Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Percent growth

Percentage Growth Chart of confirmed cases of Coronavirus Outbreak

We already include the growth in the "2019 coronavirus bar data" for China. As most cases are in China this will be no different than that and thus not needed IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Also without confidence intervals it is not that useful. With small numbers early on numbers can swing widely. As more cases occur and the N increases numbers become more accurate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I would actually go a step further and remove the daily growth rate from the chart currently in the article. I don't see any secondary sources or WHO discussion of the daily growth rate. The "trend" in daily growth rate may well be an artifact of suppressed, then encouraged reporting of cases. (see [1], [2]) Without sources ascribing significance to the changes in the growth rate, I think we should treat it as Original Research and exclude it. Otherwise, we're doing our own math and leading the reader to draw conclusions from it. Perhaps, Doc James there are sources I'm missing? Am I being overly strict? Chris vLS (talk) 06:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Yah. I have no strong feelings. Okay with the current bit staying. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's why I ask ;) Appreciate the feedback... it does seem to be getting a lot of attention as a "change" as opposed just better data... I'll just keep an eye out. Thanks, doc! Chris vLS (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Economic impact

I think there needs to be mentions of immediate economic impacts. Starzoner (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly! Regards Sean Heron (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Sean Heron, and anyone interested, please join me at Draft:Economic impact of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. Starzoner (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Summary of first death outside of China

The lead obviously should be a summary.

"The first death outside China was reported in the Philippines, where a 44-year-old male from Wuhan died on 1 February."

IMO is better than

"The first death outside China was reported in the Philippines, where a 44-year-old male from Wuhan confirmed to have contracted the coronavirus, Streptococcus pneumoniae and influenza B died on 1 February."

Secondary bacterial infection following viral pneumonia often occurs before death but it is the viral pneumonia that results in the bacterial pneumonia. Not enough room in the lead to mention all that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Yep, definitely better like that :). You're obviously more in the know about the infections / cause and effect than me though! (is the order of infections known/ reported on for this case? I'll have a look tomorrow) Regards Sean Heron (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree, this is better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pestilence Unchained (talk • contribs) 06:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Flu vaccine?

Why is there advertisement for a flu vaccine in the vaccine research section? This has no relevance to the Coronavirus. Can someone please take it out? 165.120.218.229 (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

You have unwanted browser extentions installed if you are seeing adds on Wikipedia within the articles themselves. 173.200.98.210 (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Someone needs to run a Malwarebytes scan on their machine (hint: everybody does). --2601:444:380:8C00:1D05:F18:82B8:C1AD (talk) 12:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC) (Just.Another.Horrible.IP.User)

"Animated map of confirmed 2019-nCoV cases spreading from 12 January 2020 to 5 February 2020"

The animated map stops at 2/2, not 2/4 or 2/5 as is claimed. Also, the infected totals do not match, in the Casualties section it says 27,606 but in the "2019–20 nCoV outbreak by country" section it lists 28,266 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yummycheetos (talk • contribs) 00:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The current animated map, uploaded on 6 Feb, runs until 5 Feb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pestilence Unchained (talk • contribs) 06:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the work on the map. --Geraldshields11 (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

International impact

Can we add this section on the article? I have noticed taht Japanese and Korean discriminated by the issues of coronavirus outbreak. Koreans in US discriminated over coronavirus [[3]] 03:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It already mentions east asians. (which is the chinese, japanese, and the koreans) I don't see the need to specify. BTW, Other asians aren't discriminated because they don't have "chinese eyes and pale skin", which is what "defines" someone of "chinese" origin, and we have to remember, that ppl tend to confuse the terms chinese, asian, korean, and japanese. What i'm suggesting is, that the koreans and the japanese are being discriminated because people confuse them with the stereotypical chinese person, and many believe that all chinese people are infected, it could be because they believe that all of them are tourists or because of memes.Pancho507 (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Epidemiology bar chart correction required

Using the numbers supplied in the bar chart for the 6 February, 2020, the change from the previlus day is 13%, not 11%. Factrules (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Unclear what you're referring to. 31161/28018=1.1122, that is, 11.2%. Dekimasuよ! 06:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

This Chinese doctor tried to save lives, but was silenced. Now he has coronavirus

Regarding the section of Domestic responses, Can we add this article to the Domestic responses? as it would proves the significance about difficulties to cure of Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV).
* This Chinese doctor tried to save lives, but was silenced. Now he has coronavirus [[4]] [[5]]
* Coronavirus ‘whistleblower’ tried to warn the world about virus before contracting it himself [[6]]
Goodtiming8871 (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I added the name of the Doctor, text, and 2 refs.Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

In December 2019, Dr. Li Wenliang at Wuhan Central Hospital noticed 7 suspicious cases, which looked like SARS, from the Huanan Seafood Market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraldshields11 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind update and it is meaningful event from my understanding. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Wuhan Central Hospital says Dr. Li Wenliang died at 2:58 a.m. on February 7.

[7]

Nickayane99 (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Separate article for epidemic in Japan

Hello, I created red link about Japan during the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. This article was only found in Chinese and not in English. Because it is interesting to give more in-depth information about the impact in Japan. I suggested that Japan section can be split into own article based of one on Chinese Wikipedia 2019新型冠狀病毒日本疫情 I suggest this will be same for Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. Any thoughts? Because it's epidemic in Japan have more notable to have it's own article, while Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macau doesn't have more attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.224.32 (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Putting two short paragraphs together

In my opinion these two short paragraphs in the lead could go together. With the first bit being the WHO declaration of a PHEIC and the section bit being context and the WHO declaration of an infodemic. Wondering others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The outbreak has been declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) by the World Health Organization (WHO), based on the possible effects the virus could have if it spreads to countries with weaker healthcare systems. The declaration was the sixth time that the measure has been invoked since the H1N1 pandemic in 2009.

Xenophobia and racism against people of Chinese and East Asian descent have been noted due to the outbreak, fuelling fear and hostility across various countries. Misinformation spread primarily online about the coronavirus has led the WHO to declare an "infodemic" on 2 February.

References

I don't have a strong view either way, though I have reverted edits putting the PHEIC at the tail end of other paragraphs. I feel like the PHEIC declaration is prominent enough to warrant its own paragraph and that the xenophobia and disinformation lines pair enough with each other to keep the two separate for the moment. Sleath56 (talk) 09:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• I would support a merge of the two paragraphs for now. The guidance is for four paragraphs in the lead, even though that is not a strict rule, I think it is preferable not to have too many paragraphs, particularly short ones. Perhaps a slight reorganisation of the lead is possible, and the third paragraph can be trimmed, some of the information there are details not appropriate for the lead. Hzh (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think it is fine for now... but mostly because I think the xenophobia and misinformation sentences need some work and don't look good on their own. If we had a strong fourth paragraph, I would move the WHO declaration to the third paragraph with the other official containment efforts -- and then look to shorten the third paragraph if possible. Candidates for the biggest parts of the story missing from the lead are -- I think -- 1) controversy over early response, 2) misinformation and rumor, 3) more on economic impacts, and 4) the uncertain prognosis of the extent of the outbreak. What do others think is missing from the lead? Chris vLS (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Moving WHO announcement to the third paragraph is good. The third paragraph can be about the official response and effort at containment, and the fourth can be about the consequences of the outbreak and public response to the crisis and its handling. I would however omit misinformation and rumours apart from the short statement by WHO (I'm not even sure if it is necessary), such things are generally not worth putting in the lead unless they have significant consequences to become issues needing to be debunked. Giving something that someone made up prominence in the lead is WP:UNDUE. Hzh (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Pangolin host

This is notable . Pangolins identified as possible host https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-pangolins/china-scientists-identify-pangolin-as-possible-coronavirus-host-idUSKBN2010XA, https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/02/07/world/asia/07reuters-china-health-pangolins.htmlVictor Grigas (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Added. Hzh (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2020

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia. However, I hope that i would make good use of this The UK Newspaper has made an announcement 2 hours ago that North Korea has became the 29th country to have a reported case of the novel coronavirus. I request that in the section where the countries or territories with reported cases are included, we should add North Korea as the 29th country. Thank you. The source is - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-7978247/North-Korea-29th-country-record-coronavirus-suspected-patient-struck-Denmark.html Pilotplayer (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. The Daily Mail has been deprecated as a reliable source; see WP:RSP. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Tencent Estimates 'leak'

This is neither a notable incident to be its own subsection nor organizable under #Reactions. "This is clearly a conspiracy theory unless official WHO and CDC verdict determines otherwise." is obviously more than just "yeah... needs a bit more than you don't like it." @Quenreerer

Since neither the CDC nor WHO numbers nor RS/MC reflect the claims by those who claim Tencent's numbers nor have RS repeated reports on it after the initial coverage, this is a textbook example of WP:TINFOILHAT so can you explain why "you like it?" Sleath56 (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

On a further note, a search for "tencent virus" shows virtually no RS covering it, so there is little notability in entering it on this page. Any reports of disinformation must be covered second-hand by RS. The Daily Mail is a prohibited source when utilized to assert claims like this. The entry has been removed wholesale. Sleath56 (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. I can't see any sign of this story being picked up by mainstream WP:RS. -- The Anome (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, if covered by multiple WP:RS (which this doesnt yet appear to be) the information should belong on Tencent’s entry with no more than a sentence and a link here. We would also need to follow the sources description of the incident (i.e. hoax, leak, conspiracy theory, technical error, human error) to the letter. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Daily mail maybe unreliable but the original source is Taiwan News, you should not remove that section.5.75.7.57 (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll be putting work here off for a bit

Hi everyone,

I just wanted to explain that I won't be putting into action some of the suggestions I made, at least in the next couple days (and I didn't just want to wordlessly rescind on my commitments, as has often otherwise been the case here...). My priority right now is going to be putting some time into at least basic pandemic preparations (Food and water stockpile, touching base with family and friends; the DHS - not anyone I usually like - has some pretty sound seeming advice). Footnote - though it's not going to be hitting here in Europe anytime soon, obviously. I wish all of you good luck, and hope that we come out of it as a society with a turn to the better (not worse).

Kind regards Sean Heron (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

P.S. If this is going to be deleted for "not-soapbox", or "not-a-forum" - so be it.

P.P.S. If I had the time, or alternatively, when I get back to doing stuff here, I'd suggest a Wikiproject:2019-20 Coronavirus Outbreak, or some similiar venue to discuss eg how best to distribute the dearth of information onto different article pages, and perhaps outlines of what should be in those pages.
Eg - there is this article describing the outbreak just in China, which, though a machine translation, and therefore severely lacking in the language department, seems at first glance to have a pretty nice overall flow and balance. Perhaps it would make sense to split our page here into a description of the international situation (see also the suggestion on Japan above), and push the China specific stuff to the article I referenced, and then keep this page here for "merely" an overview of what has happened/ is happening? Just a thought.

International containment and travel restrictions

Information on travel restrictions is now divided across several topics with varying degrees of detail and accuracy. The bulk of the content now resides in 2020 Hubei lockdowns:

2020 Hubei lockdowns § Reactions and measures outside Mainland China

I'd propose creating a new topic 2019-nCoV international travel restrictions and containment to: a) consolidate editing of rapidly-developing content, b) ensure accuracy and currency of content, c) make this content more discoverable, and d) reduce reference bloat in this topic.

In that topic, it could also be helpful to add a summary of passenger screening methods and some historical context for outbreak containment. Seems to be in line with Wikipedia:Article_size#Splitting_an_article.

Related note: There is discussion on Talk:2020 Hubei lockdowns to generalize the title since China lockdowns have extended beyond Hubei. Another option would be to use this topic for the above mentioned purpose and migrate the Hubei content into Mainland China during the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak § Hubei lockdowns.

- Wikmoz (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Doctor died from exhaustion

here and here

This isn't a death from coronavirus, but I'm sure this article could be integrated into the article. I'll add a short sentence concerning the death, which some of you may expand on. —  Melofors  TC  03:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

And another consequential death [8] of a boy who perhaps died from neglect when the father was quarantined. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Number of Cases

Currently, the number of Japanese cases on the chart is 35, but there are sources (Here) that suggest the count is actually 45, due to cases aboard the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship. Should the wikipedia chart be updated to reflect this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbeck640 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The number of cases in Japan includes 20 people from a cruise ship, which is not reflected in the government’s official count.<<== Nickayane99 (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done We are including the ship's count in Japan, as it is in a Japanese port. Nguyen QuocTrung has updated the table. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

As of 2010, 7 February 2020 (UTC) the chart labeled "2019–20 nCoV outbreak by country and territory" still shows "Diamond Princess" as a separate location. These cases should be consolidated with the country Japan case totals (accounting for any duplication) as the ship is in Japanese territory and being managed exclusively the the government of Japan.Jtreyes (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Having separate numbers for the Diamond Princess could be useful for determining the death rate (under favorable conditions) because the epidemic on the ship should have a definite ending after which time we can compare the numbers of recovered and dead. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Diamond Princess

I suggest indicating it as 25 (+61) rather than the present 25 (86), which basically counts the 25 Japanese cases twice.Menah the Great (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I am really super interested in this case and seeing how this changes all the time in the table/template. I read that people have been taken to local hospitals, so they are on Japanese soil now, correct? (talk). —Preceding undated comment added 20:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The ship is registered in the United Kingdom. Should the patients be counted as a subset of the UK's count since it is legally British territory?Jaxjaxlexie (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

No. They're in Japan. Bondegezou (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

WHO counts them as in transit - as they are in Japanese waters this makes sense to put in brackets and in Japan. Once taken ashore they are in Japan though - just as happens with those flown out of China and then identified.

"Confirmed cases" graph is misleading

At the moment there is a graph with "Confirmed cases (orange), deaths (red) and recoveries (blue)". It is misleading to draw a graph like that, since confirmed cases includes deaths and recoveries. So the same people are being countered under different colours. It would be better to have a graph of "Deaths (red), recoveries (blue), and confirmed cases (all)". (This is assuming that confirmed cases is defined as number of people ever confirmed to have the virus, as in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_SARS_outbreak#/media/File:2003_Probable_cases_of_SARS_-_Worldwide.svg.) CSMR (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

"Plague Inc and Infection Chart"

Ok, here me out. If we change the colors of the infections from orange to red, and deaths to black. It may actually be more easy to read. This is entirely cosmetic and is 100% not needed. Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannelsluc (talk • contribs) 15:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

First Canadian Case Recovered

Since I don't really know how to use wikis for editing and will probably break the page, I did find https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/new-coronavirus-outbreak-affects-tourism-in-canada-as-confirmed-cases-in-china-climb basically the first person is recovering at home and is discharged from the hospital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:9620:365F:2138:65CF:E9F5:612D (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I apologise for a slice of dyslexia. Golly gosh. Factrules (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

'is recovering' is not equal to 'has recovered'. -Mardus /talk 16:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2020

Please add a section that tracks the rate of growth outside of China. On the 29th there were 83 cases. 11 days later, there are over 300. The number of cases outside of China has doubled, twice in 10 days. This seems important. Thank you. 50.43.46.87 (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Edit requests are for requests to make specific, precise edits, not general pleas for article improvement. More specifically, in this case, if you want to add a section via an edit request, you need to provide the exact full text that you want to add, complete with references. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Extend Box in Key in [Map of 2019-nCoV cases in mainland China]

Where it says 1000-9999, the 9 is hanging off the box a little bit. Looks a bit weird, so if anyone can fix it, that would be great.Dannelsluc (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

A US citizen dead on Chinese soil

Should he be counted as an "American death"? It's so weird to consider any non-American American citizens "Americans" in the first place, but his death on Chinese soil complicates matters even further. Link.--Adûnâi (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

It is conceptually deceiving if a death is put under America. The American health care system didn't treat the citizen, so if a death is put under America, it would be lowering the actual successfulness in the American health care system. This actually might cause panic because people consider America to have top-tier healthcare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannelsluc (talk • contribs) 15:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Right, American health care... It still brings into question the US' actions "to ensure the safety of Americans in China and to aid in the evacuation of those who want to leave" (NYT). In any case, a footnote would suffice if necessary (wherever it is placed). --Cold Season (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what is meant by: counted as American death. There are columns for region where death occurred, not citizenship. For example the death in the Philippines was a Chinese national. If you want to propose, can discuss an additional table based on nationality. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

"region where death occurred" I think some form of that descriptive detail is worth noting that in the table, right in front of the "As of 26 May 2024" part. --Cold Season (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3A2019%E2%80%9320_Wuhan_coronavirus_data&type=revision&diff=939803310&oldid=939800463   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Probably not, because as far as I can tell none of the official figures are themselves separated by nationality and the situation is still developing. This is very different from a plane crash where all the deaths and their nationalities are a matter of airline record, and where the deaths are all part of a discrete incident (or closely related discrete incidents). Thus, starting to break things down by nationality within a table would be misleading. Better to mention it textually if it merits a mention per WP:WEIGHT. I could see it being reasonable to put an explanatory footnote on a table making clear that the deaths are sorted by jurisdiction rather than nationality of the person. But I really don't think it's a good idea to have a table based on nationality at this point. Information is just too sketchy and it's not our role to synthesize those together from the possibly hundreds of sources that state various numbers. You'll very likely wind up with figures that add up to a number larger than the reported death toll, even with 100% accurate numbers, because there'll probably be dual citizens in the mix.

Put briefly, this isn't a plane crash, and as such the typical practice for plane crash articles to list nationalities isn't appropriate here. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Plagues do not care about citizenship. What matters is the location of the patient: where they acquired the disease, potential transmission, and care of the patient.

Containment Non-acceleration achieved outside of Hubei?

First, see the disclaimers above at Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak#Percent growth - @Chrisvls and Doc James: made several relevant warnings there.

In the first table at Template:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data/China medical cases by province, the number of new confirmed cases in PRC outside of Hubei has been stable at about 700-800 for 8 days. This is linear growth in the total number of confirmed cases, it's clearly not exponential growth. Unless these data are badly wrong (e.g. underreported, which seems unlikely outside of Hubei, where the hospital/medical system is not under the same crazy pressure), it seems quite likely that the epidemic has been contained become non-accelerating outside of Hubei: the linear growth is presumably a mix of local transmissions from the past few weeks and some Hubei-beyond-Hubei transmissions that get through the controls. So to me, this is good news.

However:

• The data in that first table at Template:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data/China medical cases by province is not quite trivial to extract from the sources. The more recent sources list cumulative totals, and the archival versions of the sources are not at regular times each day. The cumulative totals need to be subtracted (not terribly difficult in an appropriate file format), and analysed in terms of provinces.
• The sources are varied - leading to non-uniformity of the quality of the data in terms of sourcing.
• Any possible interpretations (such as a mix of non-Hubei–non-Hubei "local" transmission vs Hubei–non-Hubei "exported" transmission) should be done by an external source, not Wikipedians. My opinion here is not a RS.
• The last point especially applies to interpretations such as "the outbreak has been contained outside of Hubei". I used the word "contained" above as a non-specialist - probably an alternative term such as "has become containable" might be better, but epidemiologists should certainly be able to choose appropriate language.

If someone could find a source that uses the equivalent of the data that we have here (2020-01-20 to 2020-02-05: 1 20 44 70 184 272 352 416 459 603 703 760 816 608 813 835 731 707), then of course that could be used on these Wikipedia pages. (Easy fast plot: paste the list of values into tr ' ' '\n' |nl -ba |graph -TX -m0 -S 16 in a terminal; this presumes that you have plotutils installed.) Boud (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC) (terminology edit with strike; see below)

We could in principle make a graph and show it without interpretation. Boud (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate this look, and it is interesting, but I think we should be super cautious here. When reliable WP:MEDRS sources start interpreting the data this way, then we should. Until then we probably should not. The fact that the graph is leading many editors to conclusions not yet supported by the many experts watching this -- some of whom are saying the opposite -- is an argument for removing it from the graph, not inviting more to make the conclusion. Some experts look at the same data about growth rate and still come to the conclusion that a pandemic is possible or likely, based on the size and dispersion of current infection population [9][10]. And there has been controversy about the flow of reported case data from the very start. And in the relevant timeframe there are reports of new restrictions on the flow of information [11] [12] An expert might very well come to the conclusion that this 'trend' is proof that the current case reporting numbers are inaccurate. I don't know. That's why I read the sources. The closest I find is the WHO director being optimistic about the spread outside China, not Hubei [13] But would love to see others. Chris vLS (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

And, also... hat tip to Boud for the plotutils, nice. Chris vLS (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's a an expression from Mike Ryan, WHO's top emergencies expert: other PRC provinces have "not the same acceleration" as in Hubei. It's a conservative way of saying "roughly zero acceleration for 8 days assuming no underreporting". Boud (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

800 new cases a day outside of Hubei is a lot. But agree it has shifted from exponential to linear growth it appears. So much is unknown to say it is contained. If there are asymptomatic superspreaders and one occurs in a system unable to do the RTPCR anything could happen. I personally doubt we will see the end until we have an effective vaccine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I've struck "been contained" and replaced it by "become non-accelerating". Which is still good news in terms of management, but I agree that the word "contained" is very unlikely to be applicable. As you say, any asymptomatic superspreader getting through to a system that fails to detect it and to contain the new cluster would again grow exponentially. My guess is that a few months of continued strict quarantine and draconian travel controls would be the only way to prevent a pandemic, and "keeping China offline" for that long might not be politically feasible. In any case, the media have noticed that the total new cases per day for mainland China seem to have become roughly constant over a 3-day period (too soon to consider stable) - which over the next few days may become a more significant case of "become non-accelerating". Boud (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

As much as I want to break out the data and build my own model, I remain super cautious of looking at graphs from afar, when so much goes into when cases are reported, etc. See for example [14]... perhaps the rate of confirmed case growth is limited by the testing capacity? maybe the testing capacity for Hubei and non-Hubei have different limits? what explains the growth rate in severe cases? is it just the time lag from past case growth? maybe, but maybe not because severe cases would be tested sooner? or is it that classifying as severe is not testing limited? We're a loooong way away from the front lines. Even well-informed experts make wrong guesses in an event like this. We should encourage our readers to make their own... my two cents anyway. Chris vLS (talk) 07:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• 'Non-accelerating' is too generous. You could replace that with something like 'acceleration has slowed down', or that the virus has 'reduced acceleration' due to containment efforts, and not because it's somehow weaker, or less virulent. -Mardus /talk 16:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• The second derivative of both the Hubei and non-Hubei total number of officially reported confirmed cases is statistically consistent (by eye) with zero. That can reasonably be described as "non-accelerating", aka as a linear relation. There's no point referring to the third derivative (acceleration slowing down). Testing capacity for 10k/day started trial runs 3 days ago in Wuhan at the Huo-Yan Laboratory, so we should know very soon if a 3k/day testing capacity has been artificially constraining the published data. A lag between confirmed cases and severe cases seems reasonable to me, and capacity for high-quality symptom alleviation care for severe cases is more likely to be constrained then testing capacity. Boud (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's wait for more in the WP:MEDRS. We shouldn't invite our readers to draw conclusions from this data when the experts looking at this data explicitly say that it is too early to do so. We have two tepid quotes from the WHO [15] but those quotes include "it’s very very early to make any predictions". Other senior public health officials also say things like "it is premature to comment on whether it has slowed down" [16] or "it isn't showing any indications of turning around" [17]. Other experts are saying that it is unlikely to be contained or questioning the data.[18] So let's follow their advice and wait and see. (We don't need to come up with our own vocab for it, we'll use what emerges in the expert community. A Google search for 'non-accelerating coronavirus' gets you links to NAIRU, so that term isn't showing up in the sources yet.) Chris vLS (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Diamond Princess cite

"The cruise ship Diamond Princess is currently quarantined in Japanese waters and managed by the Japanese government. However WHO classifies the cases as "Cases on an international conveyance" and distinguishes them from Japan, although some sources include the cases in the Japanese count."

"although some sources include the cases in the Japanese count"

What are "some sources"?

Citation needed!--Econ2018 (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

 Note: I've modified the excessively long section title and moved it into the body of the section to avoid the excessive size of the TOC formatting. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

One of the main sources we use includes it with a "^*" https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/02/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/ . Also DXY.Some sources are not independent of the Japanese Government, eg WHO, so they will follow their members desires for reporting, and some other sources are independent. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

World Dream

Are the infected World Dream passengers included in the Hong Kong figure? If so, should they be broken out like those on the Diamond Princess?
—WWoods (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

As of 13 hours ago, there were no confirmed infections on the World Dream. The ship is in quarantine because passengers that disembarked on Jan. 24 have been diagnosed with coronavirus after leaving, and authorities are trying to determine if anyone still on the ship may have been infected. Dragons flight (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Add section on treatments?

I noticed that there isn't a section on treatment, perhaps that can be added together with recovery of patients (if there are any notable ones). There is a section on vaccine development, but treatment with antiviral drugs is only mentioned in passing. I read that there is some success with such drugs, also some mixed results. Hzh (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I would also welcome that. WikiHannibal (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I would assume this can be added under the epidemiology section? Hzh (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Note that any content on treatment has to meet WP:MEDRS standards. Bondegezou (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Anything added would likely to similar to 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease#Treatment research, and since there isn't any one specific treatment yet, it would be more of a general description of what the doctors are doing, an expansion of what's mentioned in the lead. Hzh (talk) 09:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hzh and WikiHannibal: It's not that there's no "specific treatment"; there's currently "no treatment" in the Wikipedia sense of medical source standards WP:MEDRS. Instead, at the moment there are medical actions that relieve symptoms (antibiotics against bacterial co-infections, anti-virals which might have an effect, fever reduction medications), and there is research into treatments and vaccines. At the moment, there are subsections of two different pages: 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease#Treatment research and Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)#Vaccine research. But you (Hzh) seem to be proposing more description of what "medications are being given for symptom alleviation and speculative therapeutic effects". So you seem to be proposing a subsection on this page or another one regarding (1) symptom alleviation medications that are being applied and (2) speculative treatments. I'm not really convinced that there would be much support for (2). Information on randomized controlled trials that are underway would be useful to add to 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease#Treatment research (or the vaccine research section, as appropriate), but "these doctors tried this and that in an uncontrolled non-research way" is anectodal rather than encyclopedic information. (1) symptom alleviation probably doesn't need much more content: the symptoms are similar to those of pneumonia in general and symptom alleviation methods apparently standard. Boud (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

So what do you think of the content that is already written in the other article? The "no specific treatment" part is simply what many official health organisations said. I don't think this article can say anything more than a description of what the health professionals are doing - the article is about an event involving a disease, not an article about the disease itself. Hzh (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Putin and Trump images

I have had a request to remove the images of Putin and Trump from the article, with reason given that the article is not political. Rather than just changing the page, I would like to hear if others think it is a good idea to keep or remove the images. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with removal on undue weight grounds. If there are free images of the meeting of Tedros with Xi, or similar, then that might be useful. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• I also agree Ganymede94 (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• I received a message to remove them as well, but I have no strong objection to them being there. The images show nothing more than that international leaders are concerned about crisis to discuss it. I think however the image of Putin can be removed since there isn't any particular noteworthy about the Russians' response, and can be replaced by another one such as the highly publicised one of WHO director general with Xi or image of another affected country if they are available. The Trump image might be worth keeping because he is mentioned in the text, also the travel ban imposed by the US has caused some ructions with the Chinese government. The travel ban may be worth mentioning if it is not mentioned already. Hzh (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  In that case, if there is a photo of trump in airport standing in front of a plane, it can be used. Otherwise, no to trump the impeached president. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Why use a random image instead of one that deals specifically with the crisis? Hzh (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Espresso Addict. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yeah, it seems to be off-topic. Voting for removal. --91.207.170.251 (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with removal, as the images' presence would give undue influence. Putin and Trump have very little to do with a virus that originated in China. -Mardus /talk 16:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with removal the meetings are not a notable event, nor do they add much context for the reader to understand the reaction. Chris vLS (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• Agree No strong opinion either way but certainly no objection. - Wikmoz (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with removing the images. But I would leave the captions in the main text to note that the virus has been a concern on a national level. Cheater no1 (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Additions to Response section

@FobTown: Not sure what you're trying to do with transplanting information from other sections. Calling a section #Propaganda is not NPOV. As #Censorship is a government tactic being used, it's been placed under management for relevancy. You're welcome to suggest alternatives here, but as your first edit to create such a section was reverted, this needs to be established in Talk first. Sleath56 (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@FobTown: I've undone your edits. While I appreciate that you've (potentially) noted my previous comment and took heed to organize your edits under the already established sections, you're encouraged to converse on Talk when these issues arise, not just read. The problem extends however with the specific entries you've tried to insert for the third time now. The particular sources you've used have both been questioned enough at RSP12 for them to be used them as the sole source for any authoritative statements. Beyond that, even by the standards of utilizing them to the merit of statements of opinions, they are far below the bar in satisfying WP:UNDUE to include them without other more mainline sources stating the same views. As I've said earlier, you're welcome to suggest proposals on how to extend those sections, or any others, but this must be done with interacting with discussions on Talk. Sleath56 (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

This content is of much interest, and can be worked on further with more mainstream sources. At the same time there is nothing wrong with these sources when reporting events that have happened. FobTown (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

If the content is of interest, then you're encouraged to find more RS that back up those statements such that they satisfy concerns of fringe as has been brought up above. The information you've added are not "reporting events," but statements of opinion. With those, they've been undone by me earlier because they do not satisfy WP:UNDUE, which is that "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." As has been said, you're welcome to suggest proposals, but do so through talk instead of attempting to re-enter the same edits. Sleath56 (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@FobTown: It's been noticed that you've re-entered your entry 4 minutes after it's been undone, without even an edit summary comment. I've not sure what you're trying to do as you've already been previously invited to participate here. Establish your suggested proposals here, especially when they are being held as points of contention, which have already been cited above and are currently unanswered.Sleath56 (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Added citations from Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. As long as we are reporting events that happened and quoting experts with proper sources, it isn't controversial and is permitted to go into the article directly. BTW, saying "you're welcome to suggest proposals on how to extend those sections, or any others, but this must be done with interacting with discussions on Talk" can be construed as a stalling tactic or even censorship. FobTown (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

You can construe it what you like, "stalling tactic" or "censorship." I call it the peer review process of establishing WP:CONSENSUS. You’ve been warned for edit warring in the past, so the courtesy as has been reflected onto you throughout this discussion that would be to reciprocate AGF in kind should be clear.

In the concerns that I’ve brought up, that of WP:UNDUE, which is that "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”. that has not been satisfied. Furthermore, there are NPOV concerns of WP:IMPARTIAL that are unaddressed.

The point of Talk is to establish consensus when issues between editors are brought up. A point of contention brought against your edit doesn’t mean they cannot exist in the article, but that they require work through discussion. Your repeated attempts to re-enter the same desired phrasing when other editors have tried to adjust are not constructive to reaching that regard. Sleath56 (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Continued discussion carried from #Criticism section for continuity below
• ================ Sleath56 (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Instead of claiming wp:undue how about just letting it grow and move it to own page, and trim and summarize? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Daniel.Cardenas: Which is precisely what has been done. The section has been trimmed and summarized once I determined the independent initiative for that regard was not present, with material more suitable for other sections moved accordingly. See #Reactions to Response. You're welcome to review it as it now compared to its state before: here and share your thoughts, as I believe only a WP:DRR/3 is going to resolve the matter. Sleath56 (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

See how big it grows, and we could consider this plan of action.

I noticed that Sleath56 is strategically deleting content regarding Xi Xinping's media directive even if citing by WSJ and NYT and Washington Post, while leaving in isolated media incidents, all without getting consensus for their removal. FobTown (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@FobTown: It appears you missed my comment below, and if you are going to invoke someone's name, it's a common courtesy to ping them.

As I said, you can construe it what you like, "stalling tactic" or "censorship." I call it the peer review process of establishing WP:CONSENSUS, one of the WP:5P of this site. Wikipedia is not your personal essay, when you encounter objections to your entry, you are expected to participate in discussion on Talk, which is designed for constructive dialogue, not blithely snide remarks at your fellow editors with no suggestions of how to revise the entries per concerns. You’ve been warned for edit warring in the past, so the courtesy as has been reflected onto you throughout this discussion that would be to reciprocate AGF in kind should be clear.

The point of Talk is to establish consensus when issues between editors are brought up. A point of contention brought against your edit doesn’t mean they cannot exist in the article, but that they require work through discussion. The courtesy of editorial dialogue is to allow the individual editor to adjust their own entries as they know their source best. Contrary to your personal belief on being 'stalled,' I've trimmed your entries which still are extant after repeated requests for you to do so yourself were ignored. Your repeated attempts to re-enter the same desired phrasing when other editors have tried to adjust are not constructive to reaching that regard.

Sleath56 (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• @FobTown: A conjecture by an adjunct professor is neither notable enough nor does it fit insertion into that passage and appears to be editorializing. If you contest the revision of "Willy Lam of the Chinese University of Hong Kong's Center for China Studies said "Li was selected for political reasons. If the situation deteriorated further, Li would have to take the blame. Compared to SARS, (then-President) Hu Jintao visited a few places severely affected by SARS, but Xi is now staying safely in Beijing.", you're welcome to offer your explanation as to why. Sleath56 (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Additionally, since you've reverted a trimming edit by another editor, you need to explain why your original entry follows guidelines. "Since then state media has been redirecting public anger of mishandling of the initial outbreak and concerns over the lockdown away from Xi Jinping and towards provincial-level authorities, and have been publishing "gushing reports on Beijing’s response" to the epidemic to counteract criticism" This is a duplication of the same allegations already in #Criticism of local response. Not to mention that the phrasing you've entered does not satisfy basic editorial NPOV: Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."
• Furthermore, "including extensive coverage of the new hospital under construction in Wuhan using images of another already-completed building." is not WP:PROPORTION to the other heavy handed measures by the central government. Unless the doctoring of photos to establish calm is a regular established government policy in handling this epidemic, one incident is not notable as a charge. Sleath56 (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• @FobTown: For your reverts at: "Tsinghua University's Qiang also echoed this sentiment, pointing out that the Wuhan government did not have the power to act decisively because they were at the bottom of the chain of command, saying “everyone — from the central government to the local government to the bureaucracy to the party to the military — was waiting for orders from the ‘supreme leader’ [Xi Jinping] before acting”.[382]"

• You must have noticed that I've already incorporated it into the preceding paragraph on repetitious grounds. "Critics, such as Wu Qiang, a former professor at Tsinghua University and Steve Tsang, director of the China Institute at the University of London, have further argued this with the latter suggesting that it was also exacerbated through local officials being "apprehensive about taking sensible preventive measures without knowing what Xi and other top leaders wanted as they feared that any missteps would have serious political consequences" As other RS have said, these suggestions are only held by some "sections of the international media," so I'm not sure what your argument is in regards to WP:PROPORTION for expanding it to such a degree.

• This statement: "Steve Tsang, director of the China Institute at SOAS University of London, who argued that Xi's enhanced censorship and propaganda system contributed to the crisis, observed that the party's progapanda machinery went into "overdrive" to shape public opinion and protect Xi's reputation, noting that Xi's declaration coincided with the central government's ramped-up response that was widely publicized.[270][271][272]" has already been moved, which you seem to acquiesce since the moved portion has not been deleted. This is clearly duplicative entries, so I'm not sure what the point of order is that you hold for continually re-applying it. Sleath56 (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I felt that Steve Tsang's original "overdrive" quote was significantly watered down in your revision, and the original version of his quote goes under the Censorship and Police Response section which is meant to cover the central government, as opposed to the Criticism of Local Response" that covers provincial and city authorities. There would be some duplication between the two sections, but Tsang should be mentioned in both. FobTown (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@FobTown: Appreciate the response and noting the concerns of the other points made above. My view is this: (though I'm certainly open to suggestions in kind) which is that while I think he is notable enough to be expanded per your considerations, I feel it's not something that needs to be recycled in duplicate to other sections. I would support your suggestion of reorganizing the "Censorship and Police Response section" to hone in on central government tactics and reactions, as I also feel the two sections are getting messy in clarity of what goes where. Nonetheless, in any case, I've expanded his statement further to include: a sentiment that Tsang argued was difficult to avoid when "power is concentrated in the hands of one top leader who is punitive to those who make mistakes". Sleath56 (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Quite a few international sources have noticed a two-pronged strategy on part of Beijing, one is the censoring negative news, the other is highlighting Beijing's positive steps. The new hospital coverage is a good instance of the latter. I this belongs more in Censorship and Police Response rather than Criticism of Local Response.

International sources have also noted existing censorship controls in place back in December 2019 during the initial outbreak phase, so I preceded Xi Xinping's comments with such mention in Censorship and Police Response. FobTown (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@FobTown: I've missed your comment here. The concern I have isn't that the assumed tactics of the government shouldn't be represented in appropriate sections as they do, but that they deserve notable examples that fit with WP:PROPORTION magnitude of the other entries in the section. If you're interested in expanding that subject, I'd encourage you to find more demonstrative citations of it than an seemingly isolated incident of plastering inaccurate photos for something that only took 10 days to construct. In any case, I've trimmed the section again. As with Steve Tsang, he is not a lone voice (or else I would have opposed allowing his entry at any area on the article on WP:UNDUE) and if you want to highlight the points he made, there are plenty of other voices who satisfy notability to merit inclusion as a substitute. This page is not a personal essay on Steve Tsang, and I oppose representing one single person's views as much as his additional inclusion on #Censorship along with #Response would merit. Sleath56 (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@FobTown: Your entry on Li Keqiang appointment was removed. The reason this has been continually removed is because #Domestic Response is solely reporting actions done, not explanatory third-party opinion statements on them. The governmental explanation on why he was appointed has been omitted, so observer analyses would likewise clearly not fit in this section either. Take it elsewhere if desired.

I've cited NPOV concerns for a while, and the style of your entries have me assume that you aren't quite aware of WP:IMPARTIAL: Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article..

As a policy of WP:NPOV, this is "non-negotiable." We do not speak for RS, they must speak for themselves, if proportional and due. Do not remove 'whom attribution' requests unless you're clarifying them. Do not revert edits by other editors who rework your entries to make them fit impartiality, unless you yourself are adjusting them further towards that regard. Sleath56 (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, don't need as much direct quoting from Steve Tsang, as the Washington Post described the party as circling protective wagons around President Xi.

In expanding the state media's spotlight on the central government's all out efforts, the hospital construction is cited as an example. The Lunar New Year's Eve is also another example of the state media's selective coverage to promote or marginalize topics, although slightly out of chronological order.

Agreed, Li Keqiang's appointment is now mentioned on the separate page. FobTown (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@FobTown: Appreciate the agreement on direct quoting and the appointment entry. I think the problem with that statement example on state media is that they aren't very proportional compared to the reports of detainments and outright censorships in the same section. I'd encourage you to find due examples if you desire to maintain that entry, but as is, I don't see the merit of including that passage when it's already been summed in sentiment in #Reactions to prevention efforts:

Notable in relation to the widespread criticism of the local response, the central government's response has been contrasted with praise for their handling of the crisis by international experts,[360] but also especially by state media.[361] This has led to suggestions, in particular by the international media, that it is an attempt by the official press to shift public anger away from the central government and towards local authorities.[362] It has been noted historically that the tendency of provincial governments to minimise reporting local incidents have been because of the central government directing a large proportion of the blame onto them.[363]

On another note, do not revert edits by other editors who rework sentence and word structure on grounds of impartiality. The section now has many more editors than you or me contributing who have reworked the flow to be reverted in this manner. Sleath56 (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I would still mention it in both sections, albeit in a different form. Particularly 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 (perhaps re-title that section to Censorship and Propaganda?). 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 real meat and potatoes part is the central gov't and local gov't power dynamic. FobTown (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@FobTown: Reworked it once again, trimming some. This included the opinions on the lockdowns, both praise and concerns, which is not relevant to a section on #Censorship. The subsection is becoming almost as big as its parent section, which has been due to bloat.

The entry on positive coverage in the media has been precisely trimmed to "As part of the central government's "bifurcated approach to diffuse discontent", citizens were permitted to criticize local officials so long as they did not "question the basic legitimacy of the party", while the propaganda machinery was going into "overdrive...to protect [Xi Jinping's] reputation" through positive press coverage in the state media." This is enough when it's essentially a duplication of what's been covered in the #Criticism section. You also need to refrain from rearranging paragraphs which is disrupting the chronological order. Sleath56 (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It is not duplicated, as the few specific examples of state media coverage are in "Censorship and Police Response" but not in "Criticism of Local Response". That is why I feel that your precise trimming in "Censorship and Police Response" actually obfuscates that point.

Chronological order might not be perfect, but it flows quite a bit better. FobTown (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@FobTown: Missed your comment. Appreciate the response. The problem I've repeated cited that I had is that the cited examples and entries you post are all too secondary-hand of accusations. The priority is citing primary sources, eg. the government, themselves in this section, not listing all the known grievances published by semi-notable on the internet. I've found a better source here which directly cites Xi Jinping on his expectations of press coverage that is much more suitable, and should also satisfy your suggestion. 1 These kind of citations are what I hold to be appropriate for the section, and that I encourage you to find more of yourself if you're interested in expanding the section.

On chronology:Arrangement by chronological order is a clean way of displaying entries especially for current events, and also how we prevent editorialized re-arranging of paragraphs by editors that lead to easy-to-avoid edit wars which can be avoided otherwise by adopting the former. That's why chronological ordering is appropriate and why changing it is to be avoided. Sleath56 (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to including the Quartz viewpoint on why Xi Jinping wants to create positive coverage, but that should be taken with a grain of salt rather than being considered a suitable replacement for NYT, CNN, National Post, etc. And you can't just remove a source on claims of undue weight. The National Post article I added particularly illustrates the effective of what the state media coverage has done, with the publicized lock down of Wuhan awing observers while actually being too late to be effective. FobTown (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

As the Quartz has not been cited on WP:RSP, its utility in this instance to provide an English translation of a cited Xinhua quotation is an appropriate case of use. The problem I hold with the lockdown entry isn't on the RS or grounds of WP:UNDUE. I've checked the NP article and its a bare-bones summary on the outbreak. There is no relevance for it to this section on censorship. Sleath56 (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Second hand versus primary sources...then obviously the government is not going to announce how/when their censorship policy/filter works. In that case we have the second hand sources reporting all of the incidents and then it is possible to see a narrative of how censorship is working.

Interestingly the Xinhua quotation from Quartz actually sums up what the authorities were aiming for, with the rapid hospital construction promoted front and center in National Post, NYT, CNN, Vice, etc., so that allows me to expand that paragraph considerably. We could have a separate header for propoganda, but instead I suggest expanding the section to the new title of "Censorship, propoganda, and police respose", as the stated aim of the Xinhua quote was to guide the way people think. And you guide peoples' thinking in two ways, by promoting the topics tht gov't wants heard (i.e. hospital is almost done, lockdown) and hiding topics the gov't doesn't want (criticism of handling of epidemic). FobTown (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Besides the title change to "Censorship, propoganda, and police respose", promote it to heading Tier 3 so it is no longer a subsection of "Domestic Response". FobTown (talk) 04:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@FobTown: First, let me clarify that secondary sources are what Wikipedia must rely on over primary sources, as the latter would mean interpreting the statement yourself, which is WP:OR. The meaning in what I said above is that the context of the Quartz in framing Xi Jinping's statement as a call for positive media coverage is a more precise means to utilize secondary sources, than outright quoting the secondary source itself. Thus allowing for a concise entry which allows a highlight of the key point which is Xi Jinping's statement 'indicting himself':

Those allegations were highlighted by a statement from Xi Jinping on 3 February declaring the need for an emphasis by state media on "telling the moving stories of how [people] on the front line are preventing and fighting the virus," as a priority of coverage.

Second, 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. Sleath56 (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Of course we should attribute to the journalist to avoid any allegation of WP:OR.

While the section is currently titled "Censorship and Police response", don't let that restrict what content can go in there. In fact the state media's efforts to control the story, although not part of that section title, actually has been covered as much or even more than police response by many international observers which are RS, so in that case the title is more appropriately "Censorship and propaganda". State media's positive coverage was only briefly mentioned in "Criticism of local response", but missing commonly cited examples and also missing the impact upon domestic and foreign observers, so its not really a duplication. Furthermore, "criticism of local response" is quite limited in scope and doesn't allow scrutiny of central government actions. FobTown (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Support “2019-20 Novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV outbreak” or the proposed title rather than any title using “Wuhan”. Any list of the diseases where the WHO-adopted name uses a location simply makes WHO’s current position (to avoid using places in the common name of new diseases) clearly the wise position. (Who wants to go see the Ebola River next spring?) I support being part of the group of media outlets and content publishers who follow WHO’s lead rather than part of the group who perpetuates a problematic convention. I likewise oppose dropping “outbreak” from this page title. There is a page for the virus itself already, and this page is about the current outbreak. Should it become a pandemic, there can be a new discussion and the page can be moved to a title that reflects that new consensus. Mkettleson (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Support — I googled “novel coronavirus outbreak” and no wikipedia article made the first page of results, although multiple WHO and CDC articles did. This article should be findable on search engines by folks using the WHO naming convention. Mkettleson (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Someone needs to take down that "daily growth rate" graphic down in the name of transparency

Hi there. Along this whole crisis I've been watching efforts to wash this epidemic and one of the worse actions is that transmission rate graphic just below the total number. Every single epidemiologist is stating that the numbers are being kept artificially down and anything that is catering to that is just bad intel. And can we protect this article once and for all? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:F446:F601:E54C:48F5:879E:D778 (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

You need to discern between actual, suspected, and confirmed cases. Nobody knows the number of actual cases, and they never will, because there will be a number who are infected and don't know themselves, and some who are sick but the health system doesn't know about. Since we don't know we can only guess, based on our model for infection. Confirmed are those the health system know about, and have confirmed. Suspected are net determined yet, may end up confirmed or not. Of these the confirmed number is by far the most useful. These are the patients we almost certainly know are infected. It does not matter if you trust Chinese (or other) health system or not. jax (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Every single epidemiologist is stating that the numbers are being kept artificially down Sources, or it did not happen. You may spare us of your nakedly racist conspiracy theories. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

"***** Be polite and welcoming to new users, Assume good faith, Avoid personal attacks. This is on the top of this page. Maybe you should read it and abide by it CaradhrasAiguo. *****" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:2B70:B380:8559:EB36:3A3D:6FA3 (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

"Nakedly racist"? 209.240.32.65 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.88.222.194 (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

"Prof Neil Ferguson, a public health expert at Imperial College, said his “best guess” was that there were 100,000 affected by the virus even though there are only 2,000 confirmed cases so far, mostly in the city of Wuhan in China where the virus first appeared." This was over a fortnight ago.

So both the New York Times AND The Guardian, citing the highest epidemiological authorities in both the US and Europe, are spreading racist propaganda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.50.168.130 (talk • contribs)

Claiming the numbers are being kept artificially down (which you have not provided any reliable sourcing for) is a far more extreme claim than this "best guess". CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

|Disagree| Until multiple reputable sources confirm that the numbers are being kept artificially down the graph stays. I was only able to find the same above 2 sources (or articles that use those articles as sources) and they are over 11 days old. 173.200.98.210 (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

There are no sources (that I have seen) that claim that the number of confirmed cases is being kept down artificially. Reasonable guesses regarding the total number of carriers are not shown as graphs or tables here because these only get published once a week or so, sporadically; they are referred to in the articles. If the place where they're mentioned is not the most natural place, then fix that, if it improves the overall balance of the article. Boud (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

What is being kept secret is the number of people surgically killed for their live organs per day in China - see organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China. At 10,000 or so per year, that's about 30 sacrifices per day, which is not too different from the number of 2019-nCoV deaths per day right now. But that's not a conspiracy theory: PRC is an authoritarian country and no government wants to reveal information on a crime against humanity that it's carrying out. And there's not much that we can do about it in Wikipedia except add reliably sourced information to organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China as the information emerges. We also don't have much justification for mentioning it in this article (except maybe as a See also link) unless a notable commentator chooses to make the comparison. The western mainstream media prefer 2019-nCoV reports over involuntary Falun Gong organ donations because the organ donor sacrifices don't risk spreading virally around the world. Boud (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

... if we don't have justification for mentioning it in this article, why on earth are you bringing it up in a discussion about this article, where nobody was talking about it?? 2601:601:9A7F:4A0:C9CE:D8FB:4CB4:F539 (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The graphic was merely tracking the daily changes in the chart (entitled: "2019–20 nCoV outbreak by country and territory") that preceded it. If the data in the graphic was invalid, then so is the chart. The chart data is taken from this site: https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/02/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/ The graphic was a very useful tool for tracking changes in the rate of growth. Perhaps a caveat regarding the source of the data would have been better than removal. If we aren't using China's numbers, then whose should be used? 67.69.69.198 (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Those are estimates based on mathematical models. Even the NY Times article cites the then-current 17k figure provided by the Chinese government. It's unreasonable to suppress the actual number of reported cases due to distrust of the Chinese government. The rate of growth is one of the most important pieces of information contained in the article, and you've damaged the article by removing it. 67.69.69.198 (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It is a pretty helpful tool. Try to ignore it if you dislike the growth rates. No idea who's from Every single epidemiologist said anything against daily growth rates --46.39.248.218 (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Recoveries

How are people recovering if there is no vaccine or medical drug available for this virus yet. I'm really confused — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.119.185.38 (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The same way they get over the flu or other infection. The body's immune system learns to recognize the disease and counter it.

—WWoods (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The mortality rate for this coronavirus is below 10%, and people do have an immune system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pestilence Unchained (talk • contribs) 09:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Unconfirmed deaths in North Korea

DailyNK reports that according to internal sources, five people in the Sinuiju area have died from disease with symptoms similar to those of NCoV. The reports are unconfirmed, is this worth mentioning somehow? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 22:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

i believe that we should wait for more reliable and trustworthy news sources to pick it up and confirm it. Pancho507 (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The closed nature of the country means that it's unlikely to ever get official confirmation though. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 08:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tourbillon:Idk then. Has a version in korean, and source has its own wikipedia article so maybe it should be added. I don't want to have someone remove it though, because daily NK is the only available source. BTW, the daily NK wikipedia article seems to have an italicized name, so wikilinks don't work. Pancho507 (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Pancho507: I’m disagree, DailyNK is a South Korean pro-US newspaper, so maybe the information about North Korea is a propaganda published by the US. We should wait for WHO or UN reports. Nguyen QuocTrung (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

DailyNK is in South Korea all right, but it's being run by people who fled from North Korea, and as far as I know, is not financed by the Republic of Korea government, but through donations. Wanting to be free is universal, not 'pro-US'. -Mardus /talk 23:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Night Lantern: has removed the confirmed status for the DPRK from the map, and I would concur - any and all South Korean sources are pure anti-Korean propaganda - it is relevant here because North Koreans seem to be rising from the "dead" quite often.--Adûnâi (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Adûnâi: The reason I revert my edit can be seen on Trung talkpage. Thanks.  Ṉight Ḻantern ^🏮 09:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Japan divides infected into people with symptoms, and without.

So about one week ago, Japanese numbers of infected showed it as a sum of two numbers like this 94(26+68) with a sidenote stating Japanese divides infected into non-symptomatic and symphonic, however, this sidenote is gone now, leaving people confused about why there is this addition next to the number of infected — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathcounter (talk • contribs) 11:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The +68 means the number of cases from 'Diamond Princess' ship, that's why. --91.207.170.251 (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect grammar

Can the article please be edited to remove incorrect references to "the coronavirus". It is often wrongly treated in the general media as though the virus is called "Corona", so that we would erroneously talk about a "Corona virus and a Measles virus".

The summary is that "coronavirus" should be used grammatically in the same way as "influenza" or "measles".

CORRECT: "There has been an outbreak of coronavirus/influenza."
INCORRECT: "There has been an outbreak of the coronavirus/influenza."
INCORRECT: "There has been an outbreak of the corona virus."
INCORRECT: "There has been an outbreak of corona."

CORRECT: "There has been a coronavirus/measles outbreak."

CORRECT: "Many people are concerned about the coronavirus/measles outbreak." (Used attributively.)

CORRECT: "The influenza/measles virus is quite contagious."
CORRECT: "The coronavirus virus is quite contagious." (Although it sounds sounds weird.)

Inserting "novel" doesn't change the above rules.

Current examples of incorrect grammar in the article include:

• "Misinformation spread primarily online about the coronavirus has led the WHO to declare an "infodemic" on 2 February.[45]"
• "Chinese scientists were able to isolate a strain of the coronavirus "
• "social media posts deemed to hold negative tones about the coronavirus"
• "The CDC has directed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to check individuals for symptoms of the coronavirus."
• "Jinyintan Hospital had initially been tasked with treating those with the coronavirus."
• "On 30 January, US President Donald Trump received a briefing on the Coronavirus in China."

And so on.

Exception: incorrect grammar (or spelling) within quotations should generally be retained. For example:
"US President Donald Trump thanked Chinese President Xi Jinping "on behalf of the American People" on 24 January 2020 on Twitter, stating that "China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency" and declaring that "It will all work out well."[391]" (Emphasis added.)
Other options are to edit the text explicitly, or to add a note:
"stating that "China has been working very hard to contain [coronavirus].""
or
"stating that "China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus [sic].""

—DIV (1.129.110.141 (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC))

Another exception is if the strain/type of coronavirus has been specified earlier in the text.

Example:

CORRECT: "The Spanish laboratory cultured specimens obtained from a dozen patients, from which five viruses were identified, including coronavirus and measles. The coronavirus [that was cultured in that laboratory] was found to be killed by disinfectants X and Y."

—DIV (1.129.110.141 (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC))

This article should reflect common usage by reliable sources. So, we have The Hague as a non-standard usage of "the" and if usage regarding this virus also uses "the", then so should Wikipedia. We should not be grammar pedants. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Your bikeshedding superpowers are awesome. Well done. 79.75.103.145 (talk) 12:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 9 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/snow close. Another RM proposing exactly the same new title was closed literally a few hours ago. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

---

2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak → 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak – Current page title is disturbing to remain and there are 2 highly known sources refer this virus as Novel coronavirus. Regice2020 (talk) 08:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

References

_

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCEVENTS#Conventions. Until we have an official name for the virus, I am afraid the current title is the best we can do. (That is ignoring the cumbersome options of 2019–20 outbreak of 2019 novel coronavirus or 2019–20 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak, in light of the virus being named 2019 novel coronavirus.)--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Refuted Per WP:COMMONNAME - CDC and World Health Organization set the virus name as Novel coronavirus - not Wuhan coronavirus.Regice2020 (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

CDC calls it 2019 Novel Coronavirus or 2019-nCoV. Same for WHO. That is not the same as Novel coronavirus which the name of any new coronavirus, not just this one that was discovered in 2019. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The adjective "novel" doesn't tell you anything about the virus. How novel should a coronavirus be to be called a novel coronavirus? What if scientists discover another coronavirus during the same period of time? "More novel coronavirus"? Lysimachi (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is some evidence that the virus could circulate indefinitely, like flu, so the inclusion of the 2020 date is problematic to me - unsigned 09:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.81.27 (talk)
• Oppose. Novel will soon be out of date, as in this context it just means "new". WHO is using "novel" because there is no established name yet, but this will have an established name soon enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pestilence Unchained (talk • contribs) 09:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. This strain won't be "novel" for long. Colin Gerhard (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment This must be the quickest re-request to move I have seen after the last one closed. I would have thought waiting a period first to see if anything changes before requesting it again is the appropriate thing to do. Hzh (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy close - The move discussion was recent close by User:QEDK [19] at 07:59, 9 February 2020. Why people are opening it again? Just wait a time till we get a more stable name. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 11:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy close on procedural grounds - see Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak#Requested move 2 February 2020 which was just closed as no consensus a few hours ago. Wait at least a month (or for WHO to publish an official name) before any new rename proposals. Boud (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Not this again. What's new from current event, and whose answers are unique from the last week? --91.207.170.251 (talk) 12:08, 9 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.

Persistence of coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces and its inactivation with biocidal agents

Persistence of coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces and its inactivation with biocidal agents

Can someone add the information please?

We therefore reviewed the literature on all available information about the persistence of human and veterinary coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces as well as inactivation strategies with biocidal agents used for chemical disinfection, e.g. in healthcare facilities. The analysis of 22 studies reveals that human coronaviruses such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) coronavirus, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronavirus or endemic human coronaviruses (HCoV) can persist on inanimate surfaces like metal, glass or plastic for up to 9 days, but can be efficiently inactivated by surface disinfection procedures with 62-71% ethanol, 0.5% hydrogen peroxide or 0.1% sodium hypochlorite within 1 minute. Other biocidal agents such as 0.05-0.2% benzalkonium chloride or 0.02% chlorhexidine digluconate are less effective. As no specific therapies are available for 2019-nCoV, early containment and prevention of further spread will be crucial to stop the ongoing outbreak and to control this novel infectious thread.

https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/S0195-6701(20)30046-3/fulltext

--80.187.106.5 (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

This inclusion has already been rejected several times at several different articles, but as before, this is not about the 2019 novel coronavirus. I suggest taking this to Talk:Coronavirus if necessary, but the WHO has the idea of long-lasting viability of coronaviruses on surfaces listed as one of its myths in the "myth busters" section of its site on the virus. Dekimasuよ! 15:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)