Talk:COVID-19 testing controversy in the Philippines

Grammar

Wait, why are the subject-verb agreements in this article suddenly completely inconsistent, and why are some sequence-of-events details suddenly missing? I am utterly confused. - Chieharumachi (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I've started making corrections and rewording the sentences for greater precision, one line at a time. - [User:Chieharumachi|Chieharumachi]] (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't keep going for very long, though. Can someone please do a grammar pass on the remaining sentences? Thanks. - Chieharumachi (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Symptomatic-ness and Dates

Given that the basis for the notability of the persons listed is that they circumvented the algorithm, I think it's more important to indicate whether or not they were symptomatic (if that was covered by sources) and either the date on which they were tested, or the date on which they announced that they had been tested. The list should be inclusive of everyone who was given "courtesy" after the first time the algorithm was posted (January 30, 2020), and should end when the algorithm is changed to allow PUMs to get tested. - Chieharumachi (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 5 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Early closure per consensus at AfD discussion to restructure/rename the article. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

---

List of Philippine public figures who underwent COVID-19 testing → 2020 Philippine coronavirus testing controversy – As per the 1st Articles for deletion discussion consensus should we rename the article to "2020 Philippine coronavirus testing controversy"? Should we also include other testing controversies such as the debate for the need of mass testing for example?Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Support - This article should be moved to the new title to make it clear that it is about Philippine government officials (and their family members, and influential former government officials) taking advantage of their influence to be tested, to the detriment of other potential test subjects. I think the mass testing issue is minor enough that it can be mentioned here instead of being given its own article. with the caveat that one, that could change, and two, that it is not the major subject of this article. Otherwise, it should be controversies, plural, rather than controversy, singular. - Chieharumachi (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support I was actually expecting the move to happen during the first nomination for deletion that I made a draft just in case.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 07:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support Per nom.- SUBWAY 08:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• 'Support. The recent AfD closed as keep was on the basis that this could be converted into something more encyclopedic. Ajf773 (talk) 08:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy move and merge to Draft:2020 Philippine coronavirus testing controversy.--RioHondo (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Rather than simply listing those who did VIP testing, providing context is more informative. Mass testing is a related issue but arguments for/against it should not be the focus. Given the limited test kits, the special treatment and bypassing DOH algorithm should be the focus. Quidquidlatetadparebit (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reorganization

Any feedback on how to reorganize the list to give focus on the controversy itself. As per consensus, the exhaustive list has to go. This should not be a mere list of figures who tested positve or negative. Not every testing on public figures were controversial. We should definitely mention those who were asymptomatic when they were tested and maybe those who were suspected to have "VIP treatment" and sources refuting such (claims of being actually exhibiting symptoms). Koko Pimentel's controversy had nothing to do with the testing controversy afaik but a breach of hospital policy.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the list must go from now on. I agree with Koko Pimentel's controversy not belonging here. I will help in removing the list gradually. I am now checking the following references:

• Politicians and their families get tested for COVID-19, but some people are not having it (Interaksyon)
• A closer look at DOH's triage system and why politicians are getting tested for COVID-19 (Interaksyon)
• Duterte family undergoes COVID-19 test (Manila Times)
• Duterte family tested for COVID-19 (ABS-CBN News)
• Coronavirus: in Philippines, leak shows politicians and relatives received 'VIP' testing (South China Morning Post)
• Tolentino tests negative for COVID-19 despite DOH guideline not to test if asymptomatic (The Philippine Star)
• Duque clarifies RITM Director was not replaced amid alleged VIP testing for COVID-19 (GMA News)

—Allenjambalaya (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

This was the reason for my suggestions two sections up, under the "symptomatic-ness and dates" heading. On an additional note, shouldn't this article also contain the Celia Carlos RITM VIP testing leak controversy? It's clearly pertinent to the entire thing, and is not a separate controversy of its own. - Chieharumachi (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Since a bunch of names have been removed, is it now safe to assume that the list of governement officials were those mentioned in the list were tested for COVID-19 despite being asymptomatic and therefeore PUM rather than PUI; the article text clearly establishes that it's just right for PUI to be tested, so PUIs shouldn't be on the list. - Chieharumachi (talk) 07:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Chieharumachi:I wouldn't say it's as easy as labeling them all as PUMs (Persons under Monitoring) because I removed officials who got tested after the lockdown (i.e. Pimentel and the rest). Shall we put only those officials who got the tests as sanctioned by DOH and drop those who opted for an imported testing kit (e.g. Pacquiao, Tolentino, Tulfo)? Actually, DOH just dropped the labels (PUIs and PUMs) but I digress. I haven't removed all the PUIs who got tested before the lockdown. Once we determine them, then we altogether remove the list and write it in prose form. I don't know if I'm making sense as I am rushing to write this. Will be back here after two or three hours.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Allenjambalaya: Well, the reason I want to emphasize status is this: way I understand violations of the algorithm, it's PUMs (asymptomatics) who got tested after 30 January who are controversial.

PUIs (syptomatics) were (and still are) within their right to get tested, and are only controversial if there's a clear indication that they got preferrential treatment ahead of other PUIs ahead of them in line.

I don't see how the lockdown date (17 March?) is relevant. If government made an announcement that there are enough kits and labs and abandoned the alogrithm accordingly, then that would be relevant; but I haven't heard of such an announcement.

I haven't studied the new algorithm yet, so I'm not sure what constitutes a violation of the new algorithm. (I'm actually presuming nobody would dare announce getting tested now, so the list is not likely to grow anymore, since we won't have news stories to use as citations.) - Chieharumachi (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

If there are references saying Pacquiao, Tolentino, and Tulfo got overseas-sourced test kits, then they should probably be in a different subcategory, but they're still controversial for cutting the line for laboratory testing (which is a far greater shortage). - Chieharumachi (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Chieharumachi: Well about the triage, there's nothing new but just changing the term PUI to suspect and PUM to probable. It's not that complicated so just call it a triage instead of an algorithm. I can't remember the exact terms but the rationale is just to go away from the medical terms for the common folks to comprehend easily. The lockdown is my sort of bookmark because I remember the controversy erupted in between the talks of the lockdown if my memory serves me well. I don't live in the Philippines right now so I might be wrong on this. I remember Sen. Tolentino removing his post in social media of availing the testing kit and Gov. Remulla apologizing for he might have had bypassing the triage. Have to check the dates though. P.S.: My previous reply was deleted as you were editing it at the same time. It already happened to me twice while interacting with you somewhere last month(?).—Allenjambalaya (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Allenjambalaya: Sorry about the deleted replies? I hadn't realized at all. Incredibly sorry. I shall try to be more watchful next time. I thought Wikipedia had safeguards against that. I think it's because I take a long time between hitting "edit" and "publish," since I reread the text a few times. I'll try to find a workaround for that. Regarding timeline: I'm reading that "mass" testing begins today, so as far as I can tell, that means we should be looking at government officials (and family members) who skipped the line between 30 January and 14 April 2020. Regarding triage and algorithm: I'm confused. Triage is an act; algorithm is the doctors' guide to how to do it. The two mean completely different things. Do you mean replacing "triage algorithm" with "triage guidelines"? But since that's not the precise term used by the sources, isn't that a violation of Wikipedia naming policies? - Chieharumachi (talk) 03:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Chieharumachi: Hello! About the deleted replies, no big deal though. If I forget a certain idea in the reply, then so be it. So if you're proposing that said timeline (January 30 to April 14), then let's put that in the article's lead or we put that in a separate section. I'm up for that discussion. Huh? Wait, wait... No, I don't mean that. Don't put words into my mouth (or fingers?). I just find the term "triage algorithm" as redundant. A Triage is a triage. I'm suggesting let's not go technical here and bombard the article with jargons when simple words can be used instead. It's simple as that. But anyway, if the message is understood as it is now, then why bother changing. Peace!—Allenjambalaya (talk) 03:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Allenjambalaya: Well, I'm up for a discussion between "guidelines" vs "algorithm." :D It's just that triage and algorithm have different meanings, sorry. It's like saying "bar" and "graph" in "bar graph" are redundant, and it's okay to just use "bar." (Actually, just like in that example, we can remove triage and just say algorithm, just like we could say "graph" instead of "bar graph." But I think "bar graph" is easier to understand because it's more visual, more complete. So I feel "triage algorithm" is easier to understand than "algorithm.") Chieharumachi (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Chieharumachi: Haha! I pass. We understood the message anyway. It just sounds redundant. Maybe it's just me. Not a big deal. Well, I think we can start removing the list from now and rewrite it as a prose? So far, no one is touching it. I don't have any idea how to do it though.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Allenjambalaya: Actually, I feel that it's inevitable some of it would remain in list form, but with introductory text that would give the list context, and with a little more information from Item to item. For the introductory text, see what i did in the bongbong's family section. As for the per-item information, we have to figure out (a) if they were symptomatic, (b) what date they were tested (or what date the media reported tha they were tested), (c) whether they issued any explanations or apologies relating to having been tested. That would provide the necessary background already, I think. Re: redundant; I am now rethinking whether "triage guideline" is more acceptable than "triage algorithm", but becuse it's a technical term, I am still worried about accuracy, and wikipedia naming rules. - Chieharumachi (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hariboneagle927, Allenjambalaya, and Chieharumachi: I removed the entire list because it's outdated. How's the reorganization going? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm not so sure about the term "outdated." To my mind, this controversy ended when they started expanding tests, and was also winding down by then. The list pretty much ought to be culled of people who don't fit the criteria, not removed outright. - Chieharumachi (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Additional note:I have work right now, but if anybody wants to add a citation that says DOH dropped or changed the algorithm on April 14 when it was "ready for progressive mass testing," that'd help. I also don't think the matter should be considered "ongoing" - any updates past April 14 (if we can confirm that) are basically aftermath. - Chieharumachi (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Also be careful, of adding people's name back, reminder that we shouldn't resort to original research and only include people who are suspected by reliable sources to have broke protocol, and the appropriate alibi (used their own testing kits, was actually symptomatic etc.) if available. Should be discussed in prose instead of a list, which would tend for others to hastily expand the list beyond established consensus.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Though honestly I'm not really sure on how to proceed with this, aside from letting the whole comprehensive list of every politician tested go. What subsections should be added or let go?Hariboneagle927 (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)