Talk:COVID-19 pandemic

Requested move 11 February 2020 (NCOV)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Speedy close. Do not keep reopening the same move request every few days—it is clear that it will take longer than that for consensus to emerge. Changing the suggested title slightly by removing "2020" and using unusual capitalization does not change the fact that it's the same discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC) GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

---

2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak → 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak – This title about the virus is very disturbing. Stating "Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" is almost saying Wuhan citizens are the one that caused the virus on purpose. Stop users from using the speedy close/snow clause to cutoff voices. After reviewing there 2 reliable sources that had the stable name currently as 2019 Novel Coronavirus. Regice2020 (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

References

____

• Speedy close: No new argument has been made here. This is not a page about the virus, it is a page about the outbreak. Please close this. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I reiterate that this should be speedily closed, particularly now that Regice2020 is selectively pinging individuals who were in favor of a pagemove in the earlier discussion. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply Updated move request, @Doc James: @Goodtiming8871: and @Sleath56: responses on the previous move request gave me a better hint for a stable name and those point makes perfect sense.Regice2020 (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Regice2020:, I share the similar view with you on this, but I'd like to remind you pinging only people in your same view could violate WP:CANVASS. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 03:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Xinbenlv: Thank you for bring that issue to my attention. I am only crediting some users who made good point which led to me on requesting a stable move request. No intent to force a bias vote as many times they have voted against anyways. Regice2020 (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment Please keep this discussion open. The first MR Special:PermanentLink/937266322#Requested_move_16_January_2020 was intended to be a "temp" move, and I don't see the consensus there. and the second MR was no consensus. New information has since emerged as the WHO, Whitehouse and China health authorities are giving it new name. Please do not close when a name is in some of the arguer's favor while other people disagree with this. Please kindly wait for a consensus to emerge. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 03:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@JHunterJ: the mover of Special:PermanentLink/937266322#Requested_move_16_January_2020 to help us understand why the original consensus was interpreted as such. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 03:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Nobody has complained about the outcome of that previous RM for nearly a month. At this point it is the status quo. You have no grounds to challenge it as improper at such a late date. Especially given we do have a RM that closed as no consensus less than a week ago. Your behavior, in creating a copy-paste move deliberately in order to forum-shop the RM to AfD, is disruptive and inappropriate. I suggest you disengage. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment What inappropriate is the name of the article and users try find way cut off "Supporters" voices when a current stable name set by the CDC and WHO. Regice2020 (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• This all got litigated in the last RM. The outcome was no consensus. No consensus was emerging and no consensus is going to emerge in the near future. We aren't the press desk for the CDC or WHO. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak is currently set and stable name. Regice2020 (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: As per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Health_incidents_and_outbreaks the title should have the year, and the "where and what." It's currently fine: it's the outbreak of a coronavirus in Wuhan that occurred from 2019-2020. The proposed title is only refers to the virus, and does not make clear any of the specifics. If there theoretically was another outbreak of 2019-nCoV after this one, that title would not be precise enough. If anything even "2019-20 Wuhan 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak" would be better although that isn't concise. Nobody is putting the blame on people from Wuhan, it's just where the outbreak started. Ev3commander (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment Shouldn't we at least say that it may go by different names. For example, China's National Health Commission recently called it Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia or NCP. This apparently was mainly to remove the stigma involving the fact that the current coronavirus outbreak isn't just in Wuhan. Link to article Dannelsluc (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Regarding Closure Note

This completely false saying it same rm discussion. Name came from the source and was not the same as the previous requested moves. A good clear source that was actually provided for a name change. Regice2020 (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

If you continue to engage in tendentious editing by attempting to wriggle through gaps and technicalities (e.g. "oh but the year in the title is different this time!"), this issue may eventually end up at WP:ANI. While it is preferred that users can be trusted with being sensible so that we don't end up with everything under firm lockdown, a decision may be made to enforce a hard time limit on future move discussions if such behaviour continues. This is clearly disruptive behaviour, please desist immediately. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

With all respect @Benlisquare:, I see no problem @Regice2020:'s approach in driving discussion. I felt sad when there is constant accusation of people being disruptive behaviour. Accusation like this drives contributors away and make Wikipedians sad. If @Benlisquare: seriously think it's disruptive behaviour, shall we address this in WP:ANI directly and come back? Otherwise, I felt accusation have been driving away our productivity and friendly atmosphere of it. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 01:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Benlisquare: The seem to be harmful? - The move request was unbias action in good faith and this questioning about the recent move request . I am not sure if this is threat or this is that thing in WP "were you sorta shit talk to others while we cant sorta shit talk back". Anyways, you guys can go ahead figure how fix the page. Have nice day. Regice2020 (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

You started a RM discussion to "2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak" a couple of hours after the previous RM had closed. Then two days later, you started another RM discussion to "2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak", essentially the same title but with different years and capitalisations. Have you reflected on how this appears to other editors? --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Part of the suggested title comes from the source and it completely different. 2019 Novel Coronavirus is the proper name as stated in the soruce. Regice2020 (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

"2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak" is not "completely different" from the name suggested at the last two RMs, "2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak". GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

2019 novel coronavirus outbreak is not same as 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak. It has different character counts and these rm are pressured discussion cut off came from somewhere. Regice2020 (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Take a read of WP:Stick Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

According to his talk page, Regice2020 isn't new to continuing dead discussions over article reverts. 204.186.241.170 (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Not sure I am not sure if your comment above to was a attempt to disrupt considering you been blocked in 2017 and was given final warnings 2 more times in 2019 for disruptions after the block. I believe i moved on about this issue after my comment above. Regice2020 (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Both of you trying to remember a past for each other? If Regice2020's claim is true, then it is older than what is happening in this month. If 204.186's claim was true, then... maybe stop pls? --46.39.248.32 (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Censorship, propaganda, and police response

Recovered from archive at: 1 @FobTown: Missed your previous comment as the section here was archived. I think overall, we've arrived at a largely agreeable view on the section as the material contentions of it are very minor. I do have some points of order. Note that Mackenzie's comments are already within the #Criticism section and that I've removed it from here due to duplicative entries. The UN diplomat's opinion isn't largely notable because of WP:DUE DUE and more especially because it's an anonymous source. Additionally, the flow of the section is fine as is. My edits are to maintain chronological flow as this is an ongoing event and its the most neutral way to display the section. Reordering them otherwise leads to potential WP:SYNTHESIS and makes it difficult to incorporate new entries. I would have liked to put the censorship on social media reactions to Li Wenliang after the 30 January Supreme Court entry per chronology, but the current form of the section which in my view should be de-editorialized makes it difficult to excise. Sleath56 (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Why just have a few quotes from officials, when there are plenty of specific examples of how state media has been publishing "gushing reports" of the central gov't response, including speedy hospital construction and lock down of Wuhan? As said earlier, both state media praise and content moderators who block banned content are covered side-by-side in international media articles discussing the overall way that China's information operates, basically propaganda and censorship go hand-in-hand in a regime's attempt to control what citizens are allowed to hear and forbidden to hear. The Lunar New Year's Eve gala is also another example of the state media's selective coverage to promote or marginalize topics, so this constitutes another example of censorship. The "Criticism of Local Response" touches a bit on censorship and state media which is fine, but the main purpose of that section was to analyze the power dynamic between central government and local government.

At the moment unless new developments happen in censorship/propaganda, it is fine to keep censorship on social media reactions to Li Wenliang in the censorship paragraph for now.

I did lump the Supreme Court and Human Rights Watch opinions together since they are too short as standalone paragraphs, however I left the content unchanged.

I'll agree to reduce the UN diplomat's quote in Censorship as the full context of it goes in WHO response, however the UN diplomat's opinion is anonymous likely as they feared reprisals. In addition while John Mackenzie's viewpoint might be duplicated, it helps to complete the narrative for each section he is included, where the central government wasn't being forthcoming with the WHO nor its own citizens. A similar argument for having Steve Tsang quoted several times until I could find replacement sources. FobTown (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

" both state media praise and content moderators who block banned content are covered side-by-side". This is WP:SYNTHESIS unless you can find considerable RS who explicitly support the notion of a "two-pronged censorship tactic." It may be obvious to you and me that is what it is but unless a notable amount of RS depict it that way as a 'grand strategy,' it cannot be phrased in such a way. As I've said earlier: I've accepted many of the points you've made on the premise of "positive coverage" such that I believe it is relevant to the topic of censorship. However, the underlying point of an encyclopedia here which is WP:NOTEVERYTHING "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." While positive coverage is a part of it, the clear majority focus of RS is on the actual censorship and police actions. Incidents like the detainment of a citizen in Tianjin are very notable examples of this that have become diluted because of the scope of the section. I think what has already been said about positive coverage is a satisfactory enough summary and that WP:PROPORTION should be brought in mind here. The section is on Censorship and Police response, but there is very little on police response and I oppose further expanding it when there is such a lack of latter entries at the present. The focus should be to summarize the CCP's tactics and highlight the egregious that have been reported by RS such as the revelations of police incidents of detainments and other police actions, which haven't been covered almost at all despite the section being dedicated half towards police response.

The way in which the section is being reshuffled away for synthesizing the whole of it into one editorialized passage is making it difficult to add new information. The censorship of reactions to Li Wenliang should be on the bottom as its the most recent, but the way in which the section is structured now has it added bizarrely in the middle of an already large paragraph. I'd encourage you to stop restructuring the section away from the chronological. This is a developing event where such a method is the most expedient, and also it hinders the efficiency of including new entries if article flow is otherwise.

Additionally, I'm not sure why the passage "including Li Wenliang, an ophthalmologist from Wuhan Central Hospital, who posted warnings on a new coronavirus strain akin to SARS, later in December being warned by Wuhan police for "spreading rumours" for likening it to SARS" is being removed. It was added to give structural context to the picture, of which was your insistence that the picture of the police document remain in the #Censorship section instead of #Response where a passage on Li Wenliang has already been established. Sleath56 (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I think this is the right spot: @Sleath56:, your recent edit removed/broke a reference and started a paragraph in the middle of a word(!), in the middle of a sentence. I'm hesitant to try and bash it back into shape, and I'm hoping that you can sort it out. pauli133 (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Pauli133: Done. Thanks for the heads up. It's a challenge to juggle the retainment of new entries of merit and also restore the section's chronological structural flow when that's also repeatedly changed as well. Sleath56 (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Someone kept adding Li Wenliang to multiple places over and over again. If it is you, perhaps you should stop doing that, one single person should not have such prominence in this article, and all references to the person should be kept in one place. Hzh (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hzh: The entire passage on the Wuhan police in #Censorship is essentially duplicative to that in #Criticism of local response but argued as necessary in being doubly included here previously by another editor. The picture of the police document, which I moved to the latter section as that is where the context for Li Wenliang is developed was also contested by the same and moved to the former. As such, the note on the individual was appended doubly in the section here as an attempt to provide immediate context. The policy on a single person not having such prominence is already broken by the entries on Steve Tsang's opinion in both sections. Sleath56 (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The point is that duplicating the information unnecessarily bloats the article. You have two places where similar information on Li Wenliang are given (and that is after other mentions had already been removed), therefore try to merge the two, then you only need to mention Li Wenliang again without repeating the information. You should also try and see if what Steve Tsang said can also be merged (he isn't important enough to warrant repeating). Hzh (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hzh: Appreciate the feedback. That's essentially my position as well, but discussion has only been between myself and another editor since throughout, so I was unable to establish any agreement on it. The third opinion you've provided should be enough to highlight the merit of those benefits. Sleath56 (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The positive coverage does have significant RS too, and why just restrict it to quotes when there are instances to make it complete? Many RS have noted both censorship and positive coverage efforts. And in no way does expanding positive coverage diminish specific incidents like police detainment for online posts. While I considered spinning off positive coverage into its own section, the quotes from officials mention refer to both positive coverage and censorship which I would rather not duplicate.

Aim was to collectively categorize all types for each paragraph, rather than just do a pure chronological sequence of events. FobTown (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

As I said, the problem isn't not mentioning 'positive coverage' so long as RS cover it, the problem is synthesizing it as some two-pronged tactic in the section if considerable RS do not explicitly support that notion. The issue was dropped earlier, but now that it's been resurrected, the problem of directly quoting secondary sources is that the section should summarize, not quoting entire sentences from a secondary source which more zealous editors could construe as plagiarism. Quotes should be reserved principally for the place of primary sources (eg. Xi Jinping, Steve Tsang) with the secondary source providing context for how RS perceive or interpret the primary source quotation.

On organization, please stop from reordering it while the event is still ongoing. I admit I didn't see much of the problem to be forceful about maintaining this issue until the Li Wenliang entry came and had to be bizarrely incorporated in the middle of the section when it should rightly be displayed as the most recent entry on the bottom. Sleath56 (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I removed the point stated explicitly that it was a two-pronged tactic of positive coverage and censorship. How about noting that many international publication articles mention both positive coverage and censorship? Xi Jinping's directive "to strengthen the guidance of public opinions", among other official quotes, can be construed as supportive of both positive coverage and censorship. Will tone down the direct quote from secondary sources.

Agree with the point that Li Wenliang would have its own paragraph since it was a new development. I figured out that older/lesser events would get reduced into 1-2 sentence mentions.

The WHO officially commended China's handling of the crisis and so that remains as the lead, but its not unanimous among everyone and we don't want to jump everywhere around the article to find scattered criticism. FobTown (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the entry on Steve Tsang, one person's theory should not narrate and set the framework for the entire section when other RS already talk of the same thing well enough, especially when its duplicative. See discussion above. Additionally, adding "Propaganda" to the section title is obviously not NPOV, I'm not sure why you resurrected this when its been discussed days ago.

The WHO's section is for official reactions and WHO announcements such as the PHEIC declaration. Mackenzie has already been represented in #Criticism of Local response. The entry on the 'anonymous UN diplomat' has the problems I mentioned before, but it has obvious problems in the WHO section. Not all UN staff are WHO staff. The former are irrelevant in that section, especially if speaking on an unofficial capacity. Sleath56 (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Paraphrased Steve Tsang's quote and moved it to the end, as it bridges to the next part which is censorship measures. FobTown (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Removed it wholesale per above. The problem is no longer a matter of paraphrasing, its due weight as addressed above that other editors have opined as a concern. Sleath56 (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The other editor was specifically referred to the duplication of Li Wenliang being mentioned twice; this is okay as the details of the social media reaction to his death goes in Censorship and Police Response, while the details of his arrest and investigation go under Criticism of Local Response. But you can't take that editor's opinion as a blanket consensus to eliminate everything that you think is a duplication.

I don't think we go exclusively to #Criticism of Local response to find criticism on the WHO. I've found further information to expand the criticism under the WHO section, particularly as it applies to WHO director-general Tedros's approach to engaging China, which some have justified while others have attacked.

The positive coverage details (extensive coverage of hospital construction) appears nowhere in the article which means that it isn't duplication so restored it. 15:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Stop. Reread the discussion above. It's quite explicit that two editors are contesting its addition here and not without valid reason that has already been stated and unaddressed. Your explanations for keeping it are at present by not addressing the concerns despite the notification that a third opinion has been provided.

My statement on the WHO being a section for official response is not a mandate for you to further expand it in the area of concern. The WHO's section is for official reactions and WHO announcements such as the PHEIC declaration. Mackenzie has already been represented in #Criticism of Local response. The entry on the 'anonymous UN diplomat' has the problems I mentioned before, but it has obvious problems in the WHO section. Not all UN staff are WHO staff. The former are irrelevant in that section, especially if speaking on an unofficial capacity. Neither is a university professor's opinion relevant for insertion there. Sleath56 (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

No, the other editor specifically referred only to the duplication of Li Wenliang.

Only you are contesting the positive coverage details (extensive coverage of hospital construction), and your rationale for excluding it doesn't make sense especially if you replaced it with the Cyberspace Authority quote.

Reduced Mackenzie's blurb. FobTown (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Goodness. It's not a long discussion, I don't see what is particularly obfuscating you here.

Per @Hzh:: The point is that duplicating the information unnecessarily bloats the article. You have two places where similar information on Li Wenliang are given (and that is after other mentions had already been removed), therefore try to merge the two, then you only need to mention Li Wenliang again without repeating the information. You should also try and see if what Steve Tsang said can also be merged (he isn't important enough to warrant repeating). Sleath56 (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point, as that editor only complained about Li Wenliang, and both him and Steve Tsang was rectified.

But positive coverage details (extensive coverage of hospital construction) is not duplicating information. FobTown (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I've highlighted what's been said quite explicitly and there's nothing obfuscating about it. As said, when two editors have contested your point, it's a sign for you to explain the merit of its inclusion here instead of blanket reversing the section to your preferred style under one word edit summaries like "xenophobia". I've already listed many concerns with it above: As said, there is no need to frame the section under the theory of a single person when numerous RS already make the same points he is making, nor is it WP:DUE weight. From a substance standpoint, there is no difference in the two states, so I'm not sure what your point is for continually changing up the section like this.

The same applies to your edits to the WHO response. That section is meant for official responses. The three edits entries you made are a university professor's opinion, which is not relevant; an anonymous UN, I'm not sure if you understand not all UN officials are WHO officials; Mackenzie is the only entry that holds some merit, but who by his the very RS that quote him cite him as a lone voice in his theory within the WHO, meaning this is WP:FRINGE. If you want to expand the section to include criticism, then by WP:PROPORTION, support for the WHO's response would necessitate inclusion, which would bloat the section unnecessarily. Sleath56 (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm okay with your "xenophobia" section and didn't want it to be lost in your edit warring.

The other editor is not talking about positive coverage details (extensive coverage of hospital construction), plus positive coverage details (extensive coverage of hospital construction) is not duplicating information. If anything, you are forcing the reader to an obfuscated section in #Criticism of Local Response, when it wasn't even mentioned.

Steve Tsang has been dealt with.

The WHO has justified its response with support praising China, we just need to see the other side of that which is criticism. And its not WP:FRINGE as others have the same viewpoint too that the WHO is too beholden to China, while criticizing and justifying that approach in order to get cooperation from China. FobTown (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate the agreed exclusion on Tsang, first of all. I think we need to retrace the philosophies of our edits here, to further any continued constructive collaboration.

I think through looking at my version of the #Censorship section, you can see that I've principally highlighted direct and notable actions such as the Li Wenliang censorships and the specific government censorship tactics that have been declared. The point throughout has been to organize it with a mind towards WP:SUMMARY. To explain, the concerns I have with in enforcing the exclusion of the Tsang passage isn't because suddenly receiving 3O means your view is irrelevant, but because I consistently felt structuring the section through his personal government theory is unnecessary, its not WP:DUE to frame a section like that, especially when the various RS argue the same. The problems with the specific hospital entry I've held is that it is a minor incident, could be construed to be more of a mistake by the RS you've cited since the hospitals were already build fast by the same RS, and is an unnecessary detail to further the idea of the government's desire for positive coverage when the CAC entry explicitly states the government's demand against "negative stories".

The point of the #WHO response section is to keep a concise area for readers to see the official WHO responses to the outbreak as it doesn't have a place anywhere else. The section should indeed be expanded, but that should be through the inclusion of more recent WHO statements. Mackenzie is the only entry of relevancy as he is a WHO official, but when it's stated that he cited his opinions in an unofficial capacity and when the RS call him the "lone voice," it brings up concerns of WP:NPOV which indeed says: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Sleath56 (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Steve Tsang is no longer the "lead", as there are also plenty of other sources that agree with his view. That being said he still has the best way of summing it up, so that is why numerous sources have quoted him.

Fine to have the CAC quote against negative articles, followed by the actual examples of blocking of articles and directives to new outlets, and the effect was social media users initially evading censors using "Trump" or "Chernobyl" as well as an outpouring of calls for freedom of speech after Li Wenliang's death. By that precedent Xi Jinping was quoted on emphasis on stories fighting the epidemic (positive coverage) and I've included actual examples; not only making a big deal of hospital construction but also the Wuhan lockdown and the provincial quarantine, particularly with the FT noting that such selective coverage was effective enough to fool observers domestic and international. Due to a quote from an official stating that propaganda about the epidemic response will be high priority, I'm keen to expand the title to #Censorship, propaganda, and police response (there is so many examples of censorship and propaganda that no other title fits the bill).

I expanded the WHO section so it is not only Mackenzie's view and the UN diplomat's quote there, there are several sources who have noted criticism/justification for the WHO approach. And there is the petition calling on WHO director's resignation. I am also expanding it to note Taiwan's exclusion/inclusion as per the One China Policy.[1][2] Do you want to have a separate section called #Criticism of WHO handling? FobTown (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Are there 15 or 20 confirmed cases in Australia?

http://www.health.gov.au/news/health-alerts/novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov-health-alert

" As at 06:00 hrs on 12 February 2020, we have confirmed 15 cases of novel coronavirus in Australia:

   5 in Queensland
   4 in New South Wales
   4 in Victoria
   2 in South Australia

5 of the earlier cases have recovered. The others are in a stable condition"

Does that mean that the 5 cases are not listed as current confirmed cases?

935690edits (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that the 5 recovered are out of the 15 cases. So 10 still have the disease. There would have been news if new cases were detected, and there has been no news for a few days. I am trying to update the map of Australian case numbers, so I watch out for new cases. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The ECDC definition of "Confirmed cases" clearly includes asymptomatic cases: "irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms". There doesn't seem to be an Australian permanent agency like the ECDC or the US CDC known to Wikipedia - Department of Health (Australia) seems to be the closest. The search led me to the quote above. For consistency of terminology, see Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak#Statistics changed definition: SARS-CoV-2 confirmed cases or COVID-19 confirmed cases? above for a strongly suspected confusion in the Chinese official figures, where "confirmed 2019-nCoV cases" appears to have meant "confirmed symptomatic cases only", although the definition appears to have evolved (hopefully the virus isn't evolving too fast) last week. We could at least clarify the terminology in the non-China cases, where in many places the terminology and standards are clearer.

The Oz Dept of Health definition is here: in this pdf - "Confirmed case - A person who tests positive to a specific 2019-nCoV PCR test (when available) or has the virus identified by electron microscopy or viral culture, at a reference laboratory." This is clearly independent of symptoms. It's a "confirmation event", if we want to be pedantic. It's independent of whether someone has symptoms or not, and independent of whether s/he later recovers (or dies).

So to answer the question: the definition would imply that the 5 recovered people are part of the 15 confirmed cases.

I've started a talk page section at Template talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data/International medical cases#Does "confirmed cases" include all lab-confirmed cases, including asymptomatic cases, or not? to try to collect sources for the definitions in various countries. Boud (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Should the convention be to include active, asymptomatic, and recovered cases in the confirmed cases running tally as reported by the local officals? Then a separate breakout for each sub category? By removing the recovered case counts from the confirmed case count we lose the measure of the maximum extent in that region. Jtreyes (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

There's unlikely to be a strong consensus on terminology on the Wikipedia pages on this topic without first checking what the sources recommend as terminology. Feel free to add to Template talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data/International medical cases#Does "confirmed cases" include all lab-confirmed cases, including asymptomatic cases, or not? to build up evidence for a proposal. Boud (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2020

I have found valid source for the first passage in Quarantines. Please replace the "citation needed" template with the citation.
`oooCJ (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks!! Mgasparin (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Given official disease and virus, driving consensus on a possible new name

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.

---

Hi editors on this page, there are two new information regarding names

• WHO released the official name of the disease to be Covid-2019
• International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses recognizes the virus to be SARS-Cov-2

Before filing a MR, I guess it's better that we have a thorough discussion on what a better name looks like

1. 2019–20 outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) name 1
2. 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak name 2/current

1. 2019-20 Wuhan outbreak of Covid-2019
2. 2019-20 China outbreak of Covid-2019
3. 2019–20 outbreak of Covid-2019
4. 2019-20 pandemic of Covid-2019
5. 2019-20 Covid-2019 outbreak from Wuhan
6. 2019-20 Covid-2019 outbreak from China
7. 2019-20 Covid-2019 pandemic
8. 2019-20 Covid-2019 outbreak
9. 2019-20 SARS-Cov-2 outbreak from Wuhan
10. 2019-20 SARS-Cov-2 outbreak from China
11. 2019-20 SARS-Cov-2 pandemic
12. 2019-20 SARS-Cov-2 outbreak

What are other better names do you think?

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 20:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

There is already a move request on this above, so please join the discussion there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

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

---

Dear @Graeme Bartlett:, I know you are a respected admin, but as you can see, the RM is speedy closed with no consensus, and for the 4th time. I think it's not productive and dividing to do RM before a consensus name can be discussed, and discussing it could take a while. This discussion here is explicitly ask for getting a consensus name before filing a RM. Do you still think it's better for people to discuss the name on a doomed-speedy-closed RM? xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 00:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I have not been acting as an admin in these discussions, and I may not be respected, but please stick to one place to talk about this topic, and if no one wants to talk then please keep quiet for a while. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett:, sorry it was @Usernamekiran: who closed this discussion... em.. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 06:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Xinbenlv: Hi. I completely agree with you. I tried to do something similar at User talk:Dekimasu#corona thingy, also I think there are similar discussions on the talkpages of related articles. But like Amakuru said in the discussion linked above, we should wait a for while. Also, I have no onjection to re-open the discussion that you initiated, as the move discussion has been closed. But I dont think the new discussion for getting a consensus would be much helpful. Waiting for a few days, then starting the discussion, with notices being posted on talkpages of all the articles involved; might work after 2 weeks from now. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

More Efficient Voting Process for Debate in Changing the Name of this [Retracted] Article

Ok, is there anyway just to create a poll or something just to see who is in the majority. "Commoname" vs "Actual Name"Dannelsluc (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not 'work' with a majority rules paradigm; please see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Your calling the article Godforsaken implies you are SO unhappy with the outcome that even your spiritual guider is not on your side. Please chill and accept that there was No Consensus reached at this point in time (perhaps its just too early), and the potential for a new RM debate will begin on February 20, where your comments will be welcomed. Matilda Maniac (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I think we need a less formal discussion about what the future name should be. Otherwise we get a formal proposal, some suggest other alternatives, and some oppose, but a conclusion is not reached. We could break it into several parts: do we include the year of the "outbreak"? Should we say outbreak, epidemic or pandemic? Is there an actual official name? What is the common name? What is the most common name? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. There's definitely value in discussing before the 20th to see if there's anything we can agree on before another non-starter RM is submitted for votes. I tried to find the most innocuous solution possible (discussed below). - Wikmoz (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 13 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Speedy closed. Too soon and snowing. (non-admin closure) Levivich 02:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

---

2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak → 2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus epidemic – In the introduction to the article it states that this is an epidemic, and the title should reflect whether or not its an outbreak, epidemic, or pandemic. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Can someone please close this early? We can be sure this proposal will not be supported. Please hold off on proposing moves for a few days to see if an official title becomes popular. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Delete This page was created not because the outbreak but its real intent was to cause chaotic scramble with Wikipedia community. Basically WP:TROUT. Regice2020 (talk) 07:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Facepalm Well, at least the RM13022020 may be belong there. Next time try to het an valid reason for RM. --46.39.248.32 (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Proposal I suggest that this page move requested will need on 20 February but instead in multiple request page moves. I suggested to request these multiple page move in a single talk page, whether on this talk page or Novel coronavirus talk page. This multiple page move on single talk page are designed to avoid overlap between the two or more request moves at different talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.229.147 (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Requiring for speedy close Can we wait until late Feb to decide the title? Peterwu2019 (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy close It's not my hobby to comment on a move request every day before going to work. 73.223.80.43 (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The outbreak is listed as such, not as an epidemic, on the WHO information page available here. It seems to me that any move should wait until such authoritative sources are updated themselves, to ensure accuracy. EditorOnOccasion (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy close. Specious request. It's an outbreak, not (yet) an epidemic. Akindofmagick (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - it is not an epidemic yet (according to WHO) as stated by previous editors. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - but this is a epidemic, it is just not a pandemic. I oppose it because I prefer "2019-20 coronavirus epidemic". e.g. http://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcripts/who-audio-script-ncov-rresser-unog-29jan2020.pdf?sfvrsn=a7158807_4 Tsukide (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - It isn't an epidemic yet. We shouldn't have it "2019-20 coronavirus epidemic" either because it is not the only coronavirus to exist and we cant predict the future. Another might come about later in the year. We should wait to see what the WHO says and change it when they declare it an epidemic or pandemic. Mase268 (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Support-Coronavirus killed 255 people in 21 hours.That is incredible.The first death was on January 23,just 3 weeks ago.Ebola,in a year,claimed only 11,000 lives.This is MUCH quicker.However,Ebola is the ONLY reason I say this. BUT,I support as Ebola has a 50% death rate.Of the 3300 people who got it in Kivu in 2018,2200 died — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:C2 (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - But because the official name is COVID-19. I would support a move to COVID-19 epidemic PedanticLlama (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - The name needs to be changed, but not to make it more sensational. And as others have noted, the WHO is not yet calling this an epidemic. EMS | Talk 21:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Wait for the WHO to classify it as an epidemic before renaming the article. It is a pandemic at this point (40,000+ people infected), but since it is being contained in China through isolation, it is not yet classified as an epidemic by the WHO. Calling it a pandemic would be accurate and I would support that title. The press is calling it an epidemic at this point. See [3] Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, something has to be an epidemic before it can be a pandemic. A pandemic is simply an epidemic that spans more than one continent. PedanticLlama (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as needless WP:RECENTISM. If and when there's a longstanding scientific consensus as to how this event is to be viewed, we can talk about renaming it. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that there should be no more RMs for at least a month. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Case of WP:RECENTISM. Please speedy close.Melmann 22:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy close no new information. (I support a move but no new name is in consensus right now) xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 00:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:RECENTISM. Please speedy close. Lutein678 (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Efforts to change the name of this disease

Someone changed this url https://twitter.com/WHOPhilippines/status/1223797298477424641

With the title "A 44-year-old male is confirmed as the second person with the 2019 novel coronavirus acute respiratory disease (2019-nCoV) in the Philippines. He passed away on 1 February 2020."

To

Philippines, World Health Organization (1 February 2020). "A 44-year-old male is confirmed as the second person with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the Philippines. He passed away on 1 February 2020.pic.twitter.com/5a5tPWtvpc". @WHOPhilippines. Archived from the original on 2 February 2020. Retrieved 2 February 2020.

We should not be changing the title like this... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Not really correct

"There are no vaccines nor effective treatments, with efforts typically confined to management of symptoms and supportive measures"

There are treatments just

"There are no vaccines and no specific treatments, with efforts typically confined to management of symptoms and supportive measures."

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

This is incorrect "There are no vaccines nor effective treatments, with efforts typically confined to management of symptoms and supportive measures." and followed by a broken reference. We have no specific treatment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The ref says "There is no specific antiviral treatment recommended for 2019-nCoV infection. People infected with 2019-nCoV should receive supportive care to help relieve symptoms. For severe cases, treatment should include care to support vital organ functions."

WHat you have added multiple times says "There are no vaccines nor effective treatments, with efforts typically confined to management of symptoms and supportive measures."

Which is very much different so now Wikipedia is wrong which is unfortunate. User:Whywhenwhohow your thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Bringing this from the other talk page, the initial inclusion of that sentence weeks ago was by me using a reference from the UK govenment. I have lost the original webpage but a similar webpage still exists:

"In the absence of effective drugs or a vaccine, control of this disease relies on the prompt identification, appropriate risk assessment, management and isolation of possible cases, and the investigation and follow up of close contacts to minimise potential onward transmission." http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wuhan-novel-coronavirus-infection-prevention-and-control/wuhan-novel-coronavirus-wn-cov-infection-prevention-and-control-guidance

Tsukide (talk) 07:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

CDC is a better source. And that only says "drugs" not treatment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Broken reference section

I attempted to simplify the article, by moving citations to a designated reference section. I think it can benefit a lot from this. Unfortunately, there is so much traffic on this article that the reference section is completely broken now. My apologies, but I don't have the time to repair it. Maybe someone can volunteer to have a look. Renerpho (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this may be something to do with a stable article, but this gets edited, reverted, split and updated dozens of times a day. So best to leave the ref text inline. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The reason for the slower growth in confirmed cases

Among the news that the Wuhan/Chinese health authorities would be defining confirmed cases through methods other than test kits, it's become apparent that there aren't enough test kits and staff members to continue to both document and treat the ever increasing number of patients. The slower growth might be down to the lack of test kits available, which is why there has been a sudden increase in number of patients today through non-kit identification. It might be reasonable to explain in the opening, or in epidemiology, these two facts, along with information about the lack of staff/kits in developing countries. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/labs-scramble-spot-hidden-coronavirus-infections Tsukide (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

There are two paragraphs on this in the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak#Epidemiology section. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Missing deaths in the summary

According to the section on deaths, an American and a Japanese person died on the 8th of February, but the death toll for the respective countries still says 0. The article used as a source doesn't mention where they died (at least, I couldn't find it), so it might simply be that the deaths are already counted in the China figure (the sentence used to describe this could be interpreted that they died in Wuhan). In any case, the sentence either needs to be more clear on where they died and, if they died in outside of China, the deaths need to be counted in the USA and Japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.176.25.249 (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Note this coronavirus outbreak is not counted by nationality as in aviation incidents. If you want to change it, please discuss it at template talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.229.147 (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Urgent "spread" update, please...

Per https://meaww.com/coronavirus-wuhan-virus-can-survive-on-inanimate-objects-for-up-to-nine-days-any-surface-patient, the virus can survive on surfaces for 4 to 9 days depending upon temperature and humidity. I can't seem to update the info. Shir-El too 10:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The article links a study that doesn't mention virus survival time, I think the quote refers to: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195670120300463 (G Kampf et al., 2020) for that factoid, which was made available on 6th Feb. Not urgent, not entirely new. TeeCeeNT (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit) @Shir-El too: Was unaware that this wasn't reflected in the article already. Agree strongly that this should be changed. This is also referenced below more recently under the more general title 'Caution about unsupported medical advice'.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2020

Change Germany Recovery 0 to Germany Recovery 1 in the table

source: https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wissen/coronavirus-im-newsblog-erster-patient-aus-muenchner-klinik-schwabing-geheilt-entlassen/25532488.html 195.122.188.71 (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done <RetroCraft314 /> 15:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Outbreak vs. epidemic

The Requested move 13 February 2020 WP:RM to change the word "outbreak" to "epidemic" in the title based on the use of the word "epidemic" in the lead caused me to look into this.

I believe we should revise the lead and article to stick with using "outbreak" as much as possible.

• The people CNN is quoting seems to be sticking with calling it an "outbreak"^[4]
• The WHO uses "outbreak" on their page about this incident https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019
• The USA's CDC uses "outbreak" on their page about this incident https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html

What I don't have time for today is to go through each of the places where we use "epidemic" in the article to see if that word is backed up by the citations for that appearance of the word in the article. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

epidemic is used by the WHO as well, e.g. http://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcripts/who-audio-script-ncov-rresser-unog-29jan2020.pdf?sfvrsn=a7158807_4 along with the term "outbreak". It's just not a pandemic. Tsukide (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Public Service Announcement in Summary

At the end of the 2nd paragraph in the summary, the article reads: "Anyone who suspects that they are carrying the virus is advised to wear a surgical face mask and seek medical advice by calling a doctor rather than directly visiting a clinic in person." This looks like a PSA to me. Should we remove this, or edit it to something else? DarthFlappy (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes it should be removed. See WP:NOTGUIDE and particularly MOS:MED (especially the pitfalls section). 199.66.69.88 (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose. I don't think WP:NOTGUIDE really applies. There's an urgent public health benefit to relaying widely-accepted recommendations by public health authorities. If there's a cited authority recommending it then it's worthy of inclusion at least until the outbreak is resolved. These recommendations can (and probably are) saving lives. That should take priority over a policy intended to prevent how-tos and videogame walkthroughs. That said, I think the wording can be changed to more clearly cite the source ("The CDC and WHO advise..."). - Wikmoz (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit: Very sorry... I missed that you were referring specifically to the Summary section. I read it as applying to the whole topic. With respect to the summary, I'd favor keeping a briefer version of that with clearer attribution to the WHO/CDC. - Wikmoz (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Probably it should not be recommended in the voice of Wikipedia, but mention an organisation that recommends it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Update: The PSA(?) has been moved to the 4th paragraph and now cites this page from the Singapore gov website. However, I can't find anything about wearing a face mask on that page. DarthFlappy (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Page move moratorium

I would like to propose that page move/name change discussions be prohibited for a 1 month time period. The past several discussions have been inconclusive and yielded no results due to disagreements. We should stop these discussions for a while and wait for it to become known what the "common name" and the extent of the virus will be. The constant requests for similar page moves/name changes are disruptive and are not solving any issues. Noah^Talk 21:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to this argument, but it seems evident the name is problematic, especially as new reporting shows rising levels of xenophobia that can't be attributed to mere caution about the virus. My view is that if we were to recreate this article whole cloth knowing what we know today we would use it's official name, COVID-19, plus some variant of outbreak/epidemic. Being new here, I honestly didn't expect to see such detailed coverage about the epidemic to appear so quickly. So, maybe you could help me understand how Wikipedia normally handles covering emergent events? I'd welcome the discussion on my talk. PedanticLlama (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a newspaper. This is extremely key to understanding why we aren’t leaping upon WHO’s terminology (let’s be clear, there can be no “official name” for a disease, which is a process created by nature and not by a human organization), or changing the page title to reflect new developments that are coming every day. Even looking at the most recent move request, the scope of this article is the outbreak in Wuhan that has spread across China and around the world. The outbreak in Wuhan started in December 2019 and is only now (mid-February) being called a pandemic. There was no pandemic until now, nor “official name” until recently, so discussing a pandemic or an official name when describing the developing nature of the outbreak is honestly inappropriate. Once again, we are not a newspaper that focuses on what’s happening today and what may happen tomorrow, but what happened on all the days before tomorrow. This is still true in current events. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the response! I've read the NOTNEWS policy, and although I arrived at the opposite conclusion I understand your reasoning. Precisely because Wikipedia is not intended to be the news, I wonder why this article exists to the extent it does. However, since it does exist, it makes sense to weight sources based on confirmation of recent accuracy, if that makes sense. As an example, if there are 150 references citing an incorrect name and only a handful citing a new development that has been verified by experts, but happened recently, would it make sense to keep the old (incorrect) name? Especially given that the preponderance of new references use the new name.

And just to make sure I understand what's being asked: most people want to change the title to epidemic, right? I'm not aware of pandemic being suggested or cited anywhere as that would be a pretty major development (which consequently may be worthy of breaking this 30 day rule). PedanticLlama (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support one-month moratorium on pagemove discussions. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We don't need to give in to these recentist fad-driven name changes and further contribute to our readers' confusion. Naming is not as important as those panic-prone commenters insisting that we immediately change the page name to reflect some advisory organization's whimsical decisions seem to believe. Improve the content of this page if you want to help inform people. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support for one month moratorium It feels to me like the reason this title is so contentious is because pro-China editors are trying to right a great wrong and save face. But the reality is that Wikipedia must wait until an alternate name becomes dominant enough to meet the requirements of WP:COMMONNAMES. Wikipedia is not censored and hosts great deal of . Experienced editors oppose them on policy grounds, breeding conflict and accusations of Sinophobia. Melmann 22:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support one month moratorium for pagemove because if this requested move happens everyday, it will confuse readers as it can be move to someone else. This moratorium needs to applied to 2019 novel coronavirus as well as all articles containing "Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" name. If multiple request move needed, this request must discuss on single talk-page, not multiple talk pages of their respective articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.229.147 (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • This is a great point. At some level we might want to talk about an RfC on general sanctions for this topic area. It’s become extremely disruptive to have all the discussion focused on naming and accusations of bias/sinophobia, especially against experienced editors whose views are essential to keeping this topic area in good shape. I guess on some level it might seem like an extreme escalation, but I see no better way to keep this topic area peaceful and collegial for what will likely be a controversial area for the next year. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
    • This article in brief period was included in post-1932 United States politics general sanctions because this article relate to the United States. But it removed because not related to that. 36.76.229.147 (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support, but restrict page moves requests until end of March 2020, require unregistered users to create a account to vote once the stable name is found, and preempt any consensus from overruling this temporarily restriction. We need a restriction on this page. Regice2020 (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Why not give six-months moratorium request move instead at least? Because this 6-month moratorium need to use to give more information about that event. This event can be last until summer.36.76.229.147 (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think blocking a RM will be more productive.xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 00:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose any moratorium on name change discussions. Weakly oppose a one week moratorium Neutral on a 5-day moratorium on actual formal move requests because they do require participation and there seems to be no chance at consensus without more careful consideration of options. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly support - the common name in the media has stuck, and the TP is filling up with move req's and attempts to get around the RM process. Freeze it for a few weeks.50.111.33.78 (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose - Censorship is bad. If you don't like the discussion(s) don't participate. The guideline for page names says it is strongly waited for recent names. wp:namechanges Excerpt:

Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change.

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose This is neither a formal RfC to be binding nor is it an appropriate proposal. RM will come and they will be speedy closed or entertained with discussion as the community sees fit, this is neither as big a deal as some make it out to be nor is restricting RM for a developing event that has been especially notable because of the name changes an appropriate measure. Sleath56 (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support even a 1 week pause would save effort! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose - the page title is technically factually incorrect because this article isn't about the outbreak in Wuhan but rather a wider epidemic. I haven't come across any other article which has kept the original location in the title of the epidemic page. Tsukide (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• (crossposting to WP:AN; involved closer) Strong support as proposed. The primary issue is not that unregistered contributors are participating but the fact that this is an ongoing issue, the current proposal to have a one-month moratorium was greatly needed, I see all the closes after mine were speedily closed (there was one restarted on the same day!). The correct process to argue with any move you disagree with is to file a Wikipedia:Move review after you discuss it with the closer. You are supposed to debate whether the close was fair or not in reference to the consensus and then decide if such a request is required. Opening RMs again and again with the same or different title is pointless if you want to establish consensus, when there wasn't any in the first place. --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Things are moving fast. In that context, a one month moratorium is a ridiculously long time to ban discussion of something. Bondegezou (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose-1 month is long, but it is an epidemic, so how about a few weeks? After all, the month of February is 672 hours, and March is 72 hours longer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.24.150.111 (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I would rather suggest that one new formal, properly prepared and advertised move discussion is initated which cannot speedily closed. Before it is initiated we should have a discussion on which new title we should propose. The new move discussion can than be held in a constructive manner and what ever result it brings we obey and then we impose a moratorium on new move request.Tvx1 17:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose The disease page (2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease) is going to be renamed soon it seems. Once that is done, a renaming of this page to become consistent with the new name there will be needed. (The proper name for this page is 2019-20 XXX outbreak, where XXX is the disease name.) Afterwards, a moratorium like the one suggested here will be a good idea. EMS | Talk 19:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support Stop it. This is ridiculous. If it turns out that this eventually is no longer used as the common name, the page can be moved to whatever the common name ends up being. There is no rush. Natureium (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

North Korea

There have been news reports of NK having at least 5 dead. Information is through a major source news agency from SK on the by region wiki page. Do we need to add this at least in mention if not to the chart? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmanndriver (talk • contribs) 22:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

due to the nature of the NK regime, information is going to be hard to come by - at least at first - there is no doubt the virus is in NK - we'll need to judge the worth of the estimates carefully 50.111.33.78 (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

A referendum on names

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.

---

This is not a move request, this is a discussion. Admins please keep it open. (unless there is any procedural problem that I am not aware of, please educate me?)xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 00:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett:, who previously closed my proposing discussion, if I am doing it not right again, could you educate me?

How many of you are (dis)satisfied with current page name? xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 00:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

People who think current name is good to leave it here, please sign here

People who think current name needs to be changed, please sign here with a name that you like. One line each person please

1. 2019-20 SARS-Cov-2 Outbreak xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 00:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Tyr1118 (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment

• Once enough people contribute names, we can start to think about how to converge our idea. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 00:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose for your suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.229.147 (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I see a request to collect editor thoughts. Are you strongly opposed to collecting editor thoughts? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Confused I don't understand what the point is to this. Wikipedia is not a vote. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not a vote. The idea is to brainstorm names and drive consensus xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 01:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Not a vote means we don't make decisions by voting. This is about collecting information about editor thoughts, which is not covered by "not a vote". The data might be used to propose next step. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

It also means, what the page I linked exactly says, Polling is not a substitute for discussion. This is polling. It is not a substitute for discussion. Calling it something silly like "brainstorming" to overcome this is transparently an attempt to ram the need for a name change down everybody's throats. Stop this nonsense. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Administrator(s), please close this thread.50.111.33.78 (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

How ironic. The section is to encourage discussion and you are advocating closing the discussion. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

There has been discussion. The outcome was “no consensus”. Drop the stick and back away slowly from the horse. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi 199.66.69.88, I want to kindly notify you that I bringing this to ANI for your accusation of other people being disruptive for trying to drive title consensus. I can't bing it to your talk page because I can't, so I am just notifying you here... xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a different discussion. People are trying to find a solution to the current problem with names. You are not obliged to discuss it, nor should you try to stop other people discussing it. Hzh (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a different discussion. As was explained at least two failed RMs ago, simply changing the title of the discussion or coming up with some tailored scope doesn't make it a new discussion. This is the same discussion that was closed not long ago, with many of the same individuals refusing to hear that the discussion has been closed. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• I did not actually close any discussion, I just asked for a speedy close on a new requested move, and asked for no more formal requested moves until there was a more general discussion. In the recent move proposals, a name is suggested, but very few support it, and many other names are suggested. So instead we need to build a consensus on what should be in the title of this article. Since I suggested the current title, I am not in a hurry to change it. But if the commonly used name changes then the title here should eventually change. By having two opposed headings above, it will already divide people when discussing, instead of discussion what makes the name good. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Proposal to only allow only registered accounts to vote in RM`s

Once we find the "stable" page name of this article. We should only restrict the next stable Requested moves to registered users due to past rm that had many unregistered users suddenly coming back from inactive after a month or few years when saw a direction that they don`t like on RM. Whether they directed certain individuals to side with them or not. The Wikipedia Five pillars still exists, but at this case it should not be implemented for the next stable rm and want only registered users to vote for a fairer process. Regice2020 (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments below to support or oppose

Not sure that I understand the proposal. Is there any precedent for this kind of restriction? And are you saying IPs should not be allowed to vote? Or are you saying among registered users, only autoconfirmed should vote? Or only recently-active autoconfirmed users should vote? I think there's a bot that does something like this by flagging all votes by users without a substantial edit history. - Wikmoz (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Voting for Registered users only for fairer process and waiving certain polices for this specific RM case. It very suspicious many of ips know how to link the right polices and know what they doing like people voted oppose. It almost like they are voting multiple times in the same side. 1 person using register account while the same person goto different locations as a ip to vote multiple times. It is completely ridiculous. Its noted previous RM had people were stealth canvassing to vote with them in same side. It was obviously notice after see number of voters with similar response like someone told them from another site. Regice2020 (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Let me get this straight... You want to discriminate against a whole class of editors in the name of fairness? Perhaps you don't know what that word means. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as this would be a violation of policy. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Since these discussions are not votes, but based on strength of argument, we may as well let the unregistered participate. But mere support or oppose votes will count for nothing. However I am recommending a break in requested move discussions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes there should be some sort of special restriction for this specific RM because its getting out control within 12 hours. That was only a part reason why proposed this idea to hopefully restore some control. @Graeme Bartlett: Regice2020 (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• It doesn't really matter. IP participation is always going to be scrutinized because of inherent unaccountability and WP:SOCK, so if it seems like blatant canvassing or sockpuppetry by IPs is taking place, there will be an inevitable discussion for their dismissal from the vote count. Not that voting count, especially when inundated with IP votes, should matter more the merit of points being made per WP:NOTDEM. Sleath56 (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

It isn't really true that IP editor participation will be scrutinised, given that recent discussions have been closed (or attempted to close) by non-admins who did not do such scrutiny, one did not even know how to present a valid argument for closing. The concern is that some are disrupting the discussion, and judging from what they write, they are not newbies, and likely to be people who already have an account for many years. Hzh (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Suppport We have already seen IP editors trying to disrupt other people's discussion. A simple matter for them to register if they are not attempting to double !Vote as a sock. Hzh (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit request (lead section)

We have the same exact sentence twice in the lead section, both sourced to the same reference. "Anyone who suspects that they are carrying the virus is advised to wear a surgical face mask and seek medical advice by calling a doctor rather than directly visiting a clinic in person." Appears in the second and fourth paragraphs. Can we drop one of these? 97.115.240.136 (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Dropped from the second paragraph. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 02:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 coronavirus outbreak

Hold your fire! I know this is a very contentious issue.

This is not a formal move request so there's no need to vote or participate. If you're annoyed that this is being discussed for the nth time this week, you can ignore this discussion as there's no risk of an adverse outcome. Please do feel free to chime in as well. I am very interested to get some general feedback on a possible interim name solution. I've read through all prior arguments on this topic's name and surveyed about 20 newspapers of record and government health agencies.

I think the above title could work as it does solve the immediate naming concern in an inoffensive manner. However, in the interest of WP:CONSENSUS, the name intentionally does not introduce "COVID-19" or "novel" or "disease" or "epidemic" or "pandemic" into the discussion. Nor does it propose any change to the "2019–20" date range.

This discussion may well lead to less move requests on the way to consensus. WP:CCC and please WP:CIVIL.

2019–20 coronavirus outbreak

PROS

• WP:COMMONNAME: based on NYT (Coronavirus Outbreak), BBC (Coronavirus Outbreak), CNN (Coronavirus Outbreak), CMT (Coronavirus Outbreak), WebMD (Coronavirus 2020 Outbreak), Reuters (Coronavirus), AP (Virus Outbreak), MarketWatch (Coronavirus), BMJ (Coronavirus Outbreak), SkyNews (Coronavirus), FoxNews (Coronavirus), The Guardian (Coronavirus outbreak)
• WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and WP:COMMONNAME: based on Google Trends (7 day view). To estimate, subtract "X coronavirus outbreak" from "coronavirus outbreak" and the more general term dominates at least 10 to 1. Prior debate over the recognizability of Wuhan vs. novel is less consequential by comparison.
• WP:PRECISION: "2019–20" makes it unambiguous which coronavirus outbreak is being discussed. "Titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that."
• WP:NCMED: aligns with scientific name of the disease and virus by WHO, CDC, and NHS and more importantly it does not contradict the current scientific name. Also conforms to WHO Best Practice Guidelines (2015), which advises against using location names.
• WP:CONCISE: it helps shorten all of the branched topics
• WP:CAPITALIZATION: "coronavirus" is not a proper noun
• WP:NPOVTITLE: some argue "Wuhan" may support anti-China discrimination seen on social media and opinion media
• MOS:LEADALT: may be used to recognize common name
• WP:DEADLINE: the topic can be renamed in a few weeks

CONS

• WP:CENSORED: there's a feeling that removing "Wuhan" is being done for political reasons
• Location in name is consistent with historical precedent (e.g. MERS, Ebola, Spanish flu) even though this is now explicitly discouraged by WHO
• WP:DEADLINE: something else may eventually emerge as a better option
• WP:PRECISION: it can be argued that it's not precise enough; 'Wuhan' eliminates all ambiguity

- Wikmoz (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Move to close this thread immediately: This is yet another attempt to reframe prior discussions in a manner different from those originally participating in those discussions, and to deride and portray as conspiracy theorists anyone who disagrees with renaming the article. This is more disruption and failure to stop the abuse of a deceased equid form. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a new name idea that may address most previously-raised concerns and reduce move requests now and for a while. There were no prior RMs for a general title like this. "...portray as conspiracy theorists anyone who disagrees with renaming the article." I don't understand this at all. What conspiracy theory? "...reframe prior discussions in a manner different from those originally participating" The list applies to a different proposal than those previously discussed. - Wikmoz (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I don’t expect you to admit to wrongdoing in making this thread. I’m just asking that an admin close it as disruptive. There is no intention to seek self-criticism here. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Understood. While we may disagree, I certainly appreciate your perspective. Thank you for participating in the discussion. - Wikmoz (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Wikmoz: I want to give kudos for starting this thread. The pros and cons are clear. I support this discussion. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wikmoz: I have closed my other thread and will join this discussion you started. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 06:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support - I'm going to put my foot in here and say that there's no good reason to keep the "Wuhan" in the title. Using "2019-20 coronavirus outbreak" or "2019-20 coronavirus epidemic" is sufficient and would be understood by virtually everyone. The arguments against are turning into gatekeeping now. Tsukide (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Again, this article intent really for people wanting mess with Wikipedia community. A water down version of the outbreak should be place in main virus page. Regice2020 (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Propose 2020 Chinese non-computer virus arising from Wuhan, to sort out all conflicts. XavierItzm (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hahaha @XavierItzm: xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 19:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support and also Propose 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak (Covid-19), resolve one of the CONS as not very procise xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 19:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support All pros and cons indicated by you are neutral and logical. The is no need to include Wuhan in the name of the article if the outbreak/epidemic has gone beyond Wuhan. I have a question... how may I confirm all the articles that redirect to 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak? Thank you! FranciscoMMartins (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • [5] All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC).
    
• Comment The outbreak is of the disease, not the virus! And what (in Wikipedia) to call the disease is being debated at the 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease page. If you want a new name, then I will suggest 2019-20 coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak. But even that is pending the disease page being renamed to coronavirus disease 2019, which has not happened yet. EMS | Talk 19:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2020

Please consider a change to the color scheme of the graph to one that is darker or more high contrast against the white background so as to allow colorblind individuals to better see the bars in the graph. 2601:601:9700:2AE:6C23:6112:74E6:2B29 (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is regarding the bar graph in the Epidemiology section. See MOS:CONTRAST for guidance on how to achieve this. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

 Doing... Looking into it. Thank you for bringing this up. Levivich 04:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Not done for now: There is already an ongoing discussion regarding the color scheme for the bar graph at Template talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data/China medical cases (confirmed)#Suggested color change. Everyone is welcome to join the discussion and suggest better colors. I have posted a note there about MOS:CONTRAST. Once there is consensus, the colors can be changed. Levivich 05:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

update lead REPLACE

Replace "the death toll had surpassed the SARS outbreak in 2003." WITH

the death toll had surpassed the SARS coronavirus (SARS CoV) outbreak in 2003.

This clarifies the ambiguity between the new COVID-19, which is a SARS and a coronavirus disease too, and SARS (of the 2002-2004 cases) which seems to be used interchangeably with the disease and the virus name.

source and text disagree REPLACE

The World Health Organization was informed of the new coronavirus on the same day.[255]

yet the text says the outbreak was of unknown cause AND NOT that it was a coronavirus, let alone the new coronavirus

Please replace with

The World Health Organization was informed of the outbreak on the same day.[255] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 07:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Simple arithmetic? Or original research? Incubation time, mortality, and convalescence time

There is an elephant in the room. The deaths and recoveries are elaborately listed in the article, but nobody wants simply to divide one by the other to arrive at a mortality rate. I cannot imagine that it is "original research" to divide two numbers. Or, for the incubation period, to count the number of days between infection and diagnosis. Anybody disagree? If not, please add (as automatically updating functions in the tables):

Asymptomatics' mortality 0.3% based on 2 deaths among 592 cases outside China as of 14 Feb 2020. The third death outside China, the 80-year old Japanese lady, is excluded here as she has no known connection to the monitored cohort in Japan.

Symptomatics' mortality more than 2.2% and less than 20.5% (standard errors negligible) based firstly on 1380 deaths among 63859 symptomatic monitored cases within China, and secondly on 1380 deaths and 6723 recoveries as of 14 Feb 2020.

These rates fall within the range of previous coronavirus outbreaks (SARS in 2003 with 9% mortality, and MERS in 2012 with 30% mortality).

The incubation period is minimally 10 days (time from primary infection at the latest Jan 25, to seeking medical diagnosis on Feb 4, based on the Diamond Princess cohort) and maximally 16 days (time from primary infection at the earliest Jan 20, to seeking medical diagnosis on Feb 4, based on the Diamond Princess cohort). Based on the first 10 cases on the Diamond Princess. Update: after 13 days of incubation, a female taxi driver in the Okinawa islands (Japan) has fallen ill today (Feb 14) after the Diamond Princess visited the islands on Feb 1.

The convalescence period is longer than 9 days, based on the absence of recovered cases among the 10 first cases diagnosed on Feb 4 on the Diamond Princess. 31.49.197.109 (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This all constitutes original research because mortality rates are more complicated than the simple calculations you present. This is exactly why we have WP:OR rules! Bondegezou (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

To support your claim, could you please mention at least one "complication". My days as a virologist are long over, whereas you evidently are an expert. Thanks. 31.49.197.109 (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

There's the issue with the reliability of the reporting of numbers. It is far easier to count the number of people who died of the illness than to count the number of people who had the illness. A few days ago the number of cases jumped by 5,000 because of a change in the reporting methodology. Not forgetting that not everyone who gets the illness gets diagnosed. But even if that were fine, the policy of WP:OR still stands. Anywikiuser (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Your first point is true, hence the necessity to provide minimal and maximal estimates. Over time these two boundaries will converge, and when the outbreak is over and everybody who will die has died, then we will know the final precise value. I have now been even more conservative and adjusted the minimal estimate. As to your second objection: the question is not whether we want to conduct original research on the data on Wikipedia (answer: we do not), but do we want to display the current data in such a way that people understand them easily, i.e. as percentages, as bar graphs, as semi-logarithmic plots, etc. 31.49.197.109 (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

There are far too many questions about the figures published at the moment to think about doing that (reliability, methodology, under-counting, etc.). See for example the weirdly low number of deaths from flu reported in China - 56 reported in 2016, 41 in 2017, 143 in 2019 compared to the many thousands annually in the US [6][7]. Estimates by scientists suggest far higher number of deaths for flu in China (annual mean of 88,100, 95% CI 84,200–92,000 in the years under study) compared to the official figures [8]. There are various estimates for COVID-19 floating around, we should only use those by published by professionals, rather than trying to do any calculations ourselves. It would be OR to do it ourselves. Hzh (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Your point about potential influenza under-reporting is interesting but it would be speculative to transfer influenza figures to COVID-19 figures. We need to display the official figures that are available. That is all we have at the moment. In addition, I do not share your speculation of underreporting COVID-19 deaths: if the Chinese were indeed substantially under-reporting COVID-19 deaths (between 0.3 and 20 percent of cases as outlined above), then surely we would have seen a substantial proportion of the 218 cases die on the Diamond Princess in Japan? 31.49.197.109 (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Surely the argument is the other way round. Why is the number of deaths so high in China percentage-wise compared to the rest of the world? One possibility is that the number of infections is far far higher, but many of those infected did not go a hospital, and only the ones who are more seriously ill would go to the hospitals, thereby inflating the death rate. (The figures for flu also suggest the under-reporting of infections, for example only around 600,000 cases reported in 2019 in China compared the many millions in the United States which has a significantly smaller population.) There may be other reasons, but all of these would only be speculations, and it would be OR to include them, as would creating figures out of the data ourselves. We can only report the conclusion of professionals. Hzh (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You ask "Why is the number of deaths so high in China percentage-wise compared to the rest of the world?". Because the outbreak started in China several weeks before spreading elsewhere, so the patients in China have had more time to recover or die. We do not know the duration of the disease course with any certainty. But take the clear-cut Bavarian Webasto infection: infection on Jan 21, first four positive infection results on Jan 27, fourteen employees have tested positive meanwhile. Only today (Feb 14, that is after 18 days of disease) has the first Bavarian patient recovered. So how much longer for the other 13 Bavarians until recovery? And how many of those 13 might die? We do not know yet. The Chinese are several weeks ahead and therefore they have registered more final outcomes (whether death or recovery). 31.49.197.109 (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

A quick look at the number of recoveries vs deaths will tell you that your argument does not work. Far fewer recoveries percentage-wise inside China than outside China. Also try looking at the ratio of deaths vs recoveries (my quick calculation gives ~1:5 in China vs ~1:30 outside China, but you can try to get a more accurate count). Hzh (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I make it 14.3% recoveries inside China versus 11.1% recoveries outside China (percentages relative to the confirmed cases). This modest difference may be due to the overwhelmed healthcare system inside China. As for the excess deaths inside China (deaths vs recoveries) - perhaps dying of the disease may take longer than recovering from it. Not sure. Let us leave the interpretation of the data to the insiders, and simply stick to the bland minimal and maximal statistics as I outlined above.31.49.197.109 (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Huge thank you for the initiative and math work. Unfortunately, I agree that this would violate WP:OP. Regarding the incubation period, your analysis on the Diamond cohort may be correct but it's a very tough group since all of the subjects were in close confinement and would have been infected gradually as the virus jumped from person to person over time. Here are some of the incubation period estimates I've seen...

Based on 88 cases, a report from Eurosurveillance has the mean at 6.5 days.

Based on 10 cases, a paper in NEJM has the mean at 5.2 days.

Based on 1,099 cases, a paper on MedRxiv has the median at 3 days. Though this is PREPRINT.

Hope this helps - Wikmoz (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Caution about unsupported medical advice

The article presently says that the virus survives “for hours on surfaces, not days.” Other apparently reliable sources have said the virus does indeed survive for “well over a week.” https://www.sciencealert.com/study-shows-just-how-long-coronaviruses-can-stick-around-on-a-surface/amp It is dangerous to provide the assurance we presently do when there are other opinions from medical authorities. Edison (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree strongly here. The article referenced is even quoted saying "Scientists don't yet know how long the novel coronavirus can survive outside a host." The Dr. they quote seems to be almost at odds with this statement, although she says she is speaking generally of "the viruses" (nCov we must assume) surviving only for hours. There is no source provided for this claim that I can see.

Alternatively https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195670120300463 reviews previous literature and concludes corona viruses (in particular a SARS CoV strain) can survive up to 9 days on some surfaces. Clearly this survival period claim shouldn't be as cut and dry as is made out currently. TeeCeeNT (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This is also mistakenly purported in the CAUSE -> SPREAD paragraph. The two sources DO NOT provide proof (or even state!) that this virus survives only for hours on surfaces:

(1) [110]: doesn't even mention the survival time on surfaces, only states that particles only last a short time airborne.

(2) [111]: "It is not yet known how long the virus can survive outside a host but, in other viruses, it ranges from a FEW HOURS TO MONTHS." TeeCeeNT (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hours or days depends on the temperature. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14631830 Excerpt:

Viruses stayed stable at 4 degrees C, at room temperature (20 degrees C) and at 37 degrees C for at least 2 h without remarkable change in the infectious ability in cells, ...

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

It does, and this accepted study shows that at room temperature a strain of SARS CoV could survive up to nine days TeeCeeNT (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

November '19 start date

According to Wendover Production's new video about coronavirus on February 11, 2020, it started in November 2019, so I think it should be changed. Also, add Wendover as the 564th source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.24.150.111 (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The video (1) purports someone contracted it in November, but no sources that are in the description back this. You need to source your claims. TeeCeeNT (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The first official case of an ill person was on December 1. Since there is an incubation period, that person must have been infected earlier, which was obviously in November. That's really a no-brainer.Tvx1 17:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

That does make sense, I was unaware that they back-identified a person that early. However, what is the user requesting here? That a sentence be included stating the virus was first contracted by humans probably in November? TeeCeeNT (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

We don't know when the first infection happened, so it's best to leave it out. One of the sources in the article says "the first human infections must have occurred in November 2019—if not earlier" - [9], meaning it can happen before November. All we know for sure is that it happened some time before December 1, 2019. The first person known to be infected does not mean that he or she is actually the first. Hzh (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The onset of the first symptoms is more interested. We do not know when the first infection occurred exactly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Infobox map colors

I would kindly like to suggest that the coloring in the infobox map's colors be tweaked. At the moment, I feel like we're using to dark tones for relatively low number of cases. For instance the USA gets a really dark tone for just 16 cases among over 328 million inhabitants. Therefore I would suggest that we tweak which tone is applied to which range of cases. Currently the distribution is as follows (darkest tone on top):

• 1000+
• 100-999
• 10-99
• 5-9
• 2-4
• 1
• none

I suggest to change this to:

• 1000+
• 100-999
• 50-99
• 10-49
• 5-9
• 1-4
• none

An other possibility would be:

• 1000+
• 500-999
• 100-499
• 50-99
• 10-49
• 1-9
• none

Any thoughts?Tvx1 17:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I don’t have any particular feelings about color, just that we should be careful to follow MOS:CONTRAST with whatever is chosen. There’s already been a complaint about accessibility on a different chart on this page (see #Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2020 above). 199.66.69.88 (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)