Talk:COVID-19 testing/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

New data for Switzerland

Hello, please update the data for Switzerland.

Based on input from BAG (federal office for public health), this NZZ article

https://nzzas.nzz.ch/wissen/coronavirus-ueber-50000-tests-in-der-schweiz-ld.1547810

says that until 20.03.2020 there have been 50000 tests made. Since the article requires a subscription, I provide a pdf here:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1FJUU0yURit3Dr6ZwUoh39SsYVkuKk9L1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C71:5650:3111:17EE:3F2B:8490 (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

--

Update 24.03.2020: 80000 tests made, announced by Patrick Mathys (BAG) in the beginning of the (live) press conference, at 02:50, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytGPwj77zvA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C71:5650:4D01:8E62:85F3:8972 (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Also in media: https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/point-de-presse-auf-fachebene-783859025572 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C71:5650:4D01:8E62:85F3:8972 (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

--

Update 26.03.2020: 91’400 tests made. Source: Federal Office of Public Health FOPH https://www.bag.admin.ch/dam/bag/de/dokumente/mt/k-und-i/aktuelle-ausbrueche-pandemien/2019-nCoV/covid-19-lagebericht.pdf.download.pdf/COVID-19_Epidemiologische_Lage_Schweiz.pdf Seelenhirt (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we add India Please ?

4058 tests conducted as of March 6. <https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/niv-scientists-working-round-the-clock-to-ensure-smooth-coronavirus-testing-across-country/articleshow/74536078.cms?from=mdr> Gegu0284 (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Antibody testing

The page confuses two topics:

1. The use of antibodies as a reagent to detect virus. As an alternative to eg methods based on PCR.
2. The detection of antibodies showing that the patient has an immune response to the virus.

The better split would be at a section level of what is being detected, and within that the methods used.12:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)S C Cheese (talk)

CT diagnostics

Removed CT diagnostics from top as this is profoundly misleading. Context of the study was Wuhan province population & while results **for this population** *might* be sensitive, it may not be (probably is not) specific. Either way this sentence implied generalizability which there is no evidence for either way.Xris0 (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Testing for antibodies

Someone has removed the section of testing for antibodies without replacing it with eg a link. Why? ThanksS C Cheese (talk) 23:04, 14 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) 16:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Graph

This Vox article has an interesting graph showing proportion of tests performed to population. -- Beland (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Center of Disease Control?

Nit-picky point here, and I would ordinarily just edit such an error, but since this is such an important current issue, I sense a possible edit war, so maybe it's safer to step gingerly and just talk about it.... The article refers to the "Center of Disease Control," which text is even wikilinked to the "Centers for Disease Control and Prevention" article. Why does this article have an incorrect name for the CDC? Is there some controversy over the name? I'm puzzled! Someone actually wikilinked the incorrect text to the article that gets the name right! What gives??Cellodont (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Waited 15 min or so to see if anyone is watching the talk page closely, seems no one is watching that closely, so I'll just edit the article, get the name correct... Cellodont (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Need to update paragraph related to BioMedomics

As of March 17 under an emergency policy from the FDA they could sell their test to healthcare providers in the United States.

https://www.biomedomics.com/latest-fda-guidance-allows-distribution-of-sars-cov-2-serology-tests-for-diagnostic-use/

I would edit myself, but page appears locked to me. If wikipedia is to serve its purpose IMHO we need to keep up with information like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.78.194 (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you have an RS? X1\ (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

See Talk Page for Table

NOTE: For comments on the table itself, see the talk page --Tiredmeliorist (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

"Antibodies as reagents for detecting virus" and "Detection of human antibodies"

These have been put back into a single section for a second time. They are testing for different things and their uses are completely different. This is about to become very important as detection of human antibodies starts to be used both for population surveillance and for individual immunity. Please could whoever is remerging them explain the reason. Thanks S C Cheese (talk) 08:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Data for Ecuador

Data for Ecuador can be found here: https://www.salud.gob.ec/actualizacion-de-casos-de-coronavirus-en-ecuador/

As of 19.3.2020, there have been 762 tests. Aurelote (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2020

current test numbers in turkey over 10.000 as of March 19

https://twitter.com/drfahrettinkoca/status/1240699520691757056?s=20

Health minister speakin in the parliament — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susesa (talk • contribs) 10:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

'Tests per million' and 'Positive prt 1,000'

Calculation method and calculation formula of 'Tests per million' and 'Positive prt 1,000' is strongly needed personally. Please tell me about it at the earliest. --Kyuri1449 (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

'Tests per million' is TOTAL_NUMBER_OF_TESTS divided by the MILLIONS_OF_PEOPLE in the population. So for a nation with 500 total tests and 2 500 000 inhabitants it is 500 / 2.5 = 200. "Positive per 1,000" is NUMBER_OF_POSITIVE_TESTS divided by THOUSANDS_OF_PERFORMED_TESTS, so for nation with 20 positives and 3849 tests it is 20 / 3.849 ~= 5 Martensonus (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.--Kyuri1449 (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

1. Please consider reporting the positive test rate in percentage rather than per 1000. 2. When updating, please use the difference from old data to report current positive test rate. That is, delta tests/delta positive cases. As an example, I have calculated this rate for a few countries based on reports of totals from official sources and the results are: Italy 30.87%, UK 30.31%, Austria 19.85.%, Israel 4.74%, South Korea 0.94%. For some countries that only report the latest numbers, it possible to get the previous total numbers by using the way-back machine archive.org --Ori not ori (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Untitled section

Add Croatia new data Bosnia data for +ve/1000 seems to be an anomaly you might want to correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.171.227.56 (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

High level structure

I've just changed the high level structure. Comments please before we add references etc using that structure. Thanks.S C Cheese (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC).

Canada provinces and other subdivisions

Hi, 12 Canadian provinces a re listed separately, as well as some Italian provinces and US states. I understand some editors may think important to distinguish between the sub-entities; I suggest only those with tests-per-million-people numbers higher than the coutnry's average are presented separately. (Or something like that.) Alternatively, we can remove (almost?) all subdivision, as other countries are also composed of smaller regions etc, and I see no reason why Canada and others should be treated differently than those other countries. My concern is that when I sort the table by positive per million, I get a number of US, Canadian and Italian subregions in the first idk 20 rows, and that is really confusing and hard to make a picture of. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Simultaneous testing method

Should this article mention the method introduced in Israel for testing 64 patients at once? See [1], [2], [3], [4]. --Yair rand (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. The high-level structure now seems stable. Please add it with a reference.S C Cheese (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Data for Slovakia

The source for data for Slovakia points to a FT article on Singapore. I was not able to find a source on the website of the ministry of health, but the Public Health Authority has data from yesterday there: http://www.uvzsr.sk/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=250&Itemid=153

Other thing is that the no. of tests per 1 million people is off by a factor of 10, (3304+185)/5.45 = 640, using the population estimate from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovakia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.165.144.118 (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

New data for Belgium

According the this source Belgium has now about 30000 tests conducted (reported in daily press conference at 11 am on March 23rd): https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20200323_04898972 Currently the amount of tests is increasing with 2000/2500 per day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.161.111 (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

"Samples tested" versus "people tested"

The Australian state of Queensland reports the number of samples tested. As multiple samples can be taken from the same patient, how should this data be treated? Other states use the terminology "cases tested" or clearly indicate they are referring to individuals. Should the article differentiate "people tested" from "tests"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 01syhr (talk • contribs) 12:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Elaborate the following aspects of molecular methods and add some protocols.

Since molecular biology education is too limited; it is necessary to elaborate

A. RT-PCR: basic and associated steps and how they are done.

1. RNA isolation and protection from RNase 2. Reverse transcription 3. DNA amplification 4. Gel electrophoresis and visualisation

B. Immunotechniques such as

1. ELISA 2. Western blot 3. Dot blot etc.

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

value of earlier testing, add?

Regarding example 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States:

• Alexis C. Madrigal and Robinson Meyer, How the Coronavirus Became an American Catastrophe; The death and economic damage sweeping the United States could have been avoided—if only we had started testing for the virus sooner. March 21, 2020 The Atlantic

X1\ (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Concerning United States "Total Tests"

The current data reflected in the COVID-19 testing article for testing in the United States is still being sourced by the CDC even while the CDC has clearly stated:

"As of 14 March 2020, public health laboratories using the CDC assay are no longer required by FDA to submit samples to CDC for confirmation. CDC is maintaining surge capacity while focusing on other support to state public health and on improving options for diagnostics for use in the public health sector."

If you wish to portray accurate testing data for the United States, you will need to either source and compile the data for each of the 50 states and 3 territories or source the data from a project that is already compiling properly sourced data, e.g.

--Werekief (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that we are only relying on official numbers, not third-party trackers. This statement you reference only says that the CDC is no longer conducting the tests alone. However, they are still tracking the # of tests on their website, hence the two different numbers they offer: "CDC labs" and "US public health laboratories". The latter is what changes the most each day, presumably incorporating the tests being reported in real-time by third party trackers like CovidTracking and JohnsHopkins. --Tiredmeliorist (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Metrics from each state are still considered "official". Below are official testing numbers from 6 states:

New York - 32427 (Govenor Cuomo shows it in a graphical presentation during press conference, go to 22:45 of press conference video

Washington - 20712

Minnesota - 3856

Michigan - 2618

New Mexico - 3814

Texas - 5277

Total from aforementioned 6 states - 68704

State medical officials are not sending all of their test cases to the CDC for confirmation anymore. In the United States, per the tenth amendment to the US Constituion, it is the States that are in charge of managing the medical care of their residents and it will be the individual States that will report accurate "official" testing metrics going forward. Wikipedia should reflect the most accurate testing data available in my opinion. Werekief (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you're confusing what the CDC "confirmation" was. Before the 14th, tests could be run by private labs (e.g., Quest, Labcorps), but they still had to send those samples to the CDC to confirm the results with the CDC's test. It was horribly inefficient. That's different than the tally on the CDC website. They were never "confirming" the numbers-- they were literally re-running the samples. They also stopped reporting the test #s at one point, which alarmed everyone and gave birth to websites like CovidTracking. But the only reason the CDC #s are so different from CovidTracking right now (and Johns Hopkins, etc) is they are only updated once per day, so the CDC #s are simply a day behind the live trackers. Anyway, it's all moot now that tests have increased. Go ahead and use whatever numbers you want. --Tiredmeliorist (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

You are correct, however, while I think the both of us have an aim for accuracy, we're likely arguing a moot point while a couple other folks continue to edit and re-edit the numbers every 4-6 hours. I still feel like the goal of the page should be to show how many humans in the United States have been tested, and currently, the most accurate official metrics are coming in at the State level. --Werekief (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

What is the editor consensus for United States testing number sources? cdc or that covid tracking site? I've just reverted the latest edit that switched to the tracking site as source. Has the tracking site been considered as reliable by any (other) reliable reporting source, such as media. According to Reuters "US CDC data is incomplete for latest 4 days." so maybe a temporary solution is to include two rows for the US: one for CDC, the other for unofficial tracking? -84user (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the CDC had a footnote on their list for the last few days: "Data during this period are incomplete because of the lag in time between when specimens are accessioned, testing is performed, and results are reported." I took this to mean a lag time for when states report to the CDC, not that the data is incomplete (as Reuteurs says). But it's definitely more than a day behind, in truth, so CovidTracking seems more reliable. Perhaps the two row idea is best, though, because if the CDC #s are incomplete, that seems rather scandalous. What a way to undermine public trust during a crisis, geez. --Tiredmeliorist (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE: On 23-March, the CDC website added to a previous footnote that state data was indeed more accurate than their own: "In the event of a discrepancy between CDC cases and cases reported by state and local public health officials, data reported by states should be considered the most up to date." On 25-March, another footnote was added emphasizing the point: "CDC is no longer reporting the number of persons under investigation (PUIs) that have been tested, as well as PUIs that have tested negative. Now that states are testing and reporting their own results, CDC’s numbers are not representative of all testing being done nationwide." --Tiredmeliorist (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

References

More up to date data for Ireland.

Ireland carried out 17992 tests as of 24 March. Can this be updated please? https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/e378fd-statement-from-the-national-public-health-emergency-team-on-tuesday-/ Ourwayne (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

previous CDC manufacturing problem, add ?

A top federal scientist warned that the lab where the government-made test kits for the coronavirus was contaminated. The Trump administration has ordered the Department of Health and Human Services to investigate the apparent manufacturing defect at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) lab in Atlanta. Mike Pence, meanwhile, said “more than 15,000 testing kits” are in the mail to state and local clinics.

• https://www.axios.com/cdc-lab-coronavirus-contaminated-6dc9726d-dea3-423f-b5ad-eb7b1e44c2e2.html
• https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/01/health-officials-probe-coronavirus-cdc-118523
• https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/01/politics/mike-pence-coronavirus-testing-kits-cnntv/index.html

X1\ (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• That’s as of 1 March, 15,000 *additional* testing kits were in the mail. Was being added to the 75,000 tests available, when circa 3,600 had been tested. Think that may have meant ‘additional tests’ and not “kits”, because of BI description of a kit as enough for 700-800 tests and that wiki page by 18 March lists U.S. at 75,000+ tests done. The goal of a million available was reported not reached by 13 March, but revised projections were 1.2 million by 20 March. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Provide RSs. X1\ (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Germany missing?

No Numbers for Germany? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.72.216 (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Who translatet this "source"? It is hard to find data - but in this articel linkt as source is no total number. There is only mentioned a testing of 35.000 (during) last week... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.73.65.90 (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Such as CureVac ? X1\ (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump offered “large sums” of money to German company CureVac for exclusive access to a COVID-19 vaccine so that it would be available in the U.S. first. Trump offered the CEO of CureVac roughly $1 billion for access to a vaccine “only for the United States” at the White House on March 2. Germany’s Health Ministry confirmed that Trump had made the offer and that Berlin has been offering CureVac financial incentives to remain in Germany. Some refs: .

X1\ (talk) 05:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Tabloid hoax ? Not very credible a rumor as portrayed. It doesn’t make sense as to motives nor seem even possible to physically do that. Given Reuter’s distancing towards the anonymous allegation and coverage of company denials and such, it’s looking like one of many conspiracy theories thrown about. Not enough WEIGHT for mention anyway, not an actual Presidency action. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

From 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States:

On March 15, Die Welt reported that Donald Trump had unsuccessfully attempted to buy the German firm CureVac in an attempt to secure exclusive rights to a coronavirus vaccine. The move was widely criticized by German government officials. On 16 March, CureVac reported that it had not received an offer from Mr. Trump for the rights to its coronavirus vaccine.

X1\ (talk) 05:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

See CureVac#Reports of Trump administration overtures. X1\ (talk) 06:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump#Including attempt to get exclusive rights for the US for Covid 19 vaccine. X1\ (talk) 06:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Or more generally, see denials from the company and other views in Politico, USA Today, CNN, etcetera. I agree with Snopes on “confusing and unsubstantiated reports”. Seeking how to gain access to the vaccine makes reasonable sense - but making it exclusive or moving the company sounds like a hoax. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Per ref provided above Confusing and unsubstantiated would be accurate, instead of hoax. X1\ (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Testing in Germany

According to this article involving a high reputation virologist:

https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/corona-krise-virologe-liefert-erste-erklaerungen-zu-niedrigen-todeszahlen-in-deutschland-a-c8fef5d1-9c8e-4e9d-b8cc-3f85c6b00282

Germany performs "over half a million" tests per week. 78.48.135.114 (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

According to the latest official report of RKI (Robert-Koch-Institut)

Die Rückmeldungen von 174 Laboren ergaben, dass seit Beginn der Erfassung bis einschließlich Kalenderwoche 12/2020 bisher 483.295 Proben getestet wurden, die Mehrzahl seit der 11. KW. 33.491 Proben (6,9%) wurden positiv auf SARS-CoV-2 getestet.

The feedback from 174 laboratories showed that 483,295 samples have been tested since the start of the recording up to and including calendar week 12/2020, the majority since the 11th week. 33,491 samples (6.9%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

Note: The date of the report is the 26 March 2020; but the reported number 483,295 belong to cw 11 and cw 12! Also some laboratories may report delayed and will increase the number of tests.

--Thomasxb (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Please rename to testing for SARS-CoV-2

URGENT! tests test for the virus, not the disease. also RNA virus Test and antibody tests differ as current vs past infections Testing hospital cases is different than testing on the street with or without symptoms --Mathematician0 (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Mathematician0, use Template:Requested move. X1\ (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Serbia testing statistic

Official data can be found at this address https://covid19.rs/homepage-english/ The statistic is updated every day a few minutes after 15:00 CET. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.114.143 (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

New source for Japan

Please add new Japan data from this source, with latest information. https://covid19japan.com/?fbclid=IwAR1vKeFbPRY8jTRHIxRnWY6g6QaqnTUa_DXH18CjRn-P7CjfehXKlW5mo_o — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadiminas (talk • contribs) 09:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Add new data for Israel

There is new data for Israel testing, from here: https://t.me/s/MOHreport/2834 As of 24.3.2020 there were 32346 tests, out of those 2000 positives. I would add by myself, but I do not have permission No alone (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 17:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

please add data for Luxembourg

minister of health announced 13.738 total number of tests as of today 27/3 in press conference

https://www.rtl.lu/news/national/a/1491415.html

it is an interesting data point as its probably the largest number of tests per capita! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedaldancer73 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Antigen tests

In the UK, the talk is now of "antigen tests" [5] Can someone who knows how an antigen test works please add an explanation to this page. JonH (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

US test reporting

Approximately 15 states are not reporting negative tests in the USA. How is this page deriving a test per million residents figure without that data? TMLutas (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Bulgaria is missing

89.173.32.128 (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 16:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Can we add Germany please ?

My German is poor. Can somebody add Germany please? The information is here: https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Fallzahlen.html Elenaschifirnet (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no information about tests there. ARoth (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Es werden nur Fälle veröffentlicht, bei denen eine labordiagnostische Bestätigung (unabhängig vom klinischen Bild) vorliegt.

It says the data is sourced only from cases confirmed by a diagnosis from a laboratory, regardless of clinical symptoms. If that doesn’t qualify, I don’t know what does. — Synoli ⁕ 12:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I just realized your comment referred to the number of tests. Apologies for the misunderstanding. — Synoli ⁕ 12:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

https://www.tagesschau.de/faktenfinder/letalitaet-coronavirus-101.html " (ca. 1,9 pro 1000 Einwohner)." This states that per week Germany can test 1.9 permille of the inhabitants. But there is no total number. ARoth (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

This statistic also does not include germany: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1105095/umfrage/anzahl-durchgefuehrter-tests-fuer-das-coronavirus-nach-laendern/ ARoth (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

167,000 tests done on 15 Mar 2020 Source: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-testing-source-data but the source is a media news paper ARoth (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Here's official information, updated as of 24 March 2020:

400,000 tests conducted since the beginning of March. 2A02:8109:B6BF:8C30:316E:F8C0:415A:1DC9 (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Valid for 25 March 2020:

410,000 tests (from official source Robert Koch Institut equivalent to US CDC)

26 March 2020 RKI Situation Report

https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Situationsberichte/2020-03-26-en.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

Total of 483,295 tests with 33,491 positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:9E79:A900:CC86:F81D:4F5A:9108 (talk) 08:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The RKI report explicitly says that number of tests is up to and including week 12 (ending on March 22nd). The date of 26 March in the table is wrong. 185.65.134.162 (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

That is correct. Changed it accordingly.--Deconstruct (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Definition of "crazy paving"

(relaying a question by TylerDurden8823:)

'... can you clarify what "crazy paving" is on the COVID-19 page? I don't have access at the moment to that particular Lancet Infectious Diseases review you cited and I'm unfamiliar with that particular terminology (I have a feeling many people will be). The wikilink goes to a non-medical page which further adds to the confusion.

The Lancet reference was added in this edit by Netha Hussain. Netha, can you help?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

On second glance, I see the crazy paving page does have a sentence that elaborates on this. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

HaeB, TylerDurden8823 : I agree that 'crazy paving' isn't a common terminology used in medicine (I learnt about it for the first time while reading about COVID-19). The Lancet article is mentioning the term twice, but they have not explained the term. Should we give place a short explanation of the term in brackets? --Netha (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Long list of tests here

An unbelievable number of tests now available, documented here https://www.finddx.org/covid-19/pipeline/

I am not sure what to insert and where, but maybe someone could summarise the current position a bit better, the current text in the article gives the impression that for example we are still waiting for antibody testing, when in fact we now have several companies each with the capacity to produce over 100k rapid test kits a week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onrollover (talk • contribs) 22:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Update of test count for Russia. Official press-release

536669 tests for 30 March 2020 Source https://rospotrebnadzor.ru/about/info/news/news_details.php?ELEMENT_ID=14144 — Preceding unsigned comment added by French potatos (talk • contribs) 08:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Spreding time is too high

As that we See the Covid-19 name as Corona virus Is spreading so fast. The vaccines trials are takes place so slowly. How much time is required? Bhushan51 (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2020

Please change the number of tests performed in Turkey to 20,335; 1,236 being positive as of 22 March 2020. Source: Ministry of Health, https://twitter.com/drfahrettinkoca/status/1241806899215061009 176.240.165.89 (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done: the information is current as of Apr. 1, see [6]. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Spain data looks wrong

the number of positives in Spain in the table is different from the number reported by worldometer by a lot (24000 instead of 72000) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perutilli (talk • contribs) 17:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Perutilli Thanks - WP is way behind and haphazard at updating ongoing events like this. The table "As of" column shows the Spain entry 24,926 was on 21 March -- now 11 days ago. The cites at the bottom of https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/spain/ -- shows cases have been coming in at a rate of 7 to 8 thousand a day and as of 31 March were95,923. I think I will put a link to worldometers at the bottom of the article because the table is fairly useless. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Why is China data frozen at 20 Feb ?

Just wondering... why is the China number stuck on 20 Feb data ?

I see at least a trickle of info and cases shown at worldometers, why is nothing recent here ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it is data is not being updated, although for China I also see an article today saying China Concealed Extnt of Virus Outbreak. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2020

The South Africa Section of the covid-19 testing is incorrect, the number of cases is incorrect as well. according to https://sacoronavirus.co.za the number of cases is 274 and number of tests down is 9315 Ulysses0r (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

•  Partly done: Now correct as of 1 April. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2020

Change number of tests conducted in Ireland from 6,636 to 17,992 as of 23rd March 2020. As per Irish Government website: https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/e378fd-statement-from-the-national-public-health-emergency-team-on-tuesday-/ 2.24.164.15 (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

•  Already done Updated through 31 March. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2020

Add number of tests performed in France as of March 24: 101 046. Source: https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/maladies-et-traumatismes/maladies-et-infections-respiratoires/infection-a-coronavirus/documents/bulletin-national/covid-19-point-epidemiologique-du-24-mars-2020 Faye.kenam (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

•  Already done. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2020

PLEASE CORRECT AND REFLECT THE CORRECT STATS AS UPDATED ON A DAILY BASIS AS PER WIKIPEDIA’S OWN WEB PAGE FOR CORNOVA VIRUS IN SOUTH AFRICA AS THIS TABLE SEEMS TO SUGGEST THAT SOUTH AFRICA DOESNT OR DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY, RESOURCES, MEANS TO GATHERING ACCURATE & RELIABLE STATS.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_South_Africa

SOUTH AFRICA DAILY COUNTS UPDATES (as per YOUR page as listed above and updated daily)

SIDENOTE: AS A MATTER OF FACT - CONTRARY TO MY USUAL OPINION OF OUR GOVERNMENT AND ITS MALAISE IN ACTING UPON THE NEEDS OF OUR CITIZENS (FINANCIAL/MEDICAL/ETC) I FEEL THE SOUTH AFRICAN GOVERNMENT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN MORE PRODUCTIVE, RESPONSIVE AND COORDINATED AND SHOWN WHAT THE STANDARDS OF GOVERNMENT SHOULD AND COULD BE IN OUR COUNTRY AS THEY HAVE DONE EXCEPTIONALLY WELL IN MANAGING THE CURRENT PANDEMIC - GIVING LIVE UPDATES THROUGHOUT THE DAY / PUBLICLY ADDRESSED BY THE PRESIDENT AT THE END OF EACH DAY WITH STATS AND HAVE MANAGE TO CO-ORDINATE AND CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH COMMUNICATION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND THE PUBLIC IS NOT ONLY EFFECTIVE BUT EFFICIENT AS WELL... 105.4.3.153 (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• The edit was already made. Wikipedia relies on volunteers, so data is not always up-to-date. I would note that the template has, clearly listed next to the numbers, the date they were last updated. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2020 Adding Bangladesh

I want to add information for Bangladesh. https://www.iedcr.gov.bd/ It is from national webside. Shaharia Antu (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

•  Done. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2020

Please allow me to continue to update the number of confirmed cases in my country of New Zealand. The numbers are severely out of date stating a total of 200 cases when the number is actually 600 as of the 31/03/2020 according to publicly accessed government numbers

Source;

https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-current-situation/covid-19-current-cases GeordieBiker (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• @GeordieBiker:  Already done. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Update Canada Provincial Data

Ontario number of people tested: 62,733 (from https://www.ontario.ca/page/2019-novel-coronavirus#section-0)

Nova Scotia number of people tested: 7,639 (https://novascotia.ca/CORONAVIRUS/#cases)

Northwest Territories number of people tested: 996 (https://www.hss.gov.nt.ca/en/services/coronavirus-disease-covid-19)

Newfoundland number of people tested: 2,929 (https://www.gov.nl.ca/covid-19/pandemic-update/)

Prince Edward Island number of people tested: 870 (https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/en/topic/covid-19)

Quebec number of people tested: 79,449 (https://msss.gouv.qc.ca/professionnels/maladies-infectieuses/coronavirus-2019-ncov/)

Yukon number of people tested 722 (https://yukon.ca/covid-19)

New Brunswick number of people tested: 4,315 (https://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/departments/ocmoh/cdc/content/respiratory_diseases/coronavirus/testing-by-the-numbers.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qtcyclone (talk • contribs) 18:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Portugal Data is wrong.

The reference for Portugal testing is wrong. The data being used here is the number of SUSPECTED cases. Suspected cases isn't equal to tests performed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.233.219 (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Article lacking key info

This article needs at least to mention false positives and false negatives. I have seen some mention of high-ish rates of false results for the various tests. Abductive (reasoning) 01:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Update Pakistani test statistics.

As of 3rd April, 2020. Total tests performed are 30,308 out of which 2450 are positive results. https://www.nih.org.pk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/COVID-19-Daily-Updated-SitRep-03-April-2020.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.26.80.225 (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

false positive / false negative detection concerns, add?

Health experts in the U.S. have voiced concerns about the accuracy of coronavirus testing, believing nearly one in three infected with the illness is testing negative.

• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-02/the-world-just-hit-1-million-coronavirus-infections
• https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-closes-dwindling-open-borders-as-cases-approach-one-million-11585820944

Related to Type I and type II errors and false positives and false negatives X1\ (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

When pressed about the possibility that 1 in 3 tests had produced false negatives, Deborah Birx said, "I haven't seen that kind of anomaly." per

• Jason Hoffman and Caroline Kelly, Top doctor says White House coronavirus task force still missing 50% of testing data CNN April 2, 2020

X1\ (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Kazakhstan Covid-19 PCR testing

is updated daily at hls.kz The graph (scroll down the diagrams part) there is in russian or kazakh language. By Apr. 5 50024 tests performed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.200.163.38 (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

statistics for Palestine

i am restricted from editing in this article, i would like suggest a better more updated source for cases and tests in Palestine (http://corona.ps/). i hope one of editors here can make the change, or maybe use the API at (http://corona.ps/API) 148.252.103.34 (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Philippines testing numbers seem massively wrong

According to this news report Philippines has 22,958 tests done to date: https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/732817/doh-almost-23-000-covid-19-tests-conducted-in-philippines-82-7-yielded-negative-results/story/

The table reports 5,974. This number also seems suspiciously low as that would mean over 50% of tests were positive (as the country currently has 3,246 cases), which seems highly unlikely to be true. I don't know how the current number was obtained, as it doesn't seem to be on the official source given. Can this be checked urgently? I would update the number myself but i don't know if one news report is a good enough source to do that (as many news reports have been getting numbers wrong). Best wishes to all! Surfingdan (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Effectiveness section total re-write

The "Effectiveness" section is not about the effectiveness of testing at all, but about the unquestionably positive results of quarantining those who tested positive and of tracing those with whom they had contact.

I argue this section, as currently written, does not belong in this article at all. I'll take a first stab at seeing what can be salvaged. XavierItzm (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it can be salvaged. This section belongs in some other article, because it is not about testing, but about what to do after you test. I did not delete anything on it but I encourage others to remove it from this article, perhaps taking it to another article where it may be relevant, to respect WP:PRESERVE. XavierItzm (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The article as written is highly important, and relevant to this page. It is about how effective testing is. Which is surely what "effectiveness" would mean. If it is thought this title does not match the article, then please propose an alternative title. But please do not delete this text. It is an incredibly important issue, and related directly to testing. It is about (1) how accurate testing is (in that many countries have massive underestimates in their results, as they are doing to little testing, and thus test results are misleading a lot of people) and (2) how much testing relates to the management of the pandemic: countries that are testing more are using testing a lot to drive and improve management. I don't see how this issue could be more important or relevant, or more linked to the title "effectiveness". Surely, if people are testing they want to know (A) are the results accurate (in terms of indicating numbers of infected)? and (B) is the testing helping to improve management of the pandemic? The text as written addresses both those key questions - when enough testing is done, it can give a much more accurate picture of infected numbers, and it can also massively help manage the pandemic. If anyone disagrees with any factual points in what I have written, please do reply below. Many thanks to all. Surfingdan (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2020

The covid-19 test has been done in pakistan on April 1st, 2020 are more than 27000. For refrence check the BBC URDU report on COVID-19 119.160.118.193 (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

 Note: Unarchived unanswered edit request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2020

Czechia Tests change 80,304 to 85,014 Positive change 4,472 to 4,591 As of change 4 Apr to 5 Apr 90.182.205.100 (talk) 06:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2020

use (http://corona.ps/) as source for statistics in Palestine it is much more up to date. or use API at (http://corona.ps/API) for auto update. thank you 148.252.103.34 (talk) 06:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Government source being used unless there is a consensus or reason to change the current consensus is to use official sources when possible. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 06:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

On the wiki page for coronavirus pandemic in Palestine the website corona.ps is listed as official source , on the other hand in the footnotes of Corona.ps it stats that "this website is a personal effort" following the official data and updated accordingly. the Palestinian health ministry have a daily press release of Facebook (07.04.2020 release, https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=2731987096927151&set=a.269235766535642) and the data on corona.ps follows the official release very tightly. maybe it is a good idea to use it as a source since also it provides the data through an API that could be used for auto-update. 148.252.103.34 (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2020

Czechia Tests change 98,681 to 106,845 Positive change 5,017 to 5,335 As of change 7 Apr to 8 Apr Source: https://onemocneni-aktualne.mzcr.cz/covid-19 90.182.205.100 (talk) 06:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 04:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

GERMANY AND FRANCE DATA

According to WHO 167,000 test were run in Germany as of March 15 But only of people with symptoms and who were exposed to covid-19 patients France: 36,747 (Mar 15, 2020) https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shantaram1 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Antibody test in Heinsberg Germany: Covid – 19 Case-Cluster-Study

Very interresting interim result of a Case-Cluster-Study:

- at 15 Percent of the examined residents were found to be infected

- Coronavirus dark figure may be five times higher than officially intected

https://www.bccourier.com/these-are-the-first-lessons-of-the-heinsberg-study/

Thomasxb (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Russian testing statistics reference link not working any more

Link for reference 176 returns 404 Not found (April 11 2020). I have not found a newer, up to date working link as my Russian is not good enough to search Russian sites. I only have found this TASS article: https://tass.com/society/1133655, but it is from 22nd of March. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assamalla (talk • contribs) 09:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I have updated the reference link for Russia. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2020

Change the number of tests for Malta from 889 to 2236 Source: Times of Malta. Retrieved 20 March 2020 (https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/live-blog-coronavirus-updates.779474) Sam8031230 (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Sam8031230, I have restored this section to its initial state. It is not allowed to edit one's own comments after a significant time has passed (hours) without clearly indicating the edits being made using special markup (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments). It's easier to just add a new comment with updated information under your old comment. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I have updated the Malta entry with the latest numbers (April 11). — UnladenSwallow (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Data in Peru

You can look for updates here:

https://twitter.com/Minsa_Peru/status/1248660255850012672/photo/1 (more up to date)

https://covid19.minsa.gob.pe/ (usually yesterday's data)

I would update myself but I think this account is too new and I don't have permission yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brolencho (talk • contribs) 17:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Brolencho, updating the table itself (not the article) is open to everyone, even anonymous editors: Template:COVID-19 testing. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

UnladenSwallow, Thank you. now I think I managed to update it. Brolencho (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Statistics in Palestine

use (http://corona.ps/) as source for statistics in Palestine it is much more up to date. or use API at (http://corona.ps/API) for auto update. On the wiki page for coronavirus pandemic in Palestine the website corona.ps is listed as official source, on the other hand in the footnotes of Corona.ps it stats that "this website is a personal effort" following the official data and updated accordingly. the Palestinian health ministry have a daily press release on Facebook (11.04.2020 release, https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=2740666726059188&set=a.269235766535642 (testes:16992, positive:268)) and the data on corona.ps follows the official release very tightly. maybe it is a good idea to use it as a source since also it provides the data through an API that could be used for auto-update. 148.252.103.34 (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I have updated the data for Palestine using your link (https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=2740666726059188). Can't use http://corona.ps as it's not an official website. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Keeping Table Order on Source Page Consistent

Thanks a lot to everyone who has contributed to this page. You are all heroes and the world is grateful.

I wonder if it is possible to add edits to the page while being mindful of the table order of the main table. I just wanted to mention that connecting the data in the tables to external databases (while respecting Wikipedia policies) tends to be done by table order. Meaning the external data accumulator trawls through the Wikipedia page source code and imports the table based on the order specified in the sheet and not based on the table name.

Thus, if a new table is added before the main table, it changes the order of the main table from, say, Table 1 to Table 2.

If possible, my suggestion would be to keep the main table at the forefront even while adding new topics.

On my part, I'll continue to help to keep a close eye on the data and I'll give any helpful feedback when and where possible!

Keep it up guys! Thexper (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. It's the scraping scripts that should adjust to the material, not vice versa. Note that the main table ("COVID-19 testing statistics") is available separately at Template:COVID-19 testing. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Awesome! You're absolutely right! Since the table has its own page, Wikipedia doesn't need to worry about scraping scripts. The scripts simply need to point directly to the table. —Thexper (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad that you're happy with the proposed solution. Please note that we plan to break "Template:COVID-19 testing" into "Template:COVID-19 testing by country" and "Template:COVID-19 testing by region" in the near future. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

New article on sensitivty

As everyone plans for wide spread testing - the debate over sensitivy of rRT-PCR continues. Here's the latest out of Johns Hopkins [7] Ian Furst (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2020

Czechia Date change 13 Apr to 14 Apr Tests change 131,542 to 137,409 Positive change 6,059 to 6,151 Source: https://onemocneni-aktualne.mzcr.cz/covid-19 90.182.205.100 (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

1. I have reverted your comment to its initial version. It is not allowed to edit one's own comment after a short while without indicating the changes using special markup (see Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments). In practice, it's easier to just post a new comment with updated information under the original comment. 2. The table itself (not the article) is open for editing by anyone at Template:COVID-19 testing. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2020

Data of the number of test of COVID-19 made by Spanish government is not in the cited source. Requirement of a citation for this particular data. Ignacio.romerom (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Ignacio.romerom, I have updated the entry for Spain to the latest date for which both the number of tests and the number of cases are available (April 13). If you know of a more up-to-date value for the number of tests, please input it at Template:COVID-19 testing. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2020

In Paragraph 7. Virus Testing by Country please change row Slovakia: Column Date from 13 Apr to 16 Apr Column Tests from 29,217 to 33,481 Column Positive from 835 to 977 Column Tests/million people from 5,359 to 6,143 Column Positive/million people from 153 to 179

Source: https://ezdravie.nczisk.sk/sk?category=COVID Palol~skwiki (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Palol~skwiki, you can do it yourself at Template:COVID-19 testing. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2020

Please include the data for Luxembourg if possible. It can be found here and is updated daily: https://msan.gouvernement.lu/en/dossiers/2020/corona-virus.html 2001:7E8:CC1B:9300:B804:AB88:52ED:B0EE (talk) 06:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done — UnladenSwallow (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

How to link from main pandemic article lead

This is a popular and important article, but unlike most other such articles, it's not currently linked from the lead of 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Any ideas on how to add a link and integrate it? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I think a link could be added to this sentence in the lead:

Authorities worldwide have responded by implementing travel restrictions, quarantines, curfews and stay-at-home orders, workplace hazard controls, and facility closures.

Something like this:

…facility closures, mass contact tracing and testing.

— UnladenSwallow (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@UnladenSwallow: Yeah, good thought. The rest of that sentence is more focused on social distancing measures, so I split it off into a short new sentence. We'll see if it sticks. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2020

This page has I belive an error. Given the numbers on the table "COVID-19 testing statistics by country" it should say Tests/100,000 population, not tests/million. 99.239.213.85 (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

What row specifically makes you think the table has an error? An error in ratios is unlikely, as they are computed automatically. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Argentina

Information is not updated. Tests in Argentina have reached 32,712, source in the local Ministry of Health's daily report. Imiro (talk) 02:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC) imiroImiro (talk) 02:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Imiro, you can update data for Argentina at Template:COVID-19 testing by country. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Confusingly worded sentence under Serology

Current sentence reads:

"A study in China reported that 10 out of 175 people recovered from Covid-19 with mild symptoms but when they were tested no protective antibodies were detected.[24]"

Might be better stated:

"A study in China of 175 recovered cases who had experienced mild symptoms while infected with Covid-19 indicated that 10 subjects displayed no protective antibodies present when tested.[24]"

Would perhaps make change myself, but still new to this and know that making changes to this particular subject at this time is a little tricky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caracoid (talk • contribs) 14:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I changed the language to more closely mirror the language in the source. Swood100 (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

radiologic diagnostics

There are repeated edits stating that radiologic modalities can diagnose COVID-19. For many reasons, as stated on multiple pages and scientific articles (in addition to simple common sense for scientists/physicians), this is ostensibly wrong. These edits do not even seem supported by the citations accompanying them! These edits are very confusing to laypeople. I urge vigilance to purge these statements if they creep back. I am now changing "Chest CT scans may be helpful to diagnose COVID-19 in individuals with a high clinical suspicion of infection based on risk factors and symptoms but is not recommended for routine screening." to "Chest CT scans are not recommended for routine screening. Radiologic findings in COVID19 are not specific." It seems like someone deleted the prior more accurate and clear phrasing re lack of radiologic specificity, which is unfortunate.Xris0 (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Testing policy influence

It says in Virus testing statistics by country: "In countries with similar spread of infection, a country that only tests people admitted to hospitals will have a higher "percentage of positive tests" and a higher "positive / million people" figure than a country that tests all citizens whether or not they are showing symptoms." Shouldn't that be "lower positive / million" when you do more restrictive testing?77.59.125.228 (talk) 04:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Good catch. Not sure how to fix this, though. Should we change the second "higher" to "lower", or should we remove the mention of the "Positive / million people" column altogether? — UnladenSwallow (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done — UnladenSwallow (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

UnladenSwallow: See the section below dealing with this question. Why would you expect a lower positive / million people when the same number of tests are done on people admitted to the hospital, as opposed to the general public? Swood100 (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Swood100: I have replied to your comment in the section below. In the future, please don't start a new section for the same issue. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Testing data from Wuhan, China

It appears that Wuhan report their amounts of daily tests since Feb. 21. Link (In Chinese):Anouncement, Wuhan Municipal Health Commission then click the situation report from each day.

Between Feb. 21 to Apr. 21, Wuhan has conducted 1329788 tests (by adding up all daily reported numbers). The estimate of earlier tests is roughly 180k-200k by combining multiple news reports. So if you would like to add together, it is roughly 1509788 tests.

Note that Wuhan is testing almost everyone return to factories/plants and other places with high density of people since the restriction is lifted, so the test number is real.

Among all tests (1329788 + estimate earlier tests), there are 50333 confirmed cases and 1476 cumulative asymptomatic cases (including 678 current cases reported from Apr.1 and 277 discharged cases reported at that day, and 556 newly reported since then (exclude 1 person who developed symptoms later).) The actual positive numbers are definitely higher as one person may be tested in multiple days to confirm their situations, but it is impossible to calculate a better number.

I posted it on talk page because I am not clear where to put those numbers.

Atzhh (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Atzhh: If you are confident that you have all the references for the number of tests (either samples or individuals—unfortunately, we're not reflecting this important distinction yet) and the number of positives (usually this means individuals), then you can add a row for Wuhan to Template:COVID-19 testing by country subdivision. But you will have to list each and every reference necessary to compute the cumulative number. To keep the "Ref." column at a reasonable width, add a single <ref></ref> element and put multiple {{cite web}}'s inside it as a list. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Please consider using Africa CDC Dashboard as source

Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, i.e. Africa CDC (d:Q88234914) has a dashboard (https://africacdc.org/covid-19/) which shows daily situation of Covid-19 cases in each African country. Each country has a symbol (circle) size of which depends on amount of Covid-19 cases in that country. Data is updated daily at 03.00 local time (in Ethiopia?), i.e. based on data collected from national health authorities (via Africa CDC regional centers or otherwise) is then shown. Why this dashboard is relevant: when one clicks e.g. the circle for Cote d'Ivoire, data for this country is shown. Data includes positive Covid-19 cases (e.g. on 2020-04-23: 952), deaths (14), recoveries (310), number of tests (1,545), CFR (1.47), cases per 100k persons (3.61), deaths per 100k persons (0.05), 2020 population (26,378,274) for Cote d'Ivoire. I seleceted Cote d'Ivoire as it seems to have one of the most extreme (highest) positive% of Covid-19 cases currently in the world. Also DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo, with some 89 mill. people) had positive% of some 55 % couple of days ago but with some hundred of additional tests done the relative amount is now getting smaller. These very high values suggest that these countries urgently need more testing (and probably also testing capacity). There are also many other African countries with test amounts shown. I have verified data of this dashboard against national health data for more than 10 countries (produced typically by national pubic health institutes or ministries of health), and the data shown by Africa CDC dashboard seems to match the values reported by national authorities the previous day (Africa CDC dates their data at 03.00 a.m.). BR, --Paju~enwiki (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Be accurate about Accuracy

Accuracy is an important topic which is worth serious discussion. However, it is currently devoted to rambling about the inaccuracy of the tests from China. This is not only odd but also harmful for people who care about accuracy (I suppose all do).

So we should probably rename the section to "Accuracy of tests from China". But even then, it neglects to mention that most tests are supplied from China, and they can be quite accurate too. For example, in citation [109], it has the following paragraph, which is conveniently left out

"... Their use was immediately suspended and new tests sourced from a different Chinese supplier. They arrived last week and had an accuracy rate of about 90%, according to the Turkish official."

Also, according to the following source, the anti-body tests used in the broadly known Stanford study are from China too.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-coronavirus-study-bhattacharya-email

Since I am not an "established" author, someone please revise it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:5600:33c2:bc:c2db:a083:f4f (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2020

Change reference 220, " "US Historical Data". The COVID Tracking Project. 22 April 2020." " to " "US Historical Data". The COVID Tracking Project. 22 April 2020." " in order to link to the currently-orphaned wiki page for the COVID Track project at this address: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID_Tracking_Project BlabberBobsBigBootleggers (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Is this WP:RELIABLE? I was expecting a .gov domain (like the vast majority of the countries) and not a .com. *edit*: also 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States uses CDC and JHU numbers, so maybe this article should follow the same sources? Feelthhis (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done In future, please post edit requests to embedded templates on the template page itself. Whether or not the source is reliable can also be discussed on the template talk page. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 08:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The problem with first CDC test and other tests

I’ll summarize what I’ve read, the CDC developed a test that look for three genetic markers. The original WHO test was only two. Third marker produced unreliable results during validation and a positive interpretation required all three so the CDC asked state laboratories not to use them. Eventually some of these test kits where are used with third markers results Ignored.

Also where’s the information on antibody testing? LabCorp is now today offering the IGG Elisa test to the general public. I believe it has 99.5% specificity meaning 1 in 200 chance of being tripped up by antibodies to another coronavirus and good sensitivity if used 2-3 weeks after exposure. Technophant (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Please read and use this guy’s articles. Consider him to be a reliable secondary source. Read the linked articles about the problems with false negatives, trust your symptoms. I’m recovering from this myself so I’m trying to get the antibody testing after having two false negative swabs, quick tests and rapid pcr. He says that this is a feature of the disease progression, not test methods. Mine presented more like strep throat initially and never had a cough. Claims China cumulatively had a staggering 30% false negative rate which challenges many assumptions about the data. Technophant (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2020

In the section "Approaches to testing" paragraph 5 please add the sentence: An open source software "Laboratory Optimizer for Mass Testing" provides the planning, reporting, and data analytics capabilities for samples pooling, implementing binary search and other group testing algorithms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirill.vechera (talk • contribs) 12:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Please read our external links guidelines. You also did not link to any reliable sources. Sorry, I cannot fulfill this request. Aasim 17:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Awesome Aasim: Thanks, I've fixed the link format and changed it to an external reliable source Kirill.vechera (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Not Done. This is advertising. Graham Beards (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: It's no more advertising that links to researches on pool testing, but instead of abstract ideas it's implemented idea, a ready to use non-commercial software. The same kind of solution as Origami Assays published a paragraph below. If you consider the word 'marketplace' in the domain name, it's a strange passion of all EU bureaucrats name every kind of a systematic list of every sort as a marketplace. Kirill.vechera (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Procedural close this does not look like a reliable source. Please start a new discussion and discuss the edit first before using the {{editprotected}} template. Aasim 17:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Russia first testing date

Please, add first Russia testing date (its missing from article). Source from other article: On 24 January, the first testing systems were developed and deployed to laboratories around the country. --109.169.202.201 (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Done ASDFS (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

References

What is the purpose of the "Available tests" section?

What is the correct policy for listing individual tests? For example, recently a test by Quest Diagnostics was added under Serology tests. However, since the FDA is allowing all developers to market their tests without having an EUA (see FAQs on Diagnostic Testing for SARS-CoV-2) the number of tests that could be listed exceeds any acceptable amount of space. Just look at the number listed here (third item) and there are no doubt many additional ones not listed that were developed in other countries. Even limiting it to the ones that have received an EUA does not pare it down to a reasonable space requirement, especially if each entry is to include a description.

Some tests might be the only one of their type (e.g. the Abbott ID NOW). Some tests may have been identified by independent testing as egregiously inaccurate or noteworthy for some other reason. What are we looking for in the “Available tests” section? Should this be a comprehensive listing of all available tests? If not, what is the purpose of this section and what should be the criteria? Swood100 (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

A listing of “Serology-based tests” is found at the Johns Hopkins site. Perhaps similar listings could be found for PCR-based tests and a reference to those would suffice. One drawback is that this is a listing of the tests but the Quest Diagnostics entry tells where people can go to get tested, especially since they don’t require a physician to be involved (a useful feature). Quest Diagnostics is not even a test developer. They administer other people’s tests. Swood100 (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Where in the article would Bolinas testing results fit?

UCSF tested the entire population of a rural California town, with both PCR swab tests (nose and throat) and antibody blood tests, over four days (April 20-23, 2020). The result was: zero PCR positive results. The antibody tests are still being processed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnuish (talk • contribs) 22:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Cyprus

Details for Cyprus' testing numbers can be found in this University of Cyprus' website: https://covid19.ucy.ac.cy/ RegGeo (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done — UnladenSwallow (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

References

to too two?

"Another option is too look for lung" Geez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.14.77.89 (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This does not text for the virus

We need to base stuff on more than simple primary sources. This does not the condition from heart failure or asthma, or bacterial pneumonia or anything for that matter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Pulse oximeter

Low oxygen levels detected using a pulse oximeter are a low-cost quick diagnosis method for those with asymptomatic pneumonia relative to CT scans. Patients display acute or silent hypoxia where the oxygen level in blood cells and tissue can drop without any initial warning, even though the individual's chest x-ray shows diffuse pneumonia with an oxygen level below normal. Doctors report cases of silent hypoxia, also referred to as 'happy hypoxia', with COVID-19 patients who did not experience shortness of breath or coughing until their oxygen levels had plummeted to such a degree that the patients risked acute respiratory distress (ARDS) and organ failure. In a New York Times opinion piece (20 April 2020), emergency room doctor Richard Levitan reports "a vast majority of Covid pneumonia patients I met had remarkably low oxygen saturations at triage — seemingly incompatible with life — but they were using their cellphones as we put them on monitors." Whereas healthy individuals are expected to have an oxygen saturation level in the mid or upper 90%, some doctors have seen patients with levels in the 70-80% range, and extreme cases approaching 50%. It is not known if this is the result of blot clotting.

References

tests' accuracy RS, add?

• Eric Ting, These are most — and least — accurate COVID-19 tests May 6, 2020 SFGate.com

X1\ (talk) 06:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)