not worth mentioning. Hzh (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

maybe more in 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China and/or China-US relations. Trump could tariff Red China, or maybe Wuhan (and there's the Helms–Burton Act). Also, Americans might not be the only people ticked: File:مصر تصدر الكورنر 270FA29C-1057-49CF-ADD3-92FC87B17B0C.jpg. DMBFFF (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding a "Cases" subsection

The two most important numbers most countries are reporting right now are "Deaths" and "Cases". We have a subsection for deaths, but no subsection for cases. Moreover, I feel that many people do not really understand what is meant by "Cases". I therefore propose to add a subsection for "Cases" above the current subsection for "Deaths". My current proposal would be:

Cases refers to the number of diagnosed cases of a disease at a given time. The actual numbers of infections of a disease are usually much higher, as many of those infected may not get tested, and are thus not diagnosed. At present no country has tested more than 3% of their population for COVID-19^[1], and it is known that many people infected have only mild, or no, symptoms^[2]. The numbers of people already infected with COVID-19 will therefore likely be much higher than the number of reported cases, as has already been found in China^[3].

I think this is very important as many people do not seem to realise the difference between cases and infected. I know reference is made to this point lower down in the existing deaths section, but as cases are being clearly reported alongside deaths by most governments, and wikipedia, it is very important to make clear what is (and what is not) meant by cases. Or to put it another way: if there is a subsection for deaths, why not also for cases, as these are the two main metrics being reported.

Any thoughts or alternative proposals gratefully received. Thanks and best wishes to all. Surfingdan (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I kind of like both. We can have cases as long as it's noted that these are likely minimums—maybe very small minimums; and as for deaths, and as much as I like decimals, they might mess up the column, unless rounded off and then such get skewed, e.g. a death in a country of 1 million is 1 in a million, but what of 155 deaths in a country of 100 million? I rather risk TMI with both than too little with one. DMBFFF (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

References

any use for videos?

File:COVID19 in numbers- R0, the case fatality rate and why we need to flatten the curve.webm and Category:Videos about the COVID-19. DMBFFF (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

(Okay, why the red link? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Videos_about_the_COVID-19 DMBFFF (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC))

It is bcause that category does not exist on enWiki. Files on the other hand are then checked on commons. Commons:Category:Videos about the COVID-19 Agathoclea (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah fwrick! It's what happens when one multi-tasks. :D Thanks for pointing it out! :) DMBFFF (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Mention that Germany does not test deceased

This can explain low death rate.Php2000 (talk) 12:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Source? Also, are you suggesting that Germans are dying in numbers from COVID, and presumably displaying COVID-like symptoms before succumbing, but they're for some reason not being diagnosed as having the disease? DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree: source? The low death rate is more probably explained by high test rates (so number of cases includes many asymptomatic patients not detected elsewhere) --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

okay, i'm gonna say it because people live in fairy tales lol. There is no trace of much other coronaviruses at the moment. So 2 options : 1- A mad scientist built a base on the moon and lasered the long sought remedy to cold on us in secret OR 2- COVID as taken the spot and we'd expect it to AT LEAST, _AT LEAST_ kill a scary ton of people. Probably 3 scary ton. Something around Italy's results. It's plausible that the true epicenter of the virus would still be visible on a cases map. But to think that the nice marble pattern we get on a logarithm scale on our maps is revealing any true quality of the virus and not just the willingness of each countries to test is dumb. Morbidly staring at the death graphs thinking they mean something on face value doesn't help anyone. Iluvalar (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

"Unlike in Italy, there is currently no widespread postmortem testing for the novel coronavirus in Germany". theguardian.com, Mar 22; I don't know about MEDRS, but that is at least one source. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Belongs in Germany article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I can give you some insight on this: Indeed, Germany does not perform post-portem test of dead people unlike Italy at some point. However, the reason is simply that Germany does most of the testing already at living patients, especially those with milder symptoms. Germany is seen as one of the countries in Europe with the highest testing capabilities. It is assumed that Germany's reported numbers are very close to the real number of infected, at least for now, in future they may not be able to keep up. So, it is very, very unlikely that in Germany someones dies with COVID-19 undetected. This also explains the low death rate. Lots of testing including people with mild symptoms => Lots of detected people who don't die of the disease.
Now let's have a look at Italy. Here, at some point in time, at the beginning of the epidemic, they tested dead people but only because the disease spread so long undetected. They had the first death before they even know they were affected. So by testing the deceased this was the only way to know that COVID arrived in their country at all, this is horrible. And Italy had a much harder time to ramp up their testing capability. As of today they are still only test those who already show up in hospital; they don't test people with mild symptoms. => Then from the numbers looks like a high death rate. --TheRandomIP (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Recommended renaming to "2020 coronavirus pandemic"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Discussion closed. There is a 30 day moratorium on discussing the article title. Timrollpickering (Talk) 22:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

IIRC, China was reporting less than fifty total cases prior to New Years, so there was no "pandemic" in 2019. Based on the numbers and geographical spread, Covid19 wasn't even anywhere near the definition of an epidemic prior to January. Therefore, we ought to be calling this the "2020 coronavirus pandemic" rather than the "twentynineteen-dash-twenty..." vocally clunky and inaccurate mouthful.--2601:444:380:8C00:F185:24E1:76B4:6EE5 (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Per the notice at the top of the page, there is a 30-day moratorium on proposals to rename this article: [11]. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Idea for table „2019-20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory“ under Epidemiology

Would it not be a good idea to create a first column with a descending consecutive numbering in the table „2019-20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory“ under section Epidemiology? This would ease the interested reader to follow the changes of the position of the countries in the ranking. Kind regards and warm greetings from Vienna. AreteVirtus (talk) 12:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

thank you for suggestion--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

That will make it wider. It is already wide enough. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

sneeze as transmission method vs. not a symptom of the infection

I must say I am very impressed about the high quality of this article! Greetings from the german wikipedia where we weren't so lucky with our article (totally overloaded). :-(
I have read your article with joy, however, I do have one question. In the chapter "Transmission", it is stated "The WHO and CDC state that it is primarily spread during close contact and by respiratory droplets produced when people cough or sneeze", then there is also an image with the caption "Respiratory droplets, produced when a man is sneezing". However, it is frequently reported that "sneezing" is not a symptom of COVID-19, like here: COVID-19 vs. Flu Do you have any further information how this plays together? Is it implicitly assumed that COVID-19 patients are very susceptible to other infection like the cold which do make them sneeze? Or to put it in other words: It it fair to say sneezing is among of the main transmission methods when actually people don't sneeze at all? --TheRandomIP (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Interesting point! We rely on our sources - CDC and Harvard cite sneezing as a source of droplets, but not as a symptom. WHO doesn't mention sneezing. I suppose the answer is that no-one really knows because there is (so far) insufficient research on SARS-COV-2. I think the advice is based on research with related species of coronavirus, some of which may cause sneezes.Robertpedley (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

This medical journal article says that the average healthy person sneezes less than four times a day. So, it would not be unusual for a person infected with coronavirus to sneeze two or three times a day for unrelated reasons, and there is absolutely no doubt that a sneeze produces a blast of virus laden droplets. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Wrong picture

The description below the image in Cause / Transmission speaks of sneezing while the image shows somebody coughing. Also, is an image this disgusting really necessary? Who needs an illustration for sneezing or coughing? ♆ CUSH ♆ 23:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Update NZ cases

There are now 552 confirmed cases (589 confirmed and probable cases) in NZ as well as 63 recoveries in total: Live: Day five of New Zealand lockdown, government to update coronavirus cases at 1pm -- talk 00:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Done I've updated the table. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Cases/Numbers

There are dozens of article online who say that the confirmed cases in Iran, Egypt, Thailand, Russia, China and more countries are way to low.

Shouldn't there be a section which covers corruption or manipulation or something along those things in case numbers? Countries as Russian or Iran or Thailand, for example, declare many Covid19 cases simply as a Pneumonia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:1A4:3480:34D1:9E84:4C31:85FF (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please go with a good WHO source or journalistic source which says, likely under-counted. It’s not essential that we dive into the reason — corruption and manipulation — nor essential that we avoid these reasons if the source itself dives into them. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not about corruption or manipulation of any sort, it's about risk assessment. China's first test frenzy was under the assumption of the virus being super deadly (25% CFR if i remember with no prior knowledge of the amount of silent cases). When they realized that the virus was already around in November, was already well spreading in the country and under the obvious observation that there was no other big spike of deaths in the country, they changed their testing politics in February 4. And they are doing fine since then. The Chinese Governement also been clear that they don't believe the virus come from Wuhan. Iluvalar (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

We just go with sources. Please come with sources. This is not a discussion forum. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

You gave one yourself yesterday [12]. Russia ran over 100k tests at once, found 140 cases. And stopped there. It's coherent. This being said, if we are sources, no matter the WP:truth, yeah we could make this chapter the IP is asking for. Iluvalar (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Could be mentioned under testing about the problem with insufficient testing. A WHO official said that Iran may only have reported only one-fifth of the actual number because of the lack of testing -[13] (he also said this is true of some European countries). Many countries don't test people unless the infections resulted in serious illness, so there would be considerable under-counting. A few countries like Iran and Indonesia were also reported as the sources of infection by other countries at a time when they weren't reporting many cases, which suggests those countries were under-reporting. Hzh (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Commies and Islamo-fascists: you can't believe either, but we need RS. Also some of them seem to be smartening up about transparency for their own good, so there's likely some reliability of some of the basic facts—maybe. DMBFFF (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey guys found this website that gathers data from multiple sources but namely Johns Hopkins. Might be useful in helping to update the table numbers etc https://track-coronavir.us/ (Then for America: https://track-coronavir.us/countries/US) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.140.255.203 (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Fomite is acceptable term, but a confusing redefinition of airborne, not so much.

A fomite is an object which can become contaminated. So, a door handle, the number pad on a credit card machine, even a doctor’s tie, is a fomite. And if we see fit to introduce this word, that’s fine. It’s a technical term with a straightforward definition.

What isn’t so fine is to use “airborne” in a technical sense different from plain English, without giving our readers any kind of heads up.

————

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), U.S. CDC, March 4, 2020.

“These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs.”

This is airborne in everyday English language. Perhaps, medical professionals need two terms — one meaning airborne for relatively short periods (like COVID-19), and one meaning airborne for long periods. Well, no such luck. Language develops the way it does, including language for use in technical fields.

But we’re writing for the general audience. If there’s a case to be made for diving into this, and maybe there is, it should be made in the body of the text. And we need to do it right and take the two or three sentences that it’s probably going to need.

————

They Say Coronavirus Isn't Airborne—but It's Definitely Borne By Air, Wired, Roxanne Khamsi, 14 March 2020.

”For public health officials such as Tedros (who goes by his first name), a truly airborne virus is one that floats around for extended periods—like measles, which is known to be infectious in the air for at least half an hour.”

It’s fortunate and lucky and a big relief that COVID-19 isn’t airborne in this fashion, but it is airborbe in the more limited sense the above CDC article talks about (even if they don’t use the loaded term “airborne”!). FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

We say "The virus is mainly spread during close contact". Wired is not a great source.

We also say "Respiratory droplets may be produced during breathing but the virus is not generally airborne." to represent these two facets of the terminology.

Have added "These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs." to the body with the CDC as the source to clarify this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

You’re speaking to your fellow physicians. You’re not communicating clearly for a general audience. “may be produced during breathing but the virus is not generally airborne” —> that might be great for Harrison’s Internal Medicine, but it’s positively mystifying to a general reader. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2020

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Myanmar has 2 more confirmed cases announced by Ministry of Health and Sports on 29 March 2020 10:30 PM. URL: http://facebook.com/MinistryOfHealthAndSportsMyanmar/posts/3286243674738248 Agkghein (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources for current numbers

What is going on with the sources for current numbers? We had JMU, then Worldometers, than JMU again, then both, then Worldometer only, and now JMU. Can everybody just pick a source and stick to it? I find Worldometers easier to navigate, for the record. Display name 99 (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

In an effort to make these totals streamlined across the whole project, we will now be using JMU. United States Man (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why and don't know what you mean by streamlining. I find JMU difficult to navigate and I think that WOM updates more quickly. Also, did this change happen through consensus or did you make it unilaterally yourself? If it's the latter, what's to stop me or anybody else from changing back to WOM? Display name 99 (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

This is actually a collaboration of myself and two others (@Doc James and Dekimasu:) at Template:Cases in 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic‎. It will be updated there, not this page. I would appreciate your cooperation in the matter! United States Man (talk) 04:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not sure that I'll get involved, but while I prefer WOM, the main thing that I care about is consistency. If you guys could just keep the same source in place I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

On the table we are moving towards government official releases and news sites. WOM count is off a bit due to counting presumptive cases for some countries (India and Canada?) So we have to avoid it. JHU also uses WOM as one of its sources, so we have to check even more, whatever source. However don't expect our grand totals to ever be correct even at one point in time, due to the numerous issues already raised on this page before. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we're ever gonna get the count totally accurate. But by using one source and consolidating the totals to one place, we can at least have consistent approximate numbers. United States Man (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

New Diagram on Deaths

I think this Diagram (yes, created by myself) would be a nice addition to the existing gallery of diagrams. If you agree, please add it to the section. Mocy (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Reported COVID-19 deaths in different countries. Day zero is the first day with more than 10 reported deaths in the respective country. (Curves are smoothed.)

Epidemiology section graphic malformats text

Reposted from two days ago as post was improperly removed, and not even archived

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

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

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

You appear to be on a narrow screen. Try the mobile view. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Zahadan, try https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic , it's the mobile interface which was designed for narrow screens like yours. Yug (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Forecasting epidimiology by Nobel Prize winner Michael Levitt

I searched: Wikipedia for "forecast" and/or "Michael Levitt coronavirus" and couldn't find anything.

Sources: https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-03-22/coronavirus-outbreak-nobel-laureate Overview of his thinking: https://www.jpost.com/HEALTH-SCIENCE/Israeli-nobel-laureate-Coronavirus-spread-is-slowing-621145 His Twitter https://twitter.com/MLevitt_NP2013

His thesis: Virus spread is predictable in subnational clusters. After a tipping point the growth rate % drops (by roughly 1% a day).

My observations: https://sinaas.blogspot.com/2020/02/corona-novel-outbreak-guess.html Seems very accurate over weekly intervals. Some noise in day to day figures.

Kind regards from Amsterdam and keep up the great work! Ansgar John Brenninkmeijer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansgarjohn (talk • contribs) 17:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

"Corona"

The usage of "Corona" is under discussion, see Talk:Corona (disambiguation)#Requested move 29 March 2020. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Double counting of territories??

I noticed today the number of "Locations" is 210, after being around 185 previously. Given there are 195 states in the UN, I took a closer look and have noticed that US territories have been added, including Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Given that the US numbers normally include these territories, they are likely to be double counted. It also leads to a question if the District of Columbia, which is also a territory, is included under the US total or not. I suspect that may be the case for other nations as well. Consistency in the handling of numbers is important, as inconsistency will easily lead to double counting. 2001:558:6017:189:4857:3BE0:CCA0:87E4 (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Better protection?

As this is one of the most highly-visited articles on Wikipedia (as of 24 May 2024), should this be put under extended confirmed protection? (This is not a full-on request for page protection.)

One time, I accidentally broke a template trying to update it, and before I reverted it, I'd assume at least 2000 people saw the broken page. Imagine a user with autoconfirmed rights with bad intentions. Their unconstructive edits would be viewed, potentially, by a lot more.

Thoughts wanted! dibbydib Ping me!^💬/_✏ 02:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a Wiki that everyone can edit. It's a bit late to have doubt about the core principles. Iluvalar (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The article has managed to hang on (barely) with semi-protection, so I think it's alright for now. (The flipside to the high view rate is that positive contributions that don't get made because the editor isn't EC don't get seen by a lot more people.) Now, that said, April 1 is coming up, and I'm worried what'll happen then. I'd support temporarily raising to EC on that date. I don't want media outlets writing about "look at this troll who inserted a joke into the coronavirus article for 30 seconds before it got reverted, therefore you can't trust the internet". Sdkb (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Will bet that the media does that. For now it seems like autoconfirmed protection is satisfactory enough, but I too recommend the April 1st EC protection. Hopefully it's remembered that autoconfirmed protection still needs to be put on after April 1.

There was also a two-hour period where the autoconfirmed protection on the article ran out. I'm pretty sure that got vandalised to smithereens too. Any protection is good protection (unless it's PC protection which would be rather dumb in this case). dibbydib Ping me!^💬/_✏ 04:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The current semi-protection seems to be doing the job. I am not seeing vandalism or other problem edits from autoconfirmed users. If that becomes a problem we should then consider EC protection at that time, but it doesn't appear to be a problem. As for April 1, we don't protect pre-emptively but EC could be quickly added if it becomes a problem. What kind of sicko would play April Fool jokes on this page anyhow? If that kind of sicko does turn up, ping me or any half-dozen admins, or ask for help on WP:AN; AN is generally faster to respond than RFPP. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Loss of taste, not just smell

This may affect multiple articles, but I heard about loss of taste as a symptom before loss of smell. Now it may be obvious to some that these could be the same thing, but not obvious to all.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you show us a source somewhere that says this? Everything I have seen says lost of smell and taste - which of course are closely linked - but nothing about loss of taste first. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

No, I heard about loss of taste first. And I can't say where. I didn't say it happened first. But I'm trying to make sure both symptoms are clearly shown in the appropriate articles.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

We mention loss of the ability to smell in this article, with a good reference, but the reference does not mention sense of taste. We can't add it without a reliable source. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

—————-

Instead of 30%, it seems as though the most recent estimate is that only 15% of persons infected with Coronavirus experience a loss of smell. Please see following two references. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Iacobucci, Gareth (24 March 2020). "60 seconds on . . . anosmia [loss of smell]". BMJ. doi:10.1136/bmj.m1202. PMID 32209546.

The Key Stat in the NYTimes’ Piece About Losing Your Sense of Smell Was Wrong, Slate, Shannon Palus, March 27, 2020. “ . . The actual percentage of patients in South Korea with anosmia, based on a survey from a medical society, was 15 percent. . “

Hydrogen Peroxide specifics need correcting

I noticed that under the “Causes” section, one of the effective disinfectants listed was “Hydrogen Peroxide 0.5%” which is misleading. It’s should read Accelerated Hydrogen Peroxide 0.5%, which contains surfactants that greatly increase its disinfectant abilities. Missing this detail could mislead people to believe that their average HP 7% USP is an effective disinfectant. Ktnygrl (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

do you have a source for that?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Just check the source and citations within for an answer?--TMCk (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Please dive in and help with Transmission section, if this interests you

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report—66, WHO, March 26, 2020.

“ . . The virus can spread directly from person to person when a COVID-19 case coughs or exhales producing droplets that reach the nose, mouth or eyes of another person. Alternatively, as the droplets are too heavy to be airborne, they land on objects and surfaces surrounding the person. . ”

Other sources view the whole subject of transmission somewhat differently. And along the way, we probably need to give a short, crisp definition of fomites, since after all we’re writing for the interested layperson. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

———————-

They Say Coronavirus Isn't Airborne—but It's Definitely Borne By Air, Wired, Roxanne Khamsi, 14 March 2020.

‘ . . When health officials say the pathogen isn’t “airborne,” they’re relying on a narrow definition of the term, and one that’s been disputed by some leading scholars of viral transmission through the air. . ’

This is worth its weight in gold. This is technical people in a different field saying, hey, time out, you’re using a word in a technical sense, but that sure isn’t going to be the way it’s read. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

————-

New data

I think we should add some more, shall i say, trustworthy sources for the United States cases, like Johns HopkinsHomeofthething (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Two citations and two external references point to John Hopkins already. Robertpedley (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

France 's dead, cases and recovered.

France now has 3 024 dead (+ 418 deaths in 24 hours), 44 450 cases and 7 924 recovered cases can someone fix this ? 11:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC).

Source: https://www.bfmtv.com/sante/coronavirus-418-nouveaux-morts-a-l-hopital-en-24-heures-5056-personnes-en-reanimation-1884826.htm Florian Duboeuf (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Strange Obsession With Undocumented Cases

"Cumulative confirmed cases reported to date. The actual number of infections and cases are likely to be higher than reported.[40]"

Should we have a duplicate addendum for the death figure since we know France for one is not including deaths in care homes and those who died in their homes in their death toll? Not to mention both China and Iran are strongly suspected of massively underreporting their death tolls. Also why are the SARS, MERS and other pandemic pages not featuring this little note of undocumented cases lowering the true mortality rate? I don't know why this virus seems to be some exception to the rule where people are more focused on perceived undocumented 'mild cases' making things look better than they are by confirmed figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

If you have good sources for undocumented SARS and MERS infections then please log into those pages and update them. Robertpedley (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

These are important issues being discussed by high-quality reliable sources. That's why we talk about them. Bondegezou (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Problems with VisualEditor

By default, my Android tablet activates VisualEditor when I contribute to this talk page. The resulting new content is then often inserted into the incorrect section. I've noticed that comments from other editors are sometimes popping up in odd places as well. Wikipedia:VisualEditor says that the VisualEditor is not enabled for talk pages, so I now understand where I went wrong.

Getting more info that Chinese humanitarian aid to Europe is faulty

Got a BBC update so far on that one. Where does one file that under Ominae (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

It would go in the "international aid" section. One sentence at most. Sdkb (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I think sources need to be scrutinised carefully and ensure the problem does arise from aid. I've seen some sources e.g.[14] [15] which seem to suggest the biggest problems may be with the commercial orders and not with the aid. Nil Einne (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2020

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is a link in the section "Xenophobia and racism" that I need to fix, so can you please let me edit it? Daler Boi (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, per the instructions for such edit requests, the edit must not be controversial. There must exist a consensus, so rather than an edit request, start a discussion here and see if there is a consensus. -- Valjean (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Chinese data

There are reports of more than 42,000 deaths in Wuhan. https://www.elmundo.es/internacional/2020/03/31/5e830ac621efa0821c8b461c.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.208.224 (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

That link won't be sufficient to receive mention here. -Darouet (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.208.224 (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Current

Why isn't there a "current/ongoing" there anymore? GOLDIEM J (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Per Consensus #3, this page is not going to have a "Current/Ongoing" template. Mgasparin (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Camels - Please include under Sources

It is obvious bats got infected by Camels, because they are intermediary transmit beings like alike Pangolins too eating dead Camels infected. It is obvious too Cov2 is a mutation of CoV, both Corona types which dissiminated Mers and Sars. Sure the Corona lives normally with Camels during evolution and Camels has antidote, also for CoV2. Told already to White House about the Serum of Camels and sure there are Studies taken. https://www.dzif.de/en/glossary/coronavirus?page=4 https://www.pnas.org/content/113/35/9864 --WikiChata (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not a forum. Neither of your sources discuss most of what you said. Nil Einne (talk) 03:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@WikiChata: I have reverted your removal of this thread. I originally intended to just leave it be since it didn't seem productive to keep this forumish thread, but it seems you are still adding this nonsense which is unsupported by the sources you cite, to our article. Please stop until and unless you can find sufficient reliable secondary sources to support your claim. So far, no sources you've provided support SARS-CoV-2 (or SARS-CoV-1 for that matter) originating from camels. MERS-CoV sure, but this is not about MERS-CoV. Nil Einne (talk) 11:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

oooooohhhh a Malaio knows more than me.... Keep Wikipedia to your Pockets, but what is important to me is in my Email to Angela Merkel and to Donald Trump, I recommended, because of my several studies in Chemical and medicine Know to them study better the mutation in Mongolian and Arabian Camels' serum from where the Bats ate the Food and even together the meat of Bats in the Wuhan market, it had contact with camels meat too, read the article of market to know more. Anyway, let's more people die, which make a better balance killing some of 8 billion people, which is too much comparing other animals or mammals quantity... unless they want the antidote which is easy to get and intercept the docking of virus before reaching the endoplasm cell membrane... --WikiChata (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what a Malaio is. If you are saying I am Malay or Malaysian, that's completely irrelevant and one of them is wrong. You're welcome to email whoever you want if they welcome emails from you. Just stop adding nonsense to our articles like the camel edits [16], [17] or your Facebook account being deleted [18]. For that matter, stop posting nonsense on talk pages as well [19] [20]. I can't comment on Trump, but I think Merkel is listening to enough experts that she is going to ignore any obvious nonsense like suggestions Masked palm civets or Sunda pangolins were eating camels in the unlikely event your email is personally read by her. For that matter, anyone claiming to know a lot about where one of the viruses came from but who ignores the research on the genetic similarities between MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2, and so likely evolutionary history of each. Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

your way with known wiki child playgroud of undone edit wars makes me laugh, only to mock it — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiChata (talk • contribs) 20:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Being very upfront about differing recommendations of social distance

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) advice for the public, WHO, updated 18 March 2020.

” . . Maintain at least 1 metre (3 feet) distance between yourself and anyone who is coughing or sneezing. . “

——————

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), CDC (United States), updated 18 March 2020.

” . . Between people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet). . “

———————

So, we simply say, WHO recommends 3 feet, CDC recommends 6. And there are other sources saying an uncovered cough can travel quite a bit further than that, and we include those, too, as long as they’re solid sources.

Even if I was a very good infectious disease doctor — and I’m not! — I would not try to make a judgment call in which source is most nearly correct. On CNN, I might. But not here at Wikipedia.

In school, a professor might say, hey, we need a concluding section in which you give your own views. But that’s what we don’t do here at Wiki. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The virus can spread well over 6 feet via cough droplets, please keep at least 3 feet between each others. I don't see any contradictions. Iluvalar (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

If we split hairs, I can see how one is giving advice and the other is telling how the virus is spread.

But I just view it as WHO saying 3 feet, CDC saying 6 feet. And differing recommendations is what we’d expect. Maybe at a certain point, they’ll converge. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

——————

Loh, Ne-Hooi Will; Tan, Yanni; Taculod, Juvel H.; et al. (18 March 2020). "The Impact of High-Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) on Coughing Distance: Implications on Its Use During the Novel Coronavirus Disease Outbreak". Canadian Journal of Anesthesia. doi:10.1007/s12630-020-01634-3. PMC 7090637. PMID 32189218.

This study found that an uncovered cough can travel up 4.5 meters (15 feet). Ouch! Well . . people, please try to cover your coughs.

——————-

Bourouiba, Lydia (26 March 2020). "Turbulent Gas Clouds and Respiratory Pathogen Emissions: Potential Implications for Reducing Transmission of COVID-19". JAMA. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.4756. PMID 32215590.

” . . The locally moist and warm atmosphere within the turbulent gas cloud allows the contained droplets to evade evaporation for much longer than occurs with isolated droplets. Under these conditions, the lifetime of a droplet could be considerably extended by a factor of up to 1000, from a fraction of a second to minutes. . “

“ . . the gas cloud and its payload of pathogen-bearing droplets of all sizes can travel 23 to 27 feet (7-8 m). . “

And . .

6 feet enough for social distancing? MIT researcher says droplets carrying coronavirus can travel up to 27 feet, USA Today, Jordan Culver, 31 March 2020.

” . . Lydia Bourouiba, an associate professor at MIT, has researched the dynamics of exhalations (coughs and sneezes, for instance) for years at The Fluid Dynamics of Disease Transmission Laboratory and found exhalations cause gaseous clouds that can travel up to 27 feet. . “

” . . Bourouiba’s research calls for better measures to protect health care workers and, potentially, more distance from infected people who are coughing or sneezing. She said current guidelines are based on ‘large droplets’ as the method of transmission for the virus and the idea that those large droplets can only go a certain distance. . “

I think this is a very good one-two punch: both the technical article and the journalism article written in everyday English. We can’t always get this. But when we do, it makes for a considerably stronger section. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

droplet vs. aerosol

I think this is the distinction we want, breathable for short period like 20 seconds vs. long period. And we can largely sidestep the charged discussion of whether COVID-19 is “airborne” or not.

——————

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), CDC (United States), updated 4 March 2020.

” . . These droplets can land in the mouths of noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs. . “

———

This is airborne by any regular use of the English language.

If public health authorities have gotten in the habit of reserving “airborne” only for highly airborne, they are committing the sin of using a regular word in a highly restricted technical sense. And that’s actually a pretty bad sin if you’re wanting to communicate with people outside your field. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James:, I would interested in your views whether we should go with droplet vs. aerosol as a main distinction?

@FriendlyRiverOtter: please see the rfc that attempts to overturn the preexisting consensus about the transmission mode, that addresses your concerns. I think doc James and I will agree on the proposed new wording. —Almaty (talk)

How does "{{cases in...}}" work?

@Beratademaj21: @United States Man: What is "{{cases in...}}"? How does it work? How can I find documentation on it?

Is this anything like fr:Modèle:Tableau qualificateurs?

I've been wanting to use Wikidata to crowdsource Superforecasting for many purposes, e.g., an "v:International Conflict Observatory", that could include putting data in Wikidata that could be accessed in articles like this and / or in Wikiversity, and could also be processed by more sophisticated statistical computations, e.g., within R (programming language) using a package like WikidataQueryServiceR. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Cases in 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic – We have been updating the numbers here and transcluding them elsewhere to try to maintain consistency on Wikipedia as far as reporting numbers. United States Man (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd like to see data like these being entered into Wikidata and accessed from there. I think that would make them generally more available for more purposes. Your Template:Cases in 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic seems to me to be more useful than keeping them here but not as useful as having them in Wikidata and using fr:Modèle:Tableau qualificateurs, except that I doubt if the latter is available in the English-language Wikipedia.

Thanks again, DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

How do we edit body figure in “Signs and symptoms”?

This figure is a good thing. But as estimates of symptoms change, we need to be able to change it easily and readily.

And I do question whether we should keep fatigue as a common symptom when it’s only 38%, and why coughing up sputum at 33% is mid-list on the left.

Please check out Signs and symptoms.

Thanks in advance to everyone for their interest and help in keeping up with a serious and fast-changing factual situation. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Go to Wikimedia Commons and leave a message on the talk page of whoever uploaded the file. Sdkb (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

In normal times or normal subject, that’d be just fine. But with a current pandemic, 12 hours or 8 hours may be too much delay. We need the keys to the car, so to speak, which is kind of the Wikipedia model in any case. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The source image (here, linked from the image description page) is a vector file which can be edited in for example the free software Inkscape. It is already the 3rd version (in addition to several minor edits). Indeed the cutoff between common and uncommon symptoms is rather arbitrary. In this case, it was imply convenient to classify "dry cough" as common and "coughing up sputum" as uncommon. Then, the sputum one was placed by the chest and therefore in the midst of the uncommon symptoms. An alternative may be "Main symptoms" versus "Other symptoms", or perhaps change the threshold for what is common versus uncommon. Mikael Häggström (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

References

^ Cite error: The named reference Symptoms-diagram was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

ample research shows that asymptomatic is way worse than WHO

“Ample research shows anywhere between 34 to 50 per cent of all infections are asymptomatic,” Professor MacIntyre said. does anyone know this research? Seems we need to give it its due weight —Almaty (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

There is already a significant body of scientific literature strongly suggesting that many cases are (perhaps effectively) asymptomatic. I'm not aware that this contradicts anything the WHO has stated however, and the article you linked [21] does not indicate that the WHO disagrees. -Darouet (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Is The Age a WP:MEDRS? I doubt it. -- Valjean (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

It would have been contradicting during the first weeks. But as of today, I'd say it's a fairly unsurprising opinion from Professor MacIntyre. We really can't tell how much are asymptomatic, partially asymptomatic and unconfirmed with symptoms. Typically, people experience symptoms from flu and colds every 7-10 years. And COVID was tested on enough people to confirm it's not gonna be any better then that. So unless COVID mutated to be less virulent, we are looking at at least 10% of the world population. (I heard up to 80%, but I think this have to be reviewed down now that italy's and usa's cases hit the plateau). It's crucial to understand that increasing the amount of expected cases with mild infuenza-like symptoms doesn't in anyway change the total amount of deaths to expect. Iluvalar (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

the age is certainly not a medrs source. However I know this professor and I do not know what research she is referring to. I trust her and we need to give this research it’s due weight on Wikipedia. —Almaty (talk) 05:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Bloated misinformation section

The misinformation section reads to me as massively bloated — it's like twice as long as the section on the impact on politics. I tried to hack it down to size by replacing it with an excerpt that transcluded the lead section of Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, but Citobun reverted me. What do you all think? Sdkb (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The summary in the lead of the misinformation article is inadequate (it needs may be three paragraphs), someone should probably expand it before using it. I think the misinformation section could be trimmed to half to two-third the size. For example, what commentators say about China's view of their or Western political system is not really that relevant. Apart from the usual accusations and criticisms, there has been no real significant political impact just yet (the US isn't even relaxing the sanctions on Iran), so any comparison with that is pointless. Hzh (talk) 09:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I've trimmed some of it, let's see if it stay that way. Personally I think the section on WHO response measures is excessive (mostly just their statements) and should be trimmed to half. Hzh (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's try to get some of the good information from the section here into the lead there, so that it can be transcluded as an excerpt. See also: Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic/Archive_25#Excerpts. Sdkb (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

We can probably copy the whole thing there, then trim away some unimportant items, maybe add a few things as well. It might be something that takes time, I can try it some time soon (or you or anyone else interested can), and I'll see if the lead is stable before transcluding. Hzh (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Why not just move all of it to Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic? This article will need all the space to it self, over time. X1\ (talk) 08:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

False information

Stop putting in false information about Poland’s recoveries. It is still 1 and NOT 35. I checked everywhere and it is only currently 1 recovery. Hi poland (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

JHU lists 7 recovered in Poland, [22]. -Darouet (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Someone change recoveries in Poland. It is wrong. Hi poland (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Czech Republic -> Czechia

Please use "Czechia" instead of "Czech Republic" as "Czechia" is now officially recognized short name for this country. E.g. Google is using it. Thank you. 114.147.71.157 (talk) 08:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Czechia is not English. Here, we are using English on the English Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

It's the UN recognized short form name in English [23], so that statement isn't true Ymblanter. However, it may not be a WP:COMMONNAME for Wikipedia. If it some day becomes a COMMONNAME, we can use it, but for now we use the long form. Carl Fredrik^talk 08:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Both are fine and thus there is little need to replace one for the other. There are more urgent issues at stake here. Zezen (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Critical voices of experts

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

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

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

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

Coronavirus outbreak redirect notice

The topic includes the following redirect notice:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2020

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

Firstly, I don't think that article has a place in this article per WP:NOTNEWS, as well, most of the information is as up to date as it can be, the citations note when they were retrieved and some sections do divide it up by the date as the news changed. If you're looking for chronology pages, we have one for each month. QueerFilmNerd^talk 18:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

As well as that, all the news citations are dated. There isn't a message (template {{current}}) at the top because of a discussion at WikiProject COVID-19. — Yours, Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • ^Talk∕_Contribs 18:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Epidemiology section graphic malformats text

Reposted from two days ago as post was improperly removed, and not even archived

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

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

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

You appear to be on a narrow screen. Try the mobile view. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Zahadan, try https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic , it's the mobile interface which was designed for narrow screens like yours. Yug (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

But the screen I'm using isn't a mobile device, and it's not a narrow screen, it's a 32 inch 720p TV with a 16:9 aspect ratio. The problem is that the template is too wide. I suggest narrowing it like on the Covid-19portal page and allow users to scroll horizontally. (Resumed discussion from archive 26). -Zahadan (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

If you fill out a phabricator ticket technical folks may help. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2020

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

It is here Coronavirus_disease_2019#Prognosis Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Unclear references for future predictions in image

I removed the image at right to here, because before reinsertion it would need either adjustment or more clear references for its claims of future cases and deaths. The image page links to [24] here but I did not readily find the future predictions there. In particular, one red line points to about 1 million deaths at about April 10. I made a crop of the image yesterday to avoid WP:Crystal ball and WP:Verifiability, but that was reverted in the next image update, so I found this removal necessary. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, the straight line is simply a projection from the curve based on the current data. The line will change when the trajectory of the curve changes. For example, there are two lines for the red curve, one for the early part of the curve, another the later part. The April 10 one is for the early part of the curve, therefore it won't happen. It's interesting to see how things can change, and can't say that it is wrong. It is however debatable if the straight lines are necessary because some people may not understand what they mean. Hzh (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The cases marked in a blue dotted line already seems to deviate from the straight line, though. Mikael Häggström (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but we can't say for sure until it becomes clearer. There may be a new line when it is clear, which may or may not happen soon, in the mean time it's just doing a best fit of the data. But, as I said, some people don't know what the line means, so it might be better to remove the straight line if it confuses or misleads people. Although personally I don't think drawing the straight lines is wrong as such, there is an element of WP:OR if there isn't a source for drawing them - simple plotting of curve is not OR if it is based just on the raw data, but some may consider doing anything more with the data such as extrapolation to be OR (it's just mathematical calculation, but there is also an element of personal judgement there on how to do it). You can just ask the person who drew the curve to remove the straight lines. Hzh (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it's OR anyways, since there are projections out there such as here. I'll notify the creator. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing original in those lines, it's a standard feature of spreadsheets. My only creative addition is to decide which segments (if any) are linear enough to be approximated by a straight line. Micheletb (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Whether it is a feature of spreadsheets is neither here nor there, it is more than the simple calculation that is exempted from OR (see WP:CALC), and as already mentioned, there is an element of personal judgement on how to do it. Personally I don't mind, I find it useful, but others can object to it as OR. I don't know if there has ever been any discussion on this by community on something like this, maybe look into it and see if there was any consensus about it. Hzh (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Talk page archiving

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

every 12 hours should be about right...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with every 12 hours. QueerFilmNerd^talk 21:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

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

I see a clear consensus to move it to 12 hours I will change it. — RealFakeKim T 07:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Mortality rate

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

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

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

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

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

I agree that WHO is more reputible than the others so it should be changed to fit the WHO naritive. — RealFakeKim T 19:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Table

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

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

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

On the template, consensus has generally been against adding any more columns, so I doubt there would be support for adding the death rate there. I do agree, however, that the table here is redundant. Especially the apparent lack of updating it gets compared to the template. United States Man (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Kelisi portugal corrected. Yug (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this table, I believe per MOS:FLAG, there shouldn't be any flags as they do not increase understanding of the subject, and also it could be beneficial to only include the worst affected countries on the table (bit like the one to the right of this discussion), and have a separate article for all countries. --Ted Edwards 19:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree. The flags are unimportant and should be removed. Perhaps the left column could thereby be shortened, which will reduce crowding of the text to the left, esp. on small monitors. Kablammo (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Disagree, I believe the flags are useful and give a quicker way to survey the table. Additionally flags are use in nearly all tables of country data on Wikipedia. However, they tend to use the {{flag}}-form instead, which takes much less space. It does not take extra space compared to text, for example: {{flag}} ->

Germany.
Carl Fredrik^talk 06:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@CFCF: About your comment that flags are used in nearly all tables, I'd like to point out that just because nearly all articles do something, that does not mean it's the best thing to be doing. Indeed in MOS:FLAG there's a section #Consistency is not paramount. I've found a discussion from 2007 (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 66) where I think several good points have been made why flags don't really help. --Ted Edwards 15:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not buying the points from a 13-year old discussion that didn't result in any policy or guideline change, especially when we have a different technical situation with bigger screens, better color separation etc. today. I didn't find the examples of similar flags confusing in the way it was expressed there. Also, to the point about consistency: I find it preferable and helpful to use flags — so the point about it not being paramount is moot, it was never my sole argument. Carl Fredrik^talk 16:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

oppose the table, propose to use Graph of changing CFRs by country. I put it in the diagrams. This has been done with ECDC data by the WP:MEDRS compatible source Our World in data, and I propose if at all possible linking to their streams of data for each country or just using country specific graphs of this type. They’re all commons so it’s a treasure trove. It needs to have all the disclaimers, but it gives you a real good idea of where health services are struggling in comparison - Germany’s coping well, Italy isn’t, China remains the same, etc. —Almaty (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Case Fatality Rate

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

2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Deaths

Yah it has been added a number of times. Okay have removed it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Not see a reason not to include this, this appears in other outbreaks' pages. But for now it should be named "crude CFR" or "naive CFR" according to the medical literature and it should be explained that this is a temporary number that could change significantly as more data comes in [25][26]. Damperin99 (talk) 04:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think saying, "Here's a number, but it's useless and you should ignore it" is a good strategy. These numbers are misleading. We should remove all CFR tables. They are WP:OR. There are plenty of WP:MEDRS we can cite. Bondegezou (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is a source from the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Damperin99 (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Doc James and Bondegezou here, the numbers don't really reflect anything useful. It's enough to give the range.
Before antibody testing is properly implemented we will have no way of knowing what the true number of infected individuals is, so comparison is useless.
WP:OR states that simple numerical calculations and comparisons are exempt. However, because there are so many different reasons that the numbers vary — which we need to explain thoroughly: it's simply a question about WP:DUE. The tables might be okay on another article, but they aren't informative enough to be included here. Carl Fredrik^talk 16:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

There is already Template:2019-20 coronavirus pandemic data/Case fatality rate template table updated from time to time (as it is not linked anywhere). Could you please include it? --😷 garyCZEk 📢 ✍ ｛🧒👧👦🚲💻🚗🍣｝ 14:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Tom Ruen The table is WP:OR since no reliable sources are publishing these figures. Actually it's not a CFR, it's a crude mortality rate. CFR calculation is much more complex - take a look at some of the cited sources or at [[27]] Robertpedley (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

the cfr is very problematic, I think as I did way back At the start of the outbreak in China, it is easiest to show the changing rate by country, in graphical format, to convey the uncertainty. No tables and no overall case fatality rate. People can make their own conclusions from the original graphs. No mortality rate. Luckily, our world in data has done the graph that I was trying to do back in January, under an appropriate license. It’s in the diagrams now :) —Almaty (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

also Our world in data has advised that they have been correcting WHO errors, leading to WHO errata on the situation reports, and now only use ECDC data for this reason. The ECDC collects data for the world also. So I consider Our World in Data to be a very WP:MEDRS compatible source. —Almaty (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Our World in Data does a very good job. Happy to see them used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi - With regards to Semi-log plot of daily deaths due to COVID-19 in the world and top 5 countries (averaged with cases) - are there not tables available for all or majority of countires rather than just the top 5? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:408:D400:3111:C9BE:190D:8B1C (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Infection mortality rate (IFN)

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

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

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

Thanks for providing a new source. But sorry: It doesn't mention infection mortality rate. - I'll try to look for better evidence today or tomorrow. --Jwollbold (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

"This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively." This editorial in the new england journal of medicine should help. It seems they don't speek explicitly about IFR, but either they understand CFR as IFR, or their value is an upper limit for IFR. Who can check more in detail? Sorry, I don't have much time today. --Jwollbold (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

There are so many assumptions. Germany has a lot of ICU beds. Germany is not currently overwhelmed. Etc etc. Currently has only lately seen their outbreak increase. WHO is simple a better source of the global situation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Might there be a way to work in infection rate into the article, or at least find a way to relate the two articles? 14:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC) It may be helpful to harmonize them with Incidence (epidemiology). --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 14:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Kautilya3 Two issues with this - first of all, were 100% passengers and crew of the DP tested for antibodies? The answer has to be no, because an antibody test was not available at that time; they used PCR which only picks up active infections. So cases could have been missed, some could have had asymptomatic infection. Second, to what extent were the passengers & crew of the DP typical of a more general population? Cruise liner passengers are generally older than global average and more affluent. Crew do not include children (I hope). So it's an interesting statistic but it can't be applied to populations as diverse as the slums of Mumbai or the residents of Monaco. The original article in medrxiv [28] discusses some of these issues, and give the basis for some of the statsitical approximations. It goes into the pot with other estimates, and we'll have many more coming along soon. Germany, for example, has widespread testing and apparently low mortality; Spain the opposite. That will be interesting when the dust settles.Robertpedley (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Fatality/mortality rates

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

2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § Deaths

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

Coronavirus disease 2019 § Epidemiology

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

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

I'd propose something like this...

Several measures are commonly used to quantify disease severity.(citation) These numbers vary greatly by region and can be influenced by the volume of testing, healthcare system quality, treatment options, time since initial outbreak, and population characteristics like age, sex, and frequency of comorbidities. (citation)

The case fatality rate (CFR) reflects the percent of diagnosed individuals who die from a disease (calculated by the number of deaths divided by the number of diagnosed cases).
The death-to-case ratio is similar to the CFR except that it is based on counts within a given time period. Based on global WHO statistics, the global death-to-case ratio was 4.5% (20,834 / 462,684) as of 25 March.(citation) The number varies greatly by region.(citation)
The infection mortality rate reflects the percent of infected individuals who die from a disease (number of deaths divided by the number of total cases, diagnosed and undiagnosed). A number of academics have attempted calculations.
The cause-specific mortality rate reflects the percent of an entire population that dies due to a disease (deaths divided by total population) in a given interval.(citation) Given the number of unknowns at this time including the degree to which the virus will spread, the number remains difficult to calculate.

In effect, eliminating all of the pre-March estimates and remaning vague on everything other than CFR. - Wikmoz (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Qualified Agreement it's a lot longer than the current paragraph.

I'd prefer to cut out the crude mortality rate, no reliable source is quoting it except for single mention in a WHO sitrep 3 weeks ago. Your definition is different though?

The IFR is the most important (but least reliable) statistic. Robertpedley (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Retract previous opinion Robertpedley (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Disagree your definitions are incorrect.

Crude Mortality Rate is cumulative deaths divided by cases at any date.
Case Fatality Rate CFR - the number of deaths (ordinator) is a subset of the number of diagnosed cases (denominator). This will vary over time, e.g. 100 people diagnosed today. 1 dies tomorrow, CFR is 1%. Another dies the next day, 98 of the group still alive; CFR is now 2%. After about a fortnight it should be stable.
Infection Fatality Rate IFR is like CFR but adjusted for undiagnosed cases, e.g. as above but assume only 50% of infections are diagnosed, remainder asymptomatic. IFR will be 0.5% on day 1, 1.0% on day 2.

Robertpedley (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The definitions are the same as yours with exception of crude mortality rate. Not sure where your definition comes from but it's incorrect. Per CDC, "The crude mortality rate is the mortality rate from all causes of death for a population." From Our World in Data, "The crude mortality rate – sometimes called the crude death rate – measures the probability that any individual in the population will die from the disease; not just those who are infected, or are confirmed as being infected." - Wikmoz (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Ack. You're correct regarding the CFR not being time-based. So the WHO number is more accurately described as the 'death-to-case' ratio. I've revised the text accordingly. - Wikmoz (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This is controversial and not supported by WHO. "Given the high percentage of infected individuals who remain asymptomatic" Some have also used the term "crude" to mean "rough".

Why "Lastly"? More can be said. We do not need words like "greatly" and can just say varies. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I struck out the text you note is problematic. Is "crude" or "rough" the correct term? I've seen crude used in several places though the CDC's definition indicates it's for deaths attributable to any cause and "cause-specific death rate" is the more appropriate term. - Wikmoz (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed "crude" to "cause-specific". - Wikmoz (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I like the structure of your proposed edit. I don't think your text makes it clear enough that in the CFR & IFR calculation the deaths must be a subset of the case count.Robertpedley (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Good catch. Removed "during a given time interval" from IFR. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

How's something like this? - Wikmoz (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Several measures are commonly used to quantify disease severity.(citation) These numbers vary by region and can be influenced by the volume of testing, healthcare system quality, treatment options, time since initial outbreak, and population characteristics like age, sex, and frequency of comorbidities.

The death-to-case ratio reflects the number of deaths divided by the number of diagnosed cases of disease within a given time interval. Based on global WHO statistics, the global death-to-case ratio was 4.5% (20,834 / 462,684) as of 25 March.(citation) The number varies by region.(citation)

Other commonly-cited measures include the case fatality rate (CFR), which reflects the percent of diagnosed individuals who die from a disease, and the infection fatality rate (IFR), which reflects the percent of infected individuals (diagnosed and undiagnosed) who die from a disease. These statistics are not time bound and follow a specific population from infection through case resolution. A number of academics have attempted calculations.(citation)

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

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

We are not talking about "quantify disease severity" we are talking about estimating deaths. These numbers also vary over time in a single population due to many factors.

This can be condensed further. Why "The most frequently-cited number is"? Just list them. We do not need "greatly" just say it varies. If the various was not significant we would not be mentioning it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Corrected and shortened as suggested. I do think it's worth conveying the degree ("greatly") to which the numbers vary, if only to discourage other editors from generalizing local estimates but I guess we can revise if needed in the future. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

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

User:GorillaWarfare yes varies over time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I've adjusted the wording accordingly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. Only issue is "The death-to-case ratio is the number of deaths divided by the number of diagnosed cases at a given point in time." All numbers reflect a value at a given point in time. The death-to-case ratio is unique from other stats in that it measures deaths and cases recorded over a specific time interval. Here, the implied interval is from the start of the outbreak through 25 March. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, "within a given time interval" as in your draft above, seems more understandable. And the China study reported a "crude CFR" or "crude fatality rate", respectively. Obviously that's what is defined as death-to-case ratio. I corrected both sentences. --Jwollbold (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

[1] WHO–China Joint Mission (16–24 February 2020). "Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)" (PDF). World Health Organization. Retrieved 8 March 2020.

[2] Cyranoski D (26 February 2020). "Mystery deepens over animal source of coronavirus". Nature. 579 (7797): 18–19. Bibcode:2020Natur.579...18C. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-00548-w. PMID 32127703.

[3] ttps://nordiclifescience.org/covid-19-first-results-of-the-voluntary-screening-in-iceland/

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

[5] ttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1684118220300736?via%3Dihub

[Symptoms-diagram-6] Cite error: The named reference Symptoms-diagram was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]