Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United States/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Can we get deaths, new cases, and recoveries back in daily format?

Why hide this information? The total deaths are already referenced several times including cumulatively in a graph in the article and this section is completely redundant and irrelevant now while there is nowhere to quickly see the daily deaths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2883:5400:519B:74F0:E340:ADFC (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I totally second this. Both deaths and recoveries have reverted from daily to cumulative. Why?? We already have a cumulative horizontal bar graph at the beginning of the page (section 2, "CDC reported U.S. totals"). Why duplicate that visual display but now on vertical instead of horizontal? Please bring back the daily bar graphs, they are more visually informative. WikiUser70176 (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd also like daily please. 70.181.191.109 (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd second this, too. Ron Oliver (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. VQuakr (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Here are three arguments why I think the per day deaths, cases, and recoveries bar charts make more sense than cumulative:

1. The vast majority of other countries' COVID pages have these bar charts in per day cases and not cumulative. Why should US be any different? It helps readers to do quick comparisons.

2. It is confusing. As I have said above, it looks that there are more recoveries than cases. For example, if we assume the shortest infection duration of about 14 days, we can see 8878 recoveries on April 1. These people should have been confirmed cases, at the latest, on March 16. According to the our graphs, there were not that many cases in the country then. Or tests performed. And that's just for one day. So it is visually misleading.

3. The last and most compelling argument, for me at least, is this: we already have a cumulative graph of cases, deaths and recoveries on section 2 of the page, like all the other countries' pages! It's a very good graph but why duplicate it? EDIT: I see that deaths and new cases are per day now. Could we get the recoveries per day as well? Thank you. WikiUser70176 (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree, not only is it like on the majority of other countries' pages like that, so it is confusing, and the other case is already covered, but it's also super annoying to be honest, that this page goes back and forth all the time on it. One day we have it, one day we don't. Also, I don't understand why the charts are always moved around in the article. The US page seems to be the only one that stays confusing, the others already settled on a certain style that one can check daily without surprises. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.47.17.146 (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Are you all taking about Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United States medical cases? The reason that chart is no longer included on this page is due to size and because it would push the template limit beyond the max limit because of the number of references in the article and the template itself. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 07:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

There is a consensus, Alucard 16. As you can see form the above discussion, all of us who commented agree that the recoveries should be presented in a daily bar graph format, just like the daily new cases and the daily new deaths. That's a unanimous Yes. I do not understand what is this size thing you refer to though; the graphs should be of equal size. Actually, the daily recoveries graphs should be smaller than the actual cases graphs, and that one fits quite well. EDIT: Aaaaah, I got it. You mean the table itself. No, no, we are talking about the bar graphs (which are derived from the table you referenced, I believe) in the "Statistics" section of the page: 2 of them are presented as daily new cases of coronavirus (orange vertical bar graph) and deaths (red vertical bar graph), respectively, as they should be, but the recoveries (green neon bar graph) are presented as a cumulative graph instead of daily new recoveries. Does this make things a bit more clear? To be honest, most people on the Talk page seemed to be more interested in the new cases and deaths to be presented as daily instead of cumulative, on a linear bar graph rather than a line log graph. Happily, that has been resolved. So if the recoveries remain cumulative instead of daily, that's not a biggie, but in the interest of consistency, I thought they also can be presented as daily new cases of recovered patients, particularly since we already have the cumulative totals on the horizontal bar graph at the beginning of the page (first graph). Thanks. WikiUser70176 (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@WikiUser70176: Ah okay thanks for the clarification yup I got confused at which table y'all were talking about lol. If there is an overwhelming consensus for the change to be made and there is reliable sources for the change then there shouldn't be an issue with the change being implemented. If there is an experienced editor with auto-confirmed rights that can make the change and was part of the discussion once a consensus is reached then the edit request template doesn't need to be used. Only IP editors / non-auto confirmed editors would need to use the edit request template. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 03:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

None of us who commented here know how to or have the editing rights to revert the recoveries graphs from cumulative to daily. Since there is a consensus, can anybody please revert the recoveries chart to daily cases instead of cumulative, just like the new cases per day and deaths per day charts are? I'm taking about the neon green chart. Or put in an edit request or something? Thank you. WikiUser70176 (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC) It was changed back to daily now changed the other way again. This info does not appear anywhere on the page though it's the only thing I actually check regularly. Someone with priveleges please revert and notify whoever is doing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2883:5400:E1A1:1FC7:2481:8199 (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Summary data at top—specifically recovered cases per the JHU data

The summary data box cites JHU for recovered cases ~45k. The recovery chart below integrates to around ~270k. These are wildly different numbers, and maybe the chart data (it's from some source, I think the Covid Tracking Project) should be summarized as preliminary at the top. Scotty.tiberius (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Suggest more informative diagrams

Currently this page appears to be missing what arguably would be more interesting than some of the existing information. For example: - Distribution of deaths in various age groups - For younger (or all) age groups, %-age of victims with pre-existing conditions Such information would provide a fuller view of this epidemic, and the risks incurred by various groups. As one example, in Sweden there is currently statistics that show that 8% are younger than 65 years old and of those >50% had pre-existing conditions. I.e., out of all 900 cases in Sweden, only about 35 were young and without known pre-conditions, and so the risk to healthy, non-retirees is exceedingly small.Herr Foo (talk) 07:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

A source of such data would be helpful. With the data, we can look at the plots offline and decide whether to put them up or not. Can anyone provide a source of numbers of breakdown of cases by age, pre-existing conditions, etc.? -- motorfingers : Talk 13:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The case fatality rate (now in color wow!) is available on Coronavirus disease 2019. Be mindful how you mention it, it seems obvious that younger people are not immune to it, they just treat it at home like a cold and get away with it without seeking any treatment. Iluvalar (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The source cited in Coronavirus disease 2019 for the two line plots given in the Epidemiology section is , where they explain difficulties of estimating and interpreting death rates from existing coronavirus data, as explained a couple of paragraphs down this page.

References

Travel Restrictions on US & Mexico Border

As of 3/20/20 the US/Mexico border is restricted to cargo traffic and essential personnel similar to the restrictions placed at the US/Canadian border in order to stem the spread of COVID-19.

50.198.133.197 (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Why did you switch to cumulative US Deaths from day to day deaths?

I notice today the graph for daily US deaths switched from the daily number to the cumulative number per day. It's a lot harder to track the daily progress when it's cumulative.

It would be good to have both but I think the daily number is more valuable than the cumulative number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmcevoy75 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that myself when I updated the overall U.S. charts. I agree that per-day numbers are more informative on the recovered and deaths linear charts. -- motorfingers : Talk 13:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Today it appears that both the linear bar chart and the log line chart have been switched back to deaths per day. See comment below; I believe that the best presentation of death data is a linear bar chart but cumulative data on the log axis line chart that plots other cumulative data. If we can agree on what we want to do, things become simple. -- motorfingers : Talk 16:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2020

you data/charts on new US cases does not match the cdc. 73.50.18.68 (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

State Case Fatality Rates

Is there an ability to add a new column to the "2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States by state and territory" table with the Case Fatality rate per State? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.219.247.222 (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi 66.219 we do not know at all the mortality rate. There is plenty of evidence that most of the younger population getting the virus treat it without particular help as a cold. They are not getting tested, so it's very hard to know their numbers. All we can do is calculate the case fatality rate (CFR), but this is extremely misleading as raw information because it depends mostly on how the tests are conducted. I heard some sad story on a regional level. Particular establishments starting to fail due to panic or other. I don't believe that it make any sense on a state by state level to suppose that there is a massive change in the mortality rate. What you'd get on a table would be statistical noise more then anything useful. Iluvalar (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Fatalities are reasonably accurate the way the CDC is classifying them (any fatality where the deceased has coronavirus is classified as COVID-19 related), and cause of death reporting in the U.S. is pretty complete and reasonably prompt. But death rate is the ratio of deaths to cases, and as @Iluvalar points out, numbers of cases is really just an estimate, very likely underreported, biasing mortality estimates upward. In addition, deaths will lag cases by a week or two while mortality is computed by estimates for the same date, decreasing the ratio while both are increasing exponentially, biasing mortality estimates lower. These huge biases in both directions make mortality estimates too dicey to be very useful right now, in my opinion. We are reporting deaths, which is the best statistic available right now. -- motorfingers : Talk 14:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand where both of you are coming from I'm just surprised by the massive range of current case fatality rates. Based the the most up to date numbers it shows that Utah and South Dakota both have under a 1% case fatality rate. Both New York and Michigan are over 5% and 6% respectively. That seems like a pretty significant discrepancy. If it's due to unreported cases then that means there's either 5 times more people that have been infected and recovered in New York and Michigan which seems unlikely that New York has really had 1,547,714 cases compared to the reported 202,208 or there have been 4-5 times more deaths as a result of Covid-19 in Utah and South Dakota which also seems unlikely. But I'm no statistician. So to me it seemed like a relevant statistic to pay attention to. 66.219.247.222 (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The CFR doesn't seem very meaningful when the number of cases and/or deaths is changing rapidly. If the number of cases has recently risen a lot then deaths haven't had a chance to catch up yet; that may well be the situation in South Dakota.

Utah seems more interesting though--the case numbers are rising slowly enough that its low CFR might indicate something different. As others mentioned above it could be lower because of more testing (more mild cases being identified). I did find this article discussing some states' CFRs, but it has no specific explanation for the lower CFR in Utah. But that article might be used as the basis for some comment in the article about the factors that affect CFR in different states. (By the way, in a quick check of population stats I found that Utah has the highest proportion of children and the lowest proportion of people over 65 of any US state, so I suspect that could be a factor, but I didn't find a source discussing it so that obviously couldn't go into the article). 68.7.103.137 (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Undercounting in Daily Infection and Death Chart

An apparent undercounting of daily cases continues to be an issue in the "COVID-19 cases in the United States" chart. That chart is very useful, but it seems to be undercounting cases every day. As of this moment in time (3:13 PM Central Standard Time on 4/14/2020), Johns Hopkins reports US cases at 598,670 while the page wikipedia case totals reports 603,050 cases in the US. Unless I'm missing something, the case totals for the US for today (4/14/2020) on this page a couple of days from now should not be something less than either of those figures. Nogburt (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Nogburt, the reference being used for the US is 1point3acres. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2020

The recovered cases in Michigan is labeled as 5, per the Michigan.gov website it's 433 (you are incorrectly stating 5 via your own source).

Link for reference: https://www.michigan.gov/coronavirus/0,9753,7-406-98163_98173---,00.html 2601:409:200:74A0:A0E6:E8C0:1528:26CB (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Chart was neglected; 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Michigan seems to be kept up to date. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Criticism response

A critic section with the opinion of just one economist of the centre-left. There should be a plurality of opinions. --83.38.50.205 (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Number of Cases Line Graph

This comprehensive graph gives a false impression and should be split into two separate graphs. Total cases and recovered should be moved to their own graph, since any correlation to the daily rates is arbitrary. Recovery rate (the number of people who recovered on that day) should replace Total Recovered in the original graph. As it stands now, it appears from first glance that the recovery rate has now exceeded the new cases rate, when in fact the number of new cases is 10 times the recovery rate. 2603:6000:DC09:22A4:E16B:A24E:5A92:519 (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a very good point about the regarding daily rates on the same graphic as cumulative cases. Perhaps having daily rates in the linear scale bar graphs and cumulative cases in the log scale line graphs is a better presentation. -- motorfingers : Talk 14:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Is it me or the recovered count is bogus anyway ? I know there is a big delay before someone is declared recovered but still, 2 weeks ago there was 20k news cases a day, and we only have 4k recoveries now and yet NYC hospitals are saying they have free beds and things are stabilizing ... I have a scoop for the journals : Only the hospitalized infected recover, the rest stay sick the rest of their life ! Iluvalar (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Today I modified the log chart. I commented out the daily cases chart, and made the deaths cumulative. If this flies with the users, I'll move the active cases in the legend from last to second, because to date it tracks the cumulative cases pretty closely and apparently will continue to do so for another couple of weeks, notwithstanding.

I also updated both hot states charts (no mods to those). -- motorfingers : Talk 16:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2020

REQUEST: PLEASE ADD TEXT

REASON: EDITOR MISTAKENLY OMITTED PART OF SENTENCE

Yesterday you added part of my Additional Info in re: "Preparations" -- BUT you left out the primary clause of the sentence, so you now have an ungrammatical fragment that reads:

However, while the administration of Barack Obama soon after made a contract with a private firm (Newport Medical Instruments, subsequently a subsidiary of Covidien) for the production of up to 40,000 ventilators.[126]

The remainder of the sentence I provided, following the word "ventilators" is: the government failed to secure that order, leaving the national stockpile of ventilators seriously underprepared for the COVID-19 epidemic in the United States.

You classified this as "original research" and omitted it, BUT it is NOT original research -- it is the main point of the New York Times article that I cited, the subtitle of which is "The Mission Failed."

Thank you for your attentiveness to my edit suggestions these past two days.

In addition to being a donor to Wikipedia, I want you to know that I am a careful, professional researcher, having a Ph.D. in History from UC Berkeley and having been for many years a Professor of American History in the San Francisco Bay Area. 73.194.247.71 (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Not done The ventilator orders and delays are already covered in the section titled "Abandoned and delayed efforts to improve mask and ventilator supply". Prolog (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Thanks for your donations to the Wikimedia Foundation (Wikipedia does not receive donations directly); however, that has no bearing on what editors publish on the wiki. In regards to the sentence you've managed to get added (However, while the administration of Barack Obama soon after made a contract with a private firm (Newport Medical Instruments, subsequently a subsidiary of Covidien) for the production of up to 40,000 ventilators), that has been removed which has rendered your proposed addition moot, not to mention that it would be neutralised in tone should it have been added. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

"I am a donor" and "I have a degree" 70.181.191.109 (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2020

Per KDHE website, the Coronavirus cases in Kansas are now 1705, with 84 deaths. Can you please update? The info can be found at https://www.coronavirus.kdheks.gov/. Thank you 207.12.170.87 (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the update! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2020

Change RI # of cases to 4177 [or current level] Deaths to 118[or current level] Hospitalized 252 [or current level] These are the #'s as of 4/17/2020 https://ri-department-of-health-covid-19-data-rihealth.hub.arcgis.com/ 96.233.147.119 (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the update. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2020

Add information:

On March 13, 2020 The White House declared COVID-19 a national emergency.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-declaring-national-emergency-concerning-novel-coronavirus-disease-covid-19-outbreak/ XPorcelinaX (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done -- MelanieN (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Effects on abortion access

Nine states so far have enacted or attempted to enact abortion bans in response to the pandemic. Not sure what section this should go into (#Government responses? #Social impacts?) but it feels like an omission to not mention this somewhere. Enwebb (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Enwebb, if it's specific to the US it can mentioned at the article you just linked. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

CDC Confirmed vs Probable

Infobox says "Deaths: 31,071 (CDC confirmed)" but CDC says "Total deaths: 31,071 (26,930 confirmed; 4,141 probable)"

The CDC did not confirm all 31,071, that number includes reported like JHU.70.181.191.109 (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Standardize on per capita?

lede: "the U.S. has the most confirmed active cases and deaths in the world". The US is the third most populous country in the world. Nobody could have higher numbers except China and India. Would it be reasonable to use per capita figures here?

The US has 105 deaths per million. Compared with France (275/M), Spain (413/M), UK (202/M), Ireland (98/M), etc. Sailing californium (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The raw number of cases and deaths has been broadly covered, so we need to discuss it per WP:DUE. I do agree, though, that the high but not highest per capita rates in the USA probably also warrant mention in the lede. VQuakr (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Something like "The US has been the 14th hardest hit nation with 105 confirmed deaths per million, and the greatest number of confirmed cases and deaths." ? Sailing californium (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

From the outset until the present, the ratios for tests, cases, and deaths are nearly meaningless and wouldn't work in the lead. Just a few examples why: China was only testing people with severe symptoms, and the others were told to go home; India still has a major shortage of test kits and labs to analyze the tests (123 state-run labs are operating at only 36% capacity, while 49 accredited private labs managed just an average of eight tests each in April; S. Korea was mass-producing test kits and set up drive-up tests, but they were testing anyone who wanted one. After they had tested more than 248,000 people, they only identified 8,086 cases; The UK was, and I believe still is, only testing people with symptoms, while the rest are told to stay home unless things get much worse.

Many less-developed countries we don't read about much either don't test, don't have test kits, or if they do they don't publish the results. Then we've got the senior care homes, where we're now learning that many deaths in most countries were not tested before or after death. In the UK, for example, the news just reported that coronavirus deaths had only counted people who died in hospitals, which caused the death counts to increase by 15%. While in France, nursing-home fatalities boosted deaths from the virus by more than 40% last week. And of course the U.S. test routines have varied by states.--Light show (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

How would you communicate that other countries are worse off? "US has the most deaths in the world" sounds like it's them. Sailing californium (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Just from this article in Time, about only China, it's apparent that it's not really possible, as Radio Free Asia estimated the death count was maybe 20 times greater that stated. The article didn't even mention the WHO, which could have set a standard to go by, or by expelling reporters from the NYT, WSJ, and WaPo a month ago, transparency was thrown under the bus. --Light show (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

You should be able to communicate that US is not most affected. Sailing californium (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Why are deaths not showing anymore in the table that shows last 15 days cumulative cases?

Why are deaths not showing anymore in the table that shows last 15 days cumulative cases? The underlying table/data still has the deaths, but they're not showing up on the chart near the top of the article. Can someone fix that? I thought they were showing on that chart yesterday. Sorry if my question is dumb or naive. I'm fairly new at the backend of wikipedia. Benjaminady (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this is a problem. Not going to mess with it because this page is semi-protected and I haven't been involved in any of the editing here up to now, but I think losing this is unfortunate. I can see a case being made that the death numbers aren't reliable, especially with NY moving to reporting probable deaths from COVID-19 in the last couple days---but the case numbers are no more reliable than the death numbers, since they're heavily limited by availability of testing. None of these numbers are perfect, but all of them are useful for comparison over time. Yakaji (talk) 07:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Panthera Worldwide LLC, add?

The Trump administration awarded a $55 million contract for N95 masks to a bankrupt company with no employees or experience producing medical supplies: Panthera Worldwide LLC.

• John Haltiwanger The Trump administration paid a bankrupt company with zero employees $55 million for N95 masks, which it's never manufactured 16 April 2020 businessinsider.com
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/coronavirus-trump-masks-contracts-prices/2020/04/15/9c186276-7f20-11ea-8de7-9fdff6d5d83e_story.html

07:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Trump Admin. discouraged public mask use while securing thousands for themselves, add?

As the Trump administration discouraged mask use for the public, the National Security Council (NSC) secured a personal stash of 3,600 masks for White House staff. A senior NSC appealed to Taiwan on March 14 for a donation of hundreds of thousands of surgical masks. At the time, the Trump administration was discouraging Americans from wearing masks, saying that healthy people didn’t need them and that the gear should be saved for medical workers.

• As U.S. discouraged mask use for public, White House team raced to secure face coverings from Taiwan for senior staff WaPo 15 April 2020
  • Carol Leonnig, Elizabeth Dwoskin, John Hudson As U.S. discouraged mask use for public, White House team raced to secure face coverings from Taiwan for senior staff WaPo via MSN 15 April 2020
  • Emma Tucker White House Scrambled to Secure Masks for Staffers as U.S. Discouraged Using Them: Report April 15, 2020 thedailybeast.com

X1\ (talk) 08:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

First family violating stay-at-home orders, add?

Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner defied federal social distancing guidelines and traveled to New Jersey with their children to celebrate the first night of Passover. Jared and Ivanka flew with their three children to Trump National Golf Club (Bedminster, New Jersey) despite federal guidelines and a stay-at-home order issued on April 1 for the city of Washington.

• https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/15/us/politics/coronavirus-ivanka-trump.html

X1\ (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Add Kellyanne's "This is COVID-19, not COVID-1, folks." ?

Kellyanne Conway stated on April 15, 2020 in an interview on "Fox & Friends": "This is COVID-19, not COVID-1, folks. And so you would think the people charged with the World Health Organization facts and figures would be on top of that."

• Bill McCarthy Kellyanne Conway misleads on name for COVID-19, says it’s ‘not COVID-1’ April 15, 2020 PolitiFact.com

X1\ (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Chart Timeline of number of tests per million people in different countries

Please add countries performing worse than the US such as UK, France, and Sweden. 70.181.191.109 (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Wrong article. See 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. VQuakr (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Full-list-cumulative-total-tests-per-million.svg is used under heading "COVID-19 testing" on article "2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States"70.181.191.109 (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for clarifying. The source for that graph, [1], does appear to have some info for France, UK, and Sweden. The units are inconsistent: most of the reporting from the US has been samples tested while many countries (including UK and Sweden) have been people tested (there are often but not always two or more tests per person). So in terms of equal units France is unclear, Sweden is ahead of the US, and the UK is behind the US but not by as much as that site's data would indicate. The reported data frequency for Sweden and France is weekly rather than daily, so they may not be the best choices for comparison.

Now, per WP:SYNTH the conclusion "X country is testing more people per capita than Y" needs to be sourced to a WP:SECONDARY source, not to a raw data site like the one used for the graph. We already have some of that analysis in the article, sourced to secondary sources including The Guardian and The Atlantic. VQuakr (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Sweden has tested 74,600 "samples". The United States has tested 3,401,064 samples. Not to pick on Sweden. I feel bad this chart makes the US look like the worst when it is processing almost the most samples per capita. 70.181.191.109 (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

That's like 40% more per capita; not a massively dramatic difference. The US is middling in terms of tests per capita, not almost the most. VQuakr (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Excluding island/nations with less than 100k people, there are 18 nations that have tested more per capita than the US and the US is out performing the remaining 100+. The US rate of testing at 150k-250k samples per day, is the highest in the world, and among the highest per capita. Sailing californium (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

National comparisons likely off topic

Per a recent edit, "SK [S. Korea] is a common comparison on testing programs done efficently,...". The rationale used was some editor's personal opinion, which obviously shouldn't be anywhere in the article. Do we start comparing the U.S. testing efforts not to Asia, but to Western nations, some of which likewise made unfulfilled promises, forcing people to buying their tests by mail order, for instance? Or about "Tension over shortage of coronavirus tests across Europe." --Light show (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Remove. US testing will exceed South Korea, cumulative and per capita, in the next few days anyway. Sailing californium (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced comparisons should be removed regardless of whether they are to European or Asian countries. We can't exclude a viewpoint made in secondary sources, though, just because we think the US is more like Europe. The comparison to South Korea was made by Trump and extensively analyzed by secondary sources, so there pretty clearly needs to be a mention (example: [2]). VQuakr (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Reference 16 is a biased and opinionized reference

WP:TALKNO -- MelanieN (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The link takes you to a wapo article that starts Trump's response timeline at Jan 27th. From there it is another example of poor journalism. The whole sentence prior needs to be removed, or a better reference cited, to include ALL of the White House statements on the matter since late 2019. Solly989 (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC) Solly989, WaPo is a reliable source. What statements did the White House make on COVID prior to January 27? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC) WaPo is not inclined to paint the current administration neutrally. There are no favorable articles about the current administration on Wapo.com Sailing californium (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC) Sailing californium, WaPo conducts investigative journalism, not propaganda on behalf of the administration. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC) WaPo is objective if you believe in ~4 years every action taken by the administration was worthy of rebuke while none were praiseworthy. The worst historical dictators did something praiseworthy during their reign. Sailing californium (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC) Sailing californium, take it up at WP:RS/N if you want to hear more about how the Washington Post is a reliable source. This is not appropriate here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC) Appeals to authority end conversations, but do not persuade. Sailing californium (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC) Sailing californium, I do not anticipate being able to persuade you, but this conversation is offtopic for the purpose of this talk page, which is addressing improvements to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC) I apologize. The original poster suggested the "wapo article" was "another example of poor journalism." Outrageous. WaPo is included on WP:RS and must be accepted. Sailing californium (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Becoming leading cause of death in U.S., add?

COVID-19 is becoming one of America’s leading causes of death. COVID-19 killed more people from April 6 to April 12 than any other cause of death except heart disease typically does in a normal April week.

• Coronavirus is becoming America's leading cause of death WaPo 16 April 2020

X1\ (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The CDC reports 3 million deaths in 2017. 650k (heart disease), 600k (cancer), 150k (accidents), 160k (respiratory disease), etc. If coronavirus kills 60k it would be 8th on the 2017-CDC list between diabetes (83k) and influenza (55k). Sailing californium (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the CDC stats, Sailing californium. Are you saying add, but only if meets a certain threshold? X1\ (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Do not add until the pandemic is over, otherwise it will just have to be changed. Sailing californium (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Wording can be done in such a way that time's passage isn't a concern. X1\ (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Tara Sweeney scandal, add?

A high-ranking Interior Department official is under fire over her role in securing access to billions of dollars in coronavirus aid for a handful of wealthy Alaska corporations, including one that previously employed her as a lobbyist and top executive.

• Adam Cancryn Trump Interior official helped clear way for payments to ex-employer; Indian Affairs assistant secretary faces scrutiny over decision giving for-profit corporations access to funds tribes say were intended for them alone. April 16, 2020 Politico

X1\ (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

No. Article is already long. We should not try to make Trump look bad. Sailing californium (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not try, Sailing californium, it is what RSs say. High-ranking corruption related to SARS-2 relief funding is significant. Suggest elsewhere to add? X1\ (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe you enjoy making the Trump administration look bad. Sailing californium (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

With trillions of dollars being moved around, there's almost nothing easier than picking some news story like this one to add to the cherry pie. The article really needs to be tightened at this point, and any new facts added should have significant relevance to the pandemic. --Light show (talk) 05:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Your opinion of me is irrelevant, Sailing californium. AGF, and follow the RSs. X1\ (talk) 05:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The item would fit in some, more generic, Presidency of Donald Trump related article, Light show. X1\ (talk) 05:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Four different numbers of deaths?

There are currently four different numbers of deaths on this page and elsewhere: one in the infobox, one in the medical cases chart, one in the cases by state/territory, and one in the table here. What is going on? What can be done to remove the inconsistent reporting of numbers? --Spaastm (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering about that too. WikiUser70176 (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you want probable deaths or confirmed? The CDC makes a distinction, JHU doesn't. For example, the CDC site reads "Total deaths: 31,071 (26,930 confirmed; 4,141 probable)" Sailing californium (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

What I want is consistency. We should have one and only one source of information for all tables; and two sources (JHU and CDC) in the infobox. --Spaastm (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Spaastm The numbers in the cases by state table are manually tallied from each state government source since for some stupid reason wiki tables can't autosum, so the totals are always going to be behind, especially when people update a particular state but forget to add it to the US total. If I had to guess, JHU et al. are aggregating official county data releases, which are often ahead of the official state reports we use for the table. So JHU is closer to being "real-time" whereas the tables and charts are typically a day behind. JoelleJay (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

JoelleJay Thank you for your kind explanation! --Spaastm (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Testing has slowed, add?

The number of coronavirus tests analyzed each day in the U.S. has slowed by more than 30% over the past week. Commercial labs say they are sitting with unused testing capacity waiting for samples to arrive.

• https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/14/coronavirus-testing-delays-186883

X1\ (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Testing does not appear to have slowed. Dr. Birx said people would be using in-house equipment instead of sending to the CDC. Sailing californium (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sailing californium: Check this The supply chain fiasco that has derailed COVID-19 testing in the U.S. on YouTube published April 17, 2020 PBS NewsHour, and previously

The Health 202: Coronavirus testing is stalling. The Health 202: Coronavirus testing is stalling. That's not a good sign for re-opening the U.S. economy. April 14, 2020 WaPo

X1\ (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The US is processing ~150k samples per day. Every 7 days it has processed more samples than the previous 7 days. You cannot speculate. Sailing californium (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

These are RSs, not "speculation", Sailing californium. X1\ (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

You cannot say "US testing has slowed" unless the US processes less samples for a comparative time period (such as "this week, vs last week"). The US processes more, month over month, week over week. Sailing californium (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

It is not me saying it, it is the RSs, Sailing californium. X1\ (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

You misunderstand them. The CDC is testing less. The US, in total, is testing more. Update the main article if you feel comfortable. The US is testing more than ever. Sailing californium (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Please bring RSs from news sources (i.e. not covidtracking.com) and post here, Sailing californium X1\ (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Your WaPo article cites CovidTracker. If you feel it's unreliable, update the main article. Sailing californium (talk) 05:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Post RSs backing what you are saying about covidtracking.com. No wp:OR. X1\ (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

If you believe you are correct, just update the article. Sailing californium (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

So you can't supply RSs? 06:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not your slave, and you posted half the links on the talk page, you are clearly a competent researcher. If you believe you are correct, update the article. Sailing californium (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Since the onus is on you to back what you say with RSs, you have no argument against the RSs I have posted. X1\ (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Then you have no reason not to update the article. Sailing californium (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Chinese export restrictions and medical supplies not shipping, add?

New Chinese export restrictions have stranded face masks, test kits, and other medical equipment for the U.S. in warehouses across China. The policies, instituted this month, have “disrupted established supply chains for medical products just as these products were most needed for the global response to Covid-19,” according to State Department memos.

• https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-export-restrictions-strand-medical-goods-u-s-needs-to-fight-coronavirus-state-department-says-11587031203

X1\ (talk) 07:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Sacramento Kings shooting after postponement, 2020-03-11.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

"Non-repatriated"??

Hi folks! I have not been part of this article from the beginning and am just getting acquainted with it now, so that is probably why this doesn't make sense to me. But why are we specifying cases as "non-repatriated"? What does that even mean? It probably did make sense in the very early days of the epidemic, when authorities were carefully specifying how each case got infected and whether it related to travel. But what difference does it make nowadays, when virtually all cases are via community spread and we are not even distinguishing how they got infected? I am sure I am not the only person whose reaction to the repeated invocation of "non-repatriated" in this article is "huh?" Comments? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

CIA warning on hydroxychloroquine, add?

See previous Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States/Archive 7 § add to or update Trump's promotion of unproven drugs ? and Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States/Archive 5 § example of effects of Trump's promotion of unproven drugs, add here?

The Central Intelligence Agency has advised its workforce that taking an anti-malarial drug touted by Trump for the coronavirus has potentially dangerous side effects, including sudden death.

A CIA website for employees about the coronavirus addressed the topic on March 27, noting “At this point, the drug is not recommended to be used by patients except by medical professionals prescribing it as part of ongoing investigational studies. There are potentially significant side effects, including sudden cardiac death, associated with hydroxychloroquine and its individual use in patients need to be carefully selected and monitored by a health care professional,” adding in bold type: “Please do not obtain this medication on your own.”

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-cia/2020/04/13/54129d64-7dba-11ea-8013-1b6da0e4a2b7_story.html

X1\ (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

X1\, we can read the news too. If you think items are relevant, then add them. Simply posting news articles links and summaries isn't helpful. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course it's helpful. It's better than immediately changing article content and launching a pointless revert war. SPECIFICO talk 13:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I am posting them to Talk since I think items are relevant; but not adding them as there may be some controversy in them being added and thus somewhat disruptive, so by posting them here first I can see if that is so. X1\ (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

They advise that the medication must only be taken in amounts prescribed by a doctor because it is lethal. That's true for all(?) controlled substances. Sailing californium (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

While I agree things must be kept in perspective, Sailing californium, let us not get too general. Even something as necessary as water can kill: Drinking Too Much Water Can Kill June 21, 2007 Scientific American. X1\ (talk) 02:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

They did not even advise against seeking a doctors recommendation for a hydroxychloroquine prescription. They said take it if you want, just consult a doctor. Sailing californium (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The point is: it is contraindicated. X1\ (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

All(?) prescription medications are contraindicated. Sailing californium (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

What? No, hydroxychloroquine is contraindicated for coronavirus disease. X1\ (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

what's the source of this claim ("hydroxychloroquine is contraindicated for coronavirus disease") ? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

80% of relief going to millionaires, add?

More than 80% of the benefits of a tax change in the coronavirus relief package Congress passed last month will go to those who earn more than $1 million annually. The provision temporarily suspends a limitation on how much owners of businesses formed as “pass-through” entities can deduct against their nonbusiness income, such as capital gains, to reduce their tax liability. The provision was inserted into the legislation by Senate Republicans and will cost taxpayers about $90 billion in 2020.

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/04/14/coronavirus-law-congress-tax-change

X1\ (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Add. WikiUser70176 (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

No Add. Percentages are misleading. What dollar amount went to the middle class? Are millionaires not US citizens entitled to relief if their businesses collapse? $90 billion was one component of the $6,000 billion stimulus package. Let's not pretend as though Wapo paints the current administration in friendly terms. Sailing californium (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree Sailing californium more detail would be helpful, but we can avoid your concern with percentages by saying "... (vast) major of ..." thus matching the ballpark of "80%". X1\ (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

More than $6,000bn was handed out in direct payments, unemployment benefits, or SBA grants. It is unreasonable to focus on 1.5% of $6,000bn, and call that "80% of benefits going to only millionaires." Sailing californium (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Where are you getting your numbers, Sailing californium? X1\ (talk) 05:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Exactly what phrasing is proposed to be added? The WaPo article notes that 80% of the benefit of this specific provision of the relief package goes to people with more than $1M in income. That is dramatically different than what is stated in the header of this talk section. VQuakr (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Can someone update nevada's numbers?

There are now 3626 cases and 151 deaths per NDHHS https://app.powerbigov.us/view?r=eyJrIjoiMjA2ZThiOWUtM2FlNS00MGY5LWFmYjUtNmQwNTQ3Nzg5N2I2IiwidCI6ImU0YTM0MGU2LWI4OWUtNGU2OC04ZWFhLTE1NDRkMjcwMzk4MCJ9

 Done. Thanks for the update! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Halting of WHO support may be illegal, add here or ... ?

House Democrats: Trump’s halt on funding to the WHO is illegal and violates the same federal spending laws as the Ukraine aid freeze that prompted his impeachment.

• https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/15/house-democrats-trump-who-funding-188124

X1\ (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Trump is the only leader confronting the global coronavirus failure; add?

According to The Telegraph (UK), "Yet Donald Trump is the only world leader who has been prepared to point the finger at the WHO’s failings – and has withdrawn America’s $400 million funding pending a review of its role in the disaster. It says much about the anti-Trump obsession of his detractors that even as thousands die and economies crash, they should choose to turn on the American president rather than recognise where true culpability resides." --Light show (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I made your post as a subsection, as it appears that is what you intended, Light show. Apparently, I'm guessing, you are attempting a partisan-driven quasi-"rebuttal"? X1\ (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The Telegraph is GREL, but you picked an opinion piece; of limited use, Light show. X1\ (talk) 05:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I bolded the title of the article where it came from, X1\, but I don't care if it's a subsection or not. My rationale for the edit was "balancing point," which that article attempted to present. There are other balancing articles to keep the issue neutral. --Light show (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

What is thedispatch.com? X1\ (talk) 05:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

It's apparently a relatively new online commentary magazine. --Light show (talk) 05:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

apparently? You don't even know what your posting? So you are just disruptively trolling here, Light show? X1\ (talk) 06:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I know that the writer is a RS from the credit: "Lyman Stone is the chief information officer of the consulting firm Demographic Intelligence, a research fellow at the Institute for Family Studies, and an adjunct fellow at the American Enterprise Institute". While the reporter of the story you posted is, well, just a reporter. Was it really easier to be so hostile than just seeing for yourself who wrote the article? --Light show (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

You are not describing a RS that can be used without attribution. In otherwords, just some CIO's opinion, who is a pundit. Not helpful. A reporter's job is to not insert themselves into the story. If you don't know that by now, you are disruptively trolling. X1\ (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Why not just read their description yourself, here? --Light show (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

TheDispatch.com appears to be non-RS, Light show. X1\ (talk) 07:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

On what basis? --Light show (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

That Telegraph piece was presented like an editorial, not just someone's opinion, and seemingly better than a reporter's story. --Light show (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

In any case, they've written about this issue before.--Light show (talk) 06:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Update: It's interesting that two days after Trump said he would withhold funds from the WHO, it just gave Taiwan "rare praise" and would henceforth include Taiwan as a member of the WHO's technical networks. The Telegraph article mentioned above noted that Taiwan's early human-to-human transmission warnings from December were ignored by the WHO. --Light show (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

A political 'he said / she said' argument between Democrats and Republicans, sourced to Politico? No, this is an encyclopedia, not the beltway gossip column. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 cases in United States Data Errors and Under Reporting of Deaths

The data is totally out of line with international reporting. It has become worse over the last days. COVID-19 cases in United States bar chart is now totally incorrect. Better figures are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_by_country_and_territory and also here: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries Under reporting on this page is now totally misleading. Cases 696,621 and Deaths 32,435 vs. Cases 736,790 and Deaths 38,920 Whoever is responsible for this is doing a bad job and misleading the public because this data is now seriously under reporting. Thinksome (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation COVID model concerns, add?

There is criticism of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation COVID model.

Epidemiologists warned that an influential COVID-19 model is flawed and shouldn’t be relied on as the basis for government decision making, including on “re-opening America.” The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington projections were used by the Trump administration in developing national guidelines to mitigate the outbreak and have influenced the White House’s thinking on how and when to “re-open” the country.

• https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/17/influential-covid-19-model-uses-flawed-methods-shouldnt-guide-policies-critics-say

X1\ (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I would support adding a mention of the criticisms of the IHME model, but not in the manner you suggest above. If we add it, we need to focus on the fact that the IHME was the basis for the shelter in place directives to begin with, and that it it proved to wildly overestimate the number of deaths, IC beds needed and hospital beds needed. We could also mention that it was repeatedly revised downwards, sometimes within days of a previous revision. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

More than 30 million infected in the US?

So according the cited study based on antibody testing [3], the number of infected people in US is actually 50 to 80 times greater than the number of officially identified cases (600+ thousand). Hence ... This is unless the antibody test produced a lot of false-positives, which is possible. Just another example why wide testing is an imperative. And BTW, these guys [4] say that the curve is now flat only because it reflects small number of testings. I hope they are wrong. My very best wishes (talk) 04:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

It says "may have" and "estimate". It is an extrapolation, not confirmed. I definitely agree wide testing is an imperative, but see #Testing has slowed, add? X1\ (talk) 05:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

On your testing comment: Sarah Fitzpatrick, Heidi Przybyla, Dan De Luce, Laura Strickler and Adiel Kaplan Coronavirus testing must double or triple before U.S. can safely reopen, experts say; "We are an order of magnitude off right now from where we should be," said an expert in infectious disease modeling who advised the Obama administration. NBC News April 17, 2020 X1\ (talk) 06:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, add I think. Sure, the infections are strongly underestimated, but how much? First study gives an estimate: by 50-80 times! But it is even worse. First, according to WHO, not all people who recover from the coronavirus may have the antibodies (the subject of the test) to fight a second infection [5]. Secondly, there’s no evidence such serological tests, even if positive (i.e. the person has some antibodies detected) necessarily show that a person has strong specific immunity and can not be longer reinfected [6], although this needs to studied a lot more. Third, many people who "recover" have serious long-term health issues with heart, etc. (lots of publications; just a random example: [7]). My very best wishes (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Nice ! Great news ! A sample of 3300 randomized by zip code also seems pretty solid to me. I think we might need a few more days before using those source on WP, I guess more tests should come shortly. Iluvalar (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus pandemic will end by May or June

2019–20 coronavirus pandemic will be over by May or June of 2020. Sports would return this summer and Disney Parks & Resorts will re-opening on California, Florida, Tokyo, Paris Hong Kong & Shanghai.

It will NOT affect the 44th Annual Macy's 4th of July Fireworks, the 94th Annual Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, Disney Parks Christmas Day Parade, the 132nd Annual Tournament of Roses Parade in 2021, etc.

Shortages of ventilators

"Shortages in the United States were contrasted with Finland..."

I believe there was never a shortage. Everyone who needed a ventilator, got a ventilator. There was only a "shortage" against projections/guesses/models that were wrong. Does anyone disagree? Sailing californium (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

No, that can safely be deleted, or at least needs to be reworded to something like "Projected shortages, which never materilized, were contrasted..." JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no evidence for Everyone who needed a ventilator, got a ventilator. It is a Trump talking point. But unless RS report evidence of excess ventilators sitting idle in New York and other high-impact locations, we have no basis to say that. From the reporting I have seen, the available ventilators were in use and there was no attempt to poll physicians as to whether they would have deployed additional units, had they been available. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

You're a little confused. If you want to write in an article that "Shortages in the United States...", you need a source that says there was a shortage. The onus is not on people wanting to remove a false claim w/o a source to source its opposite. But just to humor you: The Ventilator Shortage That Wasn’t. With NY shipping ventilators to other states, I think its safe to say there's evidence of excess ventilators sitting idle in New York a. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

No. The necessary number is the number that healthcare managers estimated according to the best unbiased estimates of their need. That ex ante estimate was based on mainstream scientific models. The number available fell short of that. The case load may also have fallen short of that, ex post. Now cycle back to my original statement. SPECIFICO talk 00:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

as I wrote , we can reword to "Projected shortages, which never materialized, were contrasted..." or something similar. But there were no shortages, only projected shortages, based on models. And take note of what I wrote regarding the criticisms of the models themselves, in another section. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

News says New York had enough ventilators, and is now shipping them out to other states. Does anyone have a report, or the belief, that someone in the US needed a ventilator and could not get one? I can't find anyone reporting more patient demand than supply. Sailing californium (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Numerous patients died who would have been put on ventilators, had they been available. We do not know whether they would have recovered with the help of the ventilators, but there is no doubt that if physicians had access to more ventilators, they would have used them and saved a significant fraction of the patients who were intubated. Nobody is taking time to "report" that circumstance - surely you are not suggesting ICU physicians are taking the time to file "woulda coulda" reports in this crisis. But it has been stated to journalists and public officials. SPECIFICO talk 12:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• The subhed in the article the removed information was under was "Abandoned and delayed efforts to improve mask and ventilator supply", and the sentence removed, in full, was "Shortages in the United States and many European countries were contrasted with Finland, which has maintained medical stockpiles since the 1950s, and was able to meet demand for masks from the government supply." Given that the sentence was clearly about mask shortages, how should we move forward? Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

A couple quick citations for the fact there were and are mask shortages: Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

References

I think we just move on. The article itself was focused on Finland, not the US. That sentence was a bit of trivia, and included here in a section already very long. Why would the comparison with Finland be all that important here? 20 years from now when people read about the c2020 coronavirus pandemic in the US, will they care that some NYT reporter compared it to Finland? I don't think so. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, I don't think that they will care that someone compared the US to Finland, but other countries' successes with mask supply and our failure with the same is notable, in my opinion. Your rationale was "WP:UNDUE, especially since no shortages actually occurred" (emphasis added), does that still hold? Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The mask shortage is already discussed aplenty in the section. If the comparison with Finland won't survive the test of time, it does not belong. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

You want evidence of shortages? This is not a myth; we have a whole article about it. Look there for the evidence you are seeking. Or look here: [8] [9][10] [11] Even Trump admitted it: [12]. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

All of these articles talk about projections. Did any patient who needed one, not get one? Where did people die because they couldn't get ventilation? If there was enough for all patients, there wasn't a shortage. Sailing californium (talk) 03:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be a rhetorical question, since we don't claim anywhere in the article that lack of ventilators was killing people. We mention ventilators 40-some times in the article, and in all cases it is clear that we are talking about PROJECTED shortages and attempts to get, buy, or build more. An official government survey of hospitals [13] found that hospitals were reporting acute shortages of testing materials and personal protective equipment, and projecting that they might run short of ventilators. So our sentence in the lead, sourced to that report, says Federal health inspectors surveyed hospitals in late March, reporting shortages of test supplies, personal protective equipment (PPE), and other resources due to extended patient stays while awaiting test results. That is a completely accurate report of the situation and it says nothing about ventilators. I don't see what your point here is, since you are disputing a claim that is not in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The question is did we or did we not have an actual shortage of ventilators? Who cares what the expectations are if they are far from the actual situation? That needs to be made much clearer. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Ernie, to answer your question Yes we did have an actual shortage of ventilators. There still is a potentially catastrophic shortage of ventillators. Every day Trump assures us that more are being built. The U.S. number of infections continues to grow. SPECIFICO talk 17:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if we did or did not have an actual shortage of ventilators. Because we don't say, anywhere in the article, that we did. The point of a talk page is to discuss what is in the article. Since the article doesn't say we had an actual shortage, this discussion is off topic. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

BTW it appears the sentence about Finland has been removed from the article, but it used to say Shortages in the United States and many European countries were contrasted with Finland, which has maintained medical stockpiles since the 1950s, and was able to meet demand for masks from the government supply. It mentions masks, of which we did and do have an acute shortage, but it says nothing about ventilators. So again, you are refuting a claim we never made. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)