Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 25

There is very little public data on how sensitive and specific the current real-time PCR test versus CT imaging testing is for COVID-19, probably because there is no actual gold standard. The article current referenced in the "diagnostic section" (^[1], is an abstract of the article by Ai et al. ^[2]. Ai et al. 2019 use review of clinical history, imaging, and viral testing results to make a determination in hindsight regarding each case's probability of having COVID-19. They believe that actual sensitivity of PT-PCR is low because only 30-60% of people admitted to their hospital with symptoms tested positive for COVID (^[3]), but this idea has not been peer-reviewed.

Therefore, I think it's misleading to cite sensitivity and specificity estimates for viral testing and CT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophieroad (talk • contribs) 15:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Why is the date of first report written as 17 November? Wasn't it in December? Aminabzz (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• There are multipule sources saying the first confirmed case was in 17 Novmeber ^[1][2][3] (Including the timeline wikipedia padge) — RealFakeKimT 12:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• First case was most likely Novber 17. However, China reported to the WHO in December 31, 2019. See this discussion for more. 2607:FB90:7B49:613A:B83C:EC7B:288B:F4A9 (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

This is one journalist in SCMP who claimed to see government documents. It is unverified, the other sources are reporting on that journalist. —Almaty (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we add graphs that show both growth rates and case counts for key countries? The semi-log plots are hard for some people to comprehend, and the exponential curves for different countries all look very similar. The growth rate would be useful to show how effectively countries are able to reduce spread of the virus.

scottt (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Case counts are science fiction because the vast majority of infections with minor symptoms are not tested and counted in statistics. Why pollute the article with more fictional gunk that is incorrect by a factor of five to ten or even more? This article is already grossly misleading because of this. 85.76.76.47 (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you are suggesting that confirmed case counts will underrepresent actual cases. Yes, this is a known fact and it is addressed elsewhere. You could discuss this in a section regarding testing methodology and stealth transfer. That said, the growth rate is not affected by limits to testing policy, as the growth rate of uncounted cases will generally mirror the growth rate of confirmed cases. The growth rate is useful to know if suppression efforts are being successful or not. scottt (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

By 24 March more than 16,700 deaths had been attributed to COVID-19.[259] Most of those who have died were elderly—about 80% of deaths were in those over 60, and 75% had pre-existing health conditions including cardiovascular diseases and diabetes.[260]

The above text is near the top of the Deaths section. These two sentences are not connected and the second is misleading. I looked at the second sentence and it refers to an article published Feb 5 using stats from China. To me it reads like this: Most of those who have died (in the World by March 24) were elderly—about 80% of deaths were in those over 60, and 75% had pre-existing health conditions including cardiovascular diseases and diabetes.

when it should be Most of those who have died (in China by Feb 5) were elderly—about 80% of deaths were in those over 60, and 75% had pre-existing health conditions including cardiovascular diseases and diabetes.

Also it is better if the two statements are in chronological order. Serendipity33 (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The source should be updated. Month-and-a-half old data shouldn't be used. 2607:FB90:7A56:4654:45D5:870E:F9D:E8BF (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially if readers cannot tell the data is one and a half months old. Who is able to update it?Serendipity33 (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

By the way, you should indent your comment because it's a reply to my comment. Prefix one ":" at the start of your comment per level of indent. For example, to reply to this comment, since this comment is a third level comment, you'd start your message with ":::: <message>". I've applied the proper indentation to your comment. 2607:FB90:7A56:4654:45D5:870E:F9D:E8BF (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

This has been bugging me for a while. Added {{cn}}. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The building was evacuated—or in the case of the article, the places. CFRB's Mike Stafford said that over 10 years ago. If those people were evacuated, it'd be pretty messy. DMBFFF (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

DMBFFF, can you provide more context? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 03:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

No sources from the former CFRB talk show host, but wikt:evacuated seems to support it. More of a personal annoyance to me than anything I could readily support with sources. DMBFFF (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

DMBFFF, that would be helpful, but where in the article are you seeing this issue? Under the subsection "Evacuation of foreign citizens"? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 16:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

You got it. That's probably the major one."Removal of foreign citizens" seems more grammatically correct. There's also the section link, Evacuations related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. The title seems grammatical enough, but the content? hmmm. DMBFFF (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Removal of foreign citizens does not covey the same meaning. It suggests foreign citizens are being kicked out of somewhere rather than being repatriated by their country of citizenship. Repatriation may be acceptable, but IMO evacuation is fine. As always a dictionary is not a good source here, especially not wiktionary. What matters is sources and plenty of sources use evacuation. See also , List of mass evacuations, Emergency evacuation, Evacuations of civilians in Britain during World War II, Medical evacuation, Casualty evacuation etc. Note that per "This was indeed a usage controversy until about WWII, by which time the ‘remove (people)’ sense had taken firm hold. According the MWDEU: ‘The respectability of this sense is no longer subject to question.’" I know some consider this the worst crisis since WW2, so perhaps it's a good time to remember that WW2 ended nearly 75 years ago. (Actually planned events for the 75th anniversary of VE Day have been impacted etc.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Nil, fully agree. For what it's worth, the first two meanings in wikt:evacuation refer to people being moved out of danger, meaning 4 is messy. Regarding your last sentence, impacted is for teeth (meaning 2) which always seems very disagreeable, "have been affected" works better for me. Anyway, the wording in the article at present looks good. . . . dave souza, talk 18:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

again, more of a personal annoyance for me.
In my simplistic way of thinking, if they were kicked out, or more aptly, forced out, say "kicked" or "forced" out.
If they were repatriated, say "they were repatriated."
If they were removed, say "they were removed."

—unless I suppose one wants to use a word that has two extra letters and over twice as many syllables, and instead of sounding plain, one can sound more sophisticated using it.
(or as as a line I read in Omni (magazine) years ago I think put it "don't use a big word when a diminutive one will do.")

"Evacuation" is a noun, "evacuated" is a verb; and in Wiktionary, the former isn't much more a synonym for "removal" than the latter is for "removed."

I suppose if we change to "remove/removed/removing" in this article there's what, 100s of other articles we'd also have to change.

Still, I thought I'd at least raise it as an issue. maybe make a bigger issue of it later (months? years?).

Thanks Nil and dave for your time. DMBFFF (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

(As for worst crises since WWII, the Cold War and the so-called "Cultural Revolution" might be better candidates. I figure so far this year at least 700 000 Americans have died because of other reasons (330 million x 1% ÷ (≈1/4) ≈ 700 000). I hope all those intending to go to the 75th are alive and well enough for the 76th or whenever we get a good vaccine or similarly good treatment. DMBFFF (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC))

Comment: Please do not archive this thread until all discussions have been finished. Part of this thread has been restored from an archive. 2607:FB90:7A56:4654:45D5:870E:F9D:E8BF (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

IP, I'm not sure if you've been following the actual discussions here, but many of the ones I archived are extremely stale, and completely unrelated to still-active discussions. There was no controversy about archiving them until you brought it up below, and on a talk page where discussions are archived if they go 18 hours without comment, there's absolutely no justification for bringing ones back that have gone nearly a week without comment. Your having done so is just going to create more clutter for everyone to dig through and more work for whoever archives them next. Sdkb (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

They're still sitting in the archive, so I'm deleting them from here. Sdkb (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

As Coronavirus Looms, Mask Shortage Gives Rise to Promising Approach
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/health/coronavirus-masks-reuse.html
By Gina Kolata
Published March 20, 2020
Updated March 22, 2020
Masks are certified for one-time use only. But on Thursday, the center began an experimental procedure to decontaminate its masks with ultraviolet light and reuse them. Administrators plan to use each mask for a week or longer.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-tariffs/u-s-excludes-chinese-face-masks-medical-gear-from-tariffs-as-coronavirus-spreads-idUSKBN20T2ON
POLITICSMARCH 6, 2020 / 2:32 PM / 19 DAYS AGO
U.S. excludes Chinese face masks, medical gear from tariffs as coronavirus spreads

DMBFFF (talk) 06:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

We currently have this sentence in the lead section:

Efforts to prevent the virus spreading include travel restrictions, quarantines, curfews, event postponements and cancellations, and facility closures. These include a quarantine of Hubei, nationwide quarantines in Italy and elsewhere in Europe, nationwide lockdown in India, curfew measures elsewhere in China and South Korea,^[1][2][3] various border closures or incoming passenger restrictions,^[4][5] screening at airports and train stations,^[6] and travel advisories regarding regions with community transmission.^{[7][8][9][10]}

Are we including the appropriate examples, or should we make changes? I expect that we'll eventually reach a point where there are so many nationwide lockdowns that it no longer makes sense to list them individually in the lead section. Sdkb (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

sorry I just did it continently before I saw this comment —Almaty (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

and the lead technically shouldn’t cite at all it’s meant to be in the body, —Almaty (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Almaty: No worries, it's impossible to fully keep track of all the discussion here. Should we also remove the individualized references to the curfews in China and South Korea? I'm not sure how many other countries have equivalent measures in place at this point. Sdkb (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

yeah I’m just more commenting that it if it is a well accepted undisputed point the manual of style says we don’t need refs in the lead if it is in the body. I think we should keep the curfews in, cos they’re independently notable and I think that will expand. —09:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

In the first Section, Hard fought consensus, but doc james has no strong opposition to “mainly”, see his talk. I imagine all others would have no particular opposition. Please revert and discuss as necessary here. Thanks —Almaty (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• A unanimous consensus shouldn't be upturned because someone has no strong opposition to changing one word. — RealFakeKimT 19:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I have read that a new virus which originated in rats and other rodents is now spreading in China, do you people feel we should add anything about that in this article? Souniel Yadav (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• No This is only for corona virus related content. — RealFakeKimT 19:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you people feel we should mention the movie Contagion (2011 film) in this article (that it seemed prophetic)?—Souniel Yadav (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• No as this film is to do with the 2009 flu pandemic not the coronavirus. — RealFakeKimT 20:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• No, since the idea that there might be a major pandemic at some point in the future wasn't really an idea so unfathomable a decade ago that anticipating it could be classified as "prophetic", and the depictions in the film are basically what medical experts could have told you about how a pandemic might play out. Further, the film, while reasonably popular, didn't have the sort of global impact that it would need to merit inclusion here, at an article that covers a global issue. However, I do support the appropriately concise section at the film's page on its renewed popularity. Sdkb (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This sentence is factually incorrect. It is the reaction to the pandemic which has caused - and is causing - global economoc disruption. The sentence should be altered to reflect that fact; "Reaction to the pandemic has led to severe global socioeconomic disruption.."

• The wording has led implies that as a result of the virus x happened, a reaction. Therefore it doesn't need to be changed. — RealFakeKimT 15:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed. Sdkb (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

We have 85,594 cases in the United States of America.

100,000 cases will be hit soon in the United States of America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.208.70 (talk) 06:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I read online that Germany has a lower mortality rate because they started testing early. Does that not deserve a mention with a reliable source in this article?—Souniel Yadav (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Provide sources. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 19:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/03/24/opinions/germany-low-death-rate-for-coronavirus-sepkowitz/index.html

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/germany-coronavirus-death-rate

https://www.npr.org/2020/03/25/820595489/why-germanys-coronavirus-death-rate-is-far-lower-than-in-other-countries

—Souniel Yadav (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Spain has over 100 deaths per million. Please update map. Php2000 (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Please do not archive this thread until all discussions have been finished. Part of this thread has been restored from an archive. 2607:FB90:7A56:4654:45D5:870E:F9D:E8BF (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Move moratorium

There is a clear consensus in favour of the moratorium, but no consensus about how long it should last. In the circumstances, where there is a choice of periods and events are moving fast, it's right to choose the least restrictive. I therefore find that there should be a 30 day moratorium on move proposals, during which time they may be speedily closed by any editor. This moratorium may of course be extended by future consensus.—S Marshall T/C 14:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

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

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

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

Discussion Merged A similar discussion, found at Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Proposal: Move moratorium to restrict additional rules enforcement, was merged into this discussion. The user that conducted the merge is CoronavirusPlagueDoctor (talk about the coronavirus/Contributions about the coronavirus).

Discussion Merged Another similar discussion, found at Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Moratorium for all page moves., was merged into this discussion. The user that conducted the merge is Timrollpickering.

Support

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

Oppose

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

• Oppose because at some point soon we’ll follow the media and use Covid 19 —Almaty (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment

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

  I support this option. A moratorium on move request notices, not on move discussions. -St.nerol (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• I think this is just part of a larger issue of settled matters being dredged up again and again on this talk page. It's indicative of the need for a "current consensuses" banner, as has been proposed below, and is basically awaiting someone to create it. Sdkb (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Allowing users follow the "leave it open 7 days rule" no matter what is the best optionRegice2020 (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  Even with that rule, we have chaos. That rule alone still allows, for example, three concurrent (and mutually exclusive) move discussions. Furthermore, WP:SNOW closing has proven effective in controlling the discussions. I wanted to propose, in addition to what I have in my oppose !vote, that only admins close move discussions for the next month or so, as RfA usually selects those who have good understanding of policy. Problem is that we'd have to have a few admins watch this page like a hawk, close any new move discussions as they happen, and redirect the existing one...we're already strapped for admins as it is. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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.

We can see in our own graphs, that as a pandemic that may be controlled, those that do control well don’t flatten their curve, they bend their curve. Flatten the curve is political rhetoric and needs to be recognised as such . —Almaty (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC) User:Doc James would you be interested in collaborating with me on this? —Almaty (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

first ref —Almaty (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

There are two separate concepts. One is to spread out cases overtime to decrease how much the health care system is overwhelmed (know as flattening the curve). This concept has been around long before this pandemic in the field of public health and epidemiology.

The second concept is decreasing the overall number of cases. Both are important and ideally efforts would be undertaken to achieve both.

I would stay away from the popular press. They love present controversy were there is not any. The heading should have been "Yes flatten the curve but all decrease the total number of cases". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

personally as an outbreak communicator we always constantly monitor the popular press... and I cite them if they’re clearer than the medrs source, I’m just asking if the text around it should be changed —Almaty (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

we need clearer evidence on the page of how the pandemic can and had been controlled, they bend thier curves, for the first time in history.. exciting stuff User:Doc James —Almaty (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

but it’s not decreasing the number of cases, it is eliminating it, domestically as per China. It’s not just decreasing cases, it’s unprecedented —Almaty (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Flattening to curve isn't a political tool it's to help heath surveses to save lives. — RealFakeKimT 14:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

it is better to bend it. Like China —Almaty (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure it is better to both spread cases out over time and decrease the total number of cases than to do just one. No one is arguing against that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• To be honest I'm not 100% sure what bending the curve is. From what Iv'e infured from reading some articals it's besicaly putting the whole countrie on lockdown. If you could define it that would be help me form an opinion. — RealFakeKimT 17:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Bending or flattening the curve is taking action to slow down the rate of infection - to spread it out over time. The "curve" is a graph of the number of infections against time, with a straight horizontal line showing the capacity of the health care system. The goal described by "flattening the curve" is to keep hospitals and health care systems from being overwhelmed by a too-rapid spike in serious illness requiring hospitalization. This has become a widely used term to describe the situation, used by medical professionals as well as journalists, and IMO it should definitely be in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

(EC) It seems clear that Almaty is using bending the curve as being different from flattening the curve so they aren't the same thing from their POV. However, even if one source used this, it would IMO be a mistake for us to do so based on that one source precisely for that confusion shown by MelanieN's response. Other sources do in fact use bending and flattening basically interchangeably . What Almaty refers to as "bend the curve" has been called "stamp it out", "eliminate", "suppression" or arguably "controlled" (that infamous WHO comment) and IMO all of those are less confusing than "bend the curve". If bend the curve becomes the predominant name than sure, but not based on that one SMH article. Nil Einne (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

See which uses eradicate which shows even in Australia, it doesn't seem like "bend the curve" is a universally agreed term. Nil Einne (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Almaty What's your defonition of 'bending the curve' seeing as you said 'don’t flatten their curve, they bend their curve' and other users above see it as the same thing. — RealFakeKimT 08:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Unless there is a scientific source for "bending the curve" then it should not be used. Here they use "suppression" to refer to reducing R0 to below 1 - . That has already been given in the article. Hzh (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what the controversy is about... Both flattening and bending the curve are imprecise colloquial references to the same thing — and it is totally encyclopedic to cover that. "Flattening" is by far the most widespread — and most sources make no distinction between "flattening" and "bending". I've never seen a reference of "flattening" to suggest "stomping out", i.e. it is used to mean "make flatter", not "flattening totally"... Carl Fredrik ^talk 06:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Bending could also mean bend up, flattening doesn't. DMBFFF (talk) 06:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

probably a proxy question as to how the community was feeling about edits about more aggressive control measures in general. There’s a distinction in my mind but probably not an encyclopaedic distinction. —Almaty (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• So what was the point of this? It's just confused things and you are not clearly answering the questions about that your distinction is. — RealFakeKimT 12:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• to me, there are two aims as doc james said, and one aim is to “flatten the curve” which, to me, aims Predominantly for the hospital services to not be overwhelmed. That should be lauded, yes but to me also accepts that this pandemic is inevitably going to hit everywhere, and will become similar to the common cold or influenza virus in terms of being endemic (epidemiology). A kind of herd immunity thing. With the evidence coming out of China, although I do not trust their governments reporting at this stage, this pandemic can be “bent” as in they can stop community cases entirely. The line is not pushed down then, it is changed, like you can see on our graphs. Also in sth Korea, with aggressive control measures. There appears to be two political arguments, one for bending, one for flattening. I don’t know if there is enough sourcing to make the distinction at this stage. —Almaty (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear all - would it be Ok if I added a new "Cases" subsection in the "Epidemiology" section, above the existing "Deaths" section? Cases are being widely reported, including by wikipedia, along with deaths. However I do not think most people understand what is meant by cases, including how it differs from (a) confirmed cases, and (b) the total number of people who may be infected. There are many many references now on this topic. Would it be OK if I went ahead and started adding this sub-section? This is an incredibly important and complex topic right now, and lack of understanding of what is meant by cases and confirmed cases is probably leading many people to misunderstand the current extent of the pandemic. Wikipedia could be very useful hear to report the current state of clear reliable scientific understanding on this point. Surfingdan (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

My proposal would be something along the lines of the following:

Cases

The total number of people infected with COVID-19 includes all those who are asymptomatic, have mild symptoms, are serious ill and who die from the virus (with reliable references). Confirmed cases are all those individuals who have been tested for COVID-19 and whose test has been confirmed positive by official protocols (with reliable references). Especially during the initial stages of a pandemic, the number of confirmed cases are likely to be significantly less - sometimes by several orders of magnitude - than the total number of people infected because the majority of people have not yet been tested (with reliable references) and most tests than have been done have been focused on the seriously ill and dying, due to the clinical need to prioritize those individuals. In particular, those who are infected but who show no symptoms (asymptomatic) are highly unlikely to have been tested (with reliable references). As an example, the total number of people found in hindsight to have been infected with the 2009 Swine Flu was several orders of magnitude higher than was being initially confirmed and reported (with reliable references).

What are all your thoughts on this? Surfingdan (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Any thoughts @Doc James and @Sdkb? Surfingdan (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Surfingdan: Thanks for writing this out! I certainly think there is a place in the article for discussion of things like estimates of the total number of people infected, and in the course of providing those, the distinction between that and confirmed cases can be explained. As for your paragraph above, I think we'd have to do some rewriting to make it more concise before including it here (e.g. referencing the swine flu like that isn't appropriate for an article about coronavirus), but you might have luck adding it or something similar to it to an article like epidemiology, and then linking from here to the section there. (That sort of article will be much less frenzied than here, so you'll have greater latitude to make bold changes. This is a really hard page to engage with right now, and I admire your tenacity keeping at it.) Sdkb (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb many thanks for the feedback. Of course, my proposal should be revised and edited by others too, and I accept your point about Swine Flu not being appropriate to mention. I will try to update the epidemiology page on this topic, as you suggest, and after doing that will start on a new section on this main page (unless anyone else has already started it by then) and hopefully by then more consensus will have been reached. Surfingdan (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

We could have a section called estimates, for notable estimates of the total cases. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

There is a very important and useful note attached to the "cases" label on the main table - "Reported cumulative confirmed cases. The actual number of infections and cases are likely higher than reported, but impossible to ascertain." This caveat needs to be added to all the other instances where "cases" or "cumulative cases" are mentioned throughout the article. This is important, as a lot of people and governments are misunderstanding that the actual number of cases is probably much much higher than is being reported. This caveat also needs to be added to the Deaths section where talking about mortality/fatality rates because, given that the "actual number of infections and cases are likely higher than reported", this means that fatality rates (or mortality ratios) will likely be much lower than reported - as they are simply deaths divided by cases. If any justification is needed for this, consider the following: Italy is currently reporting 4,825 deaths (see main table). If the case fatality rate in Italy were anything like what is being reported from Germany (0.3%)^[1] this would mean that 1.6 million have been infected in Italy already (4,825 divided by 0.003 = 1.6 million). But there is no way that the Italian government can know or report this, as they have only done 233,222 tests^[2]. Ideally the term (as in the existing table note) "reported cumulative confirmed cases" should be used throughout, with a note to each instance adding "The actual number of infections and cases are likely higher than reported, but impossible to ascertain". Many thanks. Surfingdan (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Surfingdan: Agreed, absolutely. If you see places where we can change the language to make it better, please WP:BEBOLD and do so. Sdkb (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Thanks for the feedback. Unfortunately, as I am new to Wikipedia, my account is not yet "confirmed" so I don't think I can edit the page directly myself, as it is semi-protected. Can anyone else help out here? Best wishes to all! Surfingdan (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we need to be much clearer about the limitations in the numbers, especially cases reported.

We should never be calculating mortality rates ourselves precisely because of problems like these. We should as much as possible only be reporting what WP:MEDRS-compliant sources say about mortality rates. Even then, we need to contextualise the numbers. Bondegezou (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Please can edits be urgently done, as described and agreed above. My account is not yet confirmed, so I am, unfortunately, not able to do it myself. Specifically, every instance throughout the article of the phrase "confirmed cases" should be "reported confirmed cases". Where "cases" is just written this should be "reported cases". Throughout the whole article, including under all the graphs. This includes, but is not limited to, the grey info box under the map. Key instances, such as in the bottom of this box (where the global total of 358,000 is given), should have an additional note added to - as is already on the "cases" label in the table - "The actual number of infections and cases are likely higher than reported, but impossible to ascertain.". Thanks and best wishes to all. Surfingdan (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me, but I want to defer to those with more medical expertise. Doc James or others, what do you think? Sdkb (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Sdkb and User:Surfingdan we already have a tag that says "Reported cumulative confirmed cases. The actual number of infections and cases are likely higher than reported, but impossible to ascertain." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: that's good. I don't see much indication that the article is inaccurate in a technical sense, but having a piece of information buried in a tiny disclaimer in one table is different than offering adequate communication to readers about our level of confidence in the data we use throughout the article. I think it's a matter of emphasis, and for a qualification this important, I think we ought to at least be brainstorming about how we might be able to state the caveat more prominently. Sdkb (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Sdkb we also state in the text "There may be substantial underreporting of cases, particularly those with milder symptoms." I am unclear what more is being asked? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: I think the text of that disclaimer is fine. The issue is that it's buried in a footnote where essentially no one is going to read it. I'd like to see it incorporated more into the article body text somehow (although not sure quite how; open to ideas). Sdkb (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Sdkb that was in the body of the text. I am trying to figure out what more is being requested? People much read the article before commenting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: Oops, apologies, I missed that you were bringing up a different place a similar thing appears. What would you think of adding an {{Efn}} footnote to the lead section where the case count is mentioned there? Sdkb (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

We have "XXX cases of COVID-19 have been reported". We also say "Confirmed cases" in the infobox and not just "cases". In my opinion reported is sufficient. If these were not confirmed cases than we would say "xxx cases have been estimated" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It's all about consistency and avoiding misinterpretation, which is incredibly important right now. As noted above, in some places the article does already of course state "confirmed cases" but in other places just "cases" is used. Under some graphs it's the former, under some graphs it's the latter. In some boxes it's the former, in others the latter. This is confusing and dangerous. Most people do not read the whole article, but rather look at parts in isolation. Depending upon where they look, they get a different message. And the caveat that "The actual number of infections and cases are likely higher than reported, but impossible to ascertain." is not frequently used. It is used on the table - but you have to notice and click on the note - which I presume 99% of people do not do. If it's important enough to put on the main table, it's important enough at least to go on the main infobox (which is where I guess most people look). If any more justification is needed, please consider this: countries, such as Switzerland^[1], have openly acknowledged that they are not testing the 80% of people with mild symptoms. This means reported cases from Switzerland (and probably elsewhere) are likely 5 times more than is being reported. Best wishes to all and keep up to the good work. Surfingdan (talk) 07:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, I am very tired. Please excuse what I just wrote. Of course it is about saying "reported cases" not "confirmed cases". I leave it to others to decide whether or not "confirmed" is also always needed. Surfingdan (talk) 07:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Surfingdan, I would have to say yes, as "confirmed cases" fall under the bigger "reported" or "presumptive cases". Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 16:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb and fellow editors, as my account is now confirmed, I have tried to repeat the caveat "Cumulative confirmed cases reported to date. The actual number of infections and cases are likely to be higher than reported, but impossible to ascertain." as on the table next to the main "Confirmed Cases" numbers in the infobox, but this note was deleted soon afterwards - maybe because it is not appropriate to have notes in an infobox? Apologies as I am new to Wikipedia editting and not sure of all the conventions yet. I still feel it is very important that some such caveat be added next to or under where this main figure is quoted. Lots of people look at numbers in isolation and out of context, do not read the whole article. Essentially there is massive underestimating of case numbers going on, as governments calculating and reporting case numbers themselves admit. For example on 12 March the UK government announced that actual case numbers may by then have been 10,000 whereas they were then reporting just 596^[2]. I feel it is incredibly important right now that people understand this, and most people do not, as they are looking at numbers in isolation for "cases" provided by many news outlets without any context or caveats. All case number estimates right now are massively under-estimated because no country is testing the likely 40% of people who are asymptomatic and only few countries are testing the 40% of those who only have mild symptoms. Some countries are not even testing all the seriously ill, at least during initial outbreaks - e.g. in Spain^[3]. And no country has yet tested more than 1% of their population, so it is an absolute certainty that all case numbers are massive under-estimates. Therefore can a text somehow be added directly under where the "confirmed cases" is reported in the infobox to state simply "actual numbers of cases are likely to be much higher". Is this possible? Thanks! Surfingdan (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I have just tried again to add the caveat "Actual numbers of cases are likely to be much higher" to the infobox, next to where Confirmed Cases are reported. This time I did it in text, with two references^[4][5]. But it was immediately removed. I do not understand - if this caveat is good enough for the main table (where it is in a note to the label "cases"), why not on the infobox too? The infobox is more important than the main table, as it gives total numbers of cases and is likely where people first look. Moreover, there are so many references to support this point^{[6][7][8][9][10]}. Please can someone help with this? Surfingdan (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Surfingdan: the edit history will show you who reverted the changes. Unfortunately, since this article is receiving so many edits and not all editors are using good edit summaries as you are (thank you for that), it can take some work to dig through. You can ping them to ask for explanation via {{u|TheirUsername}}. Sdkb (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi! In the Spanish Wikipedia, we're using the Template:Excerpt to keep the various sections of the article synced with the subarticles (Ctrl+F "extracto"), and it's helping us greatly in easing the maintenance and guiding contributors to collaborate rather than working in parallel. Maybe it should be implemented here too? Sophivorus (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

yes excerpts have been used here as well (though sparingly)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I support the idea. The issue with using any excerpts from this particular article, as I noted here, is that there's someone or some process moving all the references to the end, so the places where the new text appears are generating reference errors. (And yes, as you mentioned last time, excerpting from the bigger article to smaller ones is doing it a little backwards, but I'm inclined to do so because this article is getting a lot more attention and as a result is just better.) @Sophivorus:, if you're inclined to take it on, I think a great place for adding an excerpt to this article would be the misinformation section. It's currently too long, so if the intro at Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic could be improved, it could be excerpted into here to use as the misinfo section. Sdkb (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Sophivorus — I agree, it's an excellent idea, if someone is willing to put in the work. We're almost at the point where we have too many edits, and updating anything is a hassle because of the myriad of edit conflicts. Carl Fredrik ^talk 13:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa, Sdkb, and CFCF: Well, another nice thing about excerpts is that they lead contributors off the main article and into the more specific ones, thus distributing the edit load quite a bit. And sure, I'll try to get this done myself, but any help would be welcome. The process is: edit a section and its corresponding main article, copy the content from the section to the corresponding subarticle, delete repeated content and merge the rest, save the changes on the subarticle, replace the section content for an excerpt of the subarticle. Then, unfortunately, some extra work must be done to move the relevant references from the bottom of this article to the subarticle. Cheers! Sophivorus (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I told many times that either the sources need verification before adding but none of editor couldn't obey the verification rule and stereotypes. And persistent changing to the date will result in mistrust to any readers. Please be careful for your actions. The Supermind (talk) 11:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

There are sources for Nov 17. ^[1][2][3]2607:FB90:7B09:75D0:808A:52B3:84AA:7D37 (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

OK. I accept the source and once confirmed in my mind that the disease was started on November 17. Please don't change it. The Supermind (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

this is not a WP:MEDRS compatible source, it is one journalist that claims to have seen the government documents. The Chinese government I don’t believe has released them. Other journalists have reported on this one journalist seeing it. That isnt verifiable to our standards. So I support this being November or December 2019. —Almaty (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The artical states According to the government data seen by the Post. So it is not one reporter. It is also stated on Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in November 2019 – January 2020 that the first case was 17 November. — RealFakeKimT 13:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The Dec 1 has plenty of gleam that the disease spread. I think the Chinese government release is not reliable. While the Nov 17 began with 55 years old man, the symptom is too mild or may unlikely to COVID-19. It is not just the initial outbreak in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Supermind (talk • contribs) 14:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• The source states they had corona it doesn't matter they only had it mildly. If he was the first person to get it then he was the start of the out break. — RealFakeKimT 15:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• a medrs source will never be able to say if the person had covid19 until an antibody test is available. And even then, it will depend on the antibodies that humans develop to the virus. Separate to that, this has been discussed and disputed many times in the past on this talk page, we simply cannot trust that source, it’s also odd and possibly political that the Chinese government has not released these documents, IMO —Almaty (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• I accept the fact their is no government related documents is fishy but just because it's fishy doesn't mean it's false because we simply don't know. To be honest i'm fine with 17 November or 1 December - present and have a note. — RealFakeKimT 16:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• i trust the source but I can’t verify it. And there is Chinese politics which I don’t pretend to understand in this pandemic. So I’m happy with “November or December 2019”, do you think that’s ok? I think most others were happy with December but I’m happy to budge. —Almaty (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I've made an edit noting the 17 November date and indicating that it's unconfirmed . Revert if you disagree: I think my edit makes it clear that the Dec 1 date is more certain. -Darouet (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Hi, the ISC (Islamic Science Citation Center http://isc.gov.ir/en has created a very usefull Data & research Visualization web site and I write this edit request to you to add following link in the section:

External Links/Data and maps:

Link text: ISC COVID-19 Visualizer (Geospatial & Temporal Visualization & Analysis Platform) Link href: https://maps.isc.gov.ir/covid19/

ISC COVID-19 Visualizer (Geospatial & Temporal Visualization & Analysis Platform)

The website has provided interesting visualization maps/charts on COVID-19 statistics and also aims to integrate statistics of scientific research in this topic.

Would you kindly add the link in the requested section and possibly if necessary a refer in proper place of the text.

Thanks in advance, A.R. Kazemi, PhD., Assistant Prof. Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

Wp.ark (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC) Wp.ark (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Does not seem to show any more information than what is already presented. Goldsztajn (talk) 11:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Since it's piped, I'm assuming there is a good reason and I shouldn't fix it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Today's central notice from Katherine Maher talking about you and talking for you ("We will keep working around the clock..."). Thought you should know. --SI 04:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC) PS. It's only displayed to readers when not logged in. --SI 10:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm curious what that notice will do for this page's pageviews (given that there's some indication we're not as prominent on Google as we ought to be). I appreciate the thanks she's giving us, although I would've preferred for her to stop by this talk page to offer us pie as RedSoxFan274 did a few days ago. Sdkb (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• I'm sure she has more important things to do. Although it would be nice for someone to comeone a personaly thank us for what we do but that shouldn't matter we need to fight for the truth regardless. — RealFakeKimT 08:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• There has been a well-hidden "discussion" about it at meta:Wikimedia Forum#Message to readers from Wikimedia Foundation. The message itself reads to me much more like a bragging self-praise from Katherine, and not like a 'thank you' to the tireless contributors earning the thousands of dollars on her paycheck. --SI 10:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Okay, looking at that, the exchange between Seddon (WMF) and Yair rand at the top is quite striking, and in a really not good way for the WMF. There was definitely no consensus to include reached. I also find it pretty inexcusable that Seddon (WMF) couldn't be bothered to post an invite to the meta discussion at this page or at WP:WikiProject COVID-19,^{Looks like a non-WMF editor did actually share it there a few days ago, it just got buried} instead only doing so once kicked and only at the misc. village pump. As for where we're at now, I don't think it's worth getting up in arms to try to reverse this — the message reads as okay to me, if a little self-adulatory — but especially since this is far from the WMF's first offense ignoring community consensus/procedures, I think we do need to send a clear message: you messed up here, and we're going to expect you to do better next time. Sdkb (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

i am not a fan of the message, for numerous reasons. Are we allowed to have a discussion on it? Or is it just an office action? —Almaty (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

After long search I found more older discussions and announcements, most on meta:

• RfC for de-sysop of WMF employee
• https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2020-March/094551.html
• en:Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 64#Message to readers from Wikimedia Foundation regarding Covid-19
• m:Meta talk:Babylon#Message to readers from Wikimedia Foundation
• m:Talk:CentralNotice#Message to readers from Wikimedia Foundation
• Translation page on meta
• All translation snippets...
• de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Kurier#WMF-Banner zur Coronavirus-Pandemie angekündigt

In my eyes there was way more criticism than support, but like always the WMF uses the volunteers for their merit nonetheless. --SI 18:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know what you are trying to achieve because if you look at all of those links but the last they are all discussions with no replies or list of translations of the notice. On the German article it's criticised yes but putting it on the coronavirus outbreak talk page isn't going to change anything. You could email her, I think their is a link on her meta user page, about how you feel. — RealFakeKimT 19:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

First, I was trying to answer Almaty's question if we are allowed to have a discussion on this: Yes we can. And we have. And yes, I could mail Katherine or others. But in Wikipedia&Wikimedia we are more powerful if we act and talk about problems publicly for everyone to participate. We could have stopped this inappropriate WMF marketing message and we still can, if we act together. --SI 21:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the link and the banner. We have all been working very hard, and I'm glad that the WMF and readers appreciate our work. Many people are scared, and pointing out to them that there are hundreds of people volunteering their free time to give the world accurate information is not only helpful, but may encourage some of our readers to pitch in. Seems like a net positive for the wiki and free culture movements. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Fair enough but it is it's most conmmon name so should be the title of the article per WP:COMMONNAME. — RealFakeKimT 15:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Strongly Disagre It's most commonly refered to as 'the coronavirus' or 'COVID-19'. I have never hear it beeing called 'Coronavirus disease 2019' in the main stream media. I stand behind what I previously said the WP:COMMONNAME is coronavirus. — RealFakeKimT 18:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course that is an opinion that you are entitle to, but I am left wondering on what grounds it is thought to be fine. Given your profession, I would like to address to you directly the challenge with which I started this thread: to provide any medically competent grounds for claiming that a virus, as opposed to a disease, can be the subject of a pandemic? Kevin McE (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I generally oppose the name change but I'm fine with 2019–20 COVID-19 pandemic as a compromise. I still stand behind the current title which in my opinion is the WP:COMMONNAME. — RealFakeKimT 18:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment This is not a move request and should not become one dew to the move moratorium. — RealFakeKimT 08:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

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

• Kevin McE in your move request you request it's name to be changed to Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic I asume this means you think the pandemic started in 2019. — RealFakeKimT 10:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

• I'm talking about the question of "Pandemic in 2019???" not the name of the title which I'm covering above. — RealFakeKimT 18:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

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

• Oppose The COVID-19 pandemic started in 2019 and going into 2020 so it the only name that fits the correct infomation is "COVID-19 pandemic".Regice2020 (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• We have support for a moratorium on move request. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)