This is an archive of past discussions about COVID-19 pandemic. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 4 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion
I have multiple things to talk about here. First the lead (again) and second the Epidemiology and History sections.
Lead
Sdkb, you revertedmy changes on the lead (short: I removed vague references to generic claims and make some overlyspecific wording more generic), saying that it makes statements overly generic, and I counter-reverted with a couple more adjustments, arguing that there's simply no room for unmandatory detail in a lead; I also removed the words "with many switching to online schooling," saying "i think we don't need to mention in the lead that schools have switched to webex; if we are to do so then we should also mention the fact that workers are working from home too (a very notable impact), and it would congest it more."
This was then later reverted by Boing! said Zebedee, warning me on edit wars. Although it is still not technically a war, I still appreciate it.
In all honesty, I don't feel the changes you reverted, Sdkb, are detrimental to the lead and the article as a whole, all per what I've said in the summaries. I feel like, after my changes, it still summarizes the whole article nicely. I still have a problem with the xenophobia stance and am willing to change consensus (that sentence is so undue). But-- come on, you just pick the 4 events out of the many events?
Epi and History
I have previously discussed this before in this talk page, but nobody responded. I wrote:
Initially identified as cluster of pneumonia in Dec 2019, from WUH.
Unknown patient zero, however some made theories.
Probably from the Huanan market.
Caused by coronavirus.
These are repeated information in one single article. I am confused as to the Background and History section, both seem so relevant. Perhaps the "History" section could talk about a different kind of history, not the epidemiology. And what about "China"? I'm confused here, that's why I took to this talk. ~end
Broad strokes, I agree dividing up as much information as possible without repeats between the 'Epidemiological background' and 'pandemic history' makes sense. The division that makes sense to me is for 'background' to be anything epidemiological necessary for understanding the pandemic, and the History primarily the contemporaneous reporting and mitigation actions taken at the time. That would give us:
I'm ambivalent about the xenophobia thing being in the lead. While it's not one of the pandemic's most profound effects, I think it highlights that the disease also has indirect consequences. Anyway, I think the lead is pretty good as is. It is five paragraphs, but the amount of text in each is pretty low, and we're not trying to put this through FAC. I think keeping the specificity for schools is warranted, but I agree with you that selecting four specific types of events isn't ideal. I question, in particular, the inclusion of "sports" in those four, since this has affected pretty much everything. I think "political" and "cultural" is enough; religion and sports fall into culture. Ovinus (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Ovinus Real, there are a ton of impacts of the pandemic unmentioned in the lead, i.e. crimes, other health issues, media coverage, etc. They are all noteworthy, yet including them all in the lead will make it so big, and I'm not really a fan of long leads (I've seen as far as 7 lead paragraphs). Rather than including all of em, it's better to just simply mention that it has impacted society, economy, environment, and events; caused a recession larger than the Great, famines, supply shortage; plus there's misinfo, and racism (that Sinophobia thing has died down now, so there's no need to reserve a lot of space for it in the lead). I don't think generalizing is bad in a lead; I mean that's what a lead is for-- to keep it short. My fear is also that since this thing changes a lot, there's gonna be more updates that would be noteworthy in the lead and there's gonna be few room for it. GeraldWL04:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
You make good points. I think specificity to its effects is important, though; one of the defining features is the large-scale disruption. The lead isn't egregiously long, and if we think about it, a lot of people visiting this page simply want a high-level summary. Cutting out more and more of the specificity makes the summary less informative, and given that nearly everyone knows about the pandemic's basic features, it becomes less useful. It also makes it harder for those seeking or interested in specific information—the daughter articles for all these effects—without scrolling further into the article body. I think that's a reasonable justification to invoke IAR over lead length. Ovinus (talk) 05:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I personally think specifying its impacts is OK, just not sooo specific. It is the case in the lead rn. There is economic disruption, say it like that. There is social disruption, say it like that. There is discrimination, simply say it like that. Maybe you're right, that most simply came for the lead (before I entered the Wikipedian world I find myself mostly looking at the body), but that doesn't mean the lead must be so specific (I think if you wanna sompose a lead in that nature you'll also have to put infos about death rate, recovery rate, etc, which would jam the lead more). I've mentioned this before: the pandemic lead is like a mini article. I think to reserve a huge space for the xenophobia thing is undue, because the xenophobia section is not bigger compared to others. I think we don't have to mention "ventilation and air filtering," since there's only one sentence in the body-- it could be replaced with etc since there's more preventive measures that what's mention in the lead. GeraldWL09:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Could you specify which status quo you're referring to? This section seems to be discussing many at the same time, which is fairly confusing. {{u|Sdkb}}talk16:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, I'm referring to "...of political, cultural, religious, and sporting events," "...against Chinese people and those perceived as being Chinese or as those from places with high infection rates," the references backing the words "famines," and "postponement and cancellation of events." This thread is talking specifically about the responses paragraph, the last one.
In addition, the lead is the entire height of my laptop screen. It's that crazy. I personally don't think it has to be so big. GeraldWL16:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Nobody uses per-capita when discussing deaths. It becomes quite clear when seeing the Vatican State as the leading country in terms of deaths. It is, to say the least, severely misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.217.156 (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
In fact, I think most people use per-capita (or per-100,000 people sometimes) to discuss deaths. It makes no sense to discuss pure case numbers - if a country only has 5,000 people, it can by definition have no more than 5,000 cases/deaths from it. However, a country that has over 5,000 deaths but has a population of 500,000 is doing exponentially better than the country with thousands of 5,000. That being said, what do you propose changing instances where per-capita is discussed to that provides the same information in an accurate, easy to understand way? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I'll concur that we should continue to list deaths on a per-capita basis. I'll also add that, rather than being misleading, mortality rate is definitely a common way that causes of death are reported and analyzed. Particularly because it's an effective way to combine the fatality rate of a disease with its incidence in the population (a topic of particular importance for a pandemic). Bakkster Man (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
2019–2020 outbreak hatnote
Latest comment: 4 years ago24 comments10 people in discussion
The current pandemic hatnote wraps to three lines on mobile web. The '2019–2020 outbreak (disambiguation)' hatnote for users landing on the page from the '2019–2020 outbreak' and '2019-2020 outbreak' redirects doesn't seem necessary. Those redirects accounted for 130 PVs out of 1.6 million over the last 30 days. If the redirect is correct in assuming a majority of those 130 users were interested in the pandemic topic then who is the hatnote for?
On the redirect itself, following a brief discussion here, consensus was to keep the redirects but with a clear preference for no hatnote. Nevertheless, it keeps coming back...
I'm not aware of any possible user confusion other than that created by the redirects themselves. I'm also not aware of any other list articles focused on outbreaks by date range. Seems like it's only there to advertise an unused disambiguation page. - Wikmoz (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Hopefully the discussion you've started here will produce a consensus we can add to the current consensus list so that the slow-motion edit war can come to a conclusion. {{u|Sdkb}}talk22:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
"if that'd allow us to get rid of the hatnote" ...agree that would be best. To be clear, my understanding is that we can only form a consensus here on the hatnote, not the redirect. It would be up to Seventyfiveyears or another redirect review thread to repoint the redirects after removal of the hatnote (if that is what is decided here). - Wikmoz (talk) 03:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Do I think the 2019-2020 outbreak page is vague? Perhaps a little. I am not aware that removing hatnotes because the redirect is not used is something commonly used in practice; perhaps the redirect itself should be discussed. I personally think the hatnote is a bit annoying, considering the already-dizzying lead, and I also think the "2019-2020 outbreak" redirect is quite useless. I also have no problem with "coronavirus outbreak" redirect. But as far as I'm concerned, the problems with the redirect usage does not affect on whether a hatnote on it would suffice. I think we can just leave it like it is for now. GeraldWL14:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Support removing hatnote: topic is already complex as is. Had to re read it 5 times to figure out what it meant... useless and confusing -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk19:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment It's a shame that we can't display hatnotes only for users who have been redirected, as that would solve all the related concerns tidily. Do we have a reasonable method of determining how prevalent use of the 2019-2020 outbreak and coronavirus outbreak articles are? If it's uncommon, then I lean towards sending them to the disambiguation pages with no hatnotes, as the inconvenience to those users needing an extra click is smaller than the inconvenience to the bulk of users seeing the hatnote. I wouldn't be in favor of removing the coronavirus outbreak hatnote unless its use was quite rare. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you can use this tool to see total PVs (including redirects). Click the redirects link on right side of the page to see the PVs attributed to each. When I checked in mid October, the '2019–2020 outbreak' and '2019-2020 outbreak' redirects accounted for 130 PVs out of 1.6 million. So the hatnote is possibly relevant to about 1 out of every 12,300 users who see it. Assuming that a majority of those users were indeed looking for the pandemic article then it's more likely relevant 1 in 50,000 viewers. Regarding 'coronavirus outbreak', the numbers were 270 out of 1.5 million (Sep15-Oct14) so that one's helpful to up to 1 in 5,400 viewers. Realistically, again assuming a majority of those redirected did intend to land on this topic then it's more likely helpful to 1 in 20,000 visitors to this topic. - Wikmoz (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Support removal. Thanks for the ping, Wikmoz. I think given how most sources these days refer to it as the "COVID-19 pandemic", the redirects have lost their value compared to when organisations like the WHO didn't know whether to classify it as just an epidemic or a full-blown pandemic. I was the one who re-introduced the {{About}} hatnote in the sandboxed draft; that plus this redirect hatnote might be a little too much, especially for readers who use devices with smaller screens like mobile devices. It might be better to have the redirects target a disambiguation page per Bakkster Man. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
For the month of October, 'COVID-19 pandemic' had 1.5 million PVs. 207 of those came from users following the 'Coronavirus outbreak' redirect, or 1 in 7,200 PVs. I propose removing the hatnote and adding a link in the See also section to the Coronavirus diseases article, which is in development, or just Coronavirus § Infection in humans.
Support, but oppose following suggestion, as there is a major rewrite undergoing to that article and it will link COVID-19 pandemic. GeraldWL15:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to COVID-19 pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In section Epidemiology / Background, after
"The scientific consensus is that COVID-19 has a natural origin.[22][23] The probable bat-to-human infection may have been among people processing bat carcasses and guano in the production of traditional Chinese medicines.[24]"
I suggest changing to
"The first scientific consensus was that SARS-COV-2 had a natural origin.[22][23]"
I suggest adding
On October 27, 2020 the Journal of the National Committee for Scientific Research in France published an article titled "The question on SARS-CoV-2's origin can be seriously raised", according to which "the hypothesis that SARS-COV-2 originated from a laboratory cannot be ruled out".[source link]
Hi there. Unfortunately we can't include it here, because of the exceeding size and that New Zealand simply isn't so notable in terms of pandemic. We give an alternative by linking to COVID-19 pandemic in Oceania, which links to COVID-19 pandemic in New Zealand. GeraldWL09:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Unnecessary duplication of content from the main COVID-19 page
Latest comment: 3 years ago37 comments8 people in discussion
Shouldn't this page just discuss the progress of the current pandemic instead of the disease itself? The Article on the disease already exists and I don't think it's wise to duplicate content and maintenance efforts.
I propose:
we transclude the intro from COVID-19 in a section on the virus and then send readers there if they wish to dig deeper
we keep this page focused on the progress of the pandemic: history, advancements, response, etc.
Gtoffoletto, I agree that we should try to keep this page from duplicating Coronavirus disease 2019, but I'm not sure it's quite as simple as just transclusing the intro to that page and calling it a day. Some aspects of the disease, like transmission, are quite relevant to understanding it as a pandemic. {{u|Sdkb}}talk08:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb yeah that approach may be a bit too brutal... but the idea is to keep a brief section after the lead that introduces the main points regarding the virus per se (e.g. virus, transmission, symptoms, prognosis) at a very high level with a link to the full article. I was proposing the lead of the COVID-19 article simply because it already touches most of those topics. The article can then proceed discussing the pandemic alone. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk09:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Media has been very nice about our coverage.....only point that has come up a few times in the media about our coverage is that we have 3 articles with basically the same lead.--Moxy🍁15:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Gtoffoletto: I agree that this article should focus more on the pandemic rather than on the characteristics of the virus it describes. I think the question we should be asking ourselves is "how much do we want to emphasise the danger of the virus?" If it's highly imperative that we do so, we could add a parenthetical thought after the wikilink to Coronavirus disease 2019, something to the effect of a highly infectious virus that has killed over 1,000,000 people. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Detailed Proposal
I think we have an initial consensus that this is a problem. Here is a more detailed proposal to fix it. I would keep a brief summary of the virus characteristics in the article. Probably in the section of the article titled: "Cause". I would cut much of the current lead except the first paragraph.
Of the article content I would trim the parts relating to the disease and condense the info they contain into a short summary in the cause section with a link to the main article.
Lead: only keep the first paragraph basically and then work from there.
I think that's a generally solid proposal. I feel like the Mitigation section does make sense here. Prevention feels like what belongs in the COVID-19 article, and Mitigation is what belongs here. The former referring to how individuals avoid infection, and the latter how governments and society limit the effects and spread. I think it's analogous to epidemiology and transmission, the former is population based, the latter individual. But yes, this article should focus on the population-level effects. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
User:Gtoffoletto/COVID-19 pandemic sandbox. It was still huge so I ended up also cutting the "Cause" section as I realised that the lead already introduced the virus and the disease. We can reintroduce it if necessary but I think the page is already way too long as is. I only trimmed. No editing except a little bit in the lead. And I placed the history section first. Thoughts? SdkbMoxyTenryuuBakkster Man -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk00:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
This would be a really drastic change, and I think we need to use a bit more of a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer. I could support there being less information about transmission/symptoms/diagnosis/prevention/treatment, but just cutting out those sections entirely is too much. A lot of information in them pertains to the pandemic, not just the disease—for instance, for the diagnosis section, efforts to improve testing are inherently related to the battle to control the spread of the pandemic, and thus fit within this page's scope.
One thing that I think would be helpful (albeit not sufficient) in addressing this issue would be to add a line to this page's editnotice along the lines of This page should contain only a broad overview of the most important aspects of the pandemic. More detailed information should be added at other pages (such as Coronavirus disease 2019 for medical details). Let me know if that would be desirable, and I can add it if there's consensus. {{u|Sdkb}}talk23:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb I think we need some drastic restructure of the article. I think it's overstepping its boundaries significantly now and we need to trim it. Consider none of the material being removed should be "lost". Most of it is already in the other articles and we can double check that.
COVID-19 -> the disease. Effects on individuals
COVID-19 Pandemic -> History and progress of the pandemic with global response. Effects on society/the world/countries
I guess part of the question is whether the two articles are parallel, analogous to the relationship between History of Asia and History of Africa, or whether COVID-19 is in some sense a subtopic of COVID-19 pandemic, analogous to the relationship between History of East Asia and History of Asia (where the latter justifiably contains a lot of parts of the former). I've generally thought about the disease as an element of the pandemic and thus in some sense a subtopic, but it sounds like you view them as more parallel. {{u|Sdkb}}talk00:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes I think they are parallel. There should be a clear distinction between the two topics of we end up duplicating everything.
Had a quick glance at it and since most of it is just excision and some rearrangement, I only have a few thoughts:
Can we switch the History and Epidemiology sections so that the latter remains up top? It still contains the sidebar link that leads to {{COVID-19 pandemic data}} which is important information.
Can we add a {{For}} hatnote to the top? I feel like we had it before in the article and I can't be bothered to go through the page's history to look for it, but with the proposed excision of content I think it should be made as clear as possible that this page focuses primarily on the disease's spread, its repercussions, and our response. Virological information on it such as transmission and symptoms can be found at Coronavirus disease 2019. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@Tenryuu: Absolutely we should add {{For}} at the top so that the page boundaries are very clear. Added it to the sandbox. Thoughts? Edit it yourself if you have any proposal. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk19:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I think this is a great look for the article, and keeps it focused overall without a ton of duplication. I don't personally like History before Epidemiology, but both the 1918 and 2009 flu pandemic articles are structured that way so I won't argue against it. Coupled with the suggestions below to trim duplication between the Background and History sections, we'd have the article fighting fit and better maintainable. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I would re-apply the proposed cuts to the current version of the article so that any additional edit that happened in the meantime is not lost. Regarding Epi after History: I think it makes more sense that way in theory. But the current content may not be ideal. How about we move forward with the current proposal and then we move continue from there?
Agree that this separation is helpful + avoiding the "identical triplet" leads. Adding a For hatnote is a great idea. Perhaps we should also place, in {{Current COVID-19 Project Consensus}}, a reminder about the division between pandemic, virus and disease. Ovinus (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Consensus
I think we have consensus here. We have at least 5 users in favour and none against. I will proceed with the edit this weekend unless someone objects. I would also like to add a point to the {{Current COVID-19 Project Consensus}} list to clarify the division between the different pages once and for all per Ovinus Real's proposal. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk11:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose the current sandbox proposal. As I said above, while I agree with the general thrust of reducing the amount of information in this article that pertains mainly to the disease, the current sandboxed proposal takes a massive sledgehammer to this page, cutting out a ton that pertains to the pandemic, not just the disease. You're proposing cutting out lines like Authorities worldwide have responded by implementing travel restrictions, lockdowns, workplace hazard controls, and facility closures. Many places have also worked to increase testing capacity and trace contacts of the infected. from the lead, and the entire section on a vaccine, which is fully about its development within the context of the pandemic. I'm sure I would find additional examples if I looked more thoroughly. I also have concerns, on a public health level, about removing entirely information like the fact that ventilation can reduce transmission—we can reduce the amount of that information here, perhaps transcluding high-level summaries from other pages, without eliminating it entirely.
On a procedural level, I do not think the level of discussion here is sufficient to enact the deletion. We're talking about removing hundreds of thousands of bytes from a page that hundreds of contributors have worked to build over months, and we owe it to them to do so with greater care than has been shown in the sandbox proposal. We've had RfCs before over single sentences on this page, so one is certainly called for before implementing a change of this magnitude. {{u|Sdkb}}talk22:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I see two arguments here. One is WP:HARDWORK, which isn't sufficient on its own to keep the information here. At a minimum, I think it's noteworthy that this is as much or more consensus than the much-debated misinformation visual you found strong enough to call status quo, and think it should be recognized that this process has been gone about in a quite open and transparent manner. If you think others will disagree with this change, I suggest you invite them to participate in the discussion.
The other is that we may not be doing well enough to WP:PRESERVE information that might not be covered in the other articles. On this, I think there's room to discuss and ensure we capture any information appropriate to this page but not another. I hope you'll help WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM to avoid these situations, rather than putting the brakes on the entire revision. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
To be more specific, which of those "thousands of bytes" that were removed are in other articles we can (and should) link to instead, and which are pandemic-specific information to keep in this article? Bakkster Man (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Bakkster Man. Sdkb I don't have any "fear of losing content" (FOMO? :-) ) here as this is mostly duplicated content and of lesser quality than what we have in the more appropriate pages. The information is not lost and we can always preserve/move it in the other pages if we see something worth keeping that will be lost. I think this is actually an argument in favour of the change: we should act to avoid countless wasted hours spent maintaining duplicated pages and we can always keep what we like from this page in the others. Nothing will be lost.
Did our replies change your mind? At the moment you seem to be the only opposing voice. This discussion has been here for a while and I've pinged the COVID-19 project twice to ensure everybody has a chance to see this. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk18:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Your replies did not change my mind because my objection was not to the idea of reducing duplicated medical content (anyone who knows my editing history knows that bad duplication is my single top pet peeve), but rather to the overly blunt implementation, and the sandbox draft has not changed. (And Bakkster Man, it's generally considered bad practice to criticize those volunteering their time to review a proposal for not volunteering even more of their time to also overhaul said proposal.)
Posting on WT:19 a second time is unlikely to do much as fewer people seem to monitor that page than this one, and most will have already seen the previous notice. If any are around, it might be helpful at the very least to hear from some past regulars on this page like Doc James, RealFakeKim, and Ozzie10aaaa. {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
My apologies if I came across as insisting you needed to make the proposed changes. I meant more that if your concerns of removal non-duplicate information were remedied (by yourself or anyone else involved in this rewrite) that I hoped you wouldn't object if some of the information you thought was appropriate to duplicate didn't make the final cut (especially if the smaller size helps maintenance, even if it starts out imperfect. Let us fix the issues you pointed out, and if we can find other input all the better. Or perhaps you're just looking for a formal RfC once we're content with the sandbox version, at which point I refer back to the rushed discussion of the misinformation visual aid (added with the same 5-1 vote - but over 3 days, versus this discussion's 5 days to propose a sandbox followed by 9 days of review of the sandbox itself) and suggest we're certainly not out of line. So let's fix the actual loss of information that's not in other articles (per policy), see if we get more feedback, and then move forward if the only outstanding issues are a minority preference. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I disagree with the removal of information about the virus as this is the main Wikipedia page people go to for information and the information is relevant to how the pandemic has developed. — RealFakeKimT16:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
@RealFakeKim: I don't think it should necessarily guide our editorial choices :-) but yes this page has the most page views. And that is an SEO issue (probably caused by the duplication itself). Currently wiki ranks first for "Covid-19 Pandemic" but very poorly for "Covid-19". I think that presenting users with such a complex and long page is a disservice to those readers and the duplicated leads and content is probably confusing them. They got here because they searched for the Pandemic. Not for the virus. We have an article already covering the virus. Let's send them there for information about it!
The HIV pages are following a content structure in line with the sandbox proposal. We should follow that precedent and correct those articles.
@Sdkb: I pinged several active editors in addition to the project page twice. At the moment we have 2 votes users against and 5 which I think are in favour such as TenryuuMoxyBakkster ManOvinus_Real (and myself obviously). -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk21:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
@Tenryuu: Edited accordingly. How do we progress from here? I don't see new users coming in. I would proceed at the moment given the discussion above and the strong AIDS/HIV precedent but I think other supporters should confirm this first. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk14:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Support (initial proposer): I'll formally write why I would proceed with the current proposal. We have a strong precedent with the HIV/AIDS pages as discussed above [2] that we should follow. This initial proposal will remove most of the unnecessary duplication and set up a strong foundation going forward. We can then move on from there and we will always have the previous versions to refer to if we need to recover any information lost (nobody has pointed out any crucial info not already treated elsewhere that will be lost at the moment). The status quo is problematic. This will never be WP:PERFECT. Let's fix the problems and move on from there. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk15:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose doesnt have the information that people want on the proposed page. Doesnt matter if its duplicated on other pages, many people clearly only hit this one. --144.130.152.1 (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Infobox Infections vs Suspected cases
Latest comment: 3 years ago38 comments6 people in discussion
@Sdkb, Bryangul2020, Titus III, MartinezMD, and Bakkster Man: These are not 'suspected cases' but rather 'infections' and that is the terminology used by WHO. See prior discussion here to which I did not respond (sidetracked by hospital stay). As reported by CNN: "Our current best estimates tell us that about 10% of the global population may have been infected by this virus," Dr. Mike Ryan, director of the WHO's Health Emergencies Programme, said at a WHO executive board meeting Monday.
Usage of 'infection' rather than 'suspected cases' comports with the distinction between Infection Fatality Ratio (IFR) and Case Fatality Ratio (IFR); the IFR is a new statistic adopted by the CDC in July: Infection Fatality Ratio (IFR): The number of individuals who die of the disease among all infected individuals (symptomatic and asymptomatic). This parameter is not necessarily equivalent to the number of reported deaths per reported case because many cases and deaths are never confirmed to be COVID-19 …. That report relies on Meyerowitz-Katz & Merone (2020): An important unknown during the COVID-19 pandemic has been the infection-fatality rate (IFR). This differs from the case-fatality rate (CFR) as an estimate of the number of deaths as a proportion of the total number of cases, including those who are mild and asymptomatic. While the CFR is extremely valuable for experts, IFR is increasingly being called for by policy-makers and the lay public as an estimate of the overall mortality from COVID-19.
Speaking of 'Suspected cases' is irrelevant and misleading for COVID–19 (and likewise will be for other pandemics with similar characteristics). 'Infections' is the proper metric. The structure of the infobox needs to allow for this as an optional field as I requested here. Humanengr (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Well they aren't proven, and it's an estimate, so suspected is the correct term. Now that can be changed to suspected infection as an alternative, but not simply infection for these reasons. MartinezMD (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't think so. For sure it takes discussion on the infobox page. We can't change it on this end (well we can, but it won't show if it's not an approved parameter). MartinezMD (talk) 12:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Humanengr, this seems like a pretty medical question, and I try to avoid those since that's not my area of expertise (which is more the social/other aspects of the pandemic). {{u|Sdkb}}talk03:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Any objections to my, in the meantime until the Infobox structure is changed, editing Suspected infections estimated in early October at c. 770 million[cite]? Humanengr (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
[moved from above] @MartinezMD: Revisiting ‘Suspected infections’ — that’s not how WHO states it; they just say ‘Infections’. What do you mean by ‘not proven’? I agree they are estimated. Humanengr (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly enough about it to make a recommendation. During my training and current work, we typically use "cases" (as in instance or occurrence) and not "infections" when talking about the numbers. I only feel strongly about the suspected part since the numbers are large-scale estimates. And by proven, I mean an infection being identified, as with a positive test result or even a clinical diagnosis, not just an inference based on extrapolation of other data. MartinezMD (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Thx. All ‘estimates’ are inferences from data. So ‘suspected’ is not needed for that aspect. Re we typically use "cases" (as in instance or occurrence) and not "infections" when talking about the numbers, that is exactly what WHO and CDC rectified with their adoption of IFR as a metric: 'Cases' is not informative for a pandemic where most 'infections' are mild or asymptomatic and not 'cases' as normally understood. Also, saying 'suspected infections' rather than 'infections' (as per WHO) would be WP:OR; phrased another way, the WHO statement overrides the experience of any one of us as well as the metrics used in prior pandemics. Humanengr (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
How about if we set the infobox text, per the cite, as “About 10% of the global population may have been infected.”? (Re the infobox template page, I asked for multiple options to give us flexibility rather than having to make repeated requests; nobody has responded there as yet.) Humanengr (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to the transcript. This is a follow up to his initial statement. He did say 10% (per this transcript - "Last week Dr Ryan announced - it was last Monday - that 10% of the world's population might be infected by the COVID") then backtracks in this discussion giving a summary of "on average 10% or less". Many areas below 10% (implying very low) with other peaks much higher - 20/25%. We can revise our article accordingly. MartinezMD (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
@MartinezMD: How would you propose revising? Re your Many areas below 10% (implying very low), more fully, Ryan said in many countries that seroprevalence is very low but again what you have to remember is some of those seroprevalance studies were done a number of months ago (implying higher now) Thx, Humanengr (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I was fine with "about 10%". The number is going to change upward as the spread continues, so I don't see the need to be more precise at this point anyway. MartinezMD (talk) 00:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb, Eb.eric, Ozzie10aaaa, MartinezMD, and Bakkster Man: It seems we have a disagreement. How shall we resolve re infobox? One possibility is to add something like (tentative) in view of the transcript’s We also have a series of unity studies which are longitudinal studies which are studying seroprevalance around the world or the number of people who have been infected much more systematically. … These are done various ways using various methodologies … [W]e're trying to get a more standardised approach to look at studies and be able to pool these results and combine these results is through what we call the unity studies. This is a series of six protocols that WHO has developed …to … better compare [countries].Humanengr (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I think we have a few issues here. One is that the infobox is 'suspected cases', not 'infections'. The next is that no matter what number we pick, it will always be an estimate (same as for IFR, and many other metrics), especially during the pandemic (reliable numbers can take years). Third is that this specific value seems imprecise and somewhat vaguely communicated by the WHO (not for the first time). We may need to address each individually.
While I want the infobox wording change, I do think it's appropriate to use for unconfirmed infections (particularly given the note on the infobox). Broadly, I think we have to do the best with uncertain estimates, as without them we have nothing to write (WP:EWW gives some good things to think about). If we do include this infection number in the infobox, then we're down to how to phrase it to match the level of uncertainty. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
@Bakkster Man, AP characterized it as roughly 1 in 10 people worldwide may have been infected by the coronavirus, i.e., 'roughly' rather than 'about'. So maybe we could say phrase it as they did?? Humanengr (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
That's my first thought. Mirror the WHO wording, which itself includes two 'weasel words' indicating limited certainty, and we'll update it when better numbers come out. It's not supposed to be our job to second guess the experts, unless we can point to another similarly credible source to discount it. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
@Bakkster Man, the ‘weasel’ words in Our current best estimates tell us that about 10% of the global population may have been infected by this virus are ‘about’ and ‘may’ … correct? Humanengr (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
@Eb.eric and Ozzie10aaaa: The CNN story is not a misquote or misinterpretation. It's what Ryan said on 10/5: "Our current best estimates tell us that about 10% of the global population may have been infected by this virus." This was also reported by AP: The head of emergencies at the World Health Organization said Monday the agency’s “best estimates” indicate roughly 1 in 10 people worldwide may have been infected by the coronavirus …. Ryan did not elaborate on the estimate. Dr. Margaret Harris, a WHO spokeswoman, said it was based on an average of antibody studies conducted around the world. At the 10/12 virtual conference Q&A you cited, Ryan didn't say most studies showed less than 10% seroprevalence; what he said was … many studies had demonstrated that 10% or less of people had been infected although that was very variable with some slum areas, high-risk populations like health workers being much higher. … [I]f you look at some of these studies, on average 10% or less; in some it's much less and in some studies much more.. 'many' or 'some' ≠ 'most'. Ryan's 10/5 statement was a prepared remark; the 10/12 Q&A statements are less clear but, in any case, Ryan did not say 'most'. Humanengr (talk) 09:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
It is clear to me by the clarifications he made that they did not intend to say that their best estimate of infections is 10%. The intent was to show that heard immunity is low, and that worldwide infection rate may average "10% or less". I have little else to add beyond my interpretation of his clarification. I would suggest not putting this problematic data on the prominent infobox, but a more nuanced discussion per the WHO clarification could be appropriate in the article text. I think waiting for more reliable data, which the WHO stated is coming, would be more appropriate for the infobox. I feel like this discussion is not productive so you can proceed with whatever you think is reasonable, unless someone else wants to opine. Eb.eric (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Ryan clearly said "Our current best estimates tell us that about 10% of the global population may have been infected by this virus," on 10/5 to the WHO Executive Board when he was flanked by his boss, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. As I indicated above, that was confirmed by AP, which I repeat here: The head of emergencies at the World Health Organization said Monday the agency’s “best estimates” indicate roughly 1 in 10 people worldwide may have been infected by the coronavirus …. Ryan did not elaborate on the estimate. Dr. Margaret Harris, a WHO spokeswoman, said it was based on an average of antibody studies conducted around the world. The Press conference Q&A did not, as I indicated above with quotes, 'clarify' the 10/5 statements by Ryan and Harris, certainly not as you indicate.
The phrasing I had inserted, About 10% of the global population may have been infected, is an appropriate summary for the infobox, where 'About' is Ryan's phrasing. I'm ok with AP's 'Roughly' if you prefer that.
This is a tempest in a teapot. The phrasing "about 10%" or some equivalent is not unreasonable considering the infobox is a SUMMARY, the number itself is clearly an ESTIMATE, and the number WILL change in the not so distant future. A qualifier is not needed, and the interested reader can easily read the cite for more detail. We are editors; we can use some editorial judgement. MartinezMD (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
In view of the discussion above and at DR to-date evidencing support from 3 (Bakkster Man, MartinezMD, and myself), one (Ozzie10aaaa) offering at this point I might concede, and objections only from (Eb.eric) that I believe I have adequately addressed, it makes sense to reinsert About 10% of the global population may have been infected with cites to CNN and AP. Any further objections? Humanengr (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
The hedged language as it is now is better than the calculated CNN figure. I still do think when you consider the whole news conference the WHO is implying the infection rate is below 10% rather than approx. 10%. If you look at the IFR rate they have (0.6%) in the same news conference, and calculate number of deaths reported, that puts the figure less than 3%, though it could be higher if deaths not reported, but that does show a lower ballpark figure. However, I will concede you can keep the infobox wording it as it is now because even though the figure is likely a bad estimate, potentially misleading, not what the WHO intended to say, and not supported by verifiable evidence, it is vague enough to be meaningless anyways. Further this will all be moot when an actual estimate is published by the WHO. Eb.eric (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2020
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to COVID-19 pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I would appreciate this chat removing the “+10,000,000” category in the “Total confirmed cases” map as there is no reason for it to be there unless multiple countries fit that category. 206.251.220.178 (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@Chogg and Ozzie10aaaa: the source looks good and MEDRS-compliant to me. I don't think that we should lose sight of the fact that the primary benefit of the common cloth masks is to reduce the amount of exhaled virus by infected individuals, and that the effectiveness of these masks in blocking inhalation of the virus by uninfected individuals is variable and dependant on many factors. Nevertheless, it is a step forward to see a secondary source confirming the role of masks in protecting the wearer, and I would welcome that being added to the article. --RexxS (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Some suggestions
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
1) As noted, data on comparative "case numbers" is statistically meaningless because the "incidence of COVID19" depends upon the number of tests being conducted, which varies massively between countries. Maps and graphs showing "COVID incidence" are equally misleading and should come with clear caveats.
2) Even allowing for variations of definition, COVID19 "death rates" are more statistically meaningful. A world map showing comparative COVID19 death rates would be very illustrative. However, any such map should allow for the full range of death rates, and not simply lump all countries together which have a death rate above the average (as has happened previously).
3) I have plotted such a map (albeit crudely on paper) and it paints a very striking picture: throughout the Far East and Asian Pacific Rim COVID19 death rates have been universally low, irrespective of national politics and the timing or otherwise of lockdowns; throughout the Americas and Western Europe COVID19 death rates have been universally high, irrespective of national politics and the timing or absence of lockdowns; and throughout Eastern Europe and the Eurasian land-mass COVID19 death rates have been of intermediate severity, declining steadily the further east you travel, also irrespective of politics or lockdowns. Data from Africa is probably too unreliable to be meaningful. There are a handful of countries whose COVID19 death rates seem to defy the regional trends (Norway, Finland, Canada, Uruguay and (possibly) New Zealand & Australia - although the latter might be considered parts of the Asian Pacific Rim); however all such countries are characterised by their comparative remoteness and exceptionally low population-densities, and might therefore have been able to escape the pandemic by locking down before the virus had any chance to take hold. Elsewhere, without exception, the pandemic has followed the wider regional trend, with local variation being almost entirely explicable by differences in definition, recording, demographics and the severity or otherwise of the preceding annual respiratory virus season (i.e. the dry tinder effect).
4) The oft-repeated suggestion that countries with young, centre-left, female leaders have done exceptionally well does not stand up to scrutiny. China, North Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Singapore, Austria, Hungary, Poland and Australia (to give but some examples) have all fared well, but none of them have leaders which fall into this category.
5) I don't wish to get into the lockdown debate, but it is surely worth noting that many countries which went into early strict lockdowns (e.g. Belgium, Italy, Spain, Argentina, Colombia, Peru, Chile, Mexico, Ecuador & Bolivia) have had some of the worst death rates on the planet, whilst others which didn't lockdown (Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Vietnam) have suffered very few deaths by comparison. This cannot simply be due to better testing, because the latter countries have tested far fewer cases per capita than many countries in Western Europe, in spite of which, Western Europe has gone on to experience a devastating second wave.
6) As you can probably guess, I believe that the behaviour of COVID19 has been largely determined by epidemiological factors (most notably any herd-immunity caused by prior exposure to other coronaviruses), and that the impact of governments has been marginal at most. This viewpoint is held by many well-informed commentators (e.g. Ivor Cummins), and although controversial, is nonetheless sufficiently credible to warrant a greater prominence in the article. That said, I agree that lockdowns delay the transmission of the virus, thus lowering the peak of any wave, but at the expense of dragging it out for longer. However...
8) Recent developments in the UK have been interesting. Pressurised by "expert consensus" and demands from opposition parties, the UK government announced a new lockdown on the 1st November, which then came into effect on the 5th November. Subsequently the "COVID19 incidence", which had been stable for the preceding three weeks, surged by almost 10,000 cases per day. Thus the lockdown either had no effect whatsoever, or (conceivably) may even have caused the increase in COVID19 incidence by inducing changes in public behaviour as a response to the anticipated restrictions. Had the experts been truly expert, they might have been able to predict this. My mate in the pub certainly did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.108.92.22 (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
My suggestion: read WP:NOTFORUM. Our articles are built on published information and the statistics used have been collated by reputable sources such as Johns Hopkins University. We rely on our quality sources to interpret data and findings for us, and if the source includes a caveat about data comparisons, we will include the same caveat. The rest of your speculation doesn't belong on a page whose purpose is to improve the article as we don't base our articles on what your mate in the pub predicts. Fortunately. --RexxS (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Xenophobia section placement
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I noticed on Italian Wikipedia that they've placed the "xenophobia and racism" level-3 section under the "information dissemination" level-2 section, rather than the "impact" level-2 section (where it currently is here). Do you all think that would be a better spot for it, or is it best where it is right now? {{u|Sdkb}}talk21:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, I think it makes more sense for "Xenophobia and racism" to remain under "Impact". The virus did originate from China, and Chinese citizens did bring it out of the country. What's Italian Wikipedia's rationale for putting it other "Information dissemination"? What information is being disseminated? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Not enough sources
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
COVID-19 during pregnancy is still a controversy, due to a New York maternity center found 15% of the patients had (95% low or no symptoms) COVID-19 in their April spike, but we know from scientific knowledge on infectious diseases can be dangerous to pregnant people (the person and the fetus inside them), and even when they have a human common cold coronavirus, a heightened risk of bronchitis and mild pneumonia than a person who isn't pregnant.
During pregnancy
To date, most SARS-CoV-2-related clinical trials have excluded, or included only a few, pregnant or lactating women. This limitation makes it difficult to make evidence-based therapy recommendations in these patients and potentially limits their COVID-19 treatment options. The US CDC recommends shared decision-making between the patient and the clinical team when treating pregnant women with investigational medication.[226]
Source 226 backed up the claims, but SARS and MERS were much deadlier and damaging to pregnant people who were infected in these outbreaks. Hospitalization and medical supervision is commonly done for pregnant people when they have COVID-19 or any infectious disease (i.e. rubella or German Measles). But to have a majority to be rather asymptomatic, COVID-19 is a milder SARS coronavirus but it will lead to more medical issues for pregnant people, esp. in the USA (source: CDC-Centers of Disease Control), 33% of hospitalized COVID pregnant patients had a pregnancy-related (i.e. gestational debates) or unrelated health condition to placed them in heightened risk of moderate or severe COVID-19 illness. 2605:E000:100D:C571:94BD:B0F1:A6B9:12B5 (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Requesting extended confirmed protection
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Marc Raphael Felix, what's the rationale for doing so? There haven't been any bad edits from non-extended confirmed users and most of the editors in the past week or so have been regular contributors for this page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago19 comments5 people in discussion
The article makes many claims in terms of cases, deaths, etc., for specific countries or regions rather than presenting ‘per capita’ figures. This seems rather uninformative if not misleading. Thoughts? (Pinging Ozzie10aaaa as some of your recent edits come into play here.) Humanengr (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
It gives a false impression of the severity of the disease. If country A has 2,000,0000 deaths from a population that was 4,000,000, that is a more significant effect than if its population is 400,000,000. Comparing various countries using total rather than per capita gives a false impression of the relative severity of the pandemic in those countries. Humanengr (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Thx … 1) On 12 November it was reported that France had become the worst hit country by the COVID-19 pandemic, in all of Europe, in the process surpassing Russia. The new total of confirmed cases was more than 1.8 million and counting …[3]; 2) On the 10th, a day before, Italy surpassed 1 million confirmed COVID-19 cases …[4]; 3) On 9 November 2020 the United States surpasses 10 million confirmed cases of COVID-19, by far the country with the the most cases worldwide[5].
It's a more general problem on the page, so maybe we can consider these as examples to see how to best correct. I'm inclined to delete all three unless we can figure out a way to frame such info in per capita terms. Maybe such info doesn't belong in the body at all but only in the Infobox graphics — which, to this way of thinking should be reordered a) Confirmed cases per capita, c) Deaths per capita, d) Daily new cases remade to show daily new cases per capita, and then -maybe- retain b) Total cases per country in last position. It might be appropriate to retain a few non-'per capita' numbers from initial reports for historical interest; but current numbers should all be 'per capita'. Humanengr (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
(I'll start by reminding you I conceded on the prior issueDispute_resolution_noticeboard just a few days ago,so I am flexible)...well, when our readers see a news item about country 'A' with a certain number of cases or fatalities...IMO, they understand the numbers indicated better..."more than 1.8 million"...perhaps it would help to have more editor opinions, I would concede to changing to per capita numbers if you wish--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
(I was counting on your agreeableness ;) ) Re what appears in the body text, would it work for you if we included those countries with the highest and the lowest per capita case and death rates? That would be a nice body text complement to contextualize the Infobox graphics (maybe with a pointer to the Infobox). It seems to me that would provide readers with a more global perspective than than posting news items for arbitrarily selected countries — whether with absolute or per capita numbers or both. We can present the country stats on the individual country pages. Humanengr (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
in terms of changing the infobox/infobox graphics (as you indicated above), I have 'no opinion', however others may feel differently, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I sympathise with the thrust of your argument. However, the problem with dictating one style of presentation of information is that our sources don't always follow our wishes. Once you start calculating figures for yourself, you're on the slippery slope of original research. The estimates of population size in different countries are often not given at the same point of time, so we really ought to be making sure that we get the per capita calculation done by a reliable source. Sometimes we won't have that available for some statistics and all we have is the raw number, and in those cases it may be necessary to use that raw number rather than a speculative (i.e. unsourced) per capita one. --RexxS (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree that per capita figures should be used whenever we're trying primarily to give an indication of severity. Rationale remains the same as it was here, where we established current consensus item 2. {{u|Sdkb}}talk22:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: Thx. Re OR, WP:CALC seemingly allows one to stand on that slope as long as it’s not too slippery. Also given that the Infobox does have two per capita maps, so my proposal is consistent with that. You’re right re variation in timing of population figure timing; note also there’s some roughness and incomparability in death and case counts due to varying standards for assignment to COVID–19 as cause (that WHO is still trying to bring into alignment). So there’s a fair bit of approximation going on here. The cases per capita map (with its 7 color-coded levels) and the deaths per capita map (with its 6 color-coded levels and numerical per-capita overlay) provide a nice quick understandable overview of the comparison between countries/regions. Also, pls see my suggestion above to Ozzie10aaaa re including those countries with the highest and the lowest per capita case and death rates.) I still don’t think that adding specifics for arbitrarily selected countries adds noteworthy value to the article. Those should be reserved for the individual country articles. Humanengr (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@Humanengr:WP:CALC is really for cases where calculations can be done transparently. By that, I'm thinking of calculations like translating a set of 'per capita' figures to 'per hundred thousand' figures, as it is apparent what the multiplication factor is. When we divide the number of confirmed cases in a country by its population to derive a per capita figure, it is rarely clear to the reader what the divisor is for any particular country or time – and we agree that the population may not be well defined for the point-in-time of interest. Of course, if we find a table of countries from JHU with a column for number of cases and a column for population, we are not likely to breach policy if we add a column that calculates the per capita case figure. That would be my recommendation, anyway. I know the difference seems trivial, but some slippery slopes start off almost flat --RexxS (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Did you see Sdkb's cmt above with its pointer to prior discussion? A per capita summary — drawn from separate sources for cases/deaths and population has been in the infobox since early in this pandemic, providing the reader with a quick helpful perspective on the pandemic's impact. As a matter of editorial judgment, that benefit vastly overwhelms the harm from any approximation in population estimates (which change slowly). Humanengr (talk) 03:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and I was already aware of that discussion, which says nothing about how we would get the figures. My point is not whether we would prefer per capita data for comparisons (I certainly would in most circumstances), but whether the per capita data can be sourced properly. Calculating a set of per capita figures for comparison by dividing a set of figure taken at a given time by population figures which probably come from different times is not a job for Wikipedia editors, no matter how slowly they think population sizes change. That would be just another example of editors doing their own research, and Wikipedia isn't the place for it. WP:NOR is not negotiable. --RexxS (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS, Ozzie10aaaa, and Sdkb: Thx, all for your feedback. Looking at the various JHU pages and related statista pages, I note the latter (which builds on data from the former) cautions This table aims to provide a complete picture on the topic, but it very much relies on data that has become more difficult to compare. As the coronavirus pandemic developed across the world, countries already used different methods to count fatalities, and they sometimes changed them during the course of the pandemic. … Belgium, for example, counts suspected coronavirus deaths in their figures, whereas other countries have not done that (yet). Those two sites provide info on deaths and cases but not infections. The WHO has started to focus on 'infections' (as determined by seroprevalence studies), but says we're trying to get a more standardised approach to look at studies and be able to pool these results and combine these results is through what we call the unity studies. So there's no good comparative data on infections yet either. So my thinking now is we don't have anything informative to write for current country-by-country figures for infections, cases, or deaths in either absolute or per capita terms. It also raises questions re existing graphics on the page — e.g., should they be footnoted in view of the statista quote above? Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 07:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Thx, How about a footnote like: The definition of ‘case’ and attribution of death to COVID–19 varies from country-to-country.? Use two cites, one to statista and the other to this CEBM article. Place it once in the Infobox after ‘Confirmed cases’ in the top graphic; once in the Cases section at the end of the caption for the last of the 4 graphics; and similarly in the Deaths section at the end of the caption for the last of the 2 graphics. Humanengr (talk) 08:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
We should remember that it's not just the 'definition' of cases and death that varies but also the measurement. If we take the "first wave" of the international pandemic in March and April, the EU was only picking up 1 in 17 of the actual infections and the US only 1 in 8 by my estimate. It's much better now, maybe even 1 in 2 in many places but certainly not complete. Deaths are much closer but many countries still only count them where tests have been done. In addition, the size of the country plays a big part if one is counting per capita because epidemics are generally localised and move around in the bigger countries. e.g. it's more interesting comparing states in the US with countries in Europe. So I think we need to use all 4 figures wherever possible. Chris55 (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
In general, Wikipedia has taken a slightly more lenient view of user-generated images, including maps, so we perhaps need not be as strict with those as we would be with a table of figures when we are making use of calculations. In addition, when an image groups together a range of values into a "bucket", it masks the approximate nature of many of the figures.
I think it is important when a source makes a point about the difficulties inherent in comparing the data sets they provide, that we don't omit to mention that. --RexxS (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Online event invitation: November 21st ~ NYC COVID-19: Environmental Justice in Public Health Edit-A-Thon
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello WikiProject New York City! You are invited to join the Brooklyn based recycling organization Sure We Can for our 2nd NYC COVID-19 themed Wikipedia Edit-a-thon / translate-a-thon - ONLINE - this Saturday, Nov 21st, 2020 11am - 1pm. The edit-a-thon is part of Sure We Can's work with NYC Health + Hospitals to stop the spread of Covid-19. We plan to continue to work on translating the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City article into the many languages spoken in New York City; as well as, work on other ideas about how wikipedia could slow the spread of Covid-19.
We’ve compiled, with the help of translators, translations of the first four paragraphs of the COVID-19 in NYC article into Swahilli, Malagasy, Yoruba, Hebrew, Hindi, and Tagalog. You can see the translations in the Meetup page. We are looking for help publishing this translated information onto the appropriate wikipedia projects.
Please join us and spread the word, we'd love to see you all (online).
It says there's no specific one. Remdesevir is a broad-spectrum one. Granted, this may be an overly-subtle distinction for our readers. Alexbrn (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
The article was written before Remdesivir was even considered for COVID. It was researched and developed as a Hepatitis C drug, and it wasn't all that good for that either. So it was a drug in search of an illness. It received emergency use approval for COVID based on weak/limited demonstrated benefit. So the statement, as it stands, is pretty accurate. MartinezMD (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
It would still be accurate to say that there is no "approved" antiviral drug for COVID-19. The distinction between FDA emergency use authorization (EUA) and approval is important. — soupvector (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
As for the lede, I think the current wording that 'no specific antiviral' is available continues to make sense, as Remdesivir appears to potentially shorten hospital stays rather than prevent death or other long-term injury. The details of Remdesivir seem more appropriate for the Treatments section. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago121 comments51 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This is being restored from the archive per WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE because this RfC was not concluded and a close request lingers at WP:AN/RFC. The earlier close attempt was overturned but almost a month later still has not attracted another closer. These factors make it ripe for unarchiving and closing. A number of discussion participants expressed the belief that the discussion was a "no consensus" result and the only real closing question would be what was the "prior version". This appears to be based on the approximately equal numbers of !votes for Options # 1 and #3 that the prior close rationale also noted. Closers are specifically enjoined against this type of analysis: The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. The overwhelming majority of the discussion participants below expressed arguments that fell into one or more of those "irrelevant" categories, mostly being "based on personal opinion only". The actual policy-based arguments were very limited. One advanced in favor of Option #1 included that the video had been previously added via consensus and that inclusion was supported by MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE and reliable sources. The first point was refuted (most strongly by Barkeep49) and there is no suggestion below by anyone that the video's contents are not verifiable so sourcing is not challenged. The policy arguments advanced in favor of Option #3 were almost entirely phrased in terms of WP:UNDUE and its parent policy of WP:NPOV. These arguments must be taken seriously and the Core Content Policies are preferred over the Manual of Style. Although personal preferences suggest (not surprisingly) an approximately even split, the relevant policy-based arguments give a clear preponderance to Option #3. Previously, discussion participants objected that the prior close attempt "discounted" !votes and may well feel this close does the same. In truth, many !votes have been explicitly discounted, on both sides, because this is exactly what the policy quoted above requires. As WP:CONSENSUS says: Many of these discussions will involve polls of one sort or another; but as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)00:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC))
(non-admin closure)
The arithmetic: As of the 31st of August, options #1 & #3 are equally supported in number.
The science: It cannot be reasonably disputed that the majority of the media and the scientific publications around the world, as well as in the United States, have criticized president Trump's stance in relation to the covid-19 pandemic. The sources to that effect are out there, and an adequate sample of them has already been offered by editors, here and elsewhere. At this point, it must be stressed that the RfC does not concern the scientific evaluation of president Trump's statements presented in the video. The RfC is about whether or not it is necessary to include the specific video (the specific "visual element") in the article's section abour misinformation.
The environment: Another fact that cannot be contested is that, on the basis of sources, once again and as always, a significant amount of information about the virus, the disease, the lethality, and other aspects of the pandemic have been and continue to be infected with misinformation - pun intended. Given the fact that most competent authorities around the world, political as well as scientific, are treating the pandemic as a significant threat to human health, it would be entirely reasonable to state that misinformation about the pandemic, as identified by sources, should be extensively presented in Wikipedia.
The significance of the visual element: In Wikipedia, an image or a video clip are considered ways of imparting information that are particularly strong. (Per WP:NOTYOUTUBE, where video adds value is in offering an audio or animated visual experience that cannot be reproduced by text or by a static image.) The president of the United States is unarguably a powerful person, whose every utterance (or tweet) is of extreme significance. The question arises whether this or some other U.S. president-related visual adds to the section's information quality.
The video clip's content: Is is accepted, per overwhelming consensus of sources, that what President Trump is suggesting or supporting in the video clip constitutes misinformation. We accept this. Again, the RfC does not concern the scientific worth of president Trump's statements.
The arguments: In favor of #1, the main argument is that President Trump is one the main creators (if not the main creator) of misinformation, although nominator Sdkb accepts that Trump "is certainly not the only leader who has been spreading misinformation" and that this particular clip came handy ("none of the proposed alternatives were nearly as good"), while Traut concurs (Trump's claim is "neither the first, nor the last example [of misinformation]") but then claims, without supporting evidence, that it is "one that has achieved worldwide well known coverage in the media". Perhaps in the States; there are many countries around the globe where Trump gets far less traction in the media. Dutchy45 and dave souza claim that "the US and especially the White House are the biggest spreaders of misinformation" and that "the US has been central to misinformation on the pandemic, with Trump playing a leading role." But such claims are not even presented in the section about which this RfC is conducted! In other words, we want to use a video clip that on its own in the article presents the U.S. & Trump as "the biggest spreaders of misinformation." For such a claim, which is not supported even in the main article about covid-19 misinformation, we'd need far stronger evidence.The World Health Organization, for instance, warns that we're suffering from an "infodemic," its term for the vast amount of covid-19 misinformation, but does not single out the U.S. as the culprit, directly or indirectly.
The invocation of WP:STATUSQUO is thinner than Francis Rossi's hairline. The length of this discussion and the passion herein exhibited cannot be easily dismissed.
The arguments offered by editors supporting #3 come out the strongest, in this context. Ggehrlich stated that the "use of an image is a representation of this section and the content it embodies" while using "an image of a polarized figure diminishes the information being disseminated throughout." Gerald stated that the pic "can be placed at the misinformation main page, not here" since, in his opinion, "it contributes...nothing [to it]." Bakkster Man, Hzh, HollerithPunchCard ("if this [was] an article about Trump failure in propagating accurate information about the virus, then the video insertion would be suitable"), Adoring nanny and others argued that the insertion of clip gives its content more prominence than it deserves.
The meta-arithmetic supports the main argument offered by those in favor of #3. The Wikipedia main article dedicated to and titled Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic contains some 2,200 words, of which about 35 concern the contested visual element (the video clip). The section on misinformation in this article, about which this RfC is conducted, contains some 260 words and the visual element contains again 35 words. That's 1.5% vs 13.4%. The visual element takes up space almost nine times greater in the section than in the full-extent article. That constitutes without a doubt an assignment of undue weight to that particular bit of misinformation.
The outcome: Given that the visual element,
covers and emphasizes only a couple of aspects of misinformation, i.e. the use of a certain chemical or UV, and
focuses on the U.S. president despite his office arguably not being the world's main instigator or disseminator of misinformation, and
is offered for use where a piece of text would suffice,
What visual element should be used for the information dissemination section (which consists primarily of the misinformation subsection) for this article?
Option 1
Option 1 (status quo): The video (right) of Donald Trump suggesting that disinfectant injections or exposure to ultraviolet light might help treat COVID-19, with the caption (previously affirmed as consensus) U.S. president Donald Trump suggested at a press briefing on 23April that disinfectant injections or exposure to ultraviolet light might help treat COVID-19. There is no evidence that either could be a viable method.[1] (1:05min)
Option 2: Some other photo or video, or combination of photos/videos (previous options discussed here and elsewhere)
Option 1. The Trump press conference is a clear example of misinformation, despite the protestations of POV-pushers who have been campaigning to remove it ever since it was added by consensus. Trump is certainly not the only leader who has been spreading misinformation, but when we considered a variety of visuals options a month and a half ago, none of the proposed alternatives were nearly as good. Given Trump's prominence on the world stage, using this video seems perfectly suitable. {{u|Sdkb}}talk17:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
One other note: I am very much saddened that, despite two previous well-attended discussions, we are having to devote yet more energy to this matter, rather than being able to spend it on the more general improvement/maintenance of an article who's overall quality is literally a matter of life or death. {{u|Sdkb}}talk17:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Option 3. Strong Oppose to any visual element. Continually reopening this topic only leads to more argument and disagreement. I don't think a visual aid is necessary for the misinformation section. The Trump clip adds no significant value nor great gains in understanding the misinformation issue with COVID 19 and simply works to polarize the article further, and open it to (unsubstantiated) claims of a political agenda, or feed conspiracy theorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porcelain katana (talk • contribs) 18:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
VETO again, Sdkb is manipulating the poles system again to create a false range of option with no respect or effort to listen to others comments. Here is my opinion again, I don't mind the picture as long as the comment depict the situation correctly. Trump was suggesting more researches, not immediate use for Americans. The media DID reported that he directly suggested the usage of disinfectant and I'd be fine with that statement. IF and only IF we can't reach a consensus for the caption, i'm fine with ending the drama with option 3, this picture is not crucial. Iluvalar (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Option 2, Pinocchio, seen here being iconic and not a real boy. We can rake him over the coals, not a shred of BLP guilt, even subconsciously. Barring that, nothing, use your words. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Option 3 No visual illustration in the section given the opportunity to push a narrative that violates WP:NPOV, not to mention WP:UNDUE prominence. The image of the Iranian President there was also previously removed for this reason. Hzh (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Option 3 There's so much misinformation coming from various sources that singling out the orange buffoon seems hardly appropriate; and in any case I don't think the video is a particularly good use of audio-visuals: a more appropriate take would be some proper criticism of misinformation by reputable sources, but then there's probably no such option that is copyright-eligible so... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Any visual element for any general topic is always going to "single out" the example it depicts. We don't need to declare Trump the worst misinformation spreader on the planet to use the video; all we need to establish is that he's a representative example. {{u|Sdkb}}talk06:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Adding only a single image there does in effect declare something special about what he said, and that is UNDUE and non-neutral, especially when there is uncertainty if he had intended to be ironic. There are far worse examples of misinformation that actually killed people, for example the misinformation that drinking strong alcohol can kill the virus resulted in hundreds of deaths in Iran and other countries -[8][9][10]. You are arguing here that the quality of this article is a matter of life and death, but strangely removed that misinformation had actually killed people in that section [11]. Why is that? Hzh (talk) 08:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Nah, it has nothing to do with his claim to be ironic (I don't think any reasonable source took that one seriously, and anyway Trump is known for "revising" statements he made earlier...); it's just that I don't think it helps illustrate the topic, and anyway this particular example lasted just a few news cycles as usual before being buried by something else. I don't think videos are a good idea here. Maybe a governement poster about misinformation could do the trick (maybe something like this, but from a proper non-copyrighted source)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Adding on, the MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE guideline begins Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. The Trump video clearly meets that threshold of "significant and relevant" and clearly aids in understanding by providing a representative example of a high-profile figure spreading misinformation (the text in the section, by contrast, is very generalized). {{u|Sdkb}}talk08:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Considering the interesting selection of options listed above (or better stated, those NOT listed above who could be), the most neutral and sensible choice appears to be no image, Option 3. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Previous visual used If you have a solid alternative, please give us a link to the file and make your case for it so we can consider it. If you follow the linked discussion from option 2 in the question, you'll see that the best visual we were able to find (despite a fair amount of searching) before coming across the Trump video was this photo of a building belonging to a Chinese news agency. {{u|Sdkb}}talk08:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Plenty of valid, more neutral, options were suggested in the article. Sdkb personnaly reverted several of them. I don't know why he act as if he received no suggestions. Iluvalar (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Option 3 The less emphasis given to any misinformation the better. People come to this article for information, not misinformation. No matter how clearly we label any bit of misinformation, someone is going to think the opposite. This is especially true when it is in the form of a video, as someone might play it, and people who aren't even reading the article could hear. Additionally, having a video is grossly WP:UNDUE. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Option 1 - it's neither the first, nor the last example, but one that has achieved worldwide well known coverage in the media. So it's a very suitable example. --Traut (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Option 3 for neutrality reasons. There's no need to single out Trump when many other world leaders are spreading rampant misinformation - like the Madagascar herbal cure that many African nations have ordered. And an image/video contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion and does not inform people. It will simply serve people's confirmation biases, or turn people off from reading the article, therefore preventing us from providing quality information to people. Nmurali02 (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Option 1 per Traut - Sure plenty of people have spread misinformation but Trumps misinformation has recieved worldwide attention and therefore IMHO should be the main imagery here, –Davey2010Talk13:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Option 1 or 2 The fact that it's so high-profile makes it useful in illustrating how pervasive misinformation about COVID-19 really is. On the other hand since Trump does this kind of stuff all the time, I might prefer something indicating the depth of impact caused by active disinformation (a burnt 5G tower, for example) rather than just the reach of misinformation. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 12:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 3 no video here, as this article is already very big, and the video adds nothing extra here than a short sentence could cover. This is only a summary of the main article. On the negative side, it would be emphasizing trolling and assisting in election promotion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 3, the illustrative materials are already way too America-centric. I'd suggest a Bolsonaro video but we are the English-language Wikipedia and we've ruled out a single image already. — Bilorv (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Bilorv, out of the roughly 36 location-specific photos currently in the article, I count 8 from the U.S. (including the Trump video). That seems fine, given that the U.S. is the country with by far the most cases. {{u|Sdkb}}talk21:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, thanks for the reply. I've looked at some numbers and I had underestimated just how cataclysmically bad the U.S. has been in the pandemic. I'd argue that there are other factors than number of cases and deaths—every country has changed their way of life significantly in response to the pandemic, so the U.S. doesn't have a quarter of the "things that have changed" because of the pandemic, so to speak. I guess my argument is somewhat weaker now though. — Bilorv (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
The U.S. is only testing more. They only tested about 20% of the population. The test numbers are still ramping up at nearly 2 million per week and still 7% of the tests come positive. There is no reason to believe it is different in other countries. It's a fallacy to state that the U.S. are more hit by the virus just because they are conducting more tests. Iluvalar (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 3, if this is an article about Trump failure in propagating accurate information about the virus, then the video insertion would be suitable. However, if the article is about COVID-19 pandemic, which it is in this case, I feel that having the video is WP:UNDUE.HollerithPunchCard (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 3. For reasons mentioned above by HzH, UNDUE prominence to show just this one and NPOV as a result. That image in particular doesn’t help inform for the article topic, it distracts and incites. This isn’t supposed to be partisan advertising video space. There was and is an enormous amount of misinformation, including WHO and CCDC and so, partly the nature of changing knowledge and partly best-guess or misunderstandings or wishful thinking... explain the phenomenon and give many examples, from vitamin D to Zinc to arthritis drugs to Polio vaccine to Oxy to Camel urine to Disinfectants... but don’t give a false impression of that one case as particularly significant. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 1, the US has been central to misinformation on the pandemic, with Trump playing a leading role, so this both gives due weight to the primary vector, and sets the historical context for developments which are still playing out. . . dave souza, talk11:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 1, like User:Dave souza said and I'm paraphrasing here, globally the US and especially the White House are the biggest spreaders of misinformation. Even Bolsonaro has been quoted repeating US-originated nonsense. Dutchy45 (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 1, I don't think I'm merely being American-centric when I say that Trump is the world's most notable purveyor of unscientific misinformation, and it's just a question of which Trump misinformation graphic to use; the Clorox one is as good as any. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 1 The graphic appears alongside the sub-heading of "misinformation" and the caption makes two claims, that the President said that, and that there was no evidence for the claim. Neither of these two claims appear to be disputed. While the text under the "Misinformation" subheading could be better tweaked to provide context for the graphic, the graphic itself is not the issue. SiJoHaAl (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 1 Looking at this issue from a non-American and (at least what I would say is) a fairly unbiased perspective, I do not think that it is biased specifically against President Trump to use the visual and I think that it is important to include because, as many others have stated, the United States has been the largest purveyor of misinformation throughout the pandemic and not only was his "joking" suggestion dangerous, but people have actively been following the advice. As recently as yesterday the leader of a fake church has been selling bleach as a cure for the virus. I think that specifically highlighting this particular show of misinformation is important because it reinforces the prevalence of misinformation, and goes to show how little we actually know about the virus because, although we obviously know that ingesting bleach in any manner will not help in any way, we still have the leader of an entire nation talking about it. It also shows the impact that this pandemic is having. PunkAndromeda (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
You are aware that some groups where using bleach before right ? And that Trump did a press conference the very next day to deny it ? "people have actively been following the advice", Do you have sources for that ? Iluvalar (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The CDC published a survey showing that household cleaners and disinfectants have been used dangerously through the pandemic as protection against Covid-19, though they did not explicitly tie this to President Trump. It does imply that people were using bleach before hand, and I fully accept that, but there is still the fact that New York City's poison control centre reported a spike in calls "specifically about exposure to Lysol, 10 cases specifically about bleach and 11 cases about exposures to other household cleaners" on the day after President Trump's briefing. PunkAndromeda (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes it was after the press coverage of that conference. Where many media misquoted him and amplified the misstep. Nancy Pelosi said in conference "The president is asking people to inject Lysol into their lung" for example. But nothing of this is represented in Option 1. Only misquoting him ourselves with only one side and no mention of the next day press conference. Iluvalar (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
President Trump and 23 April seems an example of this, not the cause of it. To add cites and info - CDC report covers since the pandemic started circa January some people have been washing produce or gargling with bleach. See (Yahoo news, CDC). Calls to helplines also went up year-over-year -- much attributed to cleaners simply being more present recently so more incidents happen, some to people also wondering if bleach would help -- he just wasn't the only one or first one. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 1 - Donald Trump has been the leader of deadly misinformation, disinformation, lies, and propaganda regarding Coronavirus since January 2020 and continues to this day. Trump's deadly lies about using disinfectant to combat Coronavirus caused Lysol to issue a warning "under no circumstance should our disinfectant products be administered into the human body through injection, ingestion or any other route." State's Emergency Management Agencies had to issue a warning that “under no circumstances” should any disinfectant be taken to treat the coronavirus. [12][13] The fact that manufacturers and EMA had to issue warnings to combat Trump's deadly lies, makes this very DUE; which is why Option 1 the best choice here. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 1 - Absolutely option #1 is the correct choice. Here we are in what used to be prior to this administration a world leader, and how is it that now our only claim of leadership consists of leading in the number of virus deaths, second only to Mexico? It's not that Americans are less intelligent, less caring of others, or less informed--but we are in a country where we find ourselves under the leadership of a president who is all of those things rolled into one. We have a president that claims to know more than the world's leading virus expert, our own CDC, and the world health organization, the WHO. What is sad is that when Trump says this nonsense there is a certain percent of the population that believe him no matter how outlandish his statements are. And even if he later claims he was joking, which he obviously was not, is this something to joke about? Yes, we need his exact words here and we need to see him say these words as but one example of the reason that we find that, for example, with 156 deaths in Florida on July 17 compared to 18 in France while France's population is three times that of Florida. I consider that video extremely important for this article. Gandydancer (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 1 – Arguably the most powerful leader in the world pushing extremely ill-informed ideas about the coronavirus at a public briefing is a perfect example of the kind of disinformation and ignorance that shaped the response to COVID-19 crisis in the US. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 1 this is essentially statusquo and has been in place for weeks or months, as far as I recall. No reason to hide the truth, and it is very well sourced. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
This is no statuquo, i'm still here since may following the talk page every day, I'm just avoiding unnecessary edit wars. Iluvalar (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 3. Strong Oppose The use of an image is a representation of this section and the content it embodies. Using an image of a polarized figure diminishes the information being disseminated throughout, and invites criticism to the neutrality of its contents.Ggehrlich (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC) — Ggehrlich (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Option 3. I see no need in visuals. It can be placed at the misinformation main page, not here. I feel like it contributes to nothing, as the summary does not state the name Donald Trump explicitly, yknow what I meant. I think it also gives space for future things. GeraldWL15:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 3: I don't see that the visual adds anything here, and seems needlessly likely to provoke disruptive editing. Darren-Mtalk19:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, the main thing I think it adds per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE is a representative example of a high-profile figure spreading misinformation (the text in the section, by contrast, is very generalized). And we can deal with disruptive editing, but behaving differently because we're afraid of it is self-censorship, which very quickly takes us down a path we want to avoid (incentivizing Trump partisans to disrupt more until we decide it's not worth the trouble to include negative information). {{u|Sdkb}}talk23:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Option 1. The man on the figure has become an embodiment, an avatar of misinformation related to the pandemic. Everyone forget already even about his impeachment. My very best wishes (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Option 3: I see no reason why a visual aid improves this section, and seems more likely to be WP:UNDUE given the very nature of misinformation. Particularly any visual representation of the misinformation itself. Second choice replacement would be Option 2 with an aid related to, but not in and of itself, misinformation. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
While there is a previous consensus on the inclusion of the picture, there is not a consensus on which caption should follow it. Benica11 (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
There was actually no consensus on the inclusion of the picture/video, which is why we have this RfC. Sdkb wrongly claimed that there was consensus on adding it after the RfC on caption and add it to the Current consensus section above. Hzh (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
This is not the way to start a RfC. RfC needs to be neutral and brief per WP:RFCBRIEF, which this is not (particular your option 1). You claimed consensus on a previous discussion which you should not do - as someone who started the discussion, you need to wait for a non-involved editor to close that discussion, you are not at liberty to claim consensus yourself, especially when there were 7 who expressly opposed Option 1. That Option 1 by the way is about the caption of the video file, it is not about using the video as a visual element in the Misinformation section, therefore using the votes on caption to claim a consensus on using the video in the Current consensus is wrong. You have in effect made a false statement in the Current consensus section. Then you accuse those who pointed this out as POV-pushers. Given that you have started this RfC, you are also implicitly agreeing that your claim of consensus is wrong, so these so-called "POV-pushers" are right? Hzh (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
The prior consensus to include the video was established here and solidified by its presence for over a month in this high-scrutiny article, and its inclusion was part of the current consensus list even before the discussion on the caption that affirmed the current caption. The inclusion consensus wasn't as strong as the caption consensus, which is why we're now having this RfC at your own behest. Some people complained at the caption discussion that discussing inclusion was out of scope, and now the same group is complaining here at the inclusion discussion that discussing the caption is out of scope, so sorry, I'm not going to give that weight. {{u|Sdkb}}talk23:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Lies ! I was in "here". Also this : [27] in May 14, you cannot possibly ignore that this image is contested since the beginning. You're argument "solidified by its presence for over a month" is out of the scope of WP:FAITH. Iluvalar (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I have, in a role as an uninvolved administrator, struck the wording in the RfC that suggests the video is the status quo option. The May discussion which justifies its inclusion was inconclusive. Its inclusion was reverted and this inconclusive discussion was then used to justify a comment in the article text to attempt to dissuade others from removing or reverting it. It is my opinion as an uninvolved administrator that status quo would be no picture/video for the section. One is not required in this instance after all, but would be positive and appropriate if consensus can be found. Otherwise I see no issue with the framing of this RfC which does seem to present the full range of options. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: Thank you. I wonder if you can as uninvolved administrator remove or strike off item #13 in the current consensus pinned at the top. It does not make sense to have a RfC on using the video while claiming that there is already a consensus on using it (which there isn't). Sdkb added item #13 after the discussion on the caption. As mentioned in Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Trump & Khamenei misinformation images/videos: NO consensus, there wasn't a clear consensus on the caption either. Hzh (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
How about we delete the whole misinformation section? Seriously, the whole thing. Give people information. Don't confuse them. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Really Good Point the graphic doesn't seem to be the problem. The graphic is germane to the article. The misinformation section is a little odd and not that consistent with other articles I've read. I think the content is important, but can it be better incorporated into the other existing sections. There obviously has been misinformation during the pandemic, but how do other wiki articles handle misinformation? With its own section, or incorporated elsewhere in the article.... SiJoHaAl (talk) 05:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Also should misinformation from Governments be lumped in with misinformation from the media? Considering their widely different roles and responsibilities. Obviously no misinformation is good. But arguably Governments have a stronger obligation to present the facts. I propose that Government misinformation be incorporated into the section on national responses whereas media misinformation have a section called "Media Coverage" or similar... SiJoHaAl (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. The thing about misinformation and their believers is their concept: if it is not said to be wrong, couldn't it be right? So I feel it is very important to step up against misinformation and to point it out here. If you want to reduce the size of the article, think about transmission, treatment etc. But any of this topics has already a wikipedia page of its own. All of those sections would have to be trimmed to a minimum, an even shorter abstract what to find on the linked pages. --Traut (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
As long as it's clearly presented as flawed, I think that the section is due, with a link to the main article. —PaleoNeonate – 11:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
If this RfC ends up being no consensus, as it seems like it might, the closer will have to judge for themselves what the status quo is. Regardless of whether one feels the discussion back in early May that led to it being added was a consensus, I think it would be an extreme stretch to deny that an element that has existed for nearly two months in an article with 100,000 views per day (excepting periods of a few hours where it was removed before being restored by one of roughly a half dozen editors) has become the status quo. {{u|Sdkb}}talk18:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Can I suggest that you leave it for the closer to decide instead of telling them what the consensus may be or what the status quo is? At the moment the number of votes for Option 3 is 14 (including one who also chose Option 2), and votes for Option 1 is 8 (including one who also chose option 2). There are almost twice as many people who chose Option 3 over Option 1. In the previous discussion you decided that there was a consensus when it was only 9 versus 7, so why the difference of opinion now? Remember also that the picture for the Iranian president was there much earlier. Hzh (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
The Video stayed stictly because of WP:3RR, I'm the 9th in the 9 vs 7. And when I saw that the description was not consensual, I removed the video twice. I'm since the 1rst week in 3RR with Sdkb. So no, there is no status quo whatsoever. Iluvalar (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah... I just officially broke WP:3RR and removed the image. I count 13x Option 3 and 9x Option 1. That's not a consensus, but at least a majority to vote for the removal of the image. Also note worthy that besides me, there was 3-4 other participants (see Hzh and SandyGeorgia) who mentioned NPOV and the difficulty we met to make a neutral spin on it rather then the image itself. I do not think I'm impartial enough to close this RfC. If someone can take a look at it ? Iluvalar (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that kind of behavior will get you blocked Iluvalar. Let an uninvolved editor or admin close the discussion at the appropriate time. Meanwhile, WP:NOCON says "In deletion discussions, a lack of consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept." The case here is that the video has been in the article for months, so it should remain until there is consensus to remove it. - MrX 🖋19:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Who decided it's a deletion discussions ? I've been contesting it since the start in May. It should not have been added until a consensus was found. Iluvalar (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
The count is actually 15 for option 3 - one of them voted for option 2 but failing that, would chose nothing which is option 3, another you might have missed because the vote is given at the end. Anyway, wait for someone to close the RfC first (say, in a week or so) before doing anything. Hzh (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Technically I vetoed, so I didn't count myself. But the closer is free to do it. Option 1 is POV, it intentionally omit the correction of trump himself the next day. Iluvalar (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
His claim the next "Friday that he had said it sarcastically." feels more like yet another mark on the list of his misinformations. Nothing within this press talk looked like sarcasm. But regardless of whether it was sarcasm or not, that's why it is such an excellent example here for misinformation - if no one at that point felt it was sarcasm and no one of his stuff had enough courage to stand up and say how stupid that idea was. --Traut (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if is excuses are pathetic or not. Or if he believe it or not. The guy did an errata the next day, and we chose to omit his own opinion. It takes more then a 50:50 split in discussion to break WP:NPOV. We all know this is a political problem, not a Covid-19 one. Iluvalar (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Trump got caught telling a deadly lie. Even Fox News anchor, John Roberts (who attended the briefing where Trump suggested his deadly lie) did not believe Trump's 'I was being sarcastic' bs lie as a cover-up for his deadly lie the day before. Fox News' John Roberts said, "I was watching very closely and at no time did I seem to think that the president was sarcastically asking the question.” [28] There is no POV issue. Trump's told a deadly lie where manufacturers and states EMA had to issue warnings telling people "under no circumstance should our disinfectant products be administered into the human body through injection, ingestion or any other route." That's called a fact (not a POV issue). If Trump doesn't want encyclopedias to report his deadly lies; then Trump should stop spreading deadly lies -- but so far -- Trump cannot seem to help himself from spreading deadly lies about COVID19. [29]BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
User:BetsyRMadison mmm, it seems more the media who crafted flavors of misinformation there, and certainly they’re the ones who then made it widespread. The reporting was typically not relating the words or context but attacking Trump. That coverage amount makes this thus DUE for mention, but gets OFFTOPIC in the way of any Covid message by lost credibility as soon as it becomes about making a personal/political attack. The image is unrelated to the disease and the good/bad nature of the idea, it’s about President Trump and the partisan denouncing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, that doesn't surprise me at all - at my age, the gullibility of our species makes me wonder how we managed to last this long. But it's a great example of why we need to insist on impeccable sources here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
This discussion was archived before it was closed, it needs someone to close it before archiving. Hzh (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Hzh, the article could have sat in the archive fine while waiting for a close. Dredging it up again is just going to lead to more argument, which is unlikely to be helpful given that the main cases have already been made at this point. {{u|Sdkb}}talk23:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
An archived post won't get closed since no one is supposed to make any changes to the thread once it is archived. Hzh (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Unrelated proposal to change information dissemination body text
Merge. The words in italics are proposed changes by me. There are also some word that I trimmed. I propose this be the Information disemmation section:
...Some scientists chose to share their results quickly on preprint servers such as bioRxiv. Meanwhile, the pandemic has resulted in misinformation and conspiracy theories about the scale of the pandemic and the origin, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of the disease. False information has been spread through social media, text messaging, and mass media, including the tabloid media, conservative media, and state media of countries such as China, Russia, Iran, and Turkmenistan. It has also been reportedly spread by covert operations backed by states such as Saudi Arabia, Russia and China to generate panic and sow distrust in other countries. In some countries, such as India, Bangladesh, and Ethiopia, journalists have been arrested for allegedly spreading fake news about the pandemic. Misinformation has been propagated by celebrities, politicians (including heads of state in countries such as the United States, Iran, and Brazil), and other public figures. Commercial scams have claimed to offer at-home tests, supposed preventives, and "miracle" cures. Several religious groups have claimed their faith will protect them from the virus. Some people have claimed the virus is a bioweapon accidentally or purposefully leaked from a laboratory, a population-control scheme, the result of a spy operation, or the side effect of 5G upgrades to cellular networks. The World Health Organization has declared an "infodemic" of misinformation about the virus, which poses global health risks.
I came here thinking I might close this. I was confident I could do it right even after finding out it was going to be a close call. Except, the oldest question, though vital, seems yet inadequately addressed. The caption was presented as having consensus in the formulation of the RFC itself. I find no strong basis for such an assertion. The discussion on it in this RFC didn't resolve it well enough, and there is no way to know if the supporters of option 1 were aware of the dubiousness of that assertion (thus providing support for the caption anyway in this RFC itself), or if the participants just took the assertion at its words, rendering the fundamental premise almost invalid, in which case the RFC is itself either invalid or needs to be reassessed in that light. The reason I find the issue pertinent and problematic is because, but for that, I see a weak consensus for Option 1. Usedtobecool☎️14:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Usedtobecool, thanks for taking a look at this discussion. I linked to the prior discussion on the caption when I formulated the RfC so that anyone who wished to could read it for themselves. You are correct that that discussion never received a formal close, but I read it as a consensus that, if the video is included, the Caption 1 (the one presented here) should be used, since no one !voted for Caption 2 or presented a third option, and most of the "oppose both" !votes came from editors who did not want the video included at all. The caption for the video hasn't really changed since it was introduced (apart from the one editor who tried to switch it to Caption 2 and was quickly reverted), so it is pretty solidly established as the status quo caption at this point. I hope that helps clarify. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk07:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Multiple editors have said that there was no consensus, it seems that you are the only one who asserted that there was, you see the problem here? Hzh (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Discussion about initial close
Challenge close: Given that there was already discussion at the bottom from a potential closer (Usedtobecool) who observed weak consensus for option 1 but for one outstanding issue, this is very much not the expected result, and the closer's extended rationale comes across in large part as a WP:SUPERVOTE. If the closer is going to weight arguments, it is necessary to do so using guidelines and policies (MOS:IMAGEREL, presumably), but instead, the closer brings up only the essayWP:NOTYOUTUBE (which was not once mentioned in the discussion itself) and does a bunch of math about how much room the visual takes up that was also not part of the discussion. Further, per the closer's own rationale, the arguments made by some Option 3 !voters that Trump was not spreading misinformation were completely unsupported ([It] is accepted, per overwhelming consensus of sources, that what President Trump is suggesting or supporting in the video clip constitutes misinformation), but they did not discount them at all in their count, so the tally is actually a numerical superiority for Option 1, not a tie. To find from that not just no consensus but consensus for Option 3 is an implausible reading. Courtesy ping The Gnome. {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Challenge close agree that that was a supervote and not a true reading of the consensus. for me it looked like no consensus and so the content should remain --Investigatory (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. The image was originally added after being rushed through without due process, and we have already had very extensive discussions about it. Let's not start it all over again, and let the page continue to focus on supplying matter of fact data, rather than political propaganda. Thank you. David A (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
David A, Investigatory and I are speaking to the process; your reiterations of why you feel the image should be removed are not pertinent to an evaluation of the consensus of the discussion that has already taken place above. This close would be very unlikely to hold up if someone here brought it for review at WP:AN; the only question is whether it's really worth it to go through the fuss. {{u|Sdkb}}talk05:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
The RfC was open for a rather long period of time. And it was contested with evident passion from all sides. That's enough reason for "fuss." The challenge of its closure deserves a hearing at the admins' notice board. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, we're back at square one now. A long RfC with no consensus, and only a consensus that the first close wasn't correct. How else can we close this, one way or another? Bakkster Man (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Iluvalar, your !vote was not the only one that mattered in the May discussion. There were five editors in support of adding (Moxy, Doc James, Acalycine, myself, and -sche), compared to only one opposed (David A) and your comment. At a time when the issue had not yet escalated to the point of having an RfC, etc., 5-1 was a perfectly actionable consensus, and the subsequent extended presence of the video on one of the most heavily watched pages on Wikipedia means that it is the status quo by any reasonable definition of "status quo". {{u|Sdkb}}talk08:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm unclear whether I can comment above because it was closed then overturned, but I just saw this. It seems pretty clear to me that including a video, which per MOS:IMAGES#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature we must determine whether this video is "significant and relevant in the topic's context" - is this one video so significant to merit inclusion in this article? The answer is clearly no. This video is US-centric - it is the US leader only, and provides no information, context, or usefulness outside the US. The MOS section linked also says: Strive for variety. For example, in an article with numerous images of persons (e.g. Running), seek to depict a variety of ages, genders, and ethnicities. - this does not do that. This video is only intended for inclusion here because it makes Trump and the US look bad - and that needs to be considered. While I personally dislike the comments made in that video, and I won't comment on my views on Trump/republicans/the current administration/US politics in general, it must be noted that the primary reason for inclusion here is an intent to influence the reader into thinking a certain way. The comments in this video aren't even discussed in prose - per this MOS guideline images (and by extension videos) should not be used to replace textual information. This video likely has a place in the linked Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic article. It does not have a place in the main article per WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Thus, I believe it's proper to close this as Option 3 - which clearly has policies and guidelines behind it - whereas the vast majority (if not all) votes for option 1 are based on biased political reasons - whether they overtly admit this or not. I had half a mind for the last few days to reclose this as an uninvolved editor explaining this, but I figured I'd just comment here and let the eventual closer evaluate whether there's actual policy behind option 1 at all. I'll end by noting that zero !votes for Option 1 provide any policy/guideline based reason for its inclusion in the article, yet whether they clearly do so or not the majority of Option 3 votes are policy/guideline based. WP:UNDUE and the MOS sections on images/their inclusion give a clear answer here - Option 3 - remove this video and do not include any in this article - yet people ignore that because they personally want to boost the Trump video to make more people see that. I'll note that a decent portion, at least 10% if not more, of the "Option 1" votes overtly admit they have ulterior motives in voting such - meaning that there is a clear numerical consensus for Option 3 given the policy basis for those votes and discounting the O1 votes that are overtly and openly biased or for ulterior reasons. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, there's plenty to dissect here, including the lack of assumption of good faith with regard to option 1 !voters' motivations, and the WP:IDHT ignoral (zero !votes for Option 1 provide any policy/guideline) of the fact we have repeatedly cited a guideline (MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE). But I'll focus on responding to WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, since those have been raised repeatedly by option 3 !voters.
I don't think either of these is as pertinent to this question as MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. The latter speaks specifically to how to choose visual elements to include, and sets a significant and relevant in the topic's context bar that the video clearly meets. WP:DUE, meanwhile, is typically applied to text, and if we interpreted it to apply to media showing examples of phenomena in the way many option 3 !voters here are, then we'd almost never be able to add example media. To use a less charged instance, technology has a big image of a steam turbine at the top. This doesn't mean that we think steam turbines are so important as to be DUE to take up a big chunk of the lead; it's just that we needed to find a representative example, and the turbine image came handy. The exact same thing happened here when we added the video, and it's completely standard practice that would never be contested for a less charged subject.
As for NPOV more broadly, that policy holds that articles achieve balance by giving proportional representation to viewpoints based on their occurrence in reliable sources. Since the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources is that Trump was indeed propagating misinformation, it's not at all non-neutral to use it as an example. {{u|Sdkb}}talk06:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
While I respect your bringing up MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, you cannot selectively pick that section while ignoring the others - namely: Avoid presenting textual information as images. Further, I'll note that you don't mention WP:Image use policy - which is a policy that trumps the MOS. That policy states The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central - this video does not have a "clear and central" theme. It would be different if the video was a 5-10 second clip only containing the "injecting disinfectant" comment. Furthermore, AGF is not a suicide pact. When people (primarily the later !votes) are using their !votes in a discussion to host a discussion of the actual comment itself and their opinions on Trump being "dangerous", "deadly" (multiple times), etc, then the assumption of good faith breaks down as it's clear they're !voting to "fix" the article for the wrong reasons. Multiple later !votes were clearly solely made in order to violate not-a-forum and get their "voice heard". I should've expanded on the specific behaviors I was identifying in my original comment, because you're correct, my first comment doesn't clearly explain why the assumption of good faith broke down for me. I was certainly not referring to your !vote Sdkb, nor any !vote in the first half or so of the discussion. On the subject of whether DUE and NPOV trump MOS, they do. In fact, WP:DUE specifically says Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery (emphasis mine). Why is this comment which isn't even discussed in the body of this article so important as to violate DUE and include a minute long video of it? Again, a shorter 5-10 second clip which includes primarily/only the comment in question could be different.
I'll close by saying that the discussion here was actually framed quite well - "this video, some other image/video, or no image/video". There is only one first choice !vote for option 2 - meaning that primarily, people are on either side of "do we include Trump or do we include nothing". In this case, it becomes even clearer that some (not all, and I pointed out clues above to identify which ones) !votes for option 1 are voting "against trump" more so than "for inclusion" - because there is a much stronger policy argument that a two paragraph section does not merit an image included at all, much less this specific one. Whoever closes this is going to get backlash regardless, but I feel it's important to call out this behavior which is not in line with what Wikipedia is for - the use of the encyclopedia in this manner is not only damaging to the quality of the articles, but to Wikipedia's credibility as a whole. If the eventual close fails to take this into account and at least explain why the close does not discount/decrease weight for !votes that are votes "against Trump" more than votes for inclusion, the backlash will be even greater. I simply posted to encourage the closer to assign the weight to some of the later !votes for Option 1 that they deserve - not yours or other earlier Option 1 !votes. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
WP:Image use policy#Image content and selection basically defers to MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE: it's a small paragraph that includes Guidance for selecting images when multiple potential images are available can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. The bit about relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central is basically just saying that a video purportedly about Trump delivering misinformation needs to clearly show Trump delivering misinformation, which the one-minute clip does fine. {{u|Sdkb}}talk22:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
It is irrelevant to the issue of DUE and and NPOV. However much you wish to suggest otherwise. Note that having sources that says he spread misinformation does not address the question of DUE and NPOV, since there are also sources of him disputing the accusation as well as sources for other misinformation, such as the one by the Iranian president. There is also still no consensus on keeping the Trump video, even if this is RfC end up as no consensus, it is not an endorsement for the video just because you are keen on keeping it here. Hzh (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Note also that there are 18 votes for Option 1, 19 for option 3 (20 if you include InedibleHulk whose preference was for option 2, but would choose nothing i.e. option 3 otherwise), so it is not a statistical tie. If you add user Berchanhimez here whose appears to favour option 3, then that is 20 (or 21) for Option 3, a small majority. Hzh (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't seem that there is any consensus even after this RfC reopened. People appear split between the three options given (let's remember that majorities in themselves do not determine consensus) and no one (so far) appears keen on changing their minds. Should we close this as no consensus and revert to WP:STATUSQUO, or re-ping everyone who contributed to the RfC and get another survey of thoughts? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill listed it at ANRFC after overturning the close and restoring the current consensus item, so it'll be closed (hopefully by an admin/other experienced closer) if we just give it time. {{u|Sdkb}}talk08:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I would ask that you stop archiving it to allow it to be closed first. You should not be playing this kind of game to keep the visual you want. What has WP:STICK got to do with anything anyway? Hzh (talk) 12:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Hzh, I didn't archive it; I just removed the "do not archive" tag, allowing the bot to do so, and you reverted the bot. There are no games going on here—this discussion has been listed at WP:ANRFC, which guarantees it will receive a close. Admins pull discussions out of archives to close them all the time, so there is no issue with it waiting there until then. It is better that it wait there because
Further discussion is unlikely to lead to any additional arguments, as the issue has been discussed at extreme length already. WP:STICK advises If the debate has died, don't revive it., and the last new !vote was two months ago. If we want a prompt close, lengthening the discussion further won't help.
This discussion takes up two thirds of the talk page, and we don't want it continuing to clog out other discussions.
Having the closer come from ANRFC rather than being a passerby increases the likelihood that the discussion will receive a thorough and considered close (which, after the last attempt, is clearly a concern).
I don't think it's your intention, but your reverting of this post gives the impression you are hoping that leaving it open longer will result in it swinging more your way. Given the above rationale, I'm going to return it to the archive. Please allow the process to play out normally. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:05, 8 November 2020
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Effectiveness (or lack thereof) of face masks
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
That study seems to say the opposite of what the Spectator claims. "[Masks] did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50%" doesn't mean "masks have no effect", it just means "masks reduce the transmission rate but aren't a panacea on their own"—i.e. exactly what every other study has shown, hence "hands-face-space" rather than "face and then you needn't bother with handwashing or distancing". It also completely misses the point of masks; they're not to protect the wearer, but to prevent the wearer passing it on to others. (Viruses enter via the eyes; unless you're wearing a visor, a mask isn't going to stop you catching it.) When it comes to anything like this, don't take the Spectator very seriously—they have a very firm ultra-libertarian house point of view, and while they're not an unreliable source as such (and are usually quite good in the printed edition at clearly demarcating opinion from fact) they very much cherry-pick anything that supports their "any infringement of rights is evil" party line. ‑ Iridescent11:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
From the study objective, emphasis added:
To assess whether recommending surgical mask use outside the home reduces wearers' risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a setting where masks were uncommon and not among recommended public health measures.
From the limitation section, emphasis added:
Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.
It's an interesting study, but of limited use outside regions with no mask policies, and weak enough results to be deemed inconclusive. Even if this didn't have to met WP:MEDRS sourcing, it probably wouldn't be meaningful enough to include in an article. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Adding the following CDC scientific brief from this month, which concludes "Experimental and epidemiological data support community masking to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The prevention benefit of masking is derived from the combination of source control and personal protection for the mask wearer." Bakkster Man (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Prevention RFC - Does relative evidence strength justify inclusion of ivermectin (I-MASK) in prevention section over or in addition to hand washing and/or social distancing?
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
list of review authors, with titles and affiliations of a review article
( Review of the Emerging Evidence Supporting the Use of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19 by Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance )
Pierre Kory, Associate Professor of Medicine, St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center
G. Umberto Meduri, Professor of Medicine, Univ. of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis
Jose Iglesias, DO, Associate Professor of Medicine, Hackensack School of Medicine, Seton Hall
Joseph Varon, MD, Professor of Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center
Keith Berkowitz, MD, Medical Director, Center for Balanced Health, New York
Howard Kornfeld, MD, Diplomate in Emergency Medicine, Director, Recovery Without Walls
Eivind Vinjevoll, MD, Critical Care and Emergency Department Chief, Volda, Norway
Scott Mitchell, MRCS, Associate Specialist, Princess Elizabeth Hospital, Guernsey
Fred Wagshul, MD, Medical Director, Lung Center of America, Dayton, Ohio
Paul E. Marik, MD, Professor of Medicine, Eastern Virginia Medical School
22 solid sources and growing
1. Caly L, Druce JD, Catton MG, Jans DA, Wagstaff KM. The FDA-approved drug Ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. Antiviral Res 2020.
2. Lehrer S, Rheinstein PH. Ivermectin docks to the SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain attached to ACE2. In Vivo 2020; 34:3023-6.
3. Maurya DK. A combination of Ivermectin and Doxycycline possibly blocks the viral entry and modulate the innate immune response in COVID-19 patients. ChemRxiv 2020.
4. Yang SN, Atkinson SC, Wang C, Lee A. The broad spectrum antiviral ivermectin targets the host nuclear transport importin alpha/beta1 heterodimer. Antiviral Res 2020; 177:104760.
5. Dayer MR. Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) deactivation via spike glycoprotein shielding by old drugs, bioinformatic study. Preprints 2020.
6. Swargiary A. Ivermectin as a promising RNA-dependent RNA polymerase inhibitor and a therapeutic drug against SARS-CoV2: Evidence from silico studies. Research Square 2020.
7. Zhang X, Song Y, Ci X, An N, Ju Y. Ivermectin inhibits LPS-induced production of inflammatory cytokines and improves LPS-induced survival in mice. Inflamm Res 2008; 57:524-9.
8. Ci X, Li H, Yu Q et al. Avermectin exerts anti-inflammatory effect by downregulating the nuclear transcription factor kappa-B and mitogen activated protein kinase pathway. Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology 2009; 23:449-55.
9. Rajter JC, Sherman MS, Fatteh N, Vogel F, Sacks J, Rajter JJ. ICON (Ivermectin in COvid Ninteen) study: Use of ivermectin is associated with lower mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Chest 2020.
10. Gorial FI, Mashhadani S, Sayaly HM, Dakhil BD, AlMashhadani MM. Effectiveness of Ivermectin as add-on therapy in COVID-19 management (Pilot Trial). medRxiv 2020.
11. Khan MS, Khan MS, Debnath Cr, Nath PN, Mahtab MA. Ivermectin treatment may improve the prognosis of patients with COVID-19. Archivos de Bronconeumologia 2020.
12. Hashim HA, Maulood MF, rasheed AM, Fatak DF, Kabah KK. Controlled randomized clinical triaal on using Ivermectin with Doxycycline for treating COVID-19 patients in Bagdad, Iraq. medRxiv 2020.
13. Murshed MR, Bhiuyan E, Saber S, Alam RF, Robin RF. A case series of 100 COVID-19 positive patients treated with combination of Ivermectin and Doxycycline. Bangladesh Coll Phys Surg 2020; 38:10-5.
14. Chamie J. Real-World evidence: The case of Peru, casuality between Ivermectin and COVID-19 infection fatality rate. ResearchGate 2020.
15. Jans DA, Wagstaff KM. Ivermectin as a broad-spectrum host directed anti-viral: The real deal. Cells 2020;9:2100.
16. DiNicolantonio JJ, Barroso-Arranda J, McCarty M. Ivermectin may be a clinically useful anti-inflammatory agent for late-stage COVID-19. Open Heart 2020; 7:e001350.
17. Sharun K, Dhama K, Patel SK, Pathak M, Tiwari R. Ivermectin, a new candidate therapeutic against SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 2020; 19:23.
18. Peralta EG, Fimia-Duarte R, Cardenas JW, Dominguez DV, Segura RB. Ivermectin, a drug to be considered for the prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV-2. Brief literature review. EC Veterinary Science 2020; 5:25-9.
19. Al-Jassim KB, Jawad AA, Al-Masoudi EA, Majeed SK. Histopathological and biochemical effects of ivermectin on kidney functions, lung and the ameliorative effects of vitamin C in rabbits. Bas J Vet Res2016; 14:110-24.
20. Mudatsir M, Yufika A, Nainu F, Frediansyah A, Megawati D. Antiviral activity of ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2: an old-fashioned dog with a new trick- Literature review. Sci Pharm 2020; 88:36.
21. Carvallo H, Hirsch R, Farinella ME. Safety and efficacy of the combined use of Ivermectin, dexamethasone, enoxaparin and aspirin against COVID-19. medRxiv 2020.
22. Kircik LH, Del Rosso JQ, Layton AM, schauber J. Over 25 years of clinical experience with Ivermectin: An overview of safety for an increasing number of indications. J Drugs Dermatol 2016; 15:325-32.
I've yet to search for reputable coverage in newsmedia.
But already, in terms of weight of evidence, we have more evidence for ivermectin than hand washing, and about as much we do for face masks and social distancing. But these feature prominently, while ivermectin is not mentioned. 50.201.195.170 (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose, I guess? - By my reading of WP:MEDRS, the primary goal of the article should be to summarize scientific consensus (WP:MEDSCI). What we have here does not seem to be consensus. It may be that we have an item that can be brought up as an area that there's credible dispute, but I don't think the proposal above meets those criteria. It doesn't appear to be independent sources addressing the possibility (WP:MEDINDY), just independent groups which at first glance appear to be associated primarily around their support of this treatment. Coupled with WP:MEDCOI, I'm very hesitant to give this any credence without stronger, simpler sourcing that suggests this treatment is being given serious thought by a broad group. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Where is the start???
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Suggestion to move or change the interactive timeline map of confirmed cases per million people in History section
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The interactive timeline map of confirmed cases per million people in the History section should be moved from the 2019 section to the 2020 section since it tracks the spread of COVID-19 cases starting from January 22, 2020. Another alternative would be to add the year in the interactive timeline map.
perhaps my above reply was too short...yes I too agree w/ you that it is reasonable, thanks for asking for clarification(BTW, not to change the subject but have you seen [30])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Preprint re immunity against reinfection
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
See here: immunological compartments was measurable in ~90% of subjects ≥ 5 months PSO, indicating that durable immunity against 2° COVID-19 disease is a possibility in most individuals.Humanengr (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Resolved
Later. Will give the proposed rewrite a look tomorrow.
Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Danski454 (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
--RexxS (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
