Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in India

Estimations

@Vanamonde93: I would like to answer your question that "how on earth is this not in the lead already?"

The source is WHO, and their report has pegged India’s excess mortality (people who probably would not have died if there was no pandemic) to be at 4.7 million. These ‘excess’ deaths are considered to be a direct or indirect result of Covid-19.

This is nowhere same as Indian government's own statistics which suggest half-a-million deaths due to Covid-19. That's why these statistics cannot be used as alternative statistics to those provided by Indian government.

You should read these two sources that have provided good argument against these types of computer modelling, not just by WHO but other sources who also came up with 1 million - 5 million excess deaths: [1][2] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

That just isn't going to fly, sorry. The WHO estimates, and the slew of studies that preceded it and fed into it, are conducted by scholars. They're far and away the best estimates we have. Statements from the Health Ministry are not given the same weight, because they are less reliable than scholarly work. This is pretty basic stuff; not sure why I need to explain it. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

But the WHO themselves admitted that "their modeling exercise suffered from a number of limitations like limited representation and generalisation of variable utilised to settings that may be systematically different".[3]

Together with these noted flaws, I would still recommend you to read the 2 sources which I have provided, they are also WP:RS and provide the reasons why these types of computer modelling cannot be taken at face value. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The WHO study admitted its limitations. Its something scientific studies do; that it had limitations doesn't change that it's the best source available. Scholarly sources are still superior to media sources and primary government data. A statement from a minister gets no weight whatsoever next to a scholarly study (and that's all that's in the last link you provided; did you read it?) I really do not know how you're disputing that, nor how you think it reasonable to exclude the attributed WHO estimate from the lead. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

If they are not 100% sure about their own estimates then why we have to be? I would repeat again that the excess deaths figure provided by WHO concerns both direct and indirect result of Covid-19. It is not same as direct death which is provided by Indian government and state governments. It relies on computer modelling than actual body count. Both are greatly different from each other.

2nd source has comments from Randeep Guleria, Balram Bhargava, who are academics and have disputed these models. It cannot be ignored.

Current sentence is too long and does not explain the flaws of the study. It would be misleading for the readers if we don't mention that. The long-standing sentence "But these official numbers are suspected to be significant undercounts" was much better. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not only routine, it is expected for scientific studies to provide margins of error. That is an indicator of reliability, not unreliability. AKG, if you want to provide high-quality, up-to-date RS with alternative estimates, I'm willing to discuss them. If you continue to call into question the reliability of scholarly sources with nonsensical arguments like the above, you're looking at arbitration enforcement. I have also removed your wildly out of date addition from a questionable journal; you will need to take that to RSN. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

We don't need any other 'alternative estimates' because the official figure is by far the most up-to-date. Just chanting same argument without addressing any of the argument I raised won't help you. Can you show where Wikipedia community agreed to provide more weight to WHO's computer modelling over official figures? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 11:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

This could have been written in 1 sentence instead of 4 sentences like now. The WHO has lost enough credibility with regard to entire COVID-19 scenario,[4] so it would make no sense to provide them undue weight. I also support restoring the lead before 21 August, and avoid giving undue weight to any particular study or estimate on the lead. Dympies (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

You have never edited a Covid article; how did you hear of this discussion? Please read WP:RS and WP:MEDRS before commenting further. Scientific studies should always take primacy over government estimates, and there's a wealth of scientific studies showing huge undercounts in the Indian government data. The WHO study is just the most recent of these. Here's another example, estimating 3.2 million deaths by June 2021 [5]. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I have read WP:RS and WP:MEDRS well and it does not say that Indian government figures become less reliable than WHO with regards to COVID-19 statistics in India. Dympies (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, government statistics are primary sources; have you read WP:RSPRIMARY? The Indian government statistics are also in the lead anyway, so I don't know what you're trying to say with that. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Then why no other country's page provides more weight to non-governmental statistics? By saying "more weight", I am talking about how you have dedicated more sentences to WHO's statistics on lead. It was better before when it was written in a single sentence. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 11:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Like already noted above, "excess deaths" provided by WHO and the registered COVID-19 deaths by India, are not same figures. Both figures shouldn't be on lead and shouldn't be compared with each other. I am also in support of restoring the sentence from the earlier version before this version, as it already noted suspected undercounting. @Abecedare: can you also share your view? >>> Extorc.talk 19:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

(responding to ping) Extorc, you are right that ""excess deaths" provided by WHO and the registered COVID-19 deaths by India" are not exactly comparable. That is because of, as numerous scholarly studies have said, (primarily) (1) significant under-counting and/or misattribution of COVID-19 related deaths in the GOI statistics, and (secondarily) (2) the excess deaths include indirect deaths due to the pandemic. But I am not seeing any real-world or wiki-policy based argument for excluding or downplaying the WHO/scholarly estimates from the lede or the article. Per NPOV and RS/MEDRS: the official GOI numbers can be cited with attribution since, well, they reflect the official GOI position; and, the numbers from WHO/other-scholarly-studies should also be included both because they perhaps are a better reflection of COVID-19's toll in India and because they are the type of sources that wikipedia in general gives more weight to. Abecedare (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Do you think that the current sentence (which is too long and was added here) should be replaced with something like "The WHO estimated 4.7 million excess deaths, both directly and indirectly related to COVID-19 to have taken place in India."? This will probably resolve this dispute. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks, Abecedare; perhaps your explanation will convince folks of what I've gotten sick of repeating. The only way to write a policy-based account of Covid deaths in India is to find the most reliable, reasonably up-to-date sources that cover the topic, and summarize what they say. The WHO estimate is one of those, as is the Science article I mention. If anyone wants to provide an alternative summary of these, I'm willing to discuss it. If there's further specious argument attempting to discredit reliable sources, I intend to ignore it, and if necessary take it to AE. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Alternative wording has been already proposed just above your comment. Can you comment on that? I dont see any issue with it. >>> Extorc.talk 19:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

It isn't appropriate, because the "direct vs indirect" stuff is terminology primarily used by the Indian government that is not reflected in any other reliable sources, nor in their discussion of mortality in other countries. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

But "directly and indirectly" wording is used by WHO for this report,[6] and is also widely used by reliable sources when discussing this WHO report.[7][8][9][10] >>> Extorc.talk 15:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

It's still something to discuss in the body of the article, if at all. The reliable sources in question still state unequivocally that this is the death toll from Covid. Furthermore, the comparison to the government figures is made prominently by very many reliable sources, as is the comparison to the global death toll. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Covid Awareness Murals in Chennai 02.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PortiaGui (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by PortiaGui (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request, February 18, 2024

Add Semi-protected padlock icon to article, and change "is" to "was", because the pandemic is over 108.49.72.125 (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I mean the pandemic has been over for more than a year now, and also I don't believe you need a source to put the semi-protected padlock icon to the article 108.49.72.125 (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I'm unsure if there's a template for this page's protection reason. If I am wrong, anyone can feel free to correct me so it can be added. As for the latter, adding information from personal research is against Wikipedia policy.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 13:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I mean, the padlock icon that's put at the top of all semi-protected pages to indicate it is semi-protected. And this isn't original research, as the pandemic has been over since May 5th, 2023, after the WHO declared it to be over:

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/covid-is-no-longer-global-health-emergency-who-2023-05-05/

https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/05/1136367

108.49.72.125 (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done: Padlock icon added. Shadow311 (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

 Already done The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

what about changing "was" to "is"? I provided sources for that as well 108.49.72.125 (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2024

Add to first para: [Evidence of excess mortality beyond what has reported deaths have been supported by other independent evaluations, including from the Indian government's own data. ] Lekhajokha20 (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: If you mean first paragraph as, in, what Wikipedia calls the WP:LEAD of an article then - given the fact COVID-19 is a pretty heated topic, and how visible the lead is, I'm going to say this should probably be discussed on the talk page first before implementation. I would not consider this to meet the "not controversial" marker for edit requests. —Sirdog (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)