Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Italy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Name of an Italian municipality

Hi, I live in Italy and noticed that the name of the municipality Vo' (Veneto) has been spelt Vò, which is wrong. 17:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Vò

~Nick~{talk} 18:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

In Italy we use the spelling Vo', if that's not the English one, I apologise for my previous error. 18:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

According to this Wikipedia article "Vò (or sometimes Vo') is a comune (municipality) in the Province of Padua in the Italian Veneto region.." so either way its fine.

~Nick~{talk} 19:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nick.mon:

I've seen it spelled both Vò and Vo', even in Italian newspapers. However, in the official website of the municipality it is spelled Vo'. -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks.

~Nick~{talk} 19:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks, it is a common error even here in Italy, the rules about apostrophes, graves and acutes in Italian are quite complex. 09:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Redundant visualisations

Are not the {{bar box}} and {{Graph:Chart}} visualisations presenting the same data? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes at the moment there is a proliferation of graphs. I think that at least one line showing the total number of cases in time, and one showing the new cases per day (it's a very important piece of data for epidemics) are to be included. I don't see any reason why not put them together in a single plot (it also makes the comparison clearer), and I actually think it's better that way, however Nick.mon disagrees. The other issue is that there are two different types of graphs showing the total cases in time, which might in fact be too much (even though the bar-box graph looks more similar to the style of 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that putting them togheter would be the best solution, because there will be an overlap of lines which could create some confusion. Anyway, if you think that having only one graph is the best solution, ok. I simply prefer two graphs, but there are no problems, even with one only. -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

map

Hi everyone, great job! I would suggest you to create a density map like this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:COVID-19_Outbreak_Cases_in_South_Korea_(Density).svg Bye thanks --62.18.253.33 (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Confirmed cases

According to https://www.regione.vda.it/notizieansa/details_i.asp?id=333757 the number of confirmed cases is 190 but not all of the 400 cases have been tested at the ISS that perform higher accuracy tests. How to consider this aspect? Another confirmation for this is this recent news https://www.lastampa.it/torino/2020/02/26/news/scendono-da-tre-a-uno-i-casi-di-coronavirus-in-piemonte-1.38520179?fbclid=IwAR2HsDcIpFLzxDM6FEdGjYDJCUgpZAwfpWG7Hx_IunzL0-pwRr_Qv-Et1HA that tells how 2 Piedmont cases were double tested at ISS and resulted negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andremrys (talk • contribs) 17:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Now (22:00 CET) the artiche reports 455 Cases for today, without citation. It seems a bit top much. Fonts I found cite nearly 400. --79.13.48.210 (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The main article still cites 470.--Adûnâi (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

May I suggest - since official data are released only twice a day (at 12:00 and 18:00), and numbers vary rather wildly between these official releases, it would be probably better to avoid publishing any numbers while they are still not confirmed; no use in publishing data from news sources "on the fly", let us limit to the latest official data (Ministero della Salute + Protezione Civile) --Signo (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

For example, what is the use of adding a bar with 455 cases, +0%, on 27/2, which is the same as 26/2? --Signo (talk) 09:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The issue is that there are some newspapers (Repubblica above all) that declare "confirmed cases" if there has been a test showing positive to the virus. However by the new Italian regulation the cases are confirmed now by the ISS (Istituto Superiore della Sanità) and until then they are still just suspected cases. For example the two alleged cases in Campania are still not confirmed by the ISS, but nonetheless they appear in the map at the top of the page as if they were officially confirmed. I would update the count whenever a national government agency (like the Protezione Civile, the Minister of Health, or the Special Commissioner on the COVID-19 Outbreak) sends an update. This is done very well, I think, on the Sky TG24 live broadcast here. They correct themselves when there are mistakes and one can follow the updates almost linearly. By contrast, the live broadcast of Repubblica here is very confusing and self-contradictory (e.g. now the title in the main page of Repubblica states 474 cases, but the article title says 456, and then if you go down to "ore 21" of yesterday in the article I linked the section title states there are new cases in Campania, but then in the text Campania is not in the list, etc. etc.). --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Signo on adjusting the values based on official data twice a day. I can confirm that Repubblica updates especially yesterday were contradictory at times. Maybe is it useful to explain the double check approach for positive cases (first test made in loco and then by the ISS) The updates from Protezione Civile are reported here http://www.protezionecivile.gov.it/risk-activities/health-risk/emergencies/coronavirus and here http://www.salute.gov.it/nuovocoronavirus Andremrys (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem with updating the count only at 12 and 18 is that there are going to be tons of people modifying the data on the various pages at any time during the day, based on what newspapers say. Also there is a huge gap between 18 and the last time (in the night) when the Ministry (or a person for it) sends the latest update (which I don't know why does not appear on the website). Also consider that on international updates websites like the BNO one used in the main page, the count is even different (they base their data on Repubblica). So I think we should agree on some method to update the data in a way that is consistent, and as I said before, I would suggest following the Sky TG24 live updates, and then confirming with the bulletins of the Ministry and Protezione Civile. We can also use italic fonts to denote temporary data. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie92 - Clearly, we need to agree on an update policy. Using a special markup, like italics, for unconfirmed data, is acceptable; however I would rather stick to confirmed (yesterday @18:00) cases. This is not a news site. --Signo (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes exactly. Andremrys (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Abruzzo

Hi, I want to inform you that Abruzzo is in Centre Italy not in South Italy. I've seen that on statistic table. Bye thanks --5.171.60.102 (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

No. Abruzzo is usually considered as part of southern Italy. --Ritchie92 (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Umbria

Yesterday in Umbria there have been two cases reported [1]. Alex2006 (talk) 08:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Spread to other country section

I think the section is too long, and should devide by continent Thingofme (talk) 00:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the subsection is too long, is at the moment longer than the sum of the subsections on the Italian cases, which is weird. I suggest to either seriously reduce the subsection size, or to move it in a new section and reorganize it. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I am actually also dubious about the meaning of this section, and I ask Pokepikachu who is the main contributor to clarify. Are all the cases of COVID-19 abroad that are cited there proven to be originated in the Lombardy-Veneto cluster? Usually what is reported is just that the infected person "has travelled to Northern Italy recently", and somehow this should imply that the person got infected there. Or at least this is what is implied in this article, and there is even a map showing the countries where Italy spread the virus to. However I don't know if this is a correct statement, because saying that the person has been to Italy is not equivalent to saying that the person has been infected in Italy. That's not enough, many people travel to Northern Italy and to Italy every year, so the likelihood that an infected person has also been to Italy in their recent life but contracted the virus somewhere else is not small. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

There's a higher possibility that it happened due to travels from Italy. In quite a number of cases as can be seen from the actual country's cases, many of them specifically mentioned northern Italy. At the end of the day though, the section was there to track cases that likely occur due to the specific outbreak from Italy. If by consensus, it is decided to be inappropriate, feel free to remove it and let me know and i'll stop tracking that particular section. --Pokepikachu (talk) 10:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

28 February data

I suggest the one who will update the "COVID-19 cases in Italy by Region" table to use this data, which are taken from the official statement of the Civil Protection and published on Twitter by Marco Di Fonzo, an Italian journalist, president of the "Parliamentary Press Association", so a highly reliable source: 1, and 2, 3. Thanks :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

There are 821 people with COVID-19 in Italy, but 888 is the total number of infected people, if we include victims and recoveries. So we should use 888, and maybe I think that a revision of the previous data should be necessary... -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

We should definitely do as you say, Nick. Please take a look also to the discussion above. --Checco (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: This was indeed very funny when I realized. I actually did as you said before reading this, and I agree with citing also that tweet in the sources. However I think that this only happened today, while instead the numbers given in the previous days were the full total. This can be easily checked by comparing the regional breakdown of cases vs. the total count in the bulletins of the Protezione Civile (and see that they coincide until yesterday, and today there is a gap of 21 (deaths) + 46 (recoveries)). --Ritchie92 (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Okok, perfect! So thanks Di Fonzo, it's a quite absurd way of counting... -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Update: the count has been corrected on the Ministry website. --Ritchie92 (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

See section "Bullettin 29 february" below --Signo (talk) 11:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

POV banner

@Checco: The POV banner that you added here is totally out of context and misused. There is already a current-event banner on top of the page that states that the data may be unreliable, and this is more than enough for the situation we are in with the table. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Please do not remove POV templates!

The banner is perfectly reasonable as it refers not to data that could change, but to a wrong figure that will not be corrected by further data, but could be corrected by achieving consensus, especially as the current version has never achieved any consensus, either implicit or explicit. --Checco (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

My edit was not bold at all, but I can accept the template you added in place of the one I added. --Checco (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Great, the issue is obviously not a WP:NPOV issue, it's a dispute issue. We are indeed debating starting from the same neutral point-of-view: we use total sums of official regional counts. We are only discussing as to on which day to include one regional count. So the POV template was totally out of place and exaggerated, there is nothing non-neutral about my or your position. The consensus reaching has nothing to do with the "POV-ness" of the current situation. So please accept that banners can indeed be removed if they are wrongly added, and could be discussed. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Bullettin 29 february

Different information is reported in the two pages: http://www.salute.gov.it/portale/nuovocoronavirus/dettaglioContenutiNuovoCoronavirus.jsp?lingua=italiano&id=5351&area=nuovoCoronavirus&menu=vuoto and http://www.protezionecivile.gov.it/media-communication/press-release/detail/-/asset_publisher/default/content/coronavirus-sono-1049-i-positivi Which one consider? @User:Nick.mon sorry for deleting your recorrection. I only saw the number of the minstry website.Andremrys (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Andremrys: don’t worry, we had the same problem yesterday, the Civil Protection uses a strange way of counting... -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@User:Andremrys: One more reason why we should take PC counts with a grain of salt. See above what happened with 26 February and please express your opinion on the big inconstistency that current tables and charts are featuring right now. --Checco (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks like official sources have (silently!) decided, starting 28/2, to report data as "positive" (the big number), "dead", and "recovered", with infected = p+d+r. The data for 29/2 follow this pattern too. While this choice makes some sense (only positive -that is, presently ill- are meaningful for the health system) I doubt it is consistent with what the rest of the world does, and in any case it should have been stated openly. That said, WP shoud in my opinion keep publishing the total (infected) data.--Signo (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@User:Signo: Surely! We should take PC counts with a grain of salt. See above. --Checco (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The count given on the Ministry of Health dedicated webpage uses the PC bulletin but gives the correct total infected number instead of the weird currently infected given by PC. Too bad that the ministry website does not keep a history otherwise we could have switched to that as the main source. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Number of deaths

Good evening, Lombardy's minister of health Giulio Gallera announced 7 more deaths in the region, so the death toll has risen to 41. What should we do? Can we add them now, or let's wait until tomorrow evening PC's bulletin? (Source: LaRepubblica, IlFattoQuotidiano) -- Nick.mon (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

This depends on whether we decide to follow official bulletins as our policy here, or we follow what other editors are suggesting and update the tables and charts with newspapers numbers. I would go with the first choice. --Ritchie92 (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Both solutions are OK with me. However, for simplicity, I would use the so-called "official" bulletins (let's call them merely PC bulletins, as they are not more official than regional counts) and I would not include the 7 deaths in yesterday's count. I would merely correct the 02/26 figure because, as User:Signo, correctly observed, was "clearly" incorrect. The two issues are separate: let's not mix them! --Checco (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

data consistency in table

Well, we have a problem with data listed in the table Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Italy medical cases. Actually, several problems:

1- official data (Protezione Civile and Ministero della Salute) are available only starting 24/2; previous data derive from news sources, with is no clear consensus. This poses a problem of consistency. More so, because available official sources report only cumulative data, while wikipedia table reports daily increments (only published in MdS page, but regularly overwritten): the two sets should in principle agree if they share the starting point, i.e. total on 23/2 = 152 cases. However, this number has been recently challenged: one wiki-editor corrected it to 150, while official number is still 152. So we are left with the choice: either we respect official totals with one inconsistency in the sum of previous (unofficial) increments; or we respect previous increments, with an endless inconsistency with official totals. I stand for the first choice.

2 - internal inconsistency of official data: in some cases, the regional breakup data don't add up to the national data (e.g. 24/2 in the PC press release); in other cases, PC data differ from MdS's.

In conclusion, I propose that the wikitable should:

a- only report published data, not computed values, even if they disagree. Disagreement may be highlighted somehow; inserting arithmetic corrections, in e.g. red typeface, may be considered if not too confusing

b- clearly distinguish official (>= 24/2) from unofficial (<= 23/2)

c- report daily *totals*, which can be verified on PC site, instead of daily *increments*

Hope this helps, --Signo (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that the 2 missing cases are the ones from Piedmont. Here is the newspaper report that explains how the two parents initially counted as positive cases in piedmont have been found negative by the ISS. This is also reported in the Piedmont website (Mercoledì 26 febbraio - Ore 21). Andremrys (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

There is a misunderstanding, I think, about what is "official" and what is "unofficial". The reports at 12 and 18 did not start just on the 24th, the problem is that there are not always written detailed reports of the official (Protezione Civile) press conferences. For example I found one written report for the 23.02 at 12 here but there's no written one for the press conference at 18 (but there is a video, which I linked in the table now). So I think that at the moment the table is fine, consistent (there is proof that the two cases in Piedmont are in fact not positive), and is quite readable. I am not sure about the use of a red typeface because it would stand out against the other numbers. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie92, thank you for taking the time to explain; however, I am not sure I get your point. What is "official" is rather clear (government institutions, not news). Official numbers dating before 24/2 are welcome in the table, but this doesn't make the "unofficial" data "official". And if no written, first-hand report is available, there is *no* official report. The inconsistencies I have pointed out remain, and they make the table, IMHO, not very useful... --Signo (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The video I put as a source for the 23.02 data is indeed the press conference of the chief of the Protezione Civile (of the same type of press conference that they do these days and that we use for official data), so I don't know what is more "official" than this that you desire. I don't think it's so much worse than a written report (after all, the written report is more or less what the guy is reading in the video, in this case they just didn't upload the write-up). Regarding the data before the 23.02, the numbers given by the news outlets are not "unofficial" in the most negative sense that you are giving them: i.e. data has not been gathered by the newspapers themselves, or by private citizens, but is still the number given in the official declarations of the Regional Governments (which I would still deem "official"). The difference is that now we have a "national" aggregator of data. --Ritchie92 (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I think this discussion should take place at Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Italy medical cases.

This said, I agree with User:Nick.mon on 02/26 data. While it is generally OK to have the data from the official ISS/PC bulletin, we should make an exception for that day. For reasons probably connected to the contagion at the government building, the data from Lombardy came late that day : 305 cases. It is indeed quite flawed to have just 18 more cases on 02/26 and 145 on 02/27. More correctly, we should have 65 for 02/26 and 98 for 02/27, with an explanatory note. See 1, 2, 3 and 4. @User:Ritchie92 @User:Signo @User:Andremrys @User:Nick.mon @User:Torne --Checco (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Nick.mon has not participated in this discussion, so what are you agreeing with? Anyway I would stick to the official data if there is some, instead of causing even more confusion on that table. At the moment there is already some not-so-simple situation with the data from Piedmont that has been reviewed (together with the counts of some days after), so adding a note for each day explaining some different counting situation makes the readability of the table even more difficult. Furthermore, I think it's nice to keep the count constant at 18:00 CET for each day (at least until possible). Instead from the sources that you gave one does not (and cannot) know whether that counts refers to the 18:00 bulletin (+ Lombard cases) or to the total count at the end of the evening (including Lombard cases + possibly other Regions). So this makes the timespan very different than 24 hours. We already have such a change, between 22nd and 23rd, because there were no 6pm bulletins before, but that's the maximum we can do. So it's too bad that for that day (26th) one might have some distorted data, but that's what the official counts states and we cannot make our own calculations based on the hypothesis that on the 26th the Lombard region was blocked and this caused delays. Another option would be to return back to the newspaper counts at the end of each day, but that has various problems: (1) it would go against the former consensus here, (2) it would be full of contradictions (see the Repubblica contradictory data) and (3) it would apply only until yesterday, because since today the news are only giving the official counts and not updating on their own. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

This discussion should not be here, indeed. I agree with this edit on the template by User:Nick.mon.

I would stick with 18:00 CET official data, starting from 25 February, but with the exception of 26 February, for the reason stated above. There have been also other inconsistencies (for instance, yesterday night the Venetian regional government talked about 116 cases instead of 111, and that was registered by BNO News, the main source of Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data), but I would have only one exception to the rule.

It is much more important to have the effective figure (bulletin + Lombard figure), given the technical problems happened in Lombardy on that day, than the official count without Lombardy. The latter figure is much more distorted than the other one. From now on, the problem will not happen again, I guess. As you said, "since today the news are only giving the official counts and not updating on their own". --Checco (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

That edit was later also recognized by Nick.mon as a mistake; indeed the Repubblica interactive map (which is kept more up-to-date than the older live news paragraphs) gave the data that is written in the table as the correct data for 26 February. So I think it's not a big issue to show the official data (which is also what Repubblica later recognized in their data maps), it's not a big loss. There will be far more days with new data and this will fall into statistical oscillations. --Ritchie92 (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Nick.mon got it right in the first place. It is a very BIG issue and a BIG loss. Of course, Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Italy medical cases chart is flawed too because of the incorrect figure given for 26 December. This is something so evident and really goes without saying. I urge everyone to think thoroughly on this. Let's be flexible and reasonable. --Checco (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Nick.mon got it right in the first place that's impossible, because if you go now on the link of the Repubblica live update and see the numbers given on the map, these are the numbers that you see now in the table. So those data put by Nick.mon (and others) were the ones originally given by the news outlets and later corrected with the official data. Now to retrieve those numbers and put them in a consistent framework with the other data sources will be a huge mess. I would be against using for each different day a different news outlet, this would involve a lot of cross-checks, arithmetics, and manipulation of data because inconsistencies will arise. And I would also be against using not-super-established newspapers like Eco di Bergamo (local news) or il Fatto Quotidiano (not always reliable) as sources for the numbers. Again, I don't see anything wrong with citing what the official (consistent) sources say (given that they are available in a standardised format and methodology), and I don't see the big issue with one day that doesn't align with the others — after all, also all days before 23 February contain possibly incomplete data sets. --Ritchie92 (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The official data from Lombardy before 18:00 on 02/26 (but published later, because of the problems cited above) was 305 cases. This is a given, it is a fact. Simply, the PC bulletin did not include the Lombard count. It was 02/26 bullettin to be inconsistent with the other daily bulletins, not the other way around! I am very sorry that you do not realise that, in order to be consistent with bulletins (which have been adopted as official source only since five days ago), we are giving a completely unreasonable and inconsistent figure both in Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Italy medical cases and, even mor wrongly, in Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Italy medical cases chart. Our difference of opinions is clear. Hopefully, other users will have a different, more objective look. --Checco (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that differences in the total amount of cases happened due to a "strange" count by the Civil Protection. In its daily statement, the Civil Protection includes only people affected by COVID-19 at the moment, excluding deaths and recoveries, as you can see here. So I think that we should add the number of deaths and recoveries to the previous amounts. Moreover, even if the daily bulletin of the Civil Protection is a highly reliable source, it could create some inconsistencies, for example, regarding the number of deaths occurred on 25 February, I know that consistency is important, but 4 people died that day, not three and unfortunately this is a fact, even if one of them wasn't yet included in the Civil Protection statement. -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure. I agree. But what do you think about the 02/26 problem regarding the PC bullettin not including the Lombard update? Are you for having in the table and the chart the figure from the PC bulletin (without the Lombard update) or the effective figure (bulletin + Lombard update). I would go back to this edit of yours... what about you, Nick? --Checco (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Checco: There is really no need of being so dramatic about this. There was a consensus among various different editors until a few hours ago when you came into this discussion. Let's wait for what the others have to say and then decide, but in any case nothing extremely bad will happen as long as we cite the correct sources. --Ritchie92 (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

(inline) It is dramatic to me, indeed. It is quite a big inconsistency and PC is not a correct source for 02/26. I closely watched the template's history for a couple of days, but I could not log in from work and, anyway, I really had no time. Sorry that I was not able to come here before. --Checco (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

In my view, we should include the correct number of cases, even if we had to use different sources, and not only the PC's bulletin. However, I agree with Ritchie, let's discuss also with other users and try to find a good solution. -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Checco: Sorry to hear, but your personal ideas and/or feelings about it have nothing to do with what goes here. Whatever we write on WP must be what reliable sources say, and not what we think is correct. It is quite a big inconsistency I don't think this is an inconsistency because the arithmetic sums work and the table is perfectly self-consistent. and PC is not a correct source for 02/26 says who? Is there an equivalently reliable source to the PC bulletin that states that the PC number is incorrect and puts another number?

I say let's stick to the official bulletin, except for the days when it's not available. To resolve the issue that Nick.mon was mentioning about the uncounted deaths for the full days, I suggest that we add the time (18:00 CET) next to the dates where the data are reported, so it's clear that the count is "up to 18:00" and not for the entire day. This is important because from now on (and even before) we have no way of estimating the count up to 00:00 each day, so we will be inconsistent in the future if we adopt a different timing. --Ritchie92 (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Not a big deal, really: only two days have passed! In fact: 1) there is NO consensus on having the partial figure given by PC; 2) there was not even a discussion on the issue; 3) as of now, there are two users favouring the complete figure (including Lombardy) and one against; 4) there is a plenty of sources explaining that the count in Lombardy on that day (similar time of the PC bulletin) was 305 cases, not 258. Thus, it is clear to everyone that the PC count was partial and, as User:Nick.mon, what is relevant to us is the "correct number of cases, even if we had to use different sources, and not only the PC's bulletin". There is no reason other than respect for debate for me for leaving the templates as they are now. --Checco (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The PC itself certified the lack of the Lombard update:

• 02/26 12:00 bulletin: 258 cases in Lombardy (source);
• 02/26 18:00 bulletin: 258 cases in Lombardy (source).

Clearly, there was no update. ALL news outlets informed that in Lombardy there were 305 cases. Quite enough, indeed!

It seems to me that I am fighting for a self-evident truth. --Checco (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Checco: Ok, I don't understand why but it looks like you are trying to escalate things. (1-2) This is a dishonest way of putting it: there was WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS (and yes, there was a bit of discussion too) on using the PC official data; this includes what you say is the "partial figure", because, of course, this was brought up only now by yourself – I though me and Nick.mon agreed on that line since he sent me a thank you – so naturally up to now there has been no large discussion about it; (3) consensus is not counting votes; at the end of the day, what reliable sources state is what goes on WP; and in any case even if voting were allowed, a result 2–1 would cannot be considered a "reached consensus" by any measure; (4) I have not seen the reliable sources you say are there (which should explain that the PC count is wrong). Thus, it is clear to everyone that the PC count was partial, well that's a bold statement, "everyone" has not read this. There is no reason other than respect for debate for me for leaving the templates as they are now, and I thank you for this. But still, the templates are not in a bad, inconsistent situation; they are fine as they are, maybe imprecise, but if that is true that's not our fault, that is what the most reliable sources say. --Ritchie92 (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Clearly, there was no update. It looks like it, but that's not what it is stated. However we could momentarily add a note to that line, like it's done at the moment, with a bit more detail. --Ritchie92 (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

It is much simpler than how you put it. 1–2) I have to say that I felt you were a little bit dishonest on the issue, but I preferred to to say it. Indeed, there was no discussion, except for edit summaries (not a good way of debating). More importantly, there is nothing implicit in Wikipedia. Only two days, not years, have passed, thus there is NO established version. My proposed version is legitimate as the current one, by Wikipedia consensus standards. There is finally a broad discussion here and User:Nick.mon agrees with me. 3) Consensus is not counting votes and not even one mere user defending his/her short-lived version. Sources count and there are tons of them: ALL news sources (perfectly reliable, especially as they cited government sources) talked about 305 cases in Lombardy on that late afternoon. A 2–1 vote is not consensus, but a 1–2 vote is even less of a consensus. 4) The sources I brought to everyone's attention are reliable and self-evident. The PC count was not wrong, it was just incomplete. That is why, in nutshell, it is simply non-sensical and quite pointless to refer to a blatantly incomplete figure. --Checco (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

(1–2) I believe that this very thread was a discussion about the official count vs unofficial newspapers' counts. And yes, there is WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS on WP and it's policy. Your proposed version, as you are correctly doing, should be discussed, and can pass only if consensus is reached, following WP:BRD (because of course if you had implemented it earlier, I would have reverted it, and this would have prompted this discussion). Now about the consensus building, you are not trying to reach any compromise (like instead I am doing), you just want your version to be implemented; on the contrary, I am citing Wikipedia policies and reliable official data to back the current version, while you cite news outlets like Eco di Bergamo as reliable sources. So (3) no, in this case the count of !votes is not at all an indication (also, on a sample of three people it's not very reasonable). Also, you say Consensus is [...] not even one mere user defending his/her short-lived version, I don't think anyone says that consensus is "defending a version", consensus is the process of decision making, and you should accept it as it is; and yes, one "mere user" can challenge the opinion of the very large majority of 2 (two) users at any time. Also, this is not my version, it is the version accepted until now by this discussion and during multiple edits, and to which also other editors contributed. (4) I would challenge your claim that those sources are "reliable" (and "self-evident"? what does it mean that the source is self-evident?). For sure Eco di Bergamo and il Fatto Quotidiano cannot be deemed reliable on the data count; Repubblica is famous for making a mess of the data (see the update at 21:00 of 26/02 on the live article of Repubblica, where they say there are cases in Campania, but then there's no mention of Campania in the text two lines below); finally Corriere would be the only one reliable source left. I would add that another reliable source, Sky TG24, at the end of the 26/02 live, states even a different number (424) than both the PC bulletin (400) and Repubblica (455). Finally, Il Post, which is well known for fact-checking, puts in their graphs the numbers that are also in the table in this article. --Ritchie92 (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I am so sorry that you are not getting the point. The official count from Lombardy on 26 February was 305, not 258. It is a fact, officially communicated by the Lombard regional government to all news outlets. The announcement (here is the Lombard official source) came late because of technical problems, but should be acknowledged, as all news sources did that night. The "official" source gave a wrong number and this should concern you too. This is the typical case in which substance should prevail over form. Moreover, the form you are defending is a supposed one: "official" counts have not been the official source for days, only now a centralisation of data is in place. Without counting the official and effective figure from Lombardy for 26 February, all tables and graphs are flawed.

Regarding the policy you are referring to, "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way, the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time". Unfortunately your version was disputed by one IP user, by User:Nick.mon and by me, all of this in just a few days. Thus, your version NEVER achieved consensus and, subsequently, can be modified at any time. --Checco (talk) 20:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I am perfectly getting the point, and I am contesting it because I am pushing for using the national official count, instead of making up from scratch our sums and arithmetic, unless it's necessary (as it is before 23 February). So for the 26 February the national count, even if partial, is fine. No big issue there, we are using the most reliable source and citing it.

your version was disputed by one IP user, by User:Nick.mon and by me, all of this in just a few days, well we don't know if the IP user was convinced by my explanations or not, Nick.mon surely thanked me after I reverted him on that edit and explained him why we should have followed the Repubblica map and not the text. Yes, you (and possibly Nick.mon) agree on using the news data for the 26th but this is not enough to say that you have reached consensus here, so let's not keep discussing about consensus etc at every step, let's just try to reach a compromise because otherwise this discussion will never finish. Or if you want you can just start an RfC with a clear question and let the people of WP decide.

My compromise is: big fat note on the 26 February explaining the issue with the Lombardy data. --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

What you are calling the "official count" was not the official one on that day, but just a collection of the official counts from regions. There is a basic flaw in deeming official a secondary source over a primary official source. --Checco (talk) 12:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, I missed the latest pieces of this discussion I started, and I am now a bit confused about the point. Will anybody help me understand what the conflicting proposals about data to be published are? Thank you, --Signo (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Checco says that the data from Lombardy on the 26 February is partial, and was not counted in the bulletin of the PC, even if it was available, and cites various news sources and the count made by the regional government on the 26th. So he proposes to make an exception on the use of PC bulletin official numbers only on the 26th and report the (higher) number that includes the Lombardy data. I say that this would be inconsistent and a mess to maintain, because then I would feel allowed to use news sources also for the other days, the 24-25, etc. given that the news data is different than the bulletin for all of these days. Also, I made him notice that different reliable news sources give different numbers for the 26th: PC (official) gives 400, Repubblica 455, Sky TG24 424. Which one is correct? I say let's stick to the PC number – we are not responsible for their mistakes and it's not our job to fix it. --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand how you can keep this untenable position. An overwhelming majority of sources, especially the only official source which counts in that case, the Lombard regional government, give the 305 figure for 02/26. There have been other exceptions and also this one is necessary. The regional sources are primary, the PC source is secondary as, in the first days, it has been simply a collection of regional data, without no oversight by the ISS. This has changed just over the weekend, but, still, regional sources are the primary ones. All tables and charts are evidently flawed because of this flaw.

@User:Signo: The issue is quite simple. The figure for 02/26 included in tables and charts (which clearly show something that is not statistically possible: just take a look at the statistically wrong curves!) does not include the updated Lombard figure because, for technical problems, the region was not able to send it to the PC, which collects the official data from regions with no oversight. Soon after, the Lombard government officially announced its update: 305 cases, instead of 258. As you can see, the 02/26 12:00 PC bulletin included 258 cases in Lombardy (source) and the 02/26 18:00 PC bulletin gave the same figure (source). Thus, what do you think about the 02/26 problem regarding the PC bullettin not including the Lombard update? Are you for having in the tables and the charst the figure from the PC bulletin (without the Lombard update) or the effective figure (bulletin + Lombard update)? --Checco (talk) 12:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Checco: By the way your Lombardy region source says that 305 is the count at 20:45, not at 18:00. So we will have a total number that includes the counts from all other regions at 18:00 and only Lombardy at 20:45? I see a huge inconsistency here. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

20:45 was the time in which the count was announced by Lombardy, not the time of the count. And, by the way, even if it were as you say, that would be a minor inconsistency when compared to the HUGE inconsistency you are defending. --Checco (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

20:45 was the time in which the count was announced by Lombardy, not the time of the count. Source for this claim? If not then it's a blatant inconsistency which will make all our efforts futile. On the other end, the data of the PC bulletin is not inconsistent, it might be considered incomplete, which is a big difference. I'd rather have incomplete data than inconsistent data. Also because in the end it's only one day with partial data over all the rest of the days where we are still using the PC data (which probably is also incomplete... why are you not claiming to change also those to the counts given by the Regions and the newspapers?) --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I am so sorry, but you are not informed on how and when official updates by regions are sent to the PC. The incompleteness we are discussing on is such a blatant statistical inconsistency that it corrupts all tables and graphs. Everyone can easily get it. The inconsistency can be easily corrected by giving the correct number and adding an explanatory note. --Checco (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

You failed to give a source for your statement though. I am informed as long as I have reliable sources informing me, and that's what goes on Wikipedia. For now we have an official source stating that in Lombardy there were 305 cases at 20:45, so either we find all other data for all other regions at 20:45 on 26 February (I can accept 20:00 or 21:00 as a flexibility margin), or we have to keep everything at the latest count at 18:00, which for Lombardy was 258. Also, there is no such a thing as a "statistical inconsistency" in this case. The very small number for Lombardy on 26 February is of course suspiciously smaller compared to the context of the other Lombardy data, however it is not "statistically wrong" or "impossible" or whatever you are saying, it's just "statistically unlikely", which is very different. Statistics is not an exact science, so that lower count could very well be understood inside statistical fluctuations of data. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The latest count at 18:00, 02/26 for Lombardy was NOT 258, but 305. It was simply announced later. The 305 figure probably referred to a time between 12:00 and 14:00 because regional counts need to be internally validated, as well as the 12:00 count referred to the previous night count. It is a very big deal that we are using a figure from much earlier: not a couple of hours, but many more. That is how regional counts work. Even if your supposition were to be right and it is not (that the count was exactly for 20:45, three hours later), it would be a much lesser deal than adopting a figure of 6-12 hours before. It is not only about statistics, but simple math. --Checco (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The latest count at 18:00, 02/26 for Lombardy was NOT 258, but 305. And I would like to see a reliable source stating that! That's not so difficult! We are currently using an official source stating that at 18:00 on 26 February in Lombardy there were 258 cases. For what we know, we can only say that the remaining (305 – 258 = ) 47 cases have been found between 18:00 and 20:45. Unless, as I am asking you, you can prove with a reliable source that at 18:00 the official count for Lombardy was 305. --Ritchie92 (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The "official" source, which is not that official by the way, was clearly wrong. It happens! As User:Signo stated below, "if the error involves only one number, I don't see a problem in correcting the official data with what appears rather clearly to be the true data". Clearly! That is so self-evident! Most people agree with me, indeed. --Checco (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Checco charts and data should be informative, there are no reason to keep misleading data ClaudioS (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

My two cents: if the error involves only one number, I don't see a problem in correcting the official data with what appears rather clearly to be the true data, and add a footnote, as Checco suggests. Also, regarding rows 23-2 to 26-2: please remove the striked-through numbers if the other numbers are correct! --Signo (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, what appears rather clearly to be the true data I am not sure about this... It's not so clear indeed since, as I have shown earlier here, different news sources (Repubblica and Sky TG24), and different sections of the same newspaper (Repubblica), show different numbers for Lombardy on that day. So which number do we deem "the true data"? --Ritchie92 (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The official number from Lombardy, quickly adopted by most news sources, was 305. I do not see any problem.

I agree with User:Signo also on fixing striked-through numbers. --Checco (talk) 05:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I give up then. Regarding the striked-through numbers please open another thread of discussion. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Ritchie92, for realising that yours was a minority position. Thanks for your intellectual honesty! --Checco (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Something else: do you think it would be possible to add a line to the table showing the numbers of patients per region who have recovered = tested negative twice. That way the table really gives a complete overview and would present not only the total number of cases, but also the distribution over: deaths, recovered patients, active cases (on 29 February these numbers were: 29, 50, 1049).Jacobwinter (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Density map

I propose substitute the current density map with one that considers provinces just as the first map. The data can be found in the official bulletin data on the Protezione Civile website just over the counter they placed on the coronavirus emergency page. http://www.protezionecivile.gov.it/documents/20182/1221364/Dati+Province+3marzo2020/a29e5cf0-114f-4f5d-949d-f352c6c5fae8 What do you think?Andremrys (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Recoveries?

Sorry if this has been requested/noted elsewhere, but I have to return to work and this is just a quick note/ask: The tabulated data for disease incidence and mortality is good, but there is no data presented for recovery. Even if none have recovered, the data should be presented if it is available. The table is simply incomplete without this information. Otherwise, good work staying on top of things as they happen. -Xenomancer (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I added a column with the total recoveries for each day. --Ritchie92 (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The map of cases deleted by a user without discussion

User:Facquis has deleted the map of cases without a discussion. Reinstate?--Adûnâi (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I think they removed it because there is now already a more detailed map with the cases by province, so to avoid duplication. --Ritchie92 (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Lockdown map

There is a map in the lockdown section, which shows the province of Trento as red. I doubt that (=am fairly sure it is wrong), but don't know how maps are re-drawn. Maybe somebody else can correct that error. Fomalhaut76 (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Lombard lockdown

Though it's not announced yet by the looks - seems like the red zone will be expanded to encompass the entirety of Lombardy (e.g. Bloomberg report) - maybe a fork is warranted? Locking down something of this scale would be unprecedented if Hubei wasn't locked down earlier. Juxlos (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Also reported in the Corriere della Sera but why fork? Aa77zz (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Following the example of the 2020 Hubei lockdowns - there has already been multiple distinct English-language full-length articles regarding life in the 11 locked down municipalities (60,000 people) [2] [3]; surely a quarter of Italy being cut off from the outside world warrants an article in itself. Maybe 2020 Northern Italy lockdowns? Juxlos (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Remember not to be a Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill article, it needs to contain interesting information and not something that is just short. Editoneer (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Zanzibar and Kenya

Zanzibar has barred Italians from entering the country.

https://www.thecitizen.co.tz/news/Zanzibar-now-bans-Italy-flights-as-coronavirus-fears-takes-toll/1840340-5482218-cyb1yv/index.html https://www.newtimes.co.rw/africa/zanzibar-bars-italian-tourists-over-covid-19-outbreak

Kenya halts flights from Italy https://www.nation.co.ke/news/Kenya-halts-flights-from-Italy-/1056-5477390-abd29uz/index.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C01:39C6:7A00:3CAF:947B:C654:B68B (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Section order

What about moving the Statistic and Reaction section (with lockdown areas) before the "Spread to other countries" section. This article I think should be more focused on Italy. Besides the Spread to other countries section is very large and the relevant infoemation on the numbers in Italy is far down in the page. Andremrys (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Confirmed case

Hello, why don't we add also the number of the current positive cases? Since I'm not familiar with infobox templates, could anyone add this information in it? the reference is the same (Italy's ministry of health) Thank you Jacopopitaciu (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Also what are the statistics for coronavirus death toll relative to age? this is important! Are all susceptible or is it just the frail and aged and those with weaker immune systems?

Also according the the telegraph.co.uk from mid 2017/18 there were 50100 winter related deaths in England and Wales (flu, pnumonia, colds, circulatory issues) (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/30/winter-deaths-hit-highest-level-40-years-experts-blame-ineffective/)

that equates to 274 deaths a day over 6 months.

Gunther Albert Rohde

2020 Italy prison riots

Do you think that a new article about prison riots could be written? There are/were riots in 30 prisons in whole country, a least 10/12 deads, hundred of escapes. See also: Prison riot. --Holapaco77 (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

2020-03-10 PC bulletin

During today's press conference, the head of the PC specified that the given number did not include the complete update from Lombardy. If this update will be given later today, I propose that we should treat the situation exactly as we treated the that of 2020-02-26. --Checco (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The total for March 10 for Tuscany is incorrect. It fails to add yesterday's cases. Correct total should be 264. Thank you. 87.1.74.32 (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC) ALison Taylor-Brown

Source for this? --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry that was my mistake, it was added to the daily cases but not in the total. Now I correct it. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Italy ordered a nationwide closure of all restaurants and bars, as well as most stores, add?

• https://www.wsj.com/articles/italy-hardens-nationwide-quarantine-11583962093

X1\ (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Done https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Italy&diff=prev&oldid=945167357 TripleShortOfACycle (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

New cases per day graph

The numbers in the graph related to the new cases per day are not correct. It seems they are showing the total of new cases+deaths+recovered per day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.183.106.165 (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

No, it shows the number of new cases for that day. What you are referring to is the number of new "active" cases which is new_active = new_all - new_dead - new_recovered . --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

But then each one that is recovered has to be considered a new case. It seems strange? 37.183.106.165 (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a simplified formula, but let me give you a simple example:

• day 1: 5 total cases;

Total cases is 5; total active cases is also 5.

• day 2: +10 total cases, +3 recoveries, +1 deaths;

Total cases is 15, variation of total cases is indeed 10; total active cases is 15 - 3 - 1 = 11, i.e. variation of active cases is 11 - 5 = 6.

So new_active (6) = new_all (10) - new_dead (1) - new_recovered (3), as I said above. --Ritchie92 (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess that the problem of that formula is that you consider new cases what you define as "new_all". But that should be called just "all" because it contains also the new_recovered that are definitely not new cases. Clearly new cases can be discovered as alive or already dead, but for sure not recovered. Then, if we define new cases only the ones that we discover in that exact day how would you analyse a situation in which at day 0 we have no cases, at day 1 we discover one case and at day 2 this case is recovered? I am thinking that from data available is not possible to know how many new effective cases we discover (because we do not know if the new deaths were already known or not) and in this case maybe it could be better to change the axis name in the graph and call it "Total variation" or "Active cases variation".37.183.106.165 (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

That new total or new all is the number that is also given in every other country, in China, as in South Korea, etc. So I don't see why it should be changed here. Of course if we had access to every single detail of each patient we could do all types of analyses, but for the sake of clarity and simplicity, I think that showing the "difference between the total infected cases" is the most significant (and it's what appears everywhere else). We could of course add a plot showing the "active cases" on each day, but this cannot be compared with the data of other countries, and I don't really see the use of it. Instead, it would be more interesting to show the total data for intensive care or hospitalized patients: this is indeed a number that matters for the development of the crisis. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Are the maps correct?

This morning the health authorities in Sweden states that there is ongoing virus spread in Alto Adige/Trentino and Aosta valley. According to the maps (and table), there is not even one case in Aosta. What is correct here? Wikipedia – or authorities abroad? :) Fomalhaut76 (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The latest official bulletin by Italian authorities has zero cases in Aosta Valley, 4 in Trento, and 1 in Südtirol. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Fomalhaut76 (talk) 10:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I very much doubt that the figures in Alto Adige (Südtirol) are correct at all. As of today 36 cases in Germany can be traced back to holidaymakers from exactly that region: https://www.bild.de/news/inland/news-inland/coronavirus-mehr-als-150-neue-faelle-in-deutschland-insgesamt-ueber-400-lufthansa-streicht-mehr-als-7000-fluege-69089326.bild.html###wt_ref=https%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2F&wt_t=1583495532572###wt_ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bild.de%2Fnews%2Finland%2Fnews-inland%2Fcoronavirus-mehr-als-150-neue-faelle-in-deutschland-insgesamt-ueber-400-lufthansa-streicht-mehr-als-7000-fluege-69089326.bild.html&wt_t=1583495532772 Therefore all Italian figures should be reviewed.Geggo (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

And that's not Wikipedia's job. We report the official data. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Why is Crimea marked as Russia? It is part of Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.150.82.31 (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject COVID-19

I've created WikiProject COVID-19 as a temporary or permanent WikiProject and invite editors to use this space for discussing ways to improve coverage of the ongoing 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Please bring your ideas to the project/talk page. Stay safe, --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Cuban assistance

Cuban, Venezuelan, and Chinese doctors are in Italy to assist with the treatment of the coronavirus (as their drug Interferon helps with it apparently https://www.entornointeligente.com/coronavirus-updates-cuba-sends-doctors-to-italy/ https://www.farodiroma.it/coronavirus-in-arrivo-medici-da-cuba-venezuela-e-cina/ this source says Lombardy solicited their assistance https://www.dw.com/es/coronavirus-minuto-a-minuto-lombard%C3%ADa-pide-m%C3%A9dicos-a-cuba-venezuela-y-china-15032020/a-52776715

Also Peru confirmed cases imported from Italy https://rpp.pe/peru/actualidad/coronavirus-en-peru-minuto-a-minuto-43-casos-de-covid-19-y-gobierno-suspende-la-recepcion-de-cruceros-a-puertos-del-pais-live-163

As did Egypt https://arabic.cnn.com/health/article/2020/03/16/egypt-new-coronavirus-cases — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.26 (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Bar Chart

I would like to change the bar chart "COVID-19 cases in Italy" the one with the columns extending horizontally each day with the cases, recoveries, and deaths. All the country pages have that. And it bothers me so much that a tiny little change in presentation could be so much more informative. The columns should start with existing cases, not with the deaths and recoveries, that way you can graphically see what really matters first: existing cases. Then on top of that you put the recoveries and the deaths. I would just do that, but I can't find where these graphs are defined. There is some template for it, some macro, but I don't even see where that is in the page in edit mode. Gschadow (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, I figured it out, there is V, T, and E links on top of the box after the title Gschadow (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gshadow: No. The relevant piece of information for statistics is the amount of total cases, not the amount of current cases. Please refrain to implement your edit if consensus is not reached. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: If you are worried about the load on the health care system, the number of current cases is very important, and it would be more informative to put that as the first item in the bar chart. The height of the bar (i.e. the total number of cases) will be the same no matter which order the three components are placed on the bar. --rv8 (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

"Pandemia"

I am not sure about what the definition of a pandemia is, but 0.001% of mortality in the population in the case of Spain...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.55.245.240 (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Spread to other countries

Please update the map to include Canada. A case was found in Kitchener, Ontario. 2607:FEA8:1DDF:FEE1:9C8E:F7E8:ABD3:89FB (talk) 07:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

-> Is it of any significance having in this list countries like Singapore, whose 136th case was travelling form Italy, or Canada, as the previous user asked? It is a pandemic and in too many countries of this list the spread/development of the outbreak was not firstly linked to Italy. Wouldn't it be better to have just first reported cases? Otherwise for reasons of consistency all other national pages of the coronavirus pandemic should have a detailed list with all the known cases that were reported spreading to other countries. Which, at this point, might be an effort that does not make much sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.150.89 (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with only the first reported case being listed. There may be instances where the first known cases had a different origin, recovered/died, and only a new infection traced to another origin started local transmission/reopened the coronavirus issue in the country, such as Sri Lanka, where the first and only case had long recovered when the new case linked to Italy was discovered. It may also be the case that patient zero, linked to Italy, was successfully isolated and recovered, before a new case with a separate link started local transmission and was really responsible for the ‘spread’ in the country. Additionally, there may also be new cases, imported from a country and not linked to previous cases, that is more significant than others. For example, patient 31 in South Korea (of course this was not linked to Italy but it was also not the first few cases). Every imported case brings a new link (as opposed to local transmission) which is noteworthy. I agree that this should be done for other countries as well (already done for the Islamic Republic of Iran I believe and should be done at the minimum for France and Spain (many cases in countries with colonial ties), as well as for the US and China (large number of visitors)).

Side note: the title could (should in my opinion) be changed to ‘countries with cases linked to Italy’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.202.55.78 (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The section "Spread to other countries" makes a list of links between italian cluster and other national clusters suggesting the theory (I wouldn't call a fact) that the other national clusters listed are originated from italian one.
Apart I guess (I'm not a virologist neither a medic) we should find first some sources like phylogenetic analysis of viral genomes to support this theory, this theory could have strong arguments when the first discovered patient in a country is connected with italian cluster according the sources, like for example in Algeria (and still it can be possible the first discovered wasn't the first case in that country, for a map of diffusion of this pandemic we should rely on more scientific sources), but for sure the link doesn't make sense for countries like Singapore, as noticed by the user above, or Oman or other in the list.
This section is well sourced, but I think was innacurate for the purpose to create a map of diffusion of the pandemic and the spreading from Italy. At the moment, it could be an original research. For this reason, I put a template dubious linked to this section hoping some editor expert about this kind of scientific topics can edit this section in a better way. Nanae (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that a possible solution might be to change the section title to "linked cases in other countries" or similar, avoiding the word "spread" because it's unsourced. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The section should be updated in that case as many countries report cases linked to Italy (the page was recently protected)

Lebanon - https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2020/03/11/lebanon-grapples-novel-coronavirus

Saudi Arabia - https://www.arabnews.com/node/1641471/saudi-arabia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.26 (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Guatemala - https://www.prensalibre.com/guatemala/comunitario/coronavirus-alejandro-giammattei-confirma-el-primer-caso-de-covid-19-en-guatemala/

Uruguay - https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-uruguay/uruguay-announces-first-four-confirmed-cases-of-coronavirus-ministry-idUSE6N29R033

Centrafrique - https://www.radiondekeluka.org/actualites/sante/35266-rca-un-premier-cas-confirme-de-coronavirus-en-centrafrique.html

Seychelles - https://actu.orange.mg/coronavirus-deux-premiers-cas-confirmes-aux-seychelles/

Taiwan - https://www.cdc.gov.tw/En/Bulletin/Detail/NCdOSVe417pAWayT3ffH_Q?typeid=158 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.26 (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Grand Cayman - https://www.caymancompass.com/2020/03/14/caymans-first-recorded-covid19-patient-dies/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4998:EFEB:7F02:0:0:0:1056 (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Useful chart from ANBI

Hi, ANBI (the Italian National Association of Biotechnologists) changed the creative commons on their charts on my request. I have various versions that I can upload, I have strated with this first one. I hope you can use it.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Repetition of statistics

In the statistics section the first, third and fourth graphs repeat information. There is no need for all of them. I suggest keeping the first graph as it shows both figures relative to each other. Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

No, they don't contain the same information. The first is about the cumulative cases since the outbreak started, the other two contain the number of new daily cases of each day. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Cases and lethality by age

Could anyone please add https://www.ilpost.it/2020/03/11/rapporto-istituto-superiore-sanita-coronavirus-italia, taking Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/South Korea medical cases as a model? Ain92 (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC) P.S. OK, did it myself. Ain92 (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Correlated to the preceeding topic created by @Ain92:, I've added to the external links the desktop verison of the open data which daily updated by the Italian Protezione Civile. The same website has also a nobile version.

The web page indicates the geographical distribution of the Coronavirus which is disaggregated at a regional and a provincial level. However, we don't have the detail of the single healthcare facilities (in Italian w:it:Azienda Sanitaria Locale) and, more specifically, of the maximum number of Intensive care units available in each one of them.

It seems to be also that we don't have any other demographic official (and open) data about the age distribution of the victims and of the other people affected by the infection. Hope this helps.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 09:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Even though I see the interest in this kind of data, I am not sure it should be where it is now, because it's completely different in terms of method, purpose and type of data from the rest of the table. The data is (1) partial, (2) old, (3) analyzed by ISS in a non-daily report (I have no idea about when they will publish a new one, so it cannot be kept up-to-date). Therefore if one compares the data in the age table with the other general one, one immediately finds inconsistencies for the number of total cases, deaths, etc. So I would move it to a new page and locate it in a different section of the article, if you agree. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Some data have been published today, but unfortunately no date has been provided. I've already removed the word "Current" from the table, where do you want to move this data? Ain92 (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I've already removed the word "Current" from the table I had removed it, but anyway. I suggest it can be moved to another article (Italy medical cases per age, for example), so then one is free to put it later in another section or subsection of the main article, if needed. And it also serves for separating the two things for ease of editing and maintenance.

As for the updated data, I think it's better always to refer to official sources, I am not sure about the tweet you reported. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, I thought about removing it and when I saw it's gone, I didn't bother to check. Here's an official source: https://www.epicentro.iss.it/coronavirus/bollettino/Bollettino-sorveglianza-integrata-COVID-19_12-marzo-2020.pdf Ain92 (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• How do we integrate this new data lacking cases by age cohort (only deaths and CFR)? https://www.epicentro.iss.it/coronavirus/bollettino/Infografica_15marzo%20ENG.pdf Ain92 (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2020

The infobox image currently has this caption:

Map of provinces with confirmed coronavirus cases (as of 14 March)

Please change it to:

Number of confirmed cases by province (as of 14 March)

"Map of provinces..." sounds like it's a map highlighting provinces with any cases (i.e. just distinguishing 0 from 1+), not a map with a multi-colored scale roughly showing how many cases there are in each province. 208.95.49.53 (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2020

Corona Virus was brought to Italy by a German tourist: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-italy-scientists/coronavirus-may-have-reached-italy-from-germany-scientists-say-idUSKBN20Y35B 81.149.85.146 (talk) 08:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Conflation of Active and Confirmed Active Cases

"As of 17 March 2020, there have been 31,506 confirmed cases, 2,503 deaths, and 2,941 recoveries in Italy, leaving 26,062 active cases.[1]" The above conflates the total number of active cases with those that were confirmed. Most people other than statisticians will be totally confused by that conflation and infer a much higher death rate. This leads to a misrepresentation of sorts and leads to inaccuracy and hysteria. Total active cases should include those that were not confirmed, because they might be magnitudes higher. If this cannot be done for obvious empirical reasons then mention of this distinction should be clearly made and done so in a manner that does not invite fallacy.Berrtus1 (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

No, there is no error nor inaccuracy nor ambiguity in stating the truth, that is: the total number of confirmed cases is 31,506. The other cases that supposedly are around there, are not confirmed, hence cannot be counted in an official count. That's why there's the word "confirmed" behind "cases". --Ritchie92 (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Then should it not say: 'confirmed active cases'? And in that case some mention of the distinction should be made. Because it simply says active cases which might be magnitudes different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berrtus1 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

"Active" means confirmed, currently positive, and alive. The total includes the deaths and the recovered. --Ritchie92 (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed on the definition of active as confirmed active. I guess I would suggest saying "confirmed active", and adding that many more people than confirmed active might currently be infected. Otherwise the article is inaccurate for all but the most exceedingly careful of readers.

I'll step back and see what others say as this is my best explanation.Berrtus1 (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The most important issue left unexplained

The main thing in this topic should be the explanation about the reasons to the enormous widespread of the pandemic in Italy. I couldn’t find that explanation in the article. In that sense, this article is flawded. עוד אחד (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand what it is that you want explained in the article that is not already there. If the question is, why did the virus infect lots of people in Italy sooner than in other European countries, the answer is probably that the spread of the disease depends on lots of chance events and somewhere had to have it happen sooner than other similar places.

Wikipedia should only contain facts, allegations, and ideas that have already been published in reliable sources (see Wikipedia:No original research). It is far too soon to make judgements - maybe in 5 or 10 years time there will be published studies that have the answers. Toddy1 (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

It is Vo', not Vò

I have already pointed out this a few days ago. The spelling Vò is WRONG. It's common but incorrect. Please correct that.

P.S. I don't want to read comments such as:"Both are accepted", they're not. I'm Italian, and if you need further confirmation, check the Italian page or the official site of the municipality. Thanks. --TajVé (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Please write here the full link to this official cite and we can fix it. You can even do it yourself ;-) Greetings Yomomo (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Here it is: http://www.comune.vo.pd.it/s/35030/ --TajVé (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Italy's numbers badly underestimated

Since several days atleast, doctors and scientist claims that the real number of infected is atleast 5 times the 'ufficial figure'. One could not believe what is going on in Italy, but there is one of the many history (and one of the most disturbing):

Quinzano D'Oglio, Brescia. In one hospice, 20 elders died in only 10 days (20 are normal in a whole year). BUT: ONLY ONE OF THEM was tested for the virus. No others were tested. Alla except one died inside the hospice. The article (in Italian): https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2020/03/19/sono-le-venti-nove-brescia-nuovo-fronte-caldo-dellepidemia-ma-la-provincia-resta-esclusa-dalle-agevolazioni-sui-versamenti-iva/5742845/?pl_id=3&pl_type=category

It's amazing, how not even the relatives and families of many affected are tested, only IF they shows virus signs, and as happened in that hospice, not even then.

Since in italian page about Italy they are almost all deaf about anything not remarked 'ufficially' in the ministry of healt, but we are literally full of those stories, i think it's right atleast to make you aware about this scandal. Since several days, many doctors and scientist are claiming a number of cases in excess of 100,000, but as said before, almost never there is the 'ufficial analysis' to confirm this. I hope that atleast english wiki will take count of those understimed facts 62.11.3.98 (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's why we report the cases as the "confirmed cases". Of course there is no way, at least now, to estimate the total amount of "real cases", in Italy, as in China, as in every place where the government cannot or does not want to test everybody. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The info box has a bogus number of total cases in the millions for Italy. Per the inline ref, it was 33,190 total cases as of 6 pm on March 19. I will change the info box. Edison (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

“Paid help”

In the section reactions - help received it points out that the help received from the Chinese is paid for by the Italians. Earlier in the section it talks about how the Europeans offered no help. The mechanism this was sought by would have also meant the Italians paying for the help. See https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/14/coronavirus-eu-abandoning-italy-china-aid/ If the matter of payment is notable enough to be mentioned for the Chinese I think it should also be mentioned for the European mechanism to clarify whether the expectation by one author of free aid was realistic or not. Dakinijones (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Why is Italy so badly hit?

The article should explain why Italy is the worst-affected country of this pandemic, which started thousands of miles away, weeks earlier. Jim Michael (talk) 08:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

There are already articles in newspapers about it, maybe we can start using them... Yomomo (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

As a medical related page we have more stringent requirements for citations which most newspapers don’t meet. See Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19 There are starting to be some research articles coming through but these have not yet had time to be peer reviewed. I’m thinking of this one from a Oxford a university https://osf.io/se6wy/?view_only=c2f00dfe3677493faa421fc2ea38e295 They might be a possibility for addressing the subject in a way that doesn’t encourage WP:OR. My reading of the requirements for medical citations suggests using such a source on a provisional basis might be OK but a I’m not familiar enough with this area of Wikipedia to be sure. Dakinijones (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

General statistics about deaths in Italy

I miss general statistics about death rates in Italy. In order to form a more objective mind about the epidemic, we also need these data. The number of expected deaths per day is according to the mortality rate about 1600 (rounded). It is a little bit more in winter than in summer (I don't know how much). If someone finds this (totally objective) information (I couldn't), we should put it here for compare. I think it is quite obvious what it would mean, if this number hasn't change drastically (if not, I can put here later a thorough explanation). If someone has a source about it, please put it here. Once more: what I need is an as thorough as possible analysis of all deaths in Italy in the last 15 days according to cause of death (all causes, not just coronavirus) and day and if possible also according to region and age. Thanks in advance. Yomomo (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not a website to create original research, this is an encyclopedia. If there are reliable sources reporting such an analysis as the one you are looking for, then we are happy to include it here. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I thought it was clear, that this is what I ment :-). But I cannot find anything myself. So, I would be happy, if anyone finds some info with a reliable source and brings it here in Discussion. Greetings Yomomo (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Just a suggestion: In many articles on this topic, it is stressed that the much higher death rate in older age ranges is due primarily to underlying conditions. Many of these are related to smoking, and it has been suggested that due to the much higher levels of smoking in this population, this is also a partial reason for the elevated numbers of deaths in older individuals in these regions. Would it be feasible to include columns or rows in the ongoing statistics here to report on which underlying conditions were present in the fatality rate, if said information is collected and available? 47.149.23.152 (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2020

The article states: "By 21 March, Italy had conducted 233,222 tests for the virus.[16]"

The source [16] leads to a pdf that is from 18th of March and was retrieved on 19th of March.

I request to find a provable source for that statement or leave it with [citation needed] TheWalkingStarfish (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Ritchie92 (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Russia military aid for Italy

I can't edit main page. Please add that info to article about Russia aid. From news: The Russian military will start sending medical help to Italy from Sunday in order to help it battle the new coronavirus after receiving an order from President Vladimir Putin, Russia's Defence Ministry said in a statement. Putin spoke to Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte on Saturday, the Kremlin said, saying the Russian leader had offered his support and help in the form of mobile disinfection vehicles and specialists to help the worst hit Italian regions. The Russian Defence Ministry said military transport planes would deliver eight mobile brigades of military medics, special disinfection vehicles, and other medical equipment to Italy starting from Sunday. --88.200.215.154 (talk) 06:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Two useful articles about COVID-19 in Italy

Some of the content from these articles might be useful, but I am personally more interested in the pandemic articles about Canada.

1. https://www.thelocal.it/20200318/learn-from-our-mistakes-italians-plead-with-people-abroad-to-take-coronavirus-risks-seriously 'Learn from our mistakes': Italians plead

  "While Italy imposed a localised lockdown immediately after its first deaths, people outside of the "red zone" carried on going to bars and discos, eating meals at crowded restaurants, and hugging and kissing each other despite government advice telling them to limit social contact.

  As reality hit home, Italians watched in horror as some in other countries shrugged it off as "just a case of the flu" – as some in Italy had done weeks earlier."

2. Hospitals might be “the main” source of Covid-19 transmission, the Bergamo doctors warned.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/21/coronavirus-plea-from-italy-treat-patients-at-home/?fbclid=IwAR0AM7hvtlnaANE_TtRz0Nhx_gvLQWpTlcn_xuzhIDH9Ywu0kcphsBzm3eU A plea from doctors in Italy: To avoid Covid-19 disaster, treat more patients at home

... “[Covid-19] patients started arriving and the rate of infection in other patients soared. That is one thing that probably led to the current disaster.”

“Managing patients at home is a brilliant thing,” “Bring them nutrition, measure their oxygen levels, even bring them oxygen, and you can probably keep many of them at home.

Peter K Burian (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Italy was too slow to impose wide-spread lockdowns: NEW YORK TIMES: https://bdnews24.com/world/europe/2020/03/22/italy-pandemics-new-epicentre-has-lessons-for-the-world

  As Italy’s coronavirus infections ticked above 400 cases and deaths hit the double digits, the leader of the governing Democratic Party posted a picture of himself clinking glasses for “an aperitivo in Milan,” urging people “not to change our habits.” That was on Feb 27. Not 10 days later, as the toll hit 5,883 infections and 233 dead, the party boss, Nicola Zingaretti, posted a new video, this time informing Italy that he, too, had the virus.

   Also in late February: In Milan, only miles from the centre of the outbreak, the mayor, Beppe Sala, publicised a “Milan Doesn’t Stop” campaign, and the Duomo, the city’s landmark cathedral that is a draw for tourists, reopened. People went out.

 March 8: broader restrictions in Lombardy also effectively lifted the quarantine on Codogno and other “red zone” towns linked to the original outbreak. Checkpoints disappeared. Local mayors complained that their sacrifices had been wasted.

   A day later, on March 9, when the positive cases reached 9,172 and the death toll climbed to 463, Conte toughened the restrictions and extended them nationally. by then, some experts say, it was already too late.

  Now we are running after it,” said Sandra Zampa, undersecretary at the Ministry of Health, who said Italy did the best it could given the information it had. “We closed gradually 

Peter K Burian (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)