Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sabiona (talk | contribs) at 23:27, 25 March 2020 (→Wrong data in charts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WPUS50

Post-expand include size exceeded

This article is currently at 2,097,149/2,097,152 bytes, or 99.999% of the post-expand include size, as determined by Wikipedia's technical limits. The templates at the bottom of the article are breaking. Please keep this in mind when adding to the article in the future. Mgasparin (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously guys, try to trim the number of citations/transcluded elements in the article. References 956–973 have stopped working. Mgasparin (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think we should work to move claims specific to U.S. states to their respective Wikipedia articles. The Timeline section doesn't need to be a collection of claims about states. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A good chunk of the article might need to be broken off since citations past 335 are not fully working. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not a Special:LongPages problem, as currently number 6496. X1\ (talk) 06:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As of this hour for sure, we are over the limit again. Rank 4893 with 177,332 bytes at the moment, citations 336 to 361 are good with 362 and lower still being glitchy as clicking the caret or ^ fails, and editing gives "Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included." --Super Goku V (talk) 06:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This template {{2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United States medical cases}} is too large. It has around 300 citations on its own. Since the section is breaking the citations, plus IMO goes against MOS:SELFREF (by referring to itself as “this table”) and WP:NOTSTATS, I am going to remove it from the article.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 18:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

−

Bait30 I see why it need to be removed because too many citations. But can we have a link to it? All the numbers are sourced to the state department of health report for the day. How does it go against MOS:SELFREF just because it says 'this table'? How does it violate and WP:NOTSTATS? Everything is sourced. The Italy page has a table like this too. But granted the way the citations are done is breaking things. No where else is showing what state departments of health were posting each day. Seatto23 (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Seatto23:Yeah, I'm just being nitpicky with MOS:SELFREF. And with WP:NOTSTATS I'm referring to the part where it says that lengthy statistics that impede readability should be split into a new article. I went ahead and added a link. As a side note, since it is somewhat related, you should contribute to this RFC.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 19:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bait30 I clicked on 'this RFC' but it took me too a blank talk page. With WP:NOTSTATS, I would argue that a table is not 'lengthy statistics'. Which is not an argument about not having the table in the main article. I totally understand that. But I would argue that a simple table of what each state health department is reporting is crucial information (and not in any way original research since are just posting what each state reports). But we do need to figure out a better way to do the daily sources so they are not showing up as citations. Ideally the CDC would post a daily summary pdf like Italy does. But they don't. So we have to post each state reference separately. Seatto23 (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seatto23, sorry about that, I fixed the link. Yeah, I agree with what you're saying. I definitely that is helpful information and not out of context. But like you said, something needs to be done so that the citations don't break.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 19:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bait30 Thanks for link! That works. Seatto23 (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the detailed table of cases per state??? This was by far the most useful part of the page and the only such table I can find anywhere. Please put it back! Doashen (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)d[reply]

I agree. It is the most useful table in the entire article. dudzcom (talk) 11:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sports

I propose forking out Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on sports in the United States. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you could do that, but I think the larger priority should be splitting 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States#Additional information on cases due to the sheer number of citations involved in those templates.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 19:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Another Believer, I should've pinged you earlier. What do you think?  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 06:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding forking out sports, I would say that it might be better to fork out the whole "Other reactions" section. There have been a few things that I would like to add, but have left off given other priorities. A split would be nice in my opinion. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Travel Restrictions on US & Mexico Border

As of 3/20/20 the US/Mexico border is restricted to cargo traffic and essential personnel similar to the restrictions placed at the US/Canadian border in order to stem the spread of COVID-19.

[1]

50.198.133.197 (talk) 20 March 2020 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Trump announces U.S.-Mexico border closure to stem spread of coronavirus

withholding unemployment claims data, add here or ?

The Trump administration asked states to hold off on releasing unemployment claims data before the regularly scheduled national report of weekly U.S. jobless claims. Economists at Goldman Sachs, meanwhile, predict that filings for unemployment will show 2.25 million Americans filed for their first week of benefits this week, eight times the number of people who filed last week and the highest level on record.

X1\ (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the clarification by the DOL that "State data is regularly embargoed until the national numbers are published on Thursday morning and states are asked not to share their data until that time," and that the embargo only last until next Thursday I think this should be included on the economic impact.SunDawn (talk) 08:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. economy is deteriorating more quickly than anticipated with more than 84 million Americans at home because of shutdowns to combat the coronavirus. The United States Department of Labor is expected to report that roughly 3 million Americans have filed first-time claims for unemployment assistance, more than four times the record high set during the 1982 recession.

A JPMorgan Chase economist told clients that the jobless rate could spike to 20% from today’s 3.5%. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis President James B. Bullard predicted that the U.S. unemployment rate could hit 30% in the second quarter, with a 50% drop in gross domestic product.

X1\ (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is data from Johns Hopkins still useful?

The public health department update confirmed cases everyday on their website. These numbers are kept in Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United States medical cases. However, the total confirmed cases on John Hopkins website is much higher than the total of each states. It appears that John Hopkins is taking data from [1point3acres] and [worldometers]. It's unclear how they come up with higher number of cases before they're officially reported.

One very simple example, JHU says NY state has 12,315 confirmed cases, but [New York Health department] just updated by 4PM claiming that the total is 10,356. I'm wondering who is more believable.

Should we stop using JHU data but to use the sum of each states' official number? --RedAstray (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are worried about reliability, perhaps bring it up to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard given that they did have discussions on 1point3acres and Worldometers twice. Personally, John Hopkins has been discussed here as being trusted, though a few users did not prefer it as a source. Additionally, to use the sum of each state requires a source for each state, which would add up to 56 sources to the article. (Some of the templates here are doing this already, so maybe we can link to them.) --Super Goku V (talk) 05:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since CDC has stopped reporting aggregates and many officials are calling for a halt to testing for all but "essential" cases does such data have relevance any more. Based on the current size of the ever widening gap in numbers between sources and the fact that testing is now well behind the curve the numbers are not indicative of reality in terms of numbers infected and given the rate of progression will only grow more wildly inaccurate. I get wanting to chronicle the issue but doing so with inaccurate data is a disservice. The methods currently in use here have lead to the publishing of data which at times even under-report data from cited sources (e.g. previous comments on the CA numbers). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.59.207.186 (talk) 05:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presumptive cases part of the explanation? We know actual are not representative due to under testing. If family member of one who test positive comes in sick diagnosis could be made sans test. How are states reporting? JHU? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.59.207.186 (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't trust JHU to keep the necessary and accurate update on the statistics of this outbreak. At one time, their systems is overwhelmed and never updated much. That is considered deemed unreliable at best. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly useless charts

There are currently four U.S. charts in the lead, but I question whether three of them are essentially meaningless. The only one that may be useful, IMO, is the top one, which shows the U.S. states by cases per million population. However, the other three only show maps with totals, thereby ignoring the population sizes of the states.

The obvious result is that a map would only show that California, for example, has over 1,000 cases, while Nevada has around 90% less. But since the population of Nevada is under 10% that of California, the colors merely reflect population sizes. And of course the same map showing the counties is equally meaningless.

Can someone explain any clear and obvious benefit to having three colorful U.S. maps, besides filling space? --Light show (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The overall count map is hardly useless. It shows the raw data of overall cases, which best depicts the overall spread of the disease and is easiest to understand for the average viewer. For the other maps, my opinion is basically this: if people really want the other maps (beside the overall cases), move them out of the infobox and into other parts of the article, maybe to a section where they would be the most relevant. But the overall count map should definitely not be removed. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But please respond to the issues stated, claiming that by ignoring the different populations in states, the color coding becomes meaningless. For instance, does it help the average viewer to see that Nevada, with 10% of California's population, has about 10% of the total California cases? That's why it seems the per million chart at least gives some additional information beyond the obvious.--Light show (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I love the username relationship between you too haha Sdkb (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Light show: Agreed. This is the same issue as at Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#RfC_on_which_type_of_map_to_list_first; we should follow the prevailing consensus there. Sdkb (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the crucial chart is the cases per million population; the rest are noise. --valereee (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chart for TOTAL US cases is grossly under-reporting compared to sites from sources such as John's Hopkins and Google. While Google is a new comer, Johns Hopkins is authoritative with far more experience and expertise in such matters. Per https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html at 22:41 PST, 22 March the US TOTAL known infections is 35,211. At this time this page is showing only 28,521 a 19% discrepancy!!!

Clearly a non-trivial problem here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.59.207.186 (talk) 05:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JHU could be over-reporting too. If you add all the state numbers (that are released daily) their number also didn't match JHU numbers. So where JHU get their numbers? The discrepancy between JHU and other data has been discussed, and as far as I recall there is no consensus on that. But for the state's infobox, people shouldn't be using JHU as their source, local news may have more authority than JHU.SunDawn (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the confirmed cases per million inhabitants is the potentially most useful chart. That said, it is from 18 March and should be either updated or removed from the page, as its relevance is gone. People glancing at it without actually investigating the date on it will be misinformed. Automeris (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Map of stay-at-home orders

This article or U.S. state and local government response to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic would benefit from a map of the areas affected by stay-at-home orders, perhaps color-coded by when they came into effect. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 19:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JayCoop: Thanks for creating File:COVID-19 stay at home orders in the US.svg on short order. I didn't realize you were working on this map, so I created File:COVID-19 outbreak USA stay-at-home order county map.svg at about the same time. It includes counties that got ahead of their states, but over time it may be more difficult to maintain than the state-by-state map, so I don't have a strong opinion about which one we should keep on Stay-at-home order. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 23:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mxn: I think it's better to use your map since it goes down to the county level. What a nice coincidence that we were working on the same thing though. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 01:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mxn and JayCoop: Comment: Just wanted to say "Thanks!" to you both for putting these together. I have been wanting something like it as well! Hope to see it added to one of the primary articles, if it hasn't been yet. --Resplendent (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics section issues

The stats section, or at least the table with the state cases, should be in the first non-introduction section; this is arguably the most critical info to readers and it's ridiculous to have it buried at the very bottom of the article. No one except the people dedicated to reading through all the Trump administration responses is even seeing it!

Additionally, I'm aware of the various discussions noting case number discrepancies, but this really needs to be addressed more seriously considering the 18,000-case difference between the global page (WorldOMeters) and the table in this article (I don't even know the source anymore), both of which claim to be current as of 22 March. The source should at the very least be listed in the notes section and ought to include the hour it was last updated. Edit: I just saw Dr.Henley's complaint outlining the same issues; sorry for the redundancy! JoelleJay (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The statistics section would be more useful if it tracked more important data, which the rate of spread, which is about 3.25 days doubling. Spain and Italy are doubling at about once every 5 days. It is disappointing that media and technical resources are not tracking this. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The statistics section images overflow to the left of the page, this can be fixed by applying the following css to the tr element in the tbody immediately below the statistics header. 

display: flex;
flex-direction: row;
flex-wrap: wrap;

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.61.131 (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New maps for Statistics section?

Does anyone support me creating maps to add to the Statistics section for the following topics?:

  1. Death rate (deaths per total number of confirmed cases)
  2. Deaths per capita (deaths per million people)

Feel free to add other topics that you think should be added. ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 01:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with those two. I also think that the "testing" bit should be expanded, chiefly the number of testing done every day. We can check the number of testing today, but I don't know if we could know the number of testing few days back.SunDawn (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Also,
  1. Death to Recovery ratio?
  2. Recovery to total cases ratio?
I'm working on the death rate map and should have it done soon. ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 20:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article overly and overtly politicized

Nearly half of the main part of the article before the effects on society and the economy are mentioned, are mostly political critiques, without adding any useful information beyond that. Very little about the ongoing pandemic. It's heavily quoted, dated, and extremely verbose, and can use some tightening, IMO. --Light show (talk) 04:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; the politics in this article are out of control, but worse, the medical basics are missing. It needs more than "tightening"; it needs massive trimming of off-topic content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed above, I agreed with the assessment. While I think some political content will be pertinent, lots of the current political comments here are not adding anything. Though I have to add that this page is getting better as there are less politics than few days ago. I think we should start by identifying political contents that are not pertinent to the pandemic. SunDawn (talk) 08:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking at the media, the politics is at least half the story of this virus in America. And rightly so. Government handling of national responses has made a huge difference around the world. While initial impacts had a lot to do with luck and circumstance - a cruise ship, a flight from an infected area - once community transmission begins it's up to government to dictate the response.
Some places - Singapore springs readily to mind - get on top of the infection. Others - I'm looking at you, Italy - screw things up through inaction, delay, ineptitude.
Looking at the trajectory of America's ongoing infection, it's heading up exponentially. Three and a half more days and there will be more infections than China, from a population base a quarter the size. That indicates a shockingly inept government response, given that it's been over three months and the dynamics of this virus are now very well known.
Telling the story of this pandemic in America without devoting a large proportion to the inept early and continuing response doesn't serve our readers well at all. They come for facts, not a whitewash, surely? --Pete (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It appears from reading the criticisms and multiple cites, that in hindsight most will later be considered minor attempts at calming a potential panic. Of course a national leader is going to imply, "Don't worry, we've got it under control." Most of the criticisms are simply "Trump said this," and then "Trump said that," and a blitz of he-said she-said exchanges. Highly politicized and focused, turning a pandemic article into a platform to attack Trump.
And in the midst of what is looking like some kind of Martian invasion or War of the Worlds, to expect leaders to not over-react and make unrealistic statements, is silly. So far, none of the things Trump has said or done come remotely close to the kind of criticisms that other countries and leaders have received for what seems worse actions during this pandemic, (ie. from China or its own experts). Yet those criticisms of ineptness are not even mentioned in their own pandemic articles. --Light show (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no more faith in the state run media in China giving us real facts than I do that I can find any toilet paper at the store right now.--MONGO (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about the virus or pandemic in general. This is about the disease in America. Not China. Not Italy. America. As such, the story isn't about the disease so much as it is about the impact on the nation, and the national and sub-national responses. Trump, as the regime head, is in the story simply by occupying the position at this point in time. And also through his amazingly wrong-headed statements over time. The scientific and medical advice he has been receiving seems to have been at least as good as that provided to other national leaders, but instead he chose to broadcast a series of misleading statements seemingly intended to boost the stock market - and how did that work out, hey? - rather than enable Americans to position themselves best to weather the growing crisis. I don't see how we can justify leaving Trump out of the story, nor minimising his input. --Pete (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying that the title of this thread is an understatement? The word "politicized", after all, refers to politics and Trump as a politician, and a politician is usually someone elected. But this focus on every public comment that Trump makes implies that most of the editors to the article see him more like a king, not an elected person.
Of course that kind of impression is wrong. He is not a "regime head," a term commonly used in a negative way for authoritarian governments or dictatorships. While it's true, as you say that he "broadcasts" his opinions, which can be right or wrong, yet the only actual orders he has given have been for things like travel restrictions, declaring a national emergency, or ordering some companies to produce medical supplies. He didn't even have the authority to prevent a dozen cruise ship passengers that tested positive from being brought to California. In fact his powers, although greatly magnified in this article, are much less than someone like UK's Prime Minister, for example, who can order, or decree, the entire population of the country to lock down and stay home. Trump could not do that.
By politicizing the pandemic in the U.S. with this overt attention to every word that the president utters, it's using the article to show the U.S. in a poor light, accentuating lateness in taking the pandemic seriously, for example. Yet few leaders seem to feel that way, and some have accused other countries of not taking it seriously. Which again brings up the question of why Trump's name is mentioned 126 times, or 10 times as often as Boris Johnson in the UK's article, for instance. It's A Question of Balance. --Light show (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's especially sad that some of the editors are displaying a total lack of understanding of some of his comments, many of which are made as an ironic attempt at humor. How else to interpret edits such as these in red? It implies that some people will take every word he says literally, not metaphorically or as dry humor. Shakespeare would have understood him better than most of the editors here. All his ironic comments are posted to the article like Breaking News stories taken from the tabloid rack. --Light show (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to propose any alterations to those edits. We can discuss them on the TP and build a broader consensus as to what changes need to be made, if any changes are needed at all. The idea that he has botched the pandemic response is important in assessing why America is going to be the epicenter of the pandemic according to WHO [1] (that's not to say he's the only reason). Readers will question how is it that it got to this point. And if government irresponsibility is key to that response, then that should be highlighted and laid out in detail. I do agree that overkill is never a good thing, so we can work on phasing out some of the needless overkill stuff. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While it pains me to say this, your edits were overtly hostile, so I'm not interested in discussing them. --Light show (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Odd structure

The structure of this article appears to be based around political content, with medical content marginalized and even completely missing. I was just trying to find a place to add this content, and the structure is so odd, that there is no place for it. The chronology of illness in the US should include mention of how many that were brought back on the flights from Wuhan and quarantined later got sick, then we had the first case of unknown origin. And ODDLY, we don't even mention that we brought people back from Wuhan.

From this version, this article needs to have half of the politics cut, and get some focus on the medical. I've raised this issue before on this page, here, here, and so have others. Is it time for a POV tag? This is the second time I have added basic medical info that was missing: last time, it was the first case in the 35-year-old traveler returning from Wuhan. We have an entire section here discussing a general topic (Containment and mitigation), but neglect the basics in the United States. The article mentions the WHO tests were rejected, but doesn't explain why. The article goes into off-topic discussions in the Testing section. The Research into Vaccine section goes into content relevant to the Disease article that does not need repeating here. One has to sort through reams of off-topic and overtly political content here to figure out that ... we never mention illness in those brought back from Wuhan, and we never mention the first case of unknown origin. Article needs a top-to-bottom restructuring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A big part of the article is just about politics and criticism. While the timeline does mention some events like the evacuation of citizens from Wuhan, we should restructure the article to mention several important medical and chronological aspects relevant here in the United States, not just politics. MJVAccount (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This chart is at the bottom of the article, while in articles on other countries it is close to the top. My Wiki-Fu is weak, can somebody explain to me why it is this way or how I could change it? Chaosquo (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this looks like trying to hide the numbers (which are most probably inaccurate anyway in absolute terms, but show the progression of the virus). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcaron (talk • contribs) 23:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

table should be sorted by number of cases from high to low

table should be sorted by number of cases from high to low Marvin8228 (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can sort it by clicking on the arrows at the top of each column. Having it default to alphabetical by state makes more sense than having default to number of cases, especially since that will change rapidly. Carter (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing how much space we give to sports cancellations versus racism against Asian Americans

Given the biases Wikipedia is known to have, it's rather dismaying to see that this article until just now included eight paragraphs across three level-4 subheadings on the impact of the virus on sports, but not one sentence in the lead section and no article section on the xenophobia and racism that has accompanied the virus. I'm adding a bit on the latter, but please, someone slim down the sports coverage to make this disparity a little less glaring, restore a proper balance of WP:WEIGHT, and help get this overall page back down to a more reasonable length. Sdkb (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a stab at slashing the sports section down to size. Those of you more knowledgeable about sports may want to review to see if I took out any of the more important sports/tournaments or kept in any of the more minor ones. Sdkb (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Note that race and sports can devote attention away from other pressing issues and is used extensively in propaganda for this and other control purposes. The ability and effectiveness of topics that inherently trigger volatility, emotionalism are psychological tools that are used extensively in the media. This does not mean racism against Asians or anyone else isn't a problem now, previously or during the 2020 cornoavirus epidemic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.120.214.148 (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update Louisiana case numbers

1172 Cases 34 Deaths 5948 Tests Completed 41 of 64 Parishes Affected

My source: https://www.wwltv.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/interactive-map-coronavirus-in-louisiana/289-0193f4c3-7f55-48c0-b44f-d56d9a9a1850 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuckeyT (talk • contribs) 19:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dramatic statistic deviations

Should it be noted somehow, somewhere, that the deviations of deaths per cases are dramatic. Taking just a few examples, using current WP stats, in the U.S. it's 1%, S. Korea, 1.2%, France, 4.3%, UK 5%, and Italy 9%. It's possible it reflects the number of tests, but don't know. From just those examples, it would make the U.S. 900% safer to be in than Italy during the pandemic. Thoughts? --Light show (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is way, way too early to make a statement like that. COVID-19 spread is still accelerating. I'm sure the mortality rate will change in coming days. Liz Read! Talk! 22:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I wasn't thinking anyone could make any statement like that in WP. It was the deviation issue that seems relevant, being that others may be using our figures. --Light show (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted somewhere. It is just statistics that less people die in United States than in France or Germany.SunDawn (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. cut CDC expert job in China months before virus outbreak, add?

resident adviser to the U.S. Field Epidemiology Training Program in China ... Dr. Linda Quick ... a medical epidemiologist embedded in China’s disease control agency, left her post in July, according to four sources with knowledge of the issue. ... when she learned...would be discontinued as of September... “If someone had been there, public health officials and governments across the world could have moved much faster.” ... No other foreign disease experts were embedded to lead the program after Quick left... The U.S. CDC said it first learned of a “cluster of 27 cases of pneumonia” of unexplained origin in Wuhan, China, on Dec. 31. ...Trump dismissed the Reuters report...he described as “100 percent wrong,” without addressing whether the role had been eliminated.

X1\ (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However, it may be more notable to add this detail, than about a nurse quitting. --Light show (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not relevant to this thread, Light show. See Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China#Add update, or caveat?: The first cases of the new coronavirus may have emerged as early as November. X1\ (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the beginning of the article you linked to: "The first cases of the new coronavirus may have emerged as early as November." --Light show (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Read my complete response above, Light show, and follow the internal wikilink. X1\ (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just read it. So I guess it is relevant, but not to this thread. Who can read all the talk page comments?--Light show (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another related RS. X1\ (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per capita comparison, add?

SARS-2 outbreak world map per capita
   1000+ cases per million inhabitants
   100-1000 cases per million inhabitants
   10-100 cases per million inhabitants
   1–10 cases per million inhabitants
   0.1-1 cases per million inhabitants
   >0-0.1 cases per million inhabitants
   No confirmed cases

X1\ (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"There have been incidents of xenophobia and racism against Chinese Americans and other Asian Americans," is this really notable enough to be included in the lead?

Compared to everything else in the current coronavirus pandemic, I doubt we need to help propagate a narrative of mass racial injustice where there appears to be very, very little. We should really be focusing on the core issues at the moment and documenting federal and state responses, not giving spotlight to irrelevant tidbits. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It's more of the same stuff being dug up, and should be removed from the lead. It does not summarize anything. --Light show (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. X1\ (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's absolutely prevalent enough to warrant inclusion in the lead. Doing so follows the example at the main 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, which notes instances of xenophobia in the lead section, and there are certainly no fewer instances here than elsewhere around the world. The addition was backed up by a reference to a news article in The New York Times, which documents not just scattered anecdotes but trends such as increased firearm purchases by Chinese Americans fearful for their safety. What is your evidence that "there appears to be very, very little"? Sdkb (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And? This is an article on the coronavirus outbreak in the United States, how in anyway is the U.S. deemed more noteworthy of its racism than any other country on that list. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Incidents against Chinese has started way before Trump started calling it a Chinese virus. This is irrelevant to the discussion. SunDawn (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For related context, see Talk:China–United States relations#SARS-2, add?. X1\ (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Should the last paragraph of the lead section include the following sentence?

There have been incidents of xenophobia and racism against Chinese Americans and other Asian Americans.[1]

References

  1. ^ Tavernise, Sabrina; Oppel Jr, Richard A. (23 March 2020). "Spit On, Yelled At, Attacked: Chinese-Americans Fear for Their Safety". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 March 2020.

Sdkb (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes (as proposer). Including this sentence follows the example at the main 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic article, which notes instances of xenophobia in the lead section, and there are certainly no fewer instances in the United States than elsewhere around the world. The addition is backed up by a reference to a news article in The New York Times, which documents not just scattered anecdotes but trends such as increased firearm purchases by Chinese Americans fearful for their safety; many other reliable sources are reporting similar trends. The editors opposing the sentence on the grounds that "there appears to be very, very little" anti-Chinese sentiment have so far declined to provide any reliable source to back up their claim. Sdkb (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What about other countries articles? Why only in the U.S. article we are going to include it in the lead?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    May I just point out the irony in the proposer suggesting we (the No voters) are hesitant to respond to criticism when he doesn't respond to inquiry himself? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Something that constitutes such a small and measly footnote in the article itself should not see special preference to belong in its lead. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 04:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - The relevant article lists many public assaults, incidents of bullying, race-related civil rights violations, and racist commentaries by public officials. This is being reported from all over the country. It's more than reasonable that the lead should address it. -- Veggies (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To add on to the point about media coverage, just in case anyone wants to try to claim that the New York Times news article above, which appeared on page A1 of the paper this morning, isn't sufficient evidence of the WP:WEIGHT being given to this issue in reliable sources, here is news coverage on this exact issue in every other top American newspaper:[1][2][3][4][5]

References

  1. ^ Hobbs, Tawnell D. (8 March 2020). "Feds Sound Alarm Over Claims of Asian Discrimination in Schools". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 25 March 2020.
  2. ^ Chiu, Allyson. "Trump has no qualms about calling coronavirus the 'Chinese Virus.' That's a dangerous attitude, experts say". Washington Post. Retrieved 25 March 2020.
  3. ^ "Fear of coronavirus fuels racist sentiment targeting Asians". Los Angeles Times. 3 February 2020. Retrieved 25 March 2020.
  4. ^ "Officials decry anti-Asian bigotry, misinformation amid coronavirus outbreak". Los Angeles Times. 3 March 2020. Retrieved 25 March 2020.
  5. ^ Lam, Kristin; della Cava, Marco. "Coronavirus is spreading. And so is anti-Chinese sentiment and xenophobia". USA TODAY. Retrieved 25 March 2020.
I have to note that, despite the ample participation this RfC is getting, those asserting that there is "very little" anti-Chinese sentiment have yet to even attempt to provide reliable sources other than their own anecdotal experience. The closer of this RfC will be assessing the strength of arguments, not counting votes, and I expect that they will not find simples assertions of "this is unimportant" persuasive. Sdkb (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your tirades against those voting 'No' (even though you only ever quote me specifically) for not "even attempt[ing] to provide reliable sources" is wholly irrelevant to the discussion, this is not a debate on whether discrimination is occurring against a minority group, this is a debate where we are arguing that your persistent assertion that we must include a sentence that only accurately defines a meager three sentences of the entire article that only consist of 70 words, whilst the rest of the article currently contains 19,723 words altogether, does not "stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Using the race card against America with the pretext of an article for cover, is poor judgment. Play another country's cards first.--Light show (talk) 06:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - According to LEDE, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." We have a section in the article for this with a link to the listed article due to this article already being at 180k bytes. The US section on that article is just above 20k bytes by itself. Given that we already include a line for sports, I would argue that we should include this as a general controversial issue in addition to considering if we should add stuff like the impact on US television, the US stock markets (if the section has enough support), US restaurants, (etc.) given the size of the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Goku V (talk • contribs)
  • No. While we all agree that instances of racism occurred, this article should mainly about pandemic, not about its societal effects, and the lead section should stick with pandemics.SunDawn (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The article body has an extensive section on the social impact, just as it does the economic impact. Both are significant; why would we want to arbitrarily exclude the social impact? Sdkb (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet we don't have a paragraph about economic impact.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. We should definitely address the economic impacts in the lead as well. -- Veggies (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - We should not allow racial issues in lead sections when it comes to situations like pandemics. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - Societal issues relevant to the pandemic in the U.S. appropriate for the article, and this particular one has been extensively reported on in the press. It is especially significant in that the xenophobia has been spread the by the U.S. President and the far-right.[2][3] - MrX 🖋 11:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As it is a minor sideline issue that further obfuscates the scope of this already poorly scoped article. Seems the nonsense that Trump and "far-right" is the reason for recent rise in anti-Asian backlash in the U.S. is hogwash as the virus was referred to by the mainstream media news as either "Wuhan" or "China(ese)" coronavirus before they switched and tried to blame Trump for all that. See this. Basically, not enough room in lead to deal with this sideline unless we of course clearly show that the initial word play on racial/locale semantics was performed by the hypocritical left wing media.--MONGO (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixed I only support if that section is WP:SPLIT into its own article, "xenophobia_and_racism_related_to_the_2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic in the United_States". A brief mention is not able to effectively communicate the situation. If this is worth mentioning then someone should demonstrate that the content passes WP:GNG. There is too much other content to share which definitely does and space is scarce in the lead. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes It's an issue that gets enough coverage to receive mention in the lead. --valereee (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - "Societal issues relevant to the pandemic in the U.S. appropriate for the article, and this particular one has been extensively reported on in the press", per MrX, there are an awful lot of defensive WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments here. Although it is off-topic - I would point out to Mongo that there is a world of difference between early days (when COVID 19/coronavirus lacked generally known names and was confined to, or almost entirely confined to Wuhan/China) - and wilfully doing so later, when one knows the words have consequences. It was possible once-upon-a-time to innocently refer to "Gay plague", because one did not know what else to call it. Pincrete (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • While the argument here is about the inclusion of just one sentence in the lead, which I still oppose since it is deflection, it should be noted that the vast majority of noted attacks listed here happened before Trump started calling it the China Virus and during the period that our beloved media called it that, as you say, "innocently" of course.--MONGO (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak yes. The current last paragraph clearly focuses on social consequences of the pandemic and as such this sentence would fit there, but I feel like more besides xenophobia and event cancellation can be added on. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 16:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak yes per Tenryuu. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it's part of the response of the highest level of government in the country. And, unfortunately so. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - per BattleshipMan Idealigic (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

covidtracking.com data for US by state by date

Besides the Johns Hopkins data, see also a great updated archive of day-by-day testing (positive and negative) data for Colorado and other states in the US, at https://covidtracking.com/api/ See also graphs based on the data at [4] and [5] ★NealMcB★ (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“Social distancing” guidelines, and Trump/Pence, add here?

Trump is considering ending "social distancing" guidelines due to concerns about the economic damage from an extended shutdown.

Easing guidelines would run counter to recommendations by senior U.S. health officials, who have warned that the U.S. has not yet felt the worst of the pandemic. "WE CANNOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF," Trump tweeted late Sunday. "AT THE END OF THE 15 DAY PERIOD, WE WILL MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHICH WAY WE WANT TO GO!" The 15-day period ends on March 30. Administration officials said there is a growing sentiment that the White House went too far in allowing public health experts to set policy to "flatten the curve" that has hurt the economy. Pence, meanwhile, said the CDC will issue guidance allowing people exposed to the coronavirus to return to work sooner by wearing a mask.

X1\ (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump had not made a decision. The fact that he considered it could be added, though I think there are still not enough details what he intended to do. SunDawn (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
X1\, you really don't need to list every article on a subject that you find. And an article talk page is not a discussion forum. This listing and others might be more suitable for a site like social media discussion site like Reddit. Just a suggestion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, you don't really think this is every article on a subject, do you? X1\ (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that something was brought up that has been archived about if things should be added to the article or not if they deal with Trump, hence the talk threads. A search of the archives will clear things up a bit. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to #"Trump administration statements" NPOV problems, Super Goku V? X1\ (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't think that was the exact section I was thinking of, but it does kinda point out the tension on the talk page. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tense times. That being said, the Executive branches' behavior must be included in this topic. X1\ (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump’s private businesses have shut down six of its top seven revenue-producing clubs and hotels because of restrictions meant to slow the spread of the coronavirus. The closures come as Trump is considering easing restrictions on social distancing.

and for a different viewpoint than WaPo's on Trump's expressed desire to lower health guidelines:

X1\ (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast, health officials want Trump to “double down, not lighten up” on social distancing restrictions, contending that the fallout will be worse if the White House eases up now. “Our country wasn’t built to be shut down,” Trump said during a Monday night briefing as the U.S. entered week two of trying to contain the spread of the coronavirus. "America will again and soon be open for business," Trump said, "a lot sooner than three or four months that somebody was suggesting, a lot sooner." Public health officials warn, however, that relaxing restrictions now could significantly increase the death toll from the virus. Trump’s comments on re-opening the economy came as the U.S. saw 100-plus fatalities and nearly 10,000 more confirmed coronavirus cases – in a single day.

X1\ (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

medical supplies status, and Trump response; add?

Some emergency rooms, hospitals and clinics have already run out of supplies, while others are rationing personal protective equipment like gloves and masks. Trump, meanwhile, has resisted appeals from state, local officials, and hospital administrators to invoke the Defense Production Act to compel companies to make face masks and other gear to protect health workers. The American Medical Association called the shortages of protective gear for medical professionals treating coronavirus cases "unacceptable."

X1\ (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Medical supplies' prices, add?

X1\ (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

example of effects of Trump's promotion of unproven drugs, add here?

Trump promoted two unproven drugs to treat coronavirus, which has lead to shortages for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis patients who depend on them to alleviate symptoms of inflammation, including preventing organ damage in lupus patients.

X1\ (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi X1. Off topic, but I thought it might please you to know that X1 was also the name of the jet that Chuck Yeager, one of America's still-living patriots, flew when he broke the sound barrier in 1947. I apologize if you already knew that.--Light show (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it had not be unproven by FDA is not relevant, as no drugs existed today that had been approved by FDA against the coronavirus. All treatments are experimental. SunDawn (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, Trump should not promote any unproven treatments. X1\ (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's not like he's a professor of medicine and epidemiology, or of emerging infectious diseases, or a chief medical officer at Oxford. Then it would be fine. --Light show (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an EXACT REMARK from Trump : Now, a drug called chloroquine — and some people would add to it “hydroxy-.” Hydroxychloroquine. So chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine. Now, this is a common malaria drug. It is also a drug used for strong arthritis. ...... When you go with a brand-new drug, you don’t know that that’s going to happen. You have to see and you have to go — long test. But this has been used in different forms — very powerful drug — in different forms. And it’s shown very encouraging — very, very encouraging early results. And we’re going to be able to make that drug available almost immediately. And that’s where the FDA has been so great. They — they’ve gone through the approval process; it’s been approved. And they did it — they took it down from many, many months to immediate.
We see here Trump is not emphasizing that the drug would work, but that the drug could work. And as it had treated malaria before, it is safer than using any other experimental treatments. It is unproven against coronavirus, but the drug itself has been proven to be safe for use. Nothing wrong in your statement, but staying neutral is so important. SunDawn (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An Arizona man died after eating the chemical that Trump promoted as a possible cure for the coronavirus, a common aquarium cleaner, chloroquine phosphate. His wife, who also swallowed it, is currently in critical condition. Trump repeatedly suggested that the drug is a “game changer” when it comes to treating COVID-19, even while members of his own administration consistently contradicted his assertions.
X1\ (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From Politifact.com: Drinking chloroquine fish-tank cleaner won’t stop the coronavirus. It might kill you. 24 March 2020 X1\ (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On Friday, March 20, Trump argued based on “just a feeling” that, despite no scientific evidence yet, an anti-malaria drug could cure the coronavirus. He complained that he has not been credited for fixing a nationwide testing system that clearly is still broken; and when asked what message he had for Americans who were scared, he lashed out.

X1\ (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

alteration in Obamacare enrollment considered, add here?

The Trump administration is considering a special enrollment period for health coverage under the Affordable Care Act because of the coronavirus crisis. Open enrollment for states that use the federal exchange ended on Dec. 15. A special enrollment period because of coronavirus would be aimed partly at ensuring people don’t put off getting tested or treated because they don’t have health insurance. About 30 million Americans are uninsured.

X1\ (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Public opinion of state and national response, add here?

72% of Americans say their state’s governors have done a good job dealing with the coronavirus outbreak.

50% say Trump has done a good job, while 45% say he’s done bad job; per https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_032320

...while governors and mayors are in a growing uproar over Trump’s lagging ("bystander") coronavirus response:

X1\ (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

57% of Americans say the nation’s efforts to combat the coronavirus are going badly, 51% call it a crisis, and 47% see a months-long process before it is contained. 88% trust medical professionals for information about the virus compared to 44% who trust Trump.

X1\ (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ton of videos here from the US military, all PD

https://www.dvidshub.net/search/?filter[type]=video&filter[tags][]=covid19nationalguard&filter[date]=20200301-20200323&sort=date Victor Grigas (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Better source for statistics needed

We need to find a better source for recoveries. I knew JHU wasn't really all that reliable for statistics. We will to find a source that is reliable or something like that. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JHU isn't reliable? Has that been decided already? We touched on it, but I don't know if a consensus was reached. -- Veggies (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this section above for discussion on JHU. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Count associated deaths?

An Arizona man died after improperly self-medicating due to fear over the coronavirus - e.g. [6]. Should this be added to the death tally?

There's some precedent - e.g. it's been alleged that many of the deaths recorded from the 1918 flu epidemic were instead caused by massive aspirin overdoses [a recommended treatment at the time]; regardless, they're still included in the death toll. 2601:641:480:70B:4AC:D238:1C8A:E732 (talk) 06:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, count them per anon user above. -- Veggies (talk) 07:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we do include these counts, the breakdown of direct deaths versus indirect deaths needs to be spelled out in a footnote. The state and county death tolls are generally being sourced from county health departments that probably aren't including indirect deaths, so there could be inconsistencies in the totals. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 17:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should mention this in the text but not in the totals, unless the official totals include them. We can't go making up our own totals per WP:OR. There will be other indirect deaths (people who couldn't get respirators or hospital beds for instance) and they are unlikely to be included in the official statistics. For one thing there may be varying or vague descriptions of what constitutes an "indirect" cause. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please move the daily chart of infections and deaths to the beginning and expand timeline information

For almost every other country's wikipedia entry, the article has the daily chart of infections and deaths at the beginning of the article, usually with the timeline. It's weird that the timeline is an entirely separate article for the US and that statistics are buried at the end of the article.

Is it possible to provide more timeline info at the beginning of the US entry (e.g., like what's done for UK, Italy, Spain, and France)? And definitely move up the chart (i.e., "COVID-19 cases in the [country name]") to the beginning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.140.171.16 (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The archive explains it better, but there were complaints about the table being too big so it got pushed to the bottom. In addition, some users expressed disappointment with the article as a whole along with its size, hence the timeline being a separate article. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"regional epidemic outbreak that is part of a pandemic" in the {{Current event}} template

This seems unnecessarily long and clunky. Most country and state articles just say "pandemic," and I think we really should limit the template to reading just that. Master of Time (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CDC’s “Confirmed cases” includes ”presumptive positive cases”

There’s an inaccuracy with claiming “confirmed cases”. Those are not all “confirmed”. The best non-serology test has a 5% false positive rate. This means that the statistical chance someone with flu-like symptoms actually has SARS-Cov-2 after a positive test result could be as low as less than 2%. Because the onset symptoms of this virus mimic a much more common annual flu.

Please read my more thorough explanation here:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8627#comment-2389258

Can something be done to clarify this current misinformation?

Additionally, presumptive positive cases appear to include those which may even be pending a test result or even a negative test result? 2607:fb90:d75:8f51:4c47:8871:8ed8:f796 (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We could keep current wording, and add (the above as) a caveat. We'll need a RS, maybe not ibiblio. X1\ (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The official CDC page states that the “total cases” includes both “confirmed cases” and ”presumptive positive cases”. I provided a link to a comment which links to the CDC’s definitions page that provides the (somewhat ambiguous?) operational definition of a ”presumptive positive case”. As for the best case false positive rate (FPR) of these non-serology tests, in the comment trail I linked to, there’s a link to the following source, https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/03/18/the_perils_of_mass_coronavirus_testing_142693.html. I explained the elementary school level math. It doesn’t even require algebra. Note I’m not attempting to compute an exact statistical range employing distributions, etc.. The rough math is sufficient to demonstrate that absent some other statistically significant clinical manifestation, then the false positives (not the FPR) will be extremely high based on the simple math involved. The FPR can be 5% but the math is such that if the incidence in the population is very low, then most everyone who tests positive will be false positive. This is a sort of sleight-of-hand in the reality of the situation and appears to be deceiving everyone including especially the media and perhaps even Trump. The implication is that the mortality may be much higher than we think. Perhaps 10+%.
2607:fb90:d75:8f51:4c47:8871:8ed8:f796 (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Be wp:BOLD. X1\ (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-log Plots?

The plots in "CDC reported US totals" would be more informative as semi-log plots, with the number of cases/deaths/recovered on a log scale. That way, the growth rate shows as the slope of the plot, and the smaller numbers at earlier dates are shown as clearly as the larger numbers for more recent dates. I'm not an experience editor, but if people agree, I can change the y axis to a log scale. -- motorfingers : Talk 22:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

near-term forecast (not good), add?

X1\ (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New map suggestion

A map like this one, showing Global Distribution of Epidemic Preparedness as of Sept. 2017, would be nice to have if anyone cares to make one or see if this one can be used. --Light show (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that it's available per Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license, covered in Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Does anyone want to add it? --Light show (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The map is interesting, but I don't know that this wp article is the best place for it.
Were you thinking the U.S. in contrast with the rest of the world, for the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States#Background and preparations section, Light show?
Yes, since I see the 2nd para. and some others discuss worldwide issues. It would also help break up the large block of text a bit. --Light show (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree it would. On second thought, here may be a good place. X1\ (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The map looks to me pretty much like just a proxy for GDP per capita, so I'm not sure how useful it is. It's also unclear what criteria are being used to make it. And (more minorly) its formatting leaves a bunch to be desired compared to the SVG maps we have at the infobox at the top. Given those concerns, plus the lack of U.S.-centricness, I'm not inclined to add it. Sdkb (talk) 05:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bleak episode of The Daily

One of the better encapsulations of the overall situation that I've heard so far. May be useful as a citation for a "duration" section similar to the one at the main pandemic article that cites informed predictions on the future of the pandemic. Sdkb (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing "Current Event" cleanup tag

Should we follow the example of 2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic and remove it? Sdkb (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do we change tables and maps for deaths?

I have this source for North Carolina.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elbow bump

Requesting additional input at the discussion Talk:Elbow bump#Responsible usage. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong data in charts

No. of Deaths 24 March - must be 156 instead of 128 (according to COVID-19 cases in the United States table )92.247.60.126 (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 25 - Minnesota's number for 'deaths' and 'cases' is reversed. User:Sabiona

Trump's it will disappear like a "miracle" and "natural ability" quotes

My edit added notable quotes concerning his response to the pandemic and was removed by Light show. The quotes were namely Trump saying it'll disappear like a "miracle" and that he has a "natural ability" to understand the epidemic. Before we revert each other, I'd like to know why these quotes shouldn't be consider notable enough to be in the article. Also, does anyone else have objections or support to these quotes being added? A broader consensus wouldn't hurt either. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note my most recent explanation here. But thanks for the offer.--Light show (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not constructive. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Should be called 2020 coronavirus PANIC

Really the only thing unusual about this virus is that the public, even ever more the government and the media, are going into mass hysteria mode. I suspect they hope it will damage Trump and get their puppet Biden into the White House, but no matter: the story should be how they are going to tank the economy and tank everything that makes life worth living because none of them has any balls. 73.242.3.106 (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

No. X1\ (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Improper reliance on primary sources

The guidelines seem fairly clear that reproducing statements, with or without quotes, is a violation of proper editing requirements. For example, the rules state in part:

  • Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.
  • All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
  • Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

In addition, one of WPs main policies against original research states:

  • This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

That type of violation is implied throughout the talk pages, where some editors explained why they added what they did, ie. "through his amazingly wrong-headed statements over time," "Whatever they say, the current US administration is guilty as sin, and it will be held responsible," or "They show direct evidence that the president has not kept himself informed in a time of a major national crisis, he has disseminated harmful untruths, and by doing so, he has worked against US preparedness." Such OR has even been stated as a rationale for the edit: "But still notable and is part of his problematic response to the pandemic".

The article contains close to 100 primary sourced statements which have not been interpreted or analyzed by secondary sources, as required. Most are simply cut-and-pasted quotes or paraphrases from articles. Simply reading sections such as President Trump and Administration officials, which include over 1,200 words (not including cites), they are overloaded with Trump said this, Trump says that, he commented, he remarked, etc., many with quotes, ie. "China tried to say at one point — maybe they stopped — that it was caused by American soldiers. That can't happen." That includes statements put out by the White House, such as "He also stated that America will achieve total victory against the 'invisible enemy', and called on Americans to sacrifice together."[139]

Therefore, the improperly sourced text that is not supported by secondary sources, should be removed until they are properly sourced. If someone wants to move them to Wikiquote.org, feel free. But this article shouldn't be turned into a book of quotations during the pandemic. Does anyone agree? --Light show (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate quarantine requirements

Some states are imposing mandatory quarantines on arrivals from other states, which may be unprecedented in US history. I'd say this deserves a mention of some kind in the article: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/25/us/coronavirus-united-states.html —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States&oldid=947380733"