Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Venezuela

Which year?

There are many dates given as simple months throughout this article; presumably because the sections were written in 2020 at a time when it was assumed it would be over by 2021. However, the reader is required to guess from the context.

Could someone with experience of the situation please add years where they are missing? F J Leonhardt 14:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

14 March

Eight more cases confirmed, ten in total. --Jamez42 (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Jamez42 (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Update the map! --ReyHahn (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done by LuisZ9 --Jamez42 (talk) 20:36, 15 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) 17:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Comparisons

I don't know how this could be included into the article (maybe in the International concern section), and I haven't seen direct reports about it, but here are two charts that compare Venezuela's first cases with other countries: [1][2]

On an unrelated note, I want to clarify that "La Guaira" is the official and less used name for the Vargas state, the same one Guaidó is from. I hope this doesn't bring confusion with its capital city, and I recommend changing it to "Vargas". --Jamez42 (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

You could adapt the scripts at Commons:File:SARS-CoV-2 infections in and around Poland en.svg to work with Venezuela and its neighbours Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Colombia medical cases chart, 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Guyana and Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Brazil medical cases chart to make a semi-log plot comparing Venezuela to its neighbours. Roughly exponential growth appears as roughly straight lines in a figure like this. These scripts represent data already in Wikipedia and selected/sourced by Wikipedians. Boud (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I made a template similar to the one in Colombia: Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Venezuela medical cases chart.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

20 March 65

Where does the number of 65 cases in Venezuela come from? John Hopkins map and Worldmeter indicate that.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

It apparently comes from an undisclosed state source from El Nacional "Venezuela registró otros 19 casos de coronavirus este viernes ", and the government did not update the numbers on 20 March either. I guess we should wait until new numbers are released before clearing this up in the article.--ReyHahn (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that the estimate is official. Jorge Rodríguez reported 70 cases as of 21 March. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure but after a day without a report.--ReyHahn (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I mixed up the numbers. You're right, and I actually found an article that explicitly states that the government did not give an official number that day. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done--ReyHahn (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Darvinson Rojas

Journalist Darvinson Rojas, who reported about the pandemic in Venezuela, was detained tonight. I started an article in the Spanish Wikipedia and think related information should be included, but I personally won't be able to do it at this moment. The Venezuelan Press Workers Union declared that his arrest was motivated by his coverage of the outbreak and that he reported cases not informed by the government (more info: [3][4][5][6][7][8]). If a similar pattern continues and there is more information about the situation, a section about "Non-government estimates" would need to be started, like in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Iran article. --Jamez42 (talk) 05:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I might translate that article, what else were you thinking of adding? Kingsif (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jamez42: aparece que Rojas era un editor de es.Wikipedia, por ejemplo aqui. Kingsif (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Thank you very much for the translation! Interestingly, the link that you provided in the eswiki shows that he allegedly started his careeer in 2011, starting to study in "social communication" in the Santa María University (the equivalent of journalism in many cases in Venezuela) and working in outlets such as the radio station FM Center and El Pitazo TV. The diff also says that he has covered elections and the 2014 protests alike, and that in 2016 he was arbitrarily questioned bythe SEBIN. The sources are these:[9] (primary source), [10]--Jamez42 (talk) 11:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

CPJ article about it [11]--ReyHahn (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Ministerio de la Salud as source

I propose that we avoid the Ministry of Health of Venezuela as source, their articles disappear and usually have no date. Also they are based on VTV articles, if we need them use VTV take on it, but if possible also add a secondary coverage.--ReyHahn (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ReyHahn: So far the official estimates come from the government, but I agree that their use should be avoided in the main content whenever it's possible, using third sources instead. As such, I recommend to replace the references that say that Delcy Rodríguez denounces the sanctions, or in the case of not finding additional sources, removing the text. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jamez42: I think we should eliminate all tweets that are not accompanied by a third source. Jamez42 you know better, do health issues in Wikipedia have a special status? Like the accuracy restrictions for WP:BLP--ReyHahn (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

We should not avoid Ministry of Health as source. All official estimates, specially confirmed cases, come from the Ministry of Health or other Government officials. This is the most common source we are using in COVID-19-related articles. The same criteria that we're using for most countries applies to Venezuela. Twitter is also a valid source when it comes from a Government official talking in a official capacity. For example, in the case of Poland, the Twitter of the Ministry of Health is the most up-to-date and reliable source. In Iran, the English Twitter acount of the state-run news agency (IRNA) is the most reliable source we have so far. --MarioGom (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, primary sources are allowed (WP:PRIMARY) when they are not interpreted and there is no notability issue. In the case of official statistics, they are actually desirable. --MarioGom (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @MarioGom: this is a health related isssue, I suppose we need to be careful on what we are reporting. The Health Ministry has no official section with a record of the cases and its articles there are attributed to VTV, the government news site. That's why I say we should prioritize VTV as it is the "primary source" in this situation. Also the ministry erases articles and reports no dates.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Also the Ministry articles, appear several hours later than the VTV reports.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

ReyHahn: You can give a look at Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data and related talk page to check the criteria we are following for every country. Official news agencies are probably the most reliable for confirmed cases. You will not find something reliable coming from a different underlying source. You can check the Johns Hopkins University, Worldometer or other trackers... they are all using the same underlying sources (MPPS, VTV, TeleSUR, etc). --MarioGom (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should use Ministry of Health only. I'm saying we should not avoid it. If latest official figures are published first on VTV, then use VTV, of course. --MarioGom (talk) 11:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @MarioGom: I agree we should use official sources, VTV is a government (.gob) site so let's use it. It also avoid using Telesur that is WP:Deprecated. Also be careful with John Hopkins map and Worldmeter, they seem to be just reporting the first large number they can find. In March 20 both reported 65 cases for Venezuela, a number that was never used by government officials but by El Nacional. --ReyHahn (talk) 11:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

ReyHahn: Yep, I'm avoiding Worldometer as much as possible. They also published wrong figures some days for Angola, Spain or Pakistan. --MarioGom (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying that official sources should be completely avoided, what I mean is that they should not be used for the article content and that third sources should be used for the figures when possible. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The Ministerio de Salud should not be considered reliable. It is unfortunate if Johns Hopkins is using these kinds of sources, but we don't have to. VTV, TeleSUR, and Ven gov't are hardly reliable for anything, and much less so for medical content where they are known to lie. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the WikiProject listing doesn't have any reliable sources for stats in Venezuela. Hopefully towards the end of the outbreak, the WHO might get an accurate idea, but otherwise we can only rely on independent journalism talking to hospitals... Kingsif (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd advice to get inspiration from the Iran article, where from what I gather there is also an important lack of confidence of the government estimates. Guaidó said that the figures could be higher than 200, and when the official number was 70, 181 cases were extra-officially reported. I would like to add this later. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

We are tracking officially confirmed cases, deaths and recoveries. By definition, official sources are reliable for this. Why do you say Venezuela has no reliable sources in this case? Even the most biased state-run media outlets around the world are generally valid to cite government officials' claims. You may want to rely on the World Health Organization instead. They publish daily situation reports that include Venezuela ([12]). But IMHO doing so is a disservice to Wikipedia readers: the underlying source for cases in the World Health Organization reports are exactly the same: Government statistics. --MarioGom (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

By the way, the World Health Organization does not recognize Guaidó statistics at all. It recognizes statistics by the Government only. There are sources with higher estimations for every country, but we are tracking confirmed cases. --MarioGom (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@MarioGom: I guess that for content and not infobox/graphs, there is no need in using government sources when others are available. If somebody cannot find the estimate anywhere else for the infobox, we may use VTV or the Information ministry (avoid Health Ministry) which are the closest to an official source. But for the content we should use the most reliable available. As for Guaidó's numbers, those can be used as alternative numbers.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

ReyHahn: Why would we need to avoid the Ministry of Health? It is the underlying source of the information, no matter where you find the report. There is going to be no reliability difference in the statistics. --MarioGom (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@MarioGom: The articles in the Ministry of Health (aside from all the problems related to government issues) do not have a date, usually do not have an author (and when they have the author is VTV) and articles disappear frequently. All of this makes it unreliable. Date is important to understand when the numbers were updated, lack of authorship means we do not know if it is a primary source, and articles that disappear could lead to broken links. Most of the primary reports by the government are made by VTV or the Ministry of Information anyway.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

ReyHahn: lack of authorship means we do not know if it is a primary source Really? Every case update I've seen in the Ministry of Health website is either attributed to Presidential Press, VTV or otherwise assumed to be material by the Ministry of Health. When a news report disappears (if it does), an archived version can be added, this is common practice. I agree that if a report has no date, then it is an issue depending on where the source is referenced. I don't think it is an issue at Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data, for example, where a source is rarely used for more than 24 hours, but it is definitely a good reason not to use it when specifying the date of the count. --MarioGom (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@MarioGom: Maybe you are right, "no source" may imply that the source is the Ministry of Health, how to tell?. Let us just say that the Ministry of Health it is not banned but it is just not recommended in general. Also to all the problems above, add the fact that the page is clunky and loads slowly and that articles are not always updated quickly.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Interferon

Has anybody a good source about "interferon" used for COVID-19? a therapy/medication developed in Cuba that is being promoted by the Bolivarian government. Apparently this helped the recoveries (also how long does it take for somebody to be declared as recovered? 5 days seems too soon).--ReyHahn (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Well AFP Factcheck did my homework El antiviral cubano Interferón Alfa 2B se usa en China pero no es ni una vacuna ni una cura. It is about IFNA2. Maybe somehting should be written if Maduro continues to support this treatment.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

There is also Maduro calling to follow the infusion recipes of some Venezuelan doctor Investigadores del IVIC desmienten que el Covid-19 se cure con hierbas. A tweet from Maduro was erased because of this.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Interferon alfa-2b is used in China to treat COVID-19. It is in the official Chinese protocol for COVID-19. It does not claim that it is a vaccine or a cure though. --MarioGom (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Here's one source, Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Patients are treated according to the National Clinical guidelines(edition 6) released by the China National Health Commission (NHC). There are no specific antiviral or immune modulating agents proven (or recommended) to improve outcomes. All patients are monitored by regular pulse oximetry. The guidelines include supportive care by clinical category (mild, moderate, severe and critical), as well as the role of investigational treatments such aschloroquine, phosphate, lopinavir/ritonavir, alpha interferon, ribavirin, arbidol. --MarioGom (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Yes in the beggining I did not know what it was all about that's why I asked. I think we should developed on the treatments proposed by the government. I opened a discussion below. --ReyHahn (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done--ReyHahn (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Recoveries

Only one of the official reports talked about recoveries (to refer to people that did not show any symptoms for 5 days). There have not been any more reports of recoveries nor confirmation that they were indeed recovered, should we still report it as such?--ReyHahn (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll wait a day more, but as I am not receiving any feedback, I will remove the recoveries from the data. No news sites is reporting those recoveries in the following days.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: Sorry that I didn't comment until now, I was planning to respond to all messages at one. From what I gather, this recovery can be up to two weeks.

Using available preliminary data, the median time from onset to clinical recovery for mild cases is approximately 2 weeks and is 3-6 weeks for patients with severe or critical disease. Preliminary data suggests that the time period from onset to the development of severe disease, including hypoxia, is 1 week. Among patients who have died, the time from symptom onset to outcome ranges from 2-8 weeks. - WHO Report, Page 14

We should also consider that confirmed cases could have been infected from days before, but I share the concerns that independent sources have to report on recoveries too. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jamez42: we can add a footnote to the numbers and take it down from the statistics until further confirmation. Additionally, it is also because we don't know if the 15 recoveries are or are not included in the 91.--ReyHahn (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: Good point. I like the proposal of a footnote. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I have proceeded with it. I think it is better to report the total number of cases only.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I finally decided to remove recoveries from the templates. The number of recoveries is now at 31 according to Rodríguez, I will wait for today's report before updating recoveries.--ReyHahn (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: Should the first 15 recoveries finally be included in the chart? --Jamez42 (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jamez42: sorry I started doing the edits and I had another obligation that came through. I am now adding recoveries because most newspapers started to do so and the government reports about it more frequently. Because the government said something in the lines "recovered=5 days without symptoms" and then forgot to update, I would advise not to add the 15 recoveries. On the other hand the WHO reported it as recoveries too, so if somebody insist we can add them.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: No worries! :) Personally I think that adding the first recovery estimates can help giving a picture on how often or reliable the figures are, but I'm also concerned about its reliability. I think it may be better to see the reported recoveries in the following days. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jamez42: maybe a better way to show the reliability of all this is to put the number of recoveries in another graph. A graph of new recoveries per day could be more elucidating. What do you think? (for that we can wait until we have two more recovery reports).--ReyHahn (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: At first I thought about creating a tab instead of a separate table, seeing that others such as China's include them, but this is more difficult than I thought and it appears to be more common for months and other time lapses. --Jamez42 (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jamez42: well I guess that what we have now works. As you said it may point out some irregularities. Particularly, I am worried of that we do not have more extraofficial estimates. If we include the 15 recoveries from the beginning, the graph of cases in Venezuela is pretty unusual, the number of active cases has remained almost constant.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Recoveries from 26 March

Ok so we have two days were the Government talks of successful recoveries (sadly without any more information given). I think we can start publishing recoveries from the 26th onwards, I consider that the 15 early cases should not be included. I will wait until tonight report (unless other users comment on this). --ReyHahn (talk) 10:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Curiously, John Hopkins map got it wrong again, the number of recoveries is not 31 but 39.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

ReyHahn: Rather than Johns Hopkins "getting it wrong", the problem is that they do not update with as high frequency as us, so their underlying sources are usually outdated by more than 24 hours. Regarding recoveries, they are rarely reported frequently and reliably by any country. In the end, everything we have is the figures given by government officials (whether you find them in the press or in an official website). --MarioGom (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@MarioGom: when I say "got it wrong" I mean that they are reporting data in the same way that we are, manually and based on the first tweet/source that we got. Thus making mistakes. On 21 March, when there were not any official report available, they used El Nacional estimates. Today they reported the right number of cases (113) but forgot to update the number of recoveries, the same error was present in Worldmeter and in Wikipedia Template:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_data. I feel that people rush to update this numbers and leave verification for later. Also they certainly update faster than twice per day.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

ReyHahn: I see. Thank you for the clarification. I'm definitely an advocate of not using aggregate sources like Worldometer and using direct sources ourselves (official reports, news pieces, etc) so we can verify. The problem of missing recoveries updates is quite common in Worldometer, I didn't know it happened with JHU too. --MarioGom (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

First Covid-19 death in venezuela

So I live in Venezuela and the Vice President just passed the news of the first covid-19 death, a 47 year old worker. Asking so that the page can be updated (date: 03/26/2020). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.38.181.200 (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe it's been updated already. Kingsif (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done--ReyHahn (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Avoid Twitter when it is not necessary

@Thepharoah17: this message goes for you and other anonymous IPs. Each night there is a rush for updating the numbers in the article without providing valid sources. This is a health issue, we are asked to be careful, next time check Venezolana de Televisión or the Ministry of Information for an official source. Avoid to use Twitter as a source, it is not necessary for the number of cases! If there is not any other source wait or try provide a link to an article from a reliable source. Also, table of cases per region needs to be updated with a source, there have been many inconsistencies so providing a good source with a full list of cases per region is important. The same goes for those that update the article in Spanish. --ReyHahn (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

A section on treatments proposed by the government

As I said before, maybe we need a section for treatments offered by the government aside from the badly promoted Cuban interferon, there is also a whole controversy on chloroquine being used in Venezuela when results are not clear in the rest of the world, and Maduro promoting "natural solutions" by a Venezuelan doctor. AFP Factcheck made an article about it [13]--ReyHahn (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, this would be elucidating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twilight Tinker (talk • contribs) 19:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

This is relevant Armando Info on IA2 --ReyHahn (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Sex ratio

Should the sex ratio be included in the Statistics section? I think it isn't common in other similar articles and I don't see how it contributes information to the article, besides being difficult to update. --Jamez42 (talk) 08:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I just added it at first because Venezuela had unusually more female cases than male, but that changed with larger numbers. The government reports cases, cases per region, cases per origin, sometimes cases per age and cases per sex. We don't update cases per age because it is as inconsistent as the cases per region. Cases per sex could be scrapped, but I do not see a real problem with it, for the moment it is also working as a place to stock old refs.--ReyHahn (talk) 08:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Reference for deaths location

I have not found a map that indicates the number of deaths per region. If somebody found one please add it, if not we should be careful and eliminate deaths from the table.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: The references that I have found refer to the deaths individually, but not as a whole. Runrun.es published an infography that includes all the cases by state, but not the deaths, only mentioning Maduro's description: one from Zulia and one from Caracas. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

To-do list

I've written down several news to update the article, but I think I won't be able to do it in the near future and they might get outdated quickly, so I will start a section for any editor that wants to include it before. Please also feel free to include any additional news.

• [14][15] - Sanctions for violating the quarantine
• [16][17][18][19] - A party of bolichicos sith drugs and prostitutes hired from Europe was responsible for the infections in Los Roques.
• Sntp: Darvinson Rojas fue presentado en tribunales de manera ilegal y clandestina - SNTP: Darvinson Rojas was presented in the tribunals illegally and clandestinely, 24 March  Done
• El plan oculto de Maduro y las fotos de la primera acción de “Furia Bolivariana”: amenazar con la muerte a dirigentes de la oposición - Maduro calls upon the "Bolivarian Fury", the next morning the houses were found with threatening graffitis of opposition lawmakers and their relatives, 30 March - Might be appropriate for the Presidential crisis article
• Nuevo choque entre las fuerzas de seguridad del régimen de Nicolás Maduro por la escasez de gasolina - CICPC and GNB officers in Apure argue during the fuel scarcity, 30 March
• CNP y SNTP rechazó nuevas amenazas de los colectivos de Maduro contra periodistas - The SNTP and the National Journalists Association rejected threats by colectivos to journalists, 2 Abril - Might be better for the Censorship in Venezuela article
• Liberan a periodista venezolano detenido durante 13 días tras publicar cifras del coronavirus - Darvinson Rojas was released - 3 Abril  Done
• Los presos del coronavirus en Venezuela - Foro Penal has documented 23 new politically motivated arrests since the start of the quarantine, 5 Abril
• Detienen a bioanalista en Trujillo por publicar órdenes para pruebas de coronavirus - Bioanalyst detained in Trujillo for publishing orders for coronavirus tests, 5 Abril
• Venezuela con muchas deudas por cumplir en el Día Mundial de la Salud - Venezuela doesn't publishes the weekly epidemiologic bulletins since 2017 - 7 Abril
• Transparencia Venezuela exige información veraz - Transparency Venezuela demands truthful information, 7 Abril  Done
• Productores de Táchira no despachan hortalizas hace tres semanas - Farmers in Táchira have not delivered supplies for three weeks, 7 Abril
• Familiares de fallecido por COVID-19 desmienten a Maduro - Maduro declared that one of the deceased was infected abroad, but his relatives say that he had not traveled for a year; 9 Abril --Jamez42 (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• #covid19study
• Cifras de COVID-19 que no cuadran: número de kits diagnósticos y pruebas realizadas - Inconsistencies in official estimates, 2 April
• 20 detenidos se fugan de calabozo del Cicpc en Cabimas - 20 escapees in Zulia state, 5 April - No mention of the outbreak, but happened during the quarantine
• Gobierno de Maduro impone toque de queda en municipios fronterizos de Táchira - Maduro imposes curfew in Táchira's frontier municipalities, 6 April
• Hospitalizan solo en casos de emergencia en el Hospital de Valera - Hospitals in Valera, Trujillo, accepts ICU only for emergencies, 6 April
• Multas por documentos de tránsito que hayan vencido durante la cuarentena quedan suspendidas - Fines for outdated transit documents suspended, 6 April
• Diputado Olivares: Hay más de 20 casos de coronavirus en Nueva Esparta - Deputy Olivares: More than 20 cases in Nueva Esparta state, 9 April --Jamez42 (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

15 April 197 cases?

Today Johns Hopkins CSSE and Worldometer indicate 197 cases? Where does that number come from?--ReyHahn (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The cases of 15 April were confirmed to be 197 by Maduro at night. How is that possible? That number in Worldometer came to early in the morning of the 15 April and was reported all over, even in some parts of Wikipedia.--ReyHahn (talk) 07:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

To be clear JH CSSE and Worldometer seem to not have reported the 193 cases of 14 April but that number, how is that possible?--ReyHahn (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Consensus at the COVID-19 WikiProject is to not use WorldOMeter, FYI. Kingsif (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

It was not only Worldometer, other aggregators too, John Hopkins included, and while Johns Hopkins has corrected errors before retroactively, this has not been corrected so far. I hope to get where that number came from.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Things to update

• Something about price controls and controls over companies [20]
• Something about the Amazon minin release that fuels the pandemic [21]
• Something about the government constantly promoting alternative medicine or untested medicine
• Something about reliability of their statistics.

--ReyHahn (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

remesas AP:Virus prevents diaspora Venezuelans from sending money home --ReyHahn (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

And whatever this is Reuters: As lockdown hurts, desperate Venezuelans turn to cow blood soup--ReyHahn (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Impact of education [22] --ReyHahn (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Excellent article on the pandemic AP:Venezuela's apparent respite from COVID-19 may not last long--ReyHahn (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Venezuela and Diosdado accusing the Academy made it to Science (magazine): [23] --ReyHahn (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

More for later

• Venezuelans breaking coronavirus rules punished under the sun
• Venezuela's quarantine has increased anxiety, depression in some children: NGO
• Some Cubans returning from Venezuela test positive for COVID-19

--ReyHahn (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Venezuela’s pandemic lockdown sparks entrepreneurial spirit--ReyHahn (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Should we update using the government database?

@MusicologoVzla: I know you want to update the information based on the government database. Yet Wikipedia ask us to use reliable sources above all, if no sources not even VTV say that there are 311 recovered, what are we supposed to do? In the same way, when all other sources where saying that the number of recovered was larger than that on the database, shouldn't we pick what the sources say? It is bothering me for a while, I think we need to ask for comment for the community who is also handling this kind of data.--ReyHahn (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I have seen that you are more active in the Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19 (also you know the Wikipedia guidelines better and Venezuelan issues) so I will like your advice here. We have the following problem, there are three sources of information related to COVID-19 in Venezuela:

1. Venezuelan government COVID-19 database
2. Venezuelan presidential press and VTV (and TeleSur and the rest)
3. Secondary sources

Sources [1],[2],[3] can disagree in any combination of ways. Particularly today [2] and [3] are either silent or report a number of recovered that is lower than the one reported in [1]. The other day it was the other way around, [1] had a lower number than [2] and [3], [1] updated the number in the report of the following day. This are particular examples, but anything can happen, in the case of cases per region all can disagree at the same time, including the secondary sources between themselves. I tried to request an informal comment on how were the other pages handling this kind of behaviour Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19#How are other articles handling government databases? but I got broad suggestions to our case (without considering reliability issues) and not guidelines or examples from other pages. Briefly, what do you think is the best way to ask for thoughtful comment or to find a solution here?--ReyHahn (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

From what I gather, the convention in the English Wikipedia has been to use official information, but since state and government outlets have mistakenly reported in the past and have been deemed as unreliable for other issues, probably the best option is to avoid them as much as possible and use other sources, such as the WHO and the John Hopkins University. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The list is based on information provided by the Nicolás Maduro government. It is reflected on the COVID.PATRIA link page.--MusicologoVzla (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Of those three sources, the database would be the preferred one to use. The fact is, to continue the usefulness and keep the page up to date, numbers need to be included. The issue is, the numbers can be inaccurate. However, this is acknowledged for all countries at the moment and certain sources in general have been advised against. Getting information directly from the Johns Hopkins updates is now the chosen source for other articles, and Johns Hopkins aggregates 'official' information from the countries' governments. It's unlikely to be perfect, but it will be attributed. And primary/secondary sources like Maduro and Rodriguez' tweets shouldn't be used at all. Kingsif (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: according to Johns Hopkins dashboard FAQ, they get information from local media reports and local health departments (we don't know which one is for Venezuela) CDCJHUFAQ. Johns Hopkins dashboard today does not agree with the Venezuelan database, making me thing it is using secondary sources.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Johns Hopkins also used El Nacional at the beginning of March.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, Johns Hopkins aggregates what they judge to be reliable, the only issue being they don't seem to publicly disclose their sources. But using a reliable medical institute is better than Wikipedia editors judging sources without a metric to do so. Kingsif (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Thanks for your comment. I think that the answer seems to be to go for source [4], whatever the aggregators are adding up, is that it? Are there any guidelines or ways to handle this kind of issues within the WikiProject itself?--ReyHahn (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, using the aggregator. The WikiProject COVID-19 has some pages about sources, and also the guideline to not use WorldOMeter and similar sources. There was a discussion somewhere about not using the Venezuela Ministry of Health (as noted at WP:VENRS). That's all, I think. Kingsif (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

After discussion this is what I think we should do. There are four levels of sourcing:

1. Venezuela COVID-19 Patria database
2. The presidential press, VTV and the Ministry of Information (usually considered unreliable)
3. Secondary sources
4. Aggregators (WHO reports, Johns Hopkins, avoid Worldometer)

and there are four specific data to update

1. Current number of cases (total) and deaths
2. Current number of recovered
3. Cases per region
4. Historical graphs

For [i], the rule is pretty simple, [1–4] will always agree on that. A secondary source [3] should be used, sometimes a primary source [2] may be allowed. For [ii], when in conflict, we should prioritize [4], whatever the aggregators are reporting should be the norm as they know better. [iii] (excluding deaths) is when things get mad, El Pitazo, Efecto Cocuyo, Prodavinci, El Nacional, Tal Cual, Runrunes have conflicting maps, which are also different from the government database. In this case, I think we should use the government database, we could use any of the maps but seriously, if nobody is getting that right better to leave that to the government [1] (unless the database changes too much per day). [iv] has not been discussed yet and the debate is still open on that, should have a graph with the cases as reported exactly each day or should we report it based on what the updated registers say about those days. In the later case, we need to either use [1] (that can be twitched by the government retroactively) or the WHO reports (I would prefer WHO, but they are not up to date).

@Jamez42, MusicologoVzla, and Kingsif: would this work for you?--ReyHahn (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this, and think that for [iv], the historic graphs should be historic - updated retroactively, not keeping the numbers announced on the day if they are revised later. Kingsif (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, to use as a priority the government database that provides us with the COVID-19 Patria page for the states. In fact I am evidencing that some pages update almost with the same data that they provide in each report via the presidential channel. Of the rest, another page of some medium is attached as a reference. Excuse me, but I use Google Translate. I imagine that the syntax of my argument will sometimes not be understood.--MusicologoVzla (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation, @ReyHahn:, I think it illustrates the issues better. I agree with the proposal, it seems alright. My only take would be to suggest using the WHO reports on historical graphs when they're available and only state sources when they aren't, and to ask if by aggregators we mean secondary sources [2]. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Updating the infobox

Hi @LSGH: thanks for updating the infobox, do not forget to update active cases and add a source next time.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)