Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Australia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Active Cases Chart

It is probably time for an active cases chart. Does anyone know how good the recovery data is prior to April 5, at the state level? It is ok if not all states and territories were reporting recoveries initially; it can be covered with qualifications (also we are just reporting the data that has been released, rather than editorialising). It would just be useful to not have to commence the graph on April 5. Maranello10 (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm willing to go fishing myself for the data, and will do the chart in the next day or two, just please provide any comments or inputs before I do. Different country pages deal with active cases in different ways, however, if no one has any preference I will keep to the current template that is employed with new cases at the national and state/territory levels. Maranello10 (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Why create another chart? Isn't it adequately covered by the COVID-19 cases in Australia chart? Clifton9 (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Maranello10: I think we need to discuss which charts we actually need. The semi-log plot of cases and deaths on the same chart can be misleading, and some people might get the idea that the deaths are half the amount of cases. The normal plot of cases and deaths is quite useless for the deaths, because it is barely going to change and will mostly stay linear. The semi-log plot of the cases by state can also be misleading. I'm proposing that we get rid of the semi-log plots, and have one chart with the Total Confirmed Cases, One chart with the Total Deaths and get rid of the semi-log on the combined states chart so that it is just showing the chart normally (the +20%/day is quite useless too now). Also, do you know why the charts look so much better in preview mode than when it is saved as an edit? Is this a Wikipedia problem? Keroks (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Keroks: Yes I think I agree with your assessment. The semi-log plots were put in place a month ago when we thought we were going to get exponential growth, which didn't materialise. I think there can be two normal plots instead of combining total cases and deaths. Also, the semi-log isn't really needed for the states, as there is only two orders of magnitude difference between NSW and NT, which is roughly in line with their difference in population. The plot is more akin to a plot of population sizes, which says very little... to be honest the chart isn't really needed at all, since we already have the state graphs which are more meaningful as it shows the curve. I would propose just removing the state one all together, and yes the 20% line is outdated.

It might have something to do with you previewing a section as part of the section only, whereas when you save the edit, it has to render the formatting for the entire page and account for images and everything else. Wikipedia seems to have to make compromises with formatting so things that wouldn't normally fit together look reasonable. It definitely is a wikipedia thing, and not you. Maranello10 (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Clifton9: Active cases are a totally different thing to confirmed cases. Active cases means there are still people around who people can pass on COVID-19. As we get deeper into the pandemic, this becomes the new target metric rather than how many cases a country had in total. Just for an example, a country with 100,000 total cases but 1% active is now in a better position than a country with 10,000 total cases but 70% active. However, there may be a way to model it on the existing charts, which is why I am open to suggestions. Maranello10 (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Maranello10: Thanks, I have made the changes to those charts. I think it is important to keep the states comparison one because you cannot tell that by the individual histograms. I'm also proposing that we change the deaths section to a table similar to the 'number of cases' table, with the deaths each day broken down by state. I think it will make the page look much neater and it's also what some other country's have done on their Wiki pages. I don't think it is necessary to keep track of each person who has died, how old they are, etc. Also with the active cases chart, I'm thinking what if we include the active cases on the 'total confirmed cases' chart as another line, in which we can also have a line for recoveries? Similar to what this website has done in the 'Cases, Deaths and Recoveries' section (but without the histogram in the backdrop and the deaths lines). Keroks (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Keroks: Thanks for doing all that. Yes I was thinking active cases (and recoveries) can all go on the same chart. Once active cases gets too low it might need its own (maybe under 100), something like the new cases chart so there can be the daily total written above the date. However, for now it makes sense; they do something similar on the New Zealand page. Also agree with the deaths section getting summarised in a table or chart, the details are unnecessary and it has been proposed several times now. Maranello10 (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have added an active cases chart commencing 5 April to the statistics section. Maranello10 (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• The active case data is obviously wrong, due to government sources. This can be easily seen in the top chart which shows total cases plus recoveries. The AVERAGE recovery time is shown as over 3 weeks. I suspect missing data. But whatever, I would rather not highlight the bad data here. It is already shown clearly in the first data where it is obvious that active cases are the difference between total and recovered (and died). Moreover, the first chart makes the recovery lag more obvious. So I would suggest removing this chart as redundant and somewhat misleading. Tuntable (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2020

Thanks for case number update. Please change "External links" to add link "www.covidlive.com.au" Suggested description: Live statistics and tracking of the number of coronavirus cases, tests and deaths in Australia

Amacali (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Anthony

References

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Amacali: I understand that you want the link "www.covidlive.com.au" added to the External links section of the article. However, there are already 10 External links and 381 references. What value does this additional link provide the reader? GoingBatty (talk) 06:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @GoingBatty:. I think it's a valuable resource if you want the most up-to-date cases, active cases, recoveries and other information. All of the sites references are listed here https://www.covidlive.com.au/last-updated (which could limit the addition to the evergrowing list). It's also a reliable source for Worldometer and John Hopkins University. Amacali (talk) 06:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Amacali:  Done! GoingBatty (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Individual State, daily case tally

Some messed up, or did I miss something? If it's getting too big, there can be parts divided and hidden. As per the bar chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.178.18.197 (talk) 04:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the page is a bit of a mess now. It is bad practice to direct readers to a template page. The two tables that were getting long can just have a scroll bar if someone found that to be the issue. I will fix it in the coming days as I am busy at the moment, unless someone does it first. Maranello10 (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Maranello10 (talk) 11:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2020

Move the cumulative case/death count back to the main page. You shouldn’t have to go searching for this information on a subpage. The previous format with these tables on the main page was far more appropriate. 58.109.209.48 (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Maranello10 (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Split proposed

I'm proposing a new article for the Timeline section, named analogously with similar articles for other countries - US, India, Pakistan, etc., as Timeline of the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Australia, just leaving a short section which summarises and redirects to the new article. Timeline sections have a way of growing and/or fizzling owing to lack of enthusiasm as time goes on, and the long and linear style of such sections tend to bloat articles with detail. I think this article should include essential statistics, plus compact summaries of the impact on the country, preventative measures taken by governments, etc. (I also think that the event cancellation lists may be compacted somehow, or put into a separate list article, which is a separate issue, but could also be discussed here.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

As this progresses some State articles will be necessary given how much the will start to diverge as each comes out of the current isolation phase. We already have differing response and enforcement protocols taking place in each state. The national articles needs to focus more detail on federal responses. Gnangarra 10:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

State articles are a good idea, the type of statistics provided by State Governments varies, some are quite informative, and the response and preventative measures vary too. --Advanstra (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The article is not yet too big, I would delay any splitting for now which loses focus. I suspect Covid-19 in Australia will largely be resolved over the next few weeks so the article may never need splitting.Tuntable (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not just the size, it's the style. A good article should be mostly prose, not a series of lists and tables (see also MOS:TIMELINE for separate articles which are timelines). If you have a look at the similar articles for the UK, US, India and Italy, you will see what I mean. The bulk of this article is currently lists and tables, which most readers cannot plough through to get an overview. Also, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, which it is clearly failing to do at the moment. In my view, it should contain mainly prose first, with a few of the most condensed nationwide stats and tables included, and an overview of most important dates, with a redirection to the timeline article. Then the detailed stats in a section at the bottom. The daily list of deaths is tedious to read through as well. Forks to state stats or other info may be worth considering, but the top-level sections need to be decided first. "General to specific" is a good rule to follow for paragraphs and articles. Start with the overview, then look at specific aspects of the topic. Interpret the stats for the readers early on, show top-level tables or graphs where available, then drill into the details. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I just added some text to the lead which is important. Those big tables could be put into sub-pages. But some of the graphs are very important in this article. I do not think splitting it up into states is a good way forward because it will dilute our editorial resources. So go ahead and add some prose if you think that will help, but keep it relevant and make sure it tells a story, not just random facts. Tuntable (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I definitely don't think we need to list details and a reference for every person who died. It is quite tedious to update and no one is ever going to read the specifics. It is just a legacy holdout from when only a handful of people died. It can probably be replaced by a summary table indicating state, gender and age (if they were in their 60s, 70s, 80s etc) of the deceased, similar to the one produced by the ABC here [1]. In terms of the timeline, I think it should be condensed before considering creating a whole separate page. Entries like "By 5 March, NSW Health announced three new cases, bringing the state total to 25 and the national total to 57." add nothing. Once it is tighter, we can see how it looks and decide whether it needs its own section. State pages will probably be useful eventually, but it is duplicating information at this point. As stated above, things may diverge more after lockdown. Maranello10 (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Theres a lot of information about WA that hasnt been included, which is why I said state articles need to be made. The list of events cancelled, is one lot that should go to state level articles leaving national & international events. Turn tables into templates then just one page needs updating for each table so it can be in multiple articles and they can be hidden on this page effectively reducing the articles visual size for the more casual readers. It wont divide resources if the state article are of a narrow focus about state issues. Gnangarra 13:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the lists of deaths needs to either be removed or severely condensed. In the early days it seemed to have some value but over time it doesn't and should Australia have experienced the deaths of other nations then it already would have been removed I suspect. I also think that the graphs of state data at the bottom of the page seem excessive and should be removed. Clifton9 (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll come back to the Timeline bit another day, but can we at least make the long table in Number of Cases collapsible? Also, if someone who is good at tables is game to create a table of that deaths list, that could also be made collapsible... I'm not opposed to splitting off into state articles, but the problem is that you still have to decide at which topic or level it gets split, and it could produce a lot of repetition and possible contradictions. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Splitting the timeline into another article is redundant. The issue with this article as another editor has pointed above is its format. Currently there's a lot of trivial or redundant information stated by dates. Every paragraph seems to begin with on *this date* apart from the sections on Art and Indigineous Australians. I know it can get confusing which information to include and which to leave out when first starting to edit any pandemic article. There are more articles like this than those with good standards currently. One realizes soon enough that adding every day's developments is tedious, tiring and very draining. I have discovered that a good rule to follow is add cases and deaths only when certain milestone numbers are reached, for instance 100, 500, 1000, 2000 and so on. Add only very relevant content and keep it short and precise. I will be going over the Timeline section in the coming days to make changes.

I have taken care of the statistics section which was quite a mess with long tables of daily cases, these could either be collapsed or should have been created as templates like for every other pandemic article in the first place. I have created them as templates and also hyperlinked it in the section, will also be making some more necessary changes in the section soon.Shawnqual (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree the table is getting bigger, so definitely agree with collapsable table. But do not agree to put in a separate page as losing a focus while reading and need multiple clicks to find daily statistics. Johnanderson632 (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Shawnqual: I read your entry after replying to an entry below so I may be doubling up a bit. I appreciate the cases and deaths tables were getting a bit long, but the public link is currently pointing to a template page which is pretty bad practice, and the tables are currently not appearing at all on the main page. I understand things sometimes take a long time and need to be done in parts but you shouldn't leave the page half edited overnight. Are you planning on finishing the job sometime today? Maranello10 (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The timeline as it is currently is completely fine; it could even use more added to it.  Nixinova   T   C   06:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Shawnqual: I have fixed the page by moving the tables back to the main page and added collapsible boxes to address yours and others' concerns. Please do not make incomplete edits to the main page; the page is public and is not a particular editor's sandbox or a work in progress. If you want to suggest major edits to the page, start a new topic in the talk page so others can contribute; you shouldn't report your edits or suggestions casually in another topic's thread, particularly after the fact. Maranello10 (talk) 10:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Maranello10: I understand where you might be coming from, but the page was never left incomplete in first place. It was suggested to be improved upon and I would have addressed that as soon as I could. Also, there was a better way to bring the tables back to the article and collapse them, instead of over-crowding the source code of the article. What you have done makes it extremely cumbersome for editors to make changes in the tables! There are also formatting errors.

Furthermore, maybe wait a bit and familiarize yourself with a project's standards before nominating a page for deletion. Rushing leads to nowhere. Every country's article's have their corresponding template pages to keep track of the various data tables. Australia currently is the only exception where such tables are infused into the main article's source code. Your deletion nomination has been contested. --Shawnqual (talk) 11:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Shawnqual: Of course you left it incomplete, the tables were no longer on the main page. There were already two people in the talk page today asking where the tables went... so imagine how many less wiki literate readers came to the page today and couldn't find the information. The idea of having a template is to then embed them onto the page so people can actually read them. You mentioned "You would address things as soon as you could?".... How am I meant to know when you are coming back to fix things? I even asked you today when you were and you didn't respond.

I have absolutely no problem with using a template either. Just if you are going to make drastic changes to a page, at the very least.... have everything working first instead of corrupting the page, and ideally, start a new topic on the talk page instead of embedding your ideas in another thread.... others might want to weigh in with their thoughts. Maranello10 (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Deaths charts

What happened to the two charts that were in the Deaths section? Why have they been removed? Keroks (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Good question. This useful graphic is no longer available. Could whoever removed it please put it back. Thanks. Arcturus (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I have found them myself in the history and added them again. Keroks (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for that. BTW, things are looking good in Aus. Hopefully the restrictions will be lifted soon. Can't really see the need for them now. Arcturus (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

FYI, I split the cases template as it had the deaths table underneath the state cumulative cases table for some reason. The new deaths template, Template:COVID-19_pandemic_data/Australia_deaths, is located (naturally) in the deaths section on the main page. Maranello10 (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Meatworks hotspot in Victoria

Early in May 2020, Victoria had a hotspot in a meatworks factory. Can someone source this and add it to the article? --Danielklein (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The meatworks is Cedar Meats, with 49 out of 350 staff testing positive as of Wednesday 6 May 2020. https://www.stockandland.com.au/story/6744417/coronavirus-hits-melbourne-abattoir/ --Danielklein (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Someone has added it to the cluster section. Maranello10 (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-log plots of COVID-19 daily cases and deaths and of total cases and deaths

These two semi-log plots have not been updated since April 2. They give a misleading view of the current COVID-19 status in Australia. Please update the graphs or remove them, or make a note to explain they are only updated until April 2 for whatever reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yarraw (talk • contribs) 00:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done They are in the timeline for March so they are providing a snapshot at that moment. I am not saying it is a good or bad thing to keep them there, just that they are not inconsistent. Maranello10 (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done The timeline section does look cleaner without them. Maranello10 (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2020

Fatality rate should be written as case fatality rate based on confirmed cases instead since it only takes account of confirmed cases, whereas the real fatality rate should be lower if undetected and asymptomatic cases are considered. Hoearen (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. @Hoearen: The changes you suggest would require making changes at {{Infobox outbreak}}. You would need to get consensus from editors there to include this. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 02:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality

Overall much work has gone into this article. But does anyone else have concerns that at times this reads a little like a media release from the Australian Government? Granted, that the sources are reliable, but my view is that the media itself hasn't always been that rigorous in its scrutiny of the government reaction. Any thoughts? Sue2016 (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a fundamental problem with having an article about the pandemic in Australia. Apart from the federal government closing the international border, almost all other relevant actions have been the responsibility of state governments. I would certainly like to see this made clearer in the lead. HiLo48 (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Uncited updates

I notice that the numbers of deaths, inparticular, is being updated, BUT the sources are not. A source dated in early April isn't much good for an update in mid-May. Just reminding editors that it would be advisable, at the very least, to update the source's access date, if it is a continuously updated chart, for example. Remember, WP:Verify.
It would help if edit summaries were used too, and this is 'not newbie editors. 220 of ^Borg 06:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done I checked the links without access dates to see if they were broken, if they weren't I added today's date as the access date. If the reference is an updated statistics page from a state website, it would still back reference the death, so I think it is fine. Maranello10 (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you 220 of ^Borg 18:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of new topics - disability and pandemic response

Hallo

I am part of the disability community and there has been little to no coverage of the work done to ensure the safety of disabled people and older Australians. This is a significant issue because we are at high risk. The reason Aboriginal people are at high risk of contracting COVID-19 is because of the likelihood that they are also disabled people and because of intergenerational disadvantage re access to health care.

There have been a number of responses state by state which have required lobbying for, including a raise to the DSP which is still under negotiation and development of guidelines with a national committee around ethical decision making. These are important events which should be noted.

There should also be a section for the political response to the pandemic and perhaps a timeline of response, given controversy and the likelihood of a future inquiry and Royal Commission into the Australian government's response. For example, there was significant controversy about the Prime Minister's announcement that despite the Federal government deciding to close off groups of over 500 people, he planned to go to the football. He later reversed that decision, three days later when Peter Dutton returned from the US and tested positive to coronavirus.

Things are happening in the disability sector that nobody is talking about. The issues around nursing homes are huge - in the States, a third of all 80,000 deaths are from nursing home staff or residents.https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/04/30/aged-a30.html Here in Australia, people are protesting right now about the deaths near Penrith, at Newmarch House. These issues are under reported and form a valuable insight into congregate care during the current (suspended) Royal Commission into disability. The residents were not given the option of attending a hospital, including younger residents at nursing homes - the NSW guideline says that they may only access a 'hospital in the home' program in that nursing home. This skews figures when people are unable to access health care and older people die as a consequence as a lack of ethical decision making.

There are also important issues to be noted around the Australian public responses, including protests by far right and far left groups who have joined forces to protest against vaccines, lockdowns and 5G. These are unprecedented events and will impact upon a number of developments in Australia, including the right to protest and public safety issues. Yesterday, a police officer was hospitalised in Victoria as the outcome of a protest.

I have the knowledge base around this but am not an experienced user - I think there needs to be a way to develop sections about these issues but am not experienced enough to know how to do that in a way that doesn't make the page unwieldy. Can somebody help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crippledmoondoggy (talk • contribs) 23:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

References

@Crippledmoondoggy: If nobody is talking about it, it's not notable and therefore should not be part of Wikipedia. I'm not saying these issues aren't important, just that Wikipedia is not the place to initiate discussion about them and raise awareness of them. Wikipedia is only for recording notable information from reliable sources. --Danielklein (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Crippledmoondoggy: Perhaps Protests_over_responses_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic#Australia is an appropriate place for you to update if you wish to. I think the Newmarch House outbreak, considering The number of deaths, may eventually be worthy of it's own page. If you you have a paragraph/section you want added to this page, but don't think you have enough editing experience, you can put it here on the talk page for  discussion, advice, critique, etc. Regards, 220 of ^Borg 19:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Demand for investigation

Was looking for information on this page and noticed the section 'Demand for investigation'. While it notes that Beijing threatened consequences it only provides a single sentence. Should not the barley tariffs\ban and the suspension of meat imports also be mentioned? Beijing's Trade War against Australia as a consequence for Australia's demand for transparency and an independent investigation has garnered world attention after all. If there are further actions by Beijing should not these also be noted? 人族 (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a fraught area. Attempts to demonise China and Chinese people by our government began long before this pandemic. The "demand for investigation" wasn't so much a request, as an ongoing part of the campaign by right wing western governments to convince their voters that China is responsible for many of the world's problems, and that these governments will protect their voters from the evil foreigners. To isolate one action from China and say it is directly in response to one action by the Australian government is not possible. However, if some reputable commentator says that it is, we can also say that "Reputable commentator X said that...." Just be careful choosing your reputable commentator. HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: Your highly political comment does not improve Wikipedia. You are entitled to your political opinions in many places, but not here. Political bias goes against keeping Wikipedia neutral. However, what you said about quoting reputable sources is correct. --Danielklein (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You accuse me of making a political comment. What is inaccurate about it? HiLo48 (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: Almost everyone would agree that the Chinese Government is secretive and not very transparent. That the Australian Government has long been trying to demonise China is a political opinion, not an undisputed fact. That right wing western governments have a campaign to blame the world's problems on China is a political opinion, not an undisputed fact. The Chinese Government has been secretive in the past - fact. The Chinese Government tried to suppress information about the novel coronavirus when it first appeared - enough reputable evidence to accept this as fact. The Chinese Government has lied about its COVID-19 figures - opinion. It's all about real evidence and how much needs interpretation. The first time you interpret a fact, it's no longer a fact but an opinion. The Australian Government wants China to be more open and accountable - fact. The Australian Government is demonising China - opinion. --Danielklein (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have a bit to learn about how politics works. ALL governments keep secrets. ALL governments lie. Many governments like to demonise a people who look and sound different, and then convince the voters they will protect them from this "enemy". It's a long established political strategy. You can see it written up in many academic studies. Australian governments have been doing it since before Federation. Wise people know this happens, and see the world accordingly. HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this is a complex issue. One way out would be to cite critics of the independent investigation call. For instance, in the last few weeks I recall hearing former PM Kevin Rudd speak about how this call was hypocritical, given that only six months ago PM Morrison was castigating the UN for interfering in the sovereign affairs of nations. I think that Rudd's point is that you cannot pick and choose when you think that having a more robust UN is important. Now that it is another nation, we are happy to underscore the need for an independent UN-backed investigation. Point is that when the UN starts looking into, for instance, Indigenous health in Australia or how we treat asylum seekers, then suddelny we don't look too good. Sue2016 (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Historic source of information for NSW needed

Most of the references for NSW link to "NSW latest", which due to it being updated on a daily basis means older information is removed from it. There is a lot of information which can no longer be verified. Static sources of information for NSW need to be found to fix this. --Danielklein (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Danielklein: I believe that the Federal Health Dept. COVID-19 page has an archive, or links to a permanent URL of each day's update page. That may include NSW info seperately. I though Health NSW had a  similar archive, but can't find it. All  the media release are at https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/news/pages/2020-nsw-health.aspx and include 'COVID-19 (Coronavirus) statistics'. Regards, 220 of ^Borg 18:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@220 of Borg: Thanks! However, those historic pages don't have the detailed breakdowns that exist in this article. For example, Woollahra is just listed as one of the areas of increased testing, no figures on those infected is given. Where did we get our figures from? --Danielklein (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Danielklein: A search (here) on the NSW Health site for 'Wollahra covid' returned a list including (mainly?) media releases such  as https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/news/Pages/20200415_00.aspx (15 April), which mentions Woollahra.
* A figure of "92" cases as under 'Hotspots and clusters' on the 'Covid in Oz' page does not appear in the NSW Health media release for 15 April. It could be bogus info. May need to go back through the edit history to see where it first appears. Well-meaning editors sometimes hear a figure on the tv or radio and change it on WP without providing a source, or updating the source.
  Somebody may need to go through the data and re-link cites for content sourced from a 'daily update' page, to the specific date referenced. 220 of ^Borg 07:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2020

Can you change citation format in references from

• website=www.abc.net.au/access-date=2020-05-15

to

• publisher=ABC News/access-date=15 May 2020 182.1.234.170 (talk) 23:55, 17 May 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. There's way too many sources for this to be a simple matter. I have quickly searched through the ref list but couldn't find which one was problematic. Could you point out which one in particular (ideally quoting part of the previous sentence too as it appears in the text?). Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 00:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: I was going to change a date in a cite that was in the 'wrong' format (yyyy-mm-dd), but I noticed that when it was displayed in the References section, it appeared in the 'correct' (for Australia) dd-mm-yyyy format. Probably why you couldn't find it. It appears the MediaWiki software has been updated to handle this. Regards, 220 of ^Borg 06:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Is anyone still hospitalised in SA as of 19th May?

The Statistics | Cases | table still show SA have one hospitalisation, but zero active cases. Please advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GYKW (talk • contribs) 02:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The person is still in hospital being treated for illness as a result of COVID-19 but no longer has the virus. Maranello10 (talk) 07:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

X Axis angle (date) in graphs display

Can someone adjust the angle of the X axis (date) in graphs. All overlapping each other. |xAxisAngle=-40 -> |xAxisAngle=-70 or |xAxisAngle=-80 should do it. Can play around with it to see how changing affects display. Maybe go a bit more than needed so doesn't need to be adjusted for while.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.171.196.190 (talk)

 Second opinion requested Changing the angle puts the date values off line with the corresponding data for that date; the date appears between the bar lines while the data appears on top of them. Do you or does anyone else have a fix for this? Maranello10 (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It would be easier if we could get the dates on the x-axis to work like how they do for the line graphs. When I try this for the bar graphs, it doesn't work. I agree with Maranello10 though, changing the angle of the x-axis labels doesn't align it with the data anymore. Keroks (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree its not perfect, but surely being slightly misaligned is better than overlapping and being totally unreadable? Ya can see what each day is by looking at 1st or last day and moving left or right accordingly... last few days is what most people are probably looking for anyway. Either that or bundle it up into weeks perhaps (that makes a few very big bars tho)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.171.196.190 (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem of the x-axis labels being hard to read is definitely not worth the information loss from losing a daily count in terms of the shape of the graph. To be honest it isn't that big a deal, if readers want to know a specific date they have the table. If there is a way to keep the daily bars but have weekly labels, that would be the ideal solution. Maranello10 (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: add an image to Queensland's response

A set of Queensland Government COVID-19 preventative measures stickers on a pedestrial signal pole

Hey there! For some reason, my laptop is refusing to work when editing just this article. Woot. Would someone be able to add this image I took and uploaded to Commons to Queensland's section? I think it's important as it demonstrates Queensland Health's approach of advertising preventative measures out in the wider community in every-day spots, rather than just over conventional news sources. ItsPugle (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Maranello10 (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

How are we defining the hotspots section?

Just curious how we want to move forward with the hotspots section? Is hotspots defined as Local Government Areas (LGAs) with high number of cases? If so, there are many places that are not listed on there with much more cases. For example:

• Vic: Melbourne 106 cases, Banyule 91, Brimbank 73, etc. More info here
• Qld: Brisbane 421, Gold Coast 193, Moreton Bay 96, etc. source
• Tas: Burnie 64, Central Coast 35 source
• WA: Joondalup 40, Stirling 38, Wanneroo 33 source
• SA: Mitcham 38, Onkaparinga 36, Marion 33 source
• NSW may need some manual intervention as they only post heatmaps, but they do post the raw data here where someone can possibly tally it by LGA.

I'm happy to work on this, but unsure what is defined as a hotspot here. I also want to avoid duplication and confusion with the clusters table.

If we do move forward with the LGA idea, should there be a limit on how many LGAs are included? For example, an LGA should be included if there are more than 50 cases or so? Keroks (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I personally don't think using LGAs as a measure for hotspots is a great idea. An outbreak in the border between two LGAs looks dilluted, and LGAs all have different population and areas - City of Brisbane technically has many times City of Sydney's population, simply because there's only one LGA for all of Brisbane. Possibly do it my clusters of suburbs (i.e. in Brisbane, you might cluster Fig Tree Pocket, Kenmore and Chapel Hill)? ItsPugle (talk) 01:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

It is ill-defined, I think it can just be removed to be honest. The clusters section is a lot more relevant and easily referenced as they are declared by health authorities in daily media releases. Maranello10 (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I split out clusters from hotspots and added the warning about context. I agree that hotspots are not a good way for people to understand the spread of COVID-19, with most of the cases being people who became infected overseas and were quarantined well away from their LGA before recovering and being allowed home. I approve of the section's removal. --Danielklein (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

BLM/George Floyd and Other Protests

Are the Australian BLM/George Floyd protests notable enough to be added here - based on reactions by politicians and health officers?

A reference in the timeline section for June 2020 is probably appropriate. Maranello10 (talk) 01:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

Suggesting to remove:

There was a reduction of new infections in the end of March, from around 360 per day for the period of 23 to 27 March, then down to 190 in 28 March and 100 on 29 March. However, there was an expected and sudden increase in deaths near the end of March as Australia moved along the epidemiology curve.

This is misinformation as weekends always tend to have lower numbers due to lower reporting (check number of reported cases every Saturday and you'll see this is clear), suggesting a reduction in infections due to reduced reporting is misinforming the reader. Also there wasn't a sudden increase in deaths near the end of March I can't even find stats that would suggest that. This whole paragraph gives no useful information to the reader, whilst actually suggesting events that didn't even occur. TDnoAST (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request: Cumulative confirmed cases by state, territory & nationally

Whoever updates this table section does a great job, I was wondering if the table could be reversed, so that the latest numbers appear on top? Right now if you click 'Show', the table is so long, you need to scroll a few pages to the end. Alternatively, a bookmark could be added after the end, right before the graphs start...

Genesis2510 (talk) 05:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Locations of clusters

I've tidied up the locations of the clusters a bit; some of it was wrong, like the Al Kuwait being in City of Perth, and some of it could be clarified further down than the LGA - like, you can tell which suburb the aged care homes are in. I still think it could do with some work. Is there a particular reason LGAs are being used for it at all? That's not really a way in which ordinary people or authorities would refer to a location, other than citing cumulative community case numbers, but that doesn't apply to a cluster at a specific building. Dr-ziego (talk) 03:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, someone seems to have just added the LGA quite recently, there is no particular reason why it should be there, it was not due to a consensus or a discussion in the talk page or anything. If you wish to continue tidying up and removing it I would feel free to do so, although it would be good idea to outline your changes here to avoid an edit war, if the other editor has a particular reason why they included it and they wish to discuss. Maranello10 (talk) 02:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Re: clusters, this Victorian uptick makes it a bit complicated again. What exactly is the criteria for a cluster? For example Albanvale Primary School has now been listed, but only 2 cases - does 2 cases a cluster make? Dr-ziego (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've removed the LGAs from most of the locations with the exception of some of the recent family clusters, because when they're spread across multiple homes then it's not clear whether all those homes are in the same suburb or if some might be nearby. If anybody feels that more information than the suburb is necessary, I think something like "Brooklyn, Melbourne suburbs" or "Brooklyn, western suburbs of Melbourne" is more informative to most readers than the LGA. Most people don't have a clue what the borders of their own LGA are, let alone anyone else's. Dr-ziego (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dr-ziego: The LGAs are a relic of this information originally being mixed with hotspots, which have now been removed from the article as non-informative. Locations are reported by business, suburb, or by LGA. That's a huge range of specificity. If you feel it's simpler to lump all of these together, we can go with that. --Danielklein (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dr-ziego: One case is simply an isolated case, therefore there can never be a cluster of one by definition. Two or more linked cases make a cluster. Unrelated cases in close proximity do not make a cluster. For example, four unrelated cases were detected after attending the Black Lives Matter rally in Melbourne, but no cases of transmission have been detected from the rally, therefore the rally is not a cluster. The cluster information is from the Victorian Government's COVID-19 updates. If they say some cases are linked, it's a cluster and it gets added here. --Danielklein (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Because of the recent spike in Victoria's cases, there are many new clusters being reported each day. Should the clusters table now be collapsed by default? --Danielklein (talk) 05:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

142 out of 104

"As of 29 June 2020, 104 people linked to COVID-19 have died in Australia.[82] At least 142 deaths were residents in aged-care facilities[1]" How is that possible? Were negative 38 deaths residents elsewhere? Art LaPella (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved, thank you Art LaPella (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

It is 31 deaths in residential aged-care facilities as listed by the Australian Government here. Not sure why another editor keeps trying to change this figure. Today it was changed to 60, so I have amended it again. Keroks (talk) 09:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2020

Your data for NSW is incorrect on 3rd July. 114 new cases! I think it may have been 0. 110.140.131.112 (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Discrepancy in NSW case data

There seems to be a discrepancy in the graph for the daily increase in NSW COVID-19 cases for July 3. There is no way that there was 189 new cases on that day, and NSW Health (https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/news/Pages/20200704_00.aspx) confirms that there are 3,216 active cases to date whereas the statistics section (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Australia#Statistics) shows 3,405. This needs to be fixed. Likewise, the number of new cases for July 3 on NSW Health does not show an increase of 189 cases. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D059:9A00:244D:302C:EE35:B052 (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The cases added to NSW that day were assigned to Australia from the Ruby Princess, and the Commonwealth Department of Health assigned them to NSW, which is being disputed by the state. As the page has long established that the federal government's daily infographic as the source of daily updates, they have been included under NSW's case numbers. Maranello10 (talk) 08:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Still needs a comment to NSW cases plot in the Article to explain that 189 is not an outbreak of new cases but just adding historical data. Please add the comment to the plot COM-03 (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

A comment exists in the cumulative cases table for the 189 cases. The table is quite comprehensive in the sense it includes a comment each time there is an adjustment to a state's daily case numbers, whether the adjustment is 1 or 189, which happens pretty often, so it is referenced appropriately. Maranello10 (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, special search was required to find this comment. Seeing a plot with this huge outbreak, how can a reader know that (s)he needs to see the comment in the other table? For this reason is better to have a reference directly on the plot, because 189 is a clearly seen outbreak over several months. COM-03 (talk) 10:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I would say two things to that. Firstly, it is quite obvious that the spike on that day is due to an administrative and/or classification change. On many country's graphs and charts, there are many instances of sudden and dramatic changes to the number of deaths, or the number of recoveries in one day and the like... no one would think for example in the case of Chile last month, that the number of deaths went from around 3,000 to 6,000 in one day. Similarly, no one is going to think NSW went from a handful of cases to 189 and back down to single digits on one day.... and if they do want to know the specifics as to why this happened, it is referenced. This brings me to my second point...

There is an instance of case reclassification most days; particularly at the moment with Victoria recording so many cases. To this end, you would need to reference nearly every single day on the graph. Now, if your argument is NSW is a special case in this one instance because it was a particularly dramatic one day adjustment, then we have to have a discussion on when the cutoff is to be referenced... a 10 case for example when you only have a couple of cases or zero cases a day which is currently the case of Western Australia, is quite dramatic, but a 10 case daily reclassification for Victoria at the moment is quite standard... so how do we make these rules? The only option is to either reference all of reclassifications in the chart or reference none of them, and it seems clear given the chart is just going to get more congested as time goes by to fit the increasing number of the daily case numbers in order to preserve the integrity of the shape of the curve, that the proper place for the references for daily case reclassifications is in the table. Maranello10 (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Table showing all cases, deaths and recoveries

Should this page include a table similar to that on the COVID-19 pandemic page and the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States page? It looks like we have chronological data for all the states and a template we can use, so it seems viable. Thoughts? JMonkey2006 (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9th July 2020

Please change the daily new confirmed cases for NSW on July 3rd 2020 from 189 to 0. You can download the table below containing all the all the data published by Australian authorities in here: https://infogram.com/1p0lp9vmnqd3n9te63x3q090ketnx57evn5?live 119.18.3.100 (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The 189 cases added on that date is consistent with the source used for this page, which comes from the Australian Government Department of Health. Maranello10 (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Metropolitan Melbourne?

The wording describing yesterday's new lockdown says it impacts "Metropolitan Melbourne and Mitchell Shire". I don't think that's terribly accurate. At a minimum, it's misleading. The lockdown involves all of Yarra Ranges Shire. That shire is big, and extends to places over 100 km from the city, way beyond Warburton and Healesville. That's not Metropolitan Melbourne. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not particularly familiar with Melbourne so I can't say much, but in terms of the actual language used, "metropolitan Melbourne and Mitchel Shire" is the official terminology used by both the Victoria State Government (Source) and the Australian Government (Source - on the list of pages on the right), so I struggle to see the exact issue or any immediately appropriate replacement. If you have any alternatives that don't directly contradict the two governments but are also appropriate enough though, I'd be down to have a look at it all. ItsPugle (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

"I struggle to see the exact issue..." The issue is describing places over 100 km from the city, and way outside any built-up area, as "metropolitan Melbourne". We are not obliged to use the precise words in a source. In fact, quite the contrary, we are supposed to paraphrase when we can. We need wording that will work for this global encyclopaedia, which has a broader audience who would be guaranteed to misunderstand that expression. HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The council areas apart from Mitchell Shire which are in lockdown have at least part of their borders within what is considered Metropolitan Melbourne. It is true that some of these LGAs also have boundaries that extend beyond Metropolitan Melbourne, but they are considered a Metropolitan LGA. The most accurate description would be "All Metropolitan LGAs and Mitchell Shire are in lockdown". I don't see a problem if someone wants to change it, but I also don't see a problem using Metropolitan Melbourne as a shorthand. A place like Healesville for example you would describe as a exurb; it isn't in the city but it is not completely disconnected from the metro area either, I wouldn't call it a regional town. Maranello10 (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I would support using All metropolitan Local Government Areas and Mitchell Shire (or "LGAs" if that's made clear that it means "Local Government Area") as an alternative, but otherwise, I still don't see why the current isn't hugely appropriate. As a bit of a side note, I do believe that the m in metropolitan should be lower case, since we're not talking about an officially distinguished geographic area but rather a collection of metropolitan LGAs. ItsPugle (talk) 05:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Percent growth column in Cumulative Cases table

I don't think the percent growth column provides any useful information. For example, the recent >100 per day figures for Victoria represent dramatic increases in current cases - much more significant than the low single figure percentages listed. Using a cumulative figure is, in effect, comparing an infection in July to infections in March and April - when there's no relationship between them. Percent change in active cases or active cases due to community transmission might be more meaningful. --114.78.184.33 (talk) 06:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Date formatting suggestions for the charts' x-axes

I wish to bring up two points for consideration.

I believe the x-axis for the deaths chart can be summarised as "All June" (similar to "All January" and "All February" in the new cases chart) for the month since there is currently only two deaths. I will do it at the end of the month, does anyone have any problem with this?

Update Going to delay this formatting change until it's known how the Victorian second wave plays out; there may be significantly more deaths so the integrity of the curve needs to be respected. Maranello10 (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Secondly, a lot of other country pages are now squashing the dates together on the charts rather than have a scroll bar, so the readers can see the entirety of the epidemiology curve at once. I don't think it is that important that the individual dates are legible; if anyone is really interested they can find the exact case numbers for any state or nationally in the cumulative cases drop down table. There is value though of seeing the entire curve at once as it shows the entire narrative. I am willing to test things out when I get some time next week, but once again does anyone have any thoughts? Maranello10 (talk) 09:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Two thoughts : If you showed the entire chart without a scroll bar, then displaying the axis in weeks rather than days would be more appropriate.

If there is to be a scroll bar, could it be right justified as a default rather than left justified, so the view showed today going backwards, rather than just the older months? Matilda Maniac (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Providing the daily case bars are kept so the chart keeps its shape, and not aggregated to weeks (which will lose a lot of information), then having the x-axis in weeks makes sense. I don't think it matters though whether it is left or right justified, the curve of the start of the pandemic in any case is more important. Maranello10 (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree now it might be better to have the whole epidemiological curve on the one page as suggested for clarity and to see the curve all at once gives more information on the second wave and also as some people on some devices might not be able to do the scrolling. I changed it for the state graphs but do not know how to do it for the top orange graph that does the whole of Australia new cases per day as it's linked from elsewhere. Also I had the thought that the date could appear when the person moves their cursor over the bars of each day like they do on the graphs that show new cases per day on Worldometer's graphs but I am not sure how or if that could be written into the code on wikipedia. HelperAnt (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@HelperAnt: It looks really good. The whole of Australia orange graph can be found here if you want to make the same changes. Maranello10 (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

What do you think of putting a date once every 7th day or so? It keeps the daily fluctuation in the graph but makes the dates look better at the bottom. Like they did here https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States#Number_of_U.S._cases_by_date HelperAnt (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@HelperAnt: I think it is a good idea, and I don't think anyone would object to it. If you know how to make the changes you should feel free to do it. Maranello10 (talk) 07:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I find the daily case charts for the States were better as bar charts. I actually want to know the actual number of daily new cases (not cumulative cases) for my State and for Victoria (or any later outbreak State). I don't want to have to calculate a difference from the table or read "somewhere about 20" from the graph. If the daily figure was shown as a popup on mouseover that would be better, but I think the (original) bar chart with numbers is preferable. --114.78.184.33 (talk) 06:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

In re scrolling, maybe have a 6 week rolling graph or current month + 2 previous months with a cumulative graph on another page. --114.78.184.33 (talk) 06:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The statistics could be profitably split off to a separate page (current status?) anyway. --114.78.184.33 (talk) 06:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree, I liked the bar charts better than the line graphs. There also seems to be an error made with the graphs as the dates are not lining up with the values now. E.g. Vic is showing increase of 281 for today, which was actually 10th July's numbers. I checked NSW and it's also the same, with the 2 day difference. Keroks (talk) 07:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Update, I have fixed the error. I still think it looks better in a bar chart however. Keroks (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The bar chart looked way better, is there a way to keep the weekly dates but put back the daily bars? If not just revert back to how it was before. Maranello10 (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a limitation of bar charts. Typically line charts are the only charts you should be showing time series data with, but obviously not the case here for COVID. Other countries pages also have similar issues. Keroks (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2020

The second wave of Covid-19 was due to the 10,0000 Black Life Matters protests on June the 6th. Health Minister Greg Hunt warned that "if there is someone who is infectious in the midst of a crowd like that, that can have a catastrophic impact" "four people who attended the Melbourne protest have tested positive to coronavirus." Fitnesspm (talk) 11:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC) The second wave of Covid-19 infections for Victoria is mainly due to the 10,000+ Black Life Matters protests on June the 6th. Health Minister Greg Hunt warned that "if there is someone who is infectious in the midst of a crowd like that, that can have a catastrophic impact." “We already knew that three protesters have tested positive to the virus but now we understand two cases identified today were linked to one of the protesters at the rally,” Mr Clennell said.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/did-australia-s-black-lives-matter-protests-cause-a-spike-in-covid-19-cases https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6166254713001

CLaims from a Liberal minister about something that happened in a Labor governed state are not the kind of thing Wikipedia contains. HiLo48 (talk) 11:22, 17 July 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. Also, speculation per HiLo48. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Active cases chart - NSW discrepancy

I know the definition used for active cases has for quite some time been: "Total Cases - Deaths - Recoveries = Active Cases" based on the federal government infographic. However, NSW has for a while has been reporting an active case statistic that is decoupled from their recovery data. It seems they have a 350 odd number of cases that they don't declare recovered but also don't consider active. It makes the active cases in the month of June in particular look misleading, where the graph is stating 400-500 whereas in reality it was closer to 100; but obviously the difference perpetuates thereafter.

Considering the first table (COVID-19 pandemic in Australia by state/territory) already uses the state data, should it also be used in the active cases chart? I know it will be different to the flagship chart at the start of the article (which I don't suggest should be changed), but there is already an inconsistency within the cases section anyway, and I don't really think it is worth simply waiting for NSW to finally fix their recoveries data. NSW started reporting active cases data on June 12 I believe? The chart could get backdated to then. Maranello10 (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

You can look at https://www.covid19data.com.au/ to see how it's handled there. Full disclosure: I'm an editor there as well. --Danielklein (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes the definition on the website seems consistent with what is being reported by NSW, with the "inactive" distinction. I would be in support of switching to that definition, and taking the states' reported active cases each day. @Keroks: You generally update the active cases chart, what do you think? Maranello10 (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I've generally just done the active cases chart as what is reported on the Infographic so that it is consistent with the numbers and graphs at the top of the article, rather than the Table where it is somewhat explained. It's very annoying that NSW isn't reporting their recoveries correctly and even with NSW's active cases, they aren't considering those in Hotel Quarantine as 'active', which I believe is quite misleading considering other states are (e.g. WA would have 0 active cases by NSW's definition). I did read this article a few days ago saying that a lot of NSW COVID patients from March are still having symptoms, which could be why the state is hesitant to mark them as recovered. At this rate it does feel like NSW won't be reporting their recoveries correctly though (considering they haven't even reported a single recovery this whole week!) Keroks (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Well there is no using their active case number either in that case if you would just be swapping one misleading statistic for another; so keeping it consistent with the infographic seems best. Considering the NSW recoveries have been stuck for a while they might eventually just declare a whole batch recovered. It is quite annoying though. Maranello10 (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I have just noticed that the Federal Government has started reporting Active Cases on this website. I never realised it as usually I just go straight to the Infographic directly. We could potentially start reporting this number instead, but I'm not sure if there is a valid source to get historic numbers for it? Keroks (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Update: I've added the 'official' active case numbers from the Federal Government to the chart. I'm not sure how long the Government has been reporting this, but I don't think it's been longer than a week, so I've added a comment under the Active Cases section explaining the changes. Keroks (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It's fine, even if it started getting reported a few days earlier than July 20 there is always going to be an adjustment in the graph. I think the bar chart looked better though as you can't really see daily turning points anymore as the line smooths out the data. Are the unreadable numbers the only reason you changed it? As it might be possible to simply remove them. Maranello10 (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion it looks better as a line graph, but if you prefer it as a bar chart I'm happy to revert back to that. Keroks (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2020

The premier of Victoria is Daniel Andrews, but in one place the article calls him David Andrews. Please change "David Andrews" to "Daniel Andrews" and remove the comma and the space after his last name 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:B410:B848:FF7A:B15E (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

It is abundantly clear that what has gone on here is completely unacceptable and we need to know exactly what has happened.

— Premier David Andrews,

References

Quote template removed since the quote is short. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done by Ganbaruby. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that was my error, mis-naming the Vic. Premier. 😳 220 of ^ßorg 15:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Still my error for not double checking, but I think it may have been the auto-in-correct (as I call it) on my Android tablet. 220 of ^ßorg 15:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edit re COVID-19 mutation

The edit here is quite technical and may not be suitable for this page, except in a highly summarised version:

"Genomic sequences of Australian SARS‐CoV‐2 isolates have novel deletions or mutations in a RNA secondary structure motif … ", etc.

It was also just 'dumped' into the February section without any apparent reason for it to go there.
Maybe summarised and moved to a seperate section? 220 of ^ßorg 15:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Death chart & text contradict

Just noting that right 'now', the lede text & infobox say 139 dead, in the 'Deaths' section, the chart showing deaths by state & associated text say 140 total. Not a big deal, but can we be consistent?, This is supposed to be an Encyclopaedia. It may help if editors updating these figures used edit summaries? And were a bit more careful? -220 of ^ßorg 16:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

220 of Borg, the sources in the lead appear to say 139, but the individual sources, when summed together in the table, show a different total. It depends on which sources are tallying cases incorrectly right now. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu Fair enough. It's possible different states might update their figures at different times leading to this difference. Maybe we need a note to indicate there may be a discrepancy? In the near past there have also been times when the lede text and info box disagreed! I think maybe I'm a bit too picky about accuracy. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 220 of ^ßorg 04:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

This is because Victoria reported 6 deaths yesterday in Andrews' press conference, however in the CHO's media release later it was reported there was one further death. We are trying to be consistent with the Australian Government's statistics, which takes collates all of the States numbers at a certain time of the day, which is probably why it is not lining up with the media release. For most of the statistics I am trying to have consistent with the Federal Government, however there is no denying that there was 7 deaths reported yesterday (media and Vic reporting). The numbers will likely be reconciled tonight. Keroks (talk) 05:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Map needs updating

The cases/100000 people map needs updating - Victoria has been in the top category (deep pink) for over a week. Grutness...wha? 14:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The map is external to the page and not straight forward to update. Someone seems to update it periodically - they are probably doing it for all the country pages. Maranello10 (talk) 10:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Possible Queensland resurgence

Looking at the content in "Timeline" I don't think this content goes anywhere on the article, but the Queensland government issued a public health alert about 3 new cases. It appears 2 of them may have unwittingly spread the virus, which have caused a college to display positive results. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2020

In section 4, the preventive measures, the subsections for states and territories appears to be ordered by most-to-least populous. This doesn't seem very helpful. Could you rearrange them alphabetically? 64.203.187.98 (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't think that would be better. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 20:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2020

Please change "79 passengers had tested positively for the virus by 1 April." to "79 passengers had tested positive for the virus by 1 April." If you say "tested positively", it sounds like they had a positive attitude when testing, not that the test came back positive. 64.203.187.71 (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Maranello10 (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2020

"subsidies for heavily effected industries" Please fix the spelling; it should be "affected". 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:5923:46B6:A772:CDE0 (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for catching that! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2020

Since there are too many templates on this page, can you merge some duplicate references?

• 502 and 505
• 325 and 409
• 143 and 159
• 139 and 492
• 138 and 491
• 137 and 490
• 120 and 364
• 94 and 97
• 78 and 302
• 71 and 556
• 62 and 518
• 24 and 145
• 15 and 80

15 and 80 come from different publications, but the articles are identical (even the picture choice and placement are the same), so one is just reprinting the other, or they're both reprinting a third. 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:5923:46B6:A772:CDE0 (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done I've done the first one you suggested. The problem is some of the references are transcluded(copied) from another page and can't be merged. This is because you can't change the copied sections on this page, meaning you can't merge them with the references here. I haven't looked at all of the duplicates, but I assume many of them are in that situation. Zoozaz1 (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

:-\ Thank you for helping me understand. Could you do 94 and 97? I checked each of the others, and they're all in the situation you described. 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:5923:46B6:A772:CDE0 (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2020

Please update that the AFL has returned (on 11th June) Please update that The Royal Melbourne Show, Australia Sheep and Wool Show and Royal Geelong Show has been cancelled Rockenit (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done I didn't include the wool show, as many such smaller events have been cancelled, can't list them all. Maranello10 (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Article size limit reached

The template/article size limit for the page seems to have been exceeded after the latest update to the deaths section. References can no longer be previewed by readers which limits functionality.

A solution is to move the cumulative cases drop down box and/or the deaths section to an off-page template page, similar to how many other charts and tables are stored. Maranello10 (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible to move the Plot of COVID-19 cumulative cases in Australia and the Daily new confirmed COVID-19 cases in Australian States and Territories. charts to the Template:COVID-19 pandemic in Australia/New Cases by Differences page, therefore editors don't need to go to 4 different pages to edit the charts. And also yes I think the deaths chart should also be moved to a template page too. Keroks (talk) 03:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that's a good idea. Only question is does the Template:COVID-19 pandemic in Australia/New Cases by Differences page need to be renamed in this instance, or would it cause more confusion than it is worth? Maranello10 (talk) 05:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Can probably rename it to Cumulative cases charts and just have that page redirect to it. Keroks (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

'Update: I have moved all the cases charts to Template:COVID-19 pandemic in Australia/Cases charts and moved the deaths chart to Template:COVID-19 pandemic in Australia/Deaths charts. But I just realised that its a Template size issue, not the article size? Not sure how to fix it. Keroks (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Keroks, what that means is that the template transclusion is exceeding the limits allowed; this commonly occurs through an abundance of {{citation}} or chart elements. Without doing a PEIS analysis I think it's more likely that it's the charts that are the problem. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Alright I see. How should we fix it? Keroks (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Keroks: I imagine it is the daily adjustment citations in the cumulative cases that has caused the limit to be exceeded. For example, today's adjustment "There were 303 new cases in Victoria on 15 August, however 20 cases previously reported were reclassified after further investigation." can probably be expressed with far fewer characters. Something like "303 new cases, with 20 cases reclassified" would suffice, and an explanatory note in the written section before the drop down table can give context as to why there is frequently a reclassification (duplication of cases etc.). Maranello10 (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

PEIS sectional analysis: Limit is 2MB(2,097,152 bytes)

• COVID-19_pandemic_in_Australia#Cumulative_cases - 600,710/2,097,152 bytes
• COVID-19_pandemic_in_Australia#Deaths - 401,152/2,097,152 bytes
• COVID-19_pandemic_in_Australia#Statistics (as whole) - 1,300,983/2,097,152 bytes - 60% of templates(parsed alone) in article are from this section.
• COVID-19_pandemic_in_Australia(whole article) - 2,097,151 bytes(limit reached unable to parse remaining templates)

I suggest moving the day wise case and death tables out of the article, may be create separate article for statistics like India, Germany, Brazil and Poland articles. - Timbaaa -> ping me 15:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have been bold and split the section off into its own article. Perhaps some small summary should still be provided, but the templates were clearly an issue and had greatly unabalanced this article. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have added the summary table and the national epidemiology chart to the main article as it is important to have some statistics on the main page. They are both inexpensive in terms of adding to the article's size. @Keroks:: I am mindful of workload, I don't think any charts that have a text narrative that needs to be updated daily (e.g. active, deaths) should be on the main page as they would need to be updated twice, whereas templates obviously only have to be updated once for both articles. The only thing I couldn't avoid is separating the national chart from Template:COVID-19_pandemic_in_Australia/Cases_charts so all the charts don't load on the main page. I placed it in a new template page: Template:COVID-19 pandemic in Australia/National Cases. Maranello10 (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Arrival date is incorrect

The date recorded as the arrival date is incorrect, correct date is the 6th of January. The 25th was the date the first cases were diagnosed, due to delays in getting testing established. 4 cases were diagnosed on this same day, all with different arrival dates, but the first of these to arrive in Australia was a man in his 30s who arrived in Sydney on the 6th January from China, with contact from someone from Wuhan, but not having visited there himself. He developed symptoms on the 15th of January, prompting him to see his GP & get tested, results confirmed as positive on the 25th January.

3 Sydney cases & 1 Melbourne case were diagnosed on this same day, the Melbourne person having arrived in the country at 9am on Sunday 19 January on China Southern Airlines Flight No CZ321 from Guangzhou. The other 2 arrived in Sydney on the 18th & 20th of January

This information was widely reported in a range of media outlets, using the information from the government's press conferences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.112.95 (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide reliable sources for any changes you want to have made. As for your point, an index case is the date and location of the first diagnosis, not the date the infection may have first arrived into a jurisdiction. This is considered the arrival date because it is quite possible that an infected person arrived in Australia prior to 6th January and was never tested, which is why an objective standard is needed, and this is the standard used worldwide. Maranello10 (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Bricks and Mortar chain or notable stores closed permanently with covid as a partial or total reason

There are other pages (see below), but they have not information about Australia, and I think this page has to contain them as a running list

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Impact_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_on_retail The retail apocalypse ( downturn in retail stores over the last few years also doesn't include anything about OZ https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Retail_apocalypse#COVID-19_pandemic

I was prompted because that icon of garlic cheese bread https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Collins_Foods#Sizzler is closing Also Riot Art and Craft [2]https://www.afr.com/companies/retail/mosaic-brands-to-close-stores-after-170m-loss-20200824-p55oviare are closing Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem is separating the effect of COVID-19 from all the negatives affecting such businesses independent of the pandemic. I don't believe it can be done. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Good point. Looking at https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Impact_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_on_retail they seems to put them in and say whether a link was claimed. This is also similar to whether a person died of COVID and there were multiple health issues. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

No it's not. When people die, a doctor fills out a death certificate stating cause of death. It is a legal document and to lie on one is a crime, so doctors don't do it. Don't get caught up in a COVID conspiracy theory. HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Separate pages for state and territory cases

There needs to be separate pages for COVID-19 cases in each Australian state and territory since there have been separate pages of COVID-19 cases for each state in the United States and each province and territory in Canada. I don't care what you think, there needs to be pages on them now. Edunk5 (talk) 7:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:7C22:600:8922:6F6:5CBD:ACDD (talk)

Go for it, Edunk5, and help us improve Wikepedia. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate data in Timeline and States

I've just finished summarising the updated changes for Victoria and I've noticed that some of the information is already in the overall "Timeline" section. May I suggest that perhaps the state sections (or at least some of them) are now large enough to split into their own articles. In fact, it is my opinion that the whole larger section of "Preventive measures" might be best moved to its own page. Jaguar83 (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2020

Please changes word order in the following sentences from (Because Australia officially use DMY):

• The wave ended with zero new cases being recorded on October 26.

to

• The wave ended with zero new cases being recorded on 26 October. 180.244.189.223 (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggested additions to introduction

Normally I would jump in and do this myself, but not on the intro to a semi protected article. I think the intro would be better served by including mention of:

• Interstate border closures, and how that was a contentious political issue (probably a sentence right after the national border closure)
• The National Cabinet's official goal being "zero community transmission," since that's a stark contrast to most other Western countries' policies and would be useful info for non-Australians having a glance at the page (probably a sentence before or after the current sentence about how Australia is generally viewed as a success story).

Happy to add these myself, just checking there are no objections. Dr-ziego (talk) 07:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Also - I'd scrap the closing sentence of the intro about "overconfidence." I just read the two citations for it and neither mentions that word or anything close to it. Certainly there are criticisms to be made around the Andrews government and the hotel quarantine blunder that led to the second wave, which could well deserve a place in the intro, but "overconfidence" is an odd way of putting it. Dr-ziego (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I challenge you to find a way of doing that and maintain a neutral point of view. HiLo48 (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Which part? Dr-ziego (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The words "there are criticisms to be made around the Andrews government and the hotel quarantine blunder" imply that you have decided to blame the Andrews government for all that went wrong there. That's an obviously non-neutral POV. HiLo48 (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Victoria Coronavirus Cases

The following discussion 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.

---

No New Coronavirus Cases in Victoria mostly November 2020 however there is only 4 cases of this month.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.210.126 (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Today is Remembrance Day and a 12th day in a row has no coronavirus cases.

 Not done Please make it clear any changes you want to have made. In terms of active cases, statistics are already updated daily. Maranello10 (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020 doesn't have any Coronavirus Cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.209.163 (talk) 09:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus Free will be end of the month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.209.163 (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Next new case will be in December 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.209.163 (talk) 10:06, 24 November 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.

Why is the bot archiving topics within the same month ,?

I don't really understand bots, what did we do that triggered it? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The archive bot is set to 7 days ("algo = old(7d)") so long as there are 5 threads remaining ("minthreadsleft = 5"). CMD (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Is it possible to change that on a single talk page ?? Or is it wikipedia wide? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Settings can be changed for each talk page, though it usually remains unchanged unless there's a really good reason otherwise. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Changes to intro

As discussed earlier I've gone ahead and made the following changes to the intro:

• Mentioned mandatory hotel quarantine
• Mentioned internal border closures
• Mentioned second Victorian lockdown (at a glance, a visitor to the page could be forgiven for thinking the second wave just went away by itself)
• Mentioned National Cabinet's stated goal of "zero community transmission"
• Removed the mention at the end of Australia's "fast-forward reaction" (a phrase that doesn't make sense) and that there have been criticisms of "overconfidence" (since that's an odd word to use - overconfidence by whom, the government of the citizenry? - and neither citation for that actually said anything of the kind)

Dr-ziego (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Almost no active cases in Australia

Victoria records no new cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.21.119.3 (talk) 11:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Please phrase your request in the form of "change X to Y" and cite your sources. Maranello10 (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

December outbreak NSW

Please add the following to the timeline, under November (please create a new subsection for December). --211.30.238.60 (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

As of Friday 18 December, NSW reported 28 locally acquired cases, centred around Sydney's northern beaches. No patient zero has been found for this outbreak.

References

 Done Had been partly done by another editor already. I therefore only had to add the patient zero bit.
SSSB (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC).

We have 908 coronavirus deaths to date, Australia records no new deaths.

Australia records 1 new death in December 2020 in NSW

. Overcharts (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2021

"Premier of New South Wales Gladys Berejiklian"

In the December 2020 section, please truncate this to "Premier Gladys Berejiklian" because the context is already NSW, and one would assume that the premier who's taking action over a NSW incident would be the NSW premier. 64.203.186.67 (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion. HiLo48 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Pre-2021 date changes needed?

Now that the pandemic has continued into 2021, will we need to add the year to existing 2020 dates? Or, split sections like the timeline into 2020, 2021 sections?

I have already created a 2021 sub-heading for the NSW section and added the mask requirements for Greater Sydney. Today I see that Wollongong and elsewhere is also included in the masking area, so already needs updating.
• Please update it if I don't. 220 of ^ßorg 02:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

This comes from the introduction:

governments started to close 'non-essential' services.[6][7] "Non-essential services" included social gathering

Please use only single quotes or only double quotes, not both. 64.203.186.108 (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2021 (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. Seagull123 Φ 16:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Please use only single quotes or only double quotes. I don't care which one you do, but don't use both. 64.203.186.108 (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I have fixed it. Thanks for drawing this to our attention. I don't know why Seagull 123 responded so bureaucratically. It was easy to see what you were suggesting, and it was a good suggestion, politely made. HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Protests of COVID restrictions in Australia

Since I have been unable to locate a Wikipedia article listing COVID lockdown protests that have occurred in Australia, they HAVE occurred (see article 1, for a case in point; there may well be others which I have not yet found sources at this time). As a result, I merely ask that such a subheading (or an addition to the article on article 2, ) be made for Australia (as its own continent OR under Asia as you might see fit). Also, recently "Australia Day" protesters have seen fit to defy COVID regulations and go out any way to do their thing (see, for example, article 3 ) -- such defiance of COVID regulations may also qualify as worthy of being included in such article / subarticle as appropriate. What do you think???? Shawn Fahrer, USA 2603:7000:7506:9400:95E0:BB19:E07C:E991 (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

References

There is a bit of coverage, about anti-mask protests in particular, that I added. 220 of ^ßorg 05:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

But only on Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia, apparently. 220 of ^ßorg 05:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Added to COVID-19 pandemic in Australia per edit here. 220 of ^ßorg 05:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Not updated since 4th of March

This reticle has not been updated since the 4th of March. Could someone see to this, thank you. 95.148.142.59 (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Since 4 March, and before this request these edits were done. That's an update isn't it? 220 of ^ßorg 03:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Migrate Timeline to its own page?

Self-explanatory. Based on other countries' similar pages?

JMonkey2006 (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Considering it's getting long, it may be a good idea. What other pages have done this? 220 of ^ßorg 16:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

220 of Borg, many other nations. Consider Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada, Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, and Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom (January–June 2020). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I attempted to create a new page, with the entire timeline basically copy and paste into the new page. For some reason, the publish new page button didn't work no matter how hard I tried. JMonkey2006 (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

JMonkey2006, Is Draft:Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia what you were thinking of? CMD (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jmonkey2006: Remember to provide the correct 'credit' back to this page and it's editors as the source of the 'new' page. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, There's a template that needs to go on the talkpage here, and there, for that purpose. — Regards, 220 of ^ßorg 01:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't seem to make a new page. The blue button just doesn't work at all. Does that happen for you too, @220 of Borg and 220:? JMonkey2006 (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jmonkey2006: Guessing here, you only have 175 edits, so aren't yet 'qualified' to create new pages? 220 of ^ßorg 04:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The template in question is {{split article}}. Someone should also check the references, as one of them has been invoked (health-current-status) but never defined. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The reference in question is present in Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Australia medical cases chart, not the article. It can be added there but then this page will need to be adjusted to prevent reference name duplication. JMonkey2006, see if you can move the Draft into the mainspace instead. It has the attribution in the initial edit summary. CMD (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Tenryuu: If it helps, I believe that reference is (also?) defined in the infobox on this page. Regards, 220 of ^ßorg 03:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I've copied it over to the template. Apparently since it's exactly the same there's no error on this page. CMD (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

We seem to have reached a consensus. I will attempt to move the draft and remove the timeline from this page. If anyone knows how to do it properly, please take the reins :) . JMonkey2006 (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I've made the draft into an article, but I'm not too sure how the talk page works and what I need to add into it. JMonkey2006 (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Just tagging as so. 220 of ^ßorg 03:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

"No community transmission" vs "suppression"

Somebody edited the intro to say the government (state and federal) policy is "suppression" rather than "no community transmission," citing a report from the Group of 8. The Group of 8 are not the Australian government and in any case the report is dated April 2020 - "no community transmission" was adopted as policy in June, IIRC. The reason I think it's important to be clear about this is because it is actually quite a different strategy (with corresponding results) from most of the rest of the world, and also because suppression clearly was Australia's initial strategy (especially compared to NZ which went for elimination from the get-go). But the intro is probably not the best place to hash out the semantics of it all. Dr-ziego (talk) 08:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

That was me. You'll find suppression was reported as the goal in preexisting citation, too. There's plenty of confusion and disagreement about this terminology, for which the Group of 8 report is somewhat helpful. It was also a document that I believe was requested by either National Cabinet or AHPPC, and would have informed subsequent selection of a national strategy. From personal communication, at least some of Australia's policymakers described suppression as "always trying for elimination but not expecting that if you get there it will be stable". -- pde (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Reiterating, I'm fairly sure Australia's policy, adopted in June was officially/explicitly "suppression", though sources may also characterise it in other ways. I'm going to restore that, but am open to hearing if there's something I'm missing here. -- pde (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Another COVID-19 death, in Queensland

A while back I added the 'observation':

" No new deaths from COVID-19 have been recorded in Australia since 28 December 2020. " (I hope that doesn't count as 'original research'!)

To the lede. Maybe now:

" No new deaths from locally acquired COVID-19 have been recorded in Australia since 28 December 2020. ", is now more accurate?

As now there has been another death in Qld:

" An 80-year-old Australian man has died from COVID-19 in Queensland — the first death to be recorded in the state in just under a year. .... a returned traveller who had been living in the Philippines. " per [3] ABC Oz, source.

AND, there was ALSO English born, Aussie raised, Malcolm Kela Smith, a PNG politician etc. who got infected in PNG, but also died in Qld on 5 April.
• Does that mean they're our first 'Australian' COVID-19 deaths since 28 Dec. 2020?
• Any comments, suggestions? Regards, 220 of ^ßorg 02:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Changed it to:

"No deaths from COVID-19 were recorded in Australia from 28 December 2020 until 13 April 2021, when one death occurred in Queensland."

- 220 of ^ßorg 03:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Assumed Recoveries

Hi Everyone,
The assumed recoveries is a little misleading because just because a case isn't active (infectious) doesn't mean that they are recovered and aren't still Ill from covid. Therefore I propose that this column be renamed to not infectious or not recovered because currently it is misleading. Gofishisthebest543 (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2021

Change occured to occurred, typo fixing. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Done, CMD (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2021

Please change

As a precautionary measure, the government imposed a 32-day travel ban and declared a state of emergency.

to

As a precautionary measure, in March 2020, the government imposed a 32-day travel ban and declared a state of emergency.

Seeing that COVID has been a significant issue for well more than a year, dates need to be given for specific incidents. The sentence already has a source, which is from March 2020 and reports the travel ban and state of emergency as something that just happened. 2601:184:407F:C7B0:9154:CE00:4CC7:7D4E (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Ganbaruby, beat me to it! Got an edit conflict, you're quick on the draw. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Fastest ESP responder in the west (pew pew!) ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Disrespectful language

In the last paragraph of "Perth lockdowns", it says "ANZAC Day celebrations inside lockdown area were cancelled", there are no ANZAC celebrations, only commemorations, i'd hope. Could someone please edit this? I have nil permissions to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antionioperelli (talk • contribs) 13:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done by someone. 220 of ^ßorg 03:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed splitting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is to split the article. Steelkamp (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

---

I propose that the article COVID-19 pandemic in Australia be split into articles for the eight states and self-governing territories of Australia, similar to the equivalent articles for the United States or Canada:

• COVID-19 pandemic in New South Wales
• COVID-19 pandemic in Victoria
• COVID-19 pandemic in Queensland
• COVID-19 pandemic in Western Australia
• COVID-19 pandemic in South Australia
• COVID-19 pandemic in Tasmania
• COVID-19 pandemic in the Australian Capital Territory
• COVID-19 pandemic in the Northern Territory

At a size of 114,358 characters and 18,134 words, the current article is far too large. With each state and territory having its own COVID-19 response, and some states having multiple lockdowns, each article will be large enough. This article can remain as an overview of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia. Steelkamp (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Given the article is currently already organised in this matter in many areas, that seems a sensible idea. Other good options include shifting material into the already existing COVID-19 vaccination in Australia, and creating an Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia article, which has been created for quite a few other countries. (I've put a section size template above, although note it shows total bytes, not prose bytes.) CMD (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support I support the proposed splitting of this article and also support the ideas that the user CMD put forward as well. I think we should maintain this article for the federal impacts of the pandemic and also make a template list if this article ends up being spilt so that people can find the articles they want to see in a simple and easy way. GCunknown (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I will close this discussion a week after it was started (tomorrow, Friday). At this stage, there are no opposes, so I will prepare drafts of the new articles in the mean time. Steelkamp (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2021 (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.

Template

Draft COVID-19 pandemic in Australia template above. I have included the premiers/chief minsters and chief medical/health officers that have articles for state key people. Maybe it should include health ministers as well. Steelkamp (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

What to do with the Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia page

The statistics section of this page has arrived at an update frequency dead end, Keroks did an amazing job for over a year keeping it going and understandably had to stop at some point. I can say anecdotally, at the start of the pandemic the Australian page for COVID-19 was a useful source of daily information for people as it centralised all the published statistical data when there was a lot of confusion, however, as a source of daily information it has been long superseded by covidlive and others with more consistent update frequencies and better reader interfaces.

At this stage, I don't see a need for daily updating on many of the charts, and if they are not going to be updated daily, should there be the appropriate disclaimers, should some charts even exist anymore, or are there any other comments? Maranello10 (talk) 05:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Maranello10: I think you would have got replies if you'd pinged some editors! I think you may have caught the attention of some editors though, like me.
I, and 2001:8003:dd7d:7b01:8c98:ab16:ad2b:a16b (talk · contribs) have today updated the death table (Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Australia deaths) at least, and they've updated a few other templated charts. It looks like the may be about another TEN charts/graphs that are/could be, out of date by about 6 days on the Statistics page.
• re "disclaimers", maybe each chart/template should have a manual "As of" added? Manual because one table automatically changed the date for any edit, so I commented that function out. I think there may be too many charts and types (line, bar, pie) of charts (9+?) and also tables (5 of ?) on that page, especially if frequent updates are needed.
• I have enough trouble keeping up with the deaths etc. in NSW, and I have to go all over the place to update just that particular info, at least the text and info-boxen.
• Actually, I think there are too many COVID pandemic pages! The COVID-19 pandemic in Oceania one in particular seems like over-kill, and not particularly well maintained/ up to date. Regards, 220 of ^ßorg 13:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Ping @CaptainEek: for comment, as they created that Statistics page. 220 of ^ßorg 13:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

220 of Borg, I simply split off the stats page as it was just a ludicrous amount of data for the main page and was making the page load quite slow. I have no real feelings on the matter. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Undue weight to adverse vaccine reaction

I have added an WP:UNDUE tag to the adverse vaccine reaction section. It is several times longer than the section summarising the vaccine rollout and other aspects of the pandemic. This section must be cut down. There was also considerable detail on this in the lead, which I have removed for the same reason. Also see WP:FALSEBALANCE Arcahaeoindris (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Vaccine safety. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree. This has been a critical driver of the vaccine rollout, and has been the reason for the shifting policy in what age groups got vaccinated and when. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I intend to remove a chunk of text cited to raw statistical data and containing synthesised results. If it needs to be here, there would be published comparisons instead of needing to derive numbers from three different sources. See WP:SYNTH. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this tag, it needs to be cleaned up and aligned to an accurate summary such as that produced by the TGA.[4] Aeonx (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Undue weight to rare vaccine reactions

Hello. I just wanted to draw attention to the WP:UNDUE weight to adverse vaccine reactions. This section is several times longer than the section on actual vaccinations. Needs to be massively summarised, if mentioned at all; if at all, it should probably be in COVID-19 vaccination in Australia, and even there the current section is probably an WP:UNDUE length. There is no other COVID-19 country article I have seen with a similar level of coverage to these rare adverse reactions. See Covid UK and Covid USA. Is there a particular reason for this? Look at the page for Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine itself; this covers these rare events but at an appropriate weight and puts them into context. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Tips and WP:MEDRS Arcahaeoindris (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

As at least an interim measure can I propose a couple of minor adjustments to the lead paragraph?

1. Add a percentage of 'Adverse Reactions' (Or reporting rate of 4.1 in every 1000) I think `10.125 million` and `42,500 adverse` are accidentally misleading as the two numbers take up the same amount of space on the page (it sounds silly but it's documented that people often confuse 'millions' when reading it (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6egeUxIEQnM) )
2. Clarify 'there have been 6 deaths in total linked to immunisation' (per https://www.tga.gov.au/periodic/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-safety-report-22-07-2021), '5 deaths due to thrombosis' leaves open 'but how many deaths for other causes'? In my opinion.)

Proposed cuts, the following sections can be removed without any effort:

"This is in agreement with Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which reads "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."[191]" -- Random statement

"Internationally there is no consensus [...] and in Italy and Portugal it is for use by people aged over 60 only.[198][199]" -- International consensus and statistics belong elsewhere

JeffUK (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Made the above cuts, while the statistics section is a load of 'he said she said' and a dump of what the different sources say, there is a grain of merit due to the widely different reports of prevelance, etc. but this could be summarised into a couple of sentences in the opening paragraph though. JeffUK (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I've take a scythe to that section, as explained in the edit summary, I think the removed text exists in COVID-19 vaccination in Australia, is better presented and more appropriate there. I was considering leaving the last paragraph, but that would seem unfair to cut so much of the negatives but leave the positives in place. I'm very conscious that we don't want to be seen as 'white-washing' by people who are vaccine-hesitant, and even if it shouldn't have been here in the first place 'They deleted any reference to adverse reactions' would be seen as such, and I think this could be counter productive to public health; as such I do believe the section should be retained at this point. JeffUK (talk) 10:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2021

Please remove

Australia reported it's 100th case on 10 March 2020.

and add

Australia reported its 100th case on 10 March 2020.

Thank you. 64.203.186.74 (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks IP, the apostrophe has been removed. JennyOz (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Chart of Daily new confirmed COVID-19 cases

The current chart is way to wide. It runs off the screen. The dates are hard to read. It requires a bit of special skills to maintain the PNG image.

Suggestion: use a standard Wikipedia areagraph. The chart below is with AU Covid numbers from Hopkins. It is an easy to maintain, fully visible chart with a readable timeline.

Uwappa (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2021

"Remove reference #40 stating that the outbreak caused the first recession in 30 years, as Australia was already in a recession in 2019" 49.179.147.20 (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Here. ABC News. Now somebody can do it. Tintinkien (talk) 09:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2021

Please remove

Although Australia's efforts to develop a Bluetooth-based contact tracing app that does not use the Exposure Notification framework supported natively by Android and Apple smartphones and currently used in 27 countries were not particularly effective,

and add

Australia sought to develop a Bluetooth-based contact tracing app that does not use the Exposure Notification framework supported natively by Android and Apple smartphones and currently used in 27 countries, and while these efforts were not particularly effective,

The current sentence structure is essentially "Although Australia's efforts X were not particularly effective". It's grammatical, but the last four words dangle at the end, and it's hard to follow because you get sidetracked and forget where the sentence is going. It's simpler to understand if you split it into two components. 64.203.186.99 (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done ––Sirdog9002 (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Arithmetic error

This is wrong:

On 2 July, National Cabinet decided that from 14 July, the number of airline passengers allowed into Australia would be capped at 3,035, half what it was before. The Victorian, Western Australian and Queensland governments, had been advocating a large decrease in incoming passenger numbers because of the highly infectious nature of the Delta COVID strain. More repatriation flights to the Howard Springs quarantine facility were to be organised in response.[119] The states will receive passengers thus: Sydney: 1,505 Perth: 265 Adelaide: 265 Melbourne: 500 Brisbane: 650[119]

Beside the fact that these are state capitals, not states, the arithmetic is wrong: 1505 + 265 + 265 + 500 + 650 = 3185, not 3035. And yet the precise numbers appear in source 119! How should it be fixed? It could be changed to "capped at slightly over 3,000" and the city details removed. 64.203.186.99 (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@64.203.186.99: I believe I added that content and IIRC that discrepancy, which I think I also noticed, was in the original source (as you say the "precise numbers" are there) so I followed the source without trying to do 'original research' to figure it out. The capital cities are where the international airports are, so that's why they're mentioned IIRC. 220 of ^ßorg 18:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The death toll has crossed 1000

Hello. According to sources,the death toll has already crossed 1000. But the article still has the older figure. Feel free to look at this source:

"https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210826-new-australian-virus-cases-soar-over-1-000-for-first-time"180.150.113.77 (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree but the cited source is still showing 999. I expect it will be updated in an hour or two. Dolphin (t) 04:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The source has updated the figure to 1,002 and I have updated the Infobox in the article. Dolphin (t) 11:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh. Both sources? Thanks for your work, have a good day!180.150.113.77 (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)