Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Are there 15 or 20 confirmed cases in Australia?

http://www.health.gov.au/news/health-alerts/novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov-health-alert

" As at 06:00 hrs on 12 February 2020, we have confirmed 15 cases of novel coronavirus in Australia:

   5 in Queensland
   4 in New South Wales
   4 in Victoria
   2 in South Australia

5 of the earlier cases have recovered. The others are in a stable condition"

Does that mean that the 5 cases are not listed as current confirmed cases?

935690edits (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that the 5 recovered are out of the 15 cases. So 10 still have the disease. There would have been news if new cases were detected, and there has been no news for a few days. I am trying to update the map of Australian case numbers, so I watch out for new cases. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The ECDC definition of "Confirmed cases" clearly includes asymptomatic cases: "irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms". There doesn't seem to be an Australian permanent agency like the ECDC or the US CDC known to Wikipedia - Department of Health (Australia) seems to be the closest. The search led me to the quote above. For consistency of terminology, see Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak#Statistics changed definition: SARS-CoV-2 confirmed cases or COVID-19 confirmed cases? above for a strongly suspected confusion in the Chinese official figures, where "confirmed 2019-nCoV cases" appears to have meant "confirmed symptomatic cases only", although the definition appears to have evolved (hopefully the virus isn't evolving too fast) last week. We could at least clarify the terminology in the non-China cases, where in many places the terminology and standards are clearer.

The Oz Dept of Health definition is here: in this pdf - "Confirmed case - A person who tests positive to a specific 2019-nCoV PCR test (when available) or has the virus identified by electron microscopy or viral culture, at a reference laboratory." This is clearly independent of symptoms. It's a "confirmation event", if we want to be pedantic. It's independent of whether someone has symptoms or not, and independent of whether s/he later recovers (or dies).

So to answer the question: the definition would imply that the 5 recovered people are part of the 15 confirmed cases.

I've started a talk page section at Template talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data/International medical cases#Does "confirmed cases" include all lab-confirmed cases, including asymptomatic cases, or not? to try to collect sources for the definitions in various countries. Boud (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Should the convention be to include active, asymptomatic, and recovered cases in the confirmed cases running tally as reported by the local officals? Then a separate breakout for each sub category? By removing the recovered case counts from the confirmed case count we lose the measure of the maximum extent in that region. Jtreyes (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

There's unlikely to be a strong consensus on terminology on the Wikipedia pages on this topic without first checking what the sources recommend as terminology. Feel free to add to Template talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data/International medical cases#Does "confirmed cases" include all lab-confirmed cases, including asymptomatic cases, or not? to build up evidence for a proposal. Boud (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Not really correct

"There are no vaccines nor effective treatments, with efforts typically confined to management of symptoms and supportive measures"

There are treatments just

"There are no vaccines and no specific treatments, with efforts typically confined to management of symptoms and supportive measures."

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

This is incorrect "There are no vaccines nor effective treatments, with efforts typically confined to management of symptoms and supportive measures." and followed by a broken reference. We have no specific treatment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The ref says "There is no specific antiviral treatment recommended for 2019-nCoV infection. People infected with 2019-nCoV should receive supportive care to help relieve symptoms. For severe cases, treatment should include care to support vital organ functions."

WHat you have added multiple times says "There are no vaccines nor effective treatments, with efforts typically confined to management of symptoms and supportive measures."

Which is very much different so now Wikipedia is wrong which is unfortunate. User:Whywhenwhohow your thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Bringing this from the other talk page, the initial inclusion of that sentence weeks ago was by me using a reference from the UK govenment. I have lost the original webpage but a similar webpage still exists:

"In the absence of effective drugs or a vaccine, control of this disease relies on the prompt identification, appropriate risk assessment, management and isolation of possible cases, and the investigation and follow up of close contacts to minimise potential onward transmission." http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wuhan-novel-coronavirus-infection-prevention-and-control/wuhan-novel-coronavirus-wn-cov-infection-prevention-and-control-guidance

Tsukide (talk) 07:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

CDC is a better source. And that only says "drugs" not treatment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The animated map of the virus is not up to date with Britain as it says 11 people with the virus but ther is actually 9 even if the map is 2 days old. It mst be fixed as soon as possible. Wojciech 2020 (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Missing deaths in the summary

According to the section on deaths, an American and a Japanese person died on the 8th of February, but the death toll for the respective countries still says 0. The article used as a source doesn't mention where they died (at least, I couldn't find it), so it might simply be that the deaths are already counted in the China figure (the sentence used to describe this could be interpreted that they died in Wuhan). In any case, the sentence either needs to be more clear on where they died and, if they died in outside of China, the deaths need to be counted in the USA and Japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.176.25.249 (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Note this coronavirus outbreak is not counted by nationality as in aviation incidents. If you want to change it, please discuss it at template talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.229.147 (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Fourty-seven people were affected with the virus in Japan but it was on a ship called (probably) The Diamond Cruiser yesterday so that mean that Japan coronavirus affection must go up by 37 people becaues that was the location where it set from. Wojciech 2020 (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Oops, I ment to say that 47 were affected on th ship. Sorry about the mistake! Wojciech 2020 (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Singapore untraced cases - clusters out of control?

On 8 Feb, the Singapore prime minister publicly worried about "some" untraced confirmed cases - where untraced means that the cases cannot be traced back to Wuhan either directly or through someone who was infected by ... by someone who was in Wuhan. The number of Singapore untraced cases is either 7 (13 Feb govt of Singapore statement) or 10 (Wikipedia table). An untraced case means that there is an unknown person/people or a metal/glass/plastic surface in the community in Singapore who/which is a carrier but has not been quarantined (person/people) or disinfected (surface). That means an uncontrolled cluster is likely to occur. Around 7-10 uncontrolled clusters means loss of epidemiological control. See 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Singapore#Timeline and Template:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data/Singapore medical cases for details.

This info is (AFAIK) not (yet) in the main article (this one). Keeping in mind WP:MEDRS, we may want to delay including the information here until/if a national or international medical source declares it as a concern. The same govt of Singapore source says that contact tracing is ongoing; it doesn't say if metal/glass/plastic surfaces in the surroundings of the untraced sources' paths were disinfected. Boud (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Caution about unsupported medical advice

The article presently says that the virus survives “for hours on surfaces, not days.” Other apparently reliable sources have said the virus does indeed survive for “well over a week.” https://www.sciencealert.com/study-shows-just-how-long-coronaviruses-can-stick-around-on-a-surface/amp It is dangerous to provide the assurance we presently do when there are other opinions from medical authorities. Edison (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree strongly here. The article referenced is even quoted saying "Scientists don't yet know how long the novel coronavirus can survive outside a host." The Dr. they quote seems to be almost at odds with this statement, although she says she is speaking generally of "the viruses" (nCov we must assume) surviving only for hours. There is no source provided for this claim that I can see.

Alternatively https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195670120300463 reviews previous literature and concludes corona viruses (in particular a SARS CoV strain) can survive up to 9 days on some surfaces. Clearly this survival period claim shouldn't be as cut and dry as is made out currently. TeeCeeNT (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This is also mistakenly purported in the CAUSE -> SPREAD paragraph. The two sources DO NOT provide proof (or even state!) that this virus survives only for hours on surfaces:

(1) [110]: doesn't even mention the survival time on surfaces, only states that particles only last a short time airborne.

(2) [111]: "It is not yet known how long the virus can survive outside a host but, in other viruses, it ranges from a FEW HOURS TO MONTHS." TeeCeeNT (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hours or days depends on the temperature. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14631830 Excerpt:

Viruses stayed stable at 4 degrees C, at room temperature (20 degrees C) and at 37 degrees C for at least 2 h without remarkable change in the infectious ability in cells, ...

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

It does, and this accepted study shows that at room temperature a strain of SARS CoV could survive up to nine days TeeCeeNT (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@TeeCeeNT:  Done. Boud (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Clarification: our text says coronaviruses which is probably a fair representation of what the source abstract says: human coronaviruses such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) coronavirus, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronavirus or endemic human coronaviruses (HCoV). But the review paper summary is not specifically for SARS-CoV-2 (which might hypothetically survive much longer, like water bears at 1 K, 420 K, or 1200 bar). Boud (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Boud: I agree that the entry should remain general to 'corona viruses' however I would draw your attention to the main body text (Results - Table 1.) where, specifically, SARS CoV Strain FFM1 is stated as surviving 6-9 days on plastic surface. But yes, it remains a generic maximum range for corona viruses where there is no further confirmed outer body survival time period. TeeCeeNT (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

A referendum on names

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.

---

This is not a move request, this is a discussion. Admins please keep it open. (unless there is any procedural problem that I am not aware of, please educate me?)xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 00:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett:, who previously closed my proposing discussion, if I am doing it not right again, could you educate me?

How many of you are (dis)satisfied with current page name? xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 00:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

People who think current name is good to leave it here, please sign here

People who think current name needs to be changed, please sign here with a name that you like. One line each person please

1. 2019-20 SARS-Cov-2 Outbreak xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 00:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Tyr1118 (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Ganymede94 (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC) @Xinbenlv:

Comment

• Once enough people contribute names, we can start to think about how to converge our idea. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 00:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose for your suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.229.147 (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I see a request to collect editor thoughts. Are you strongly opposed to collecting editor thoughts? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Confused I don't understand what the point is to this. Wikipedia is not a vote. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not a vote. The idea is to brainstorm names and drive consensus xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 01:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Not a vote means we don't make decisions by voting. This is about collecting information about editor thoughts, which is not covered by "not a vote". The data might be used to propose next step. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

It also means, what the page I linked exactly says, Polling is not a substitute for discussion. This is polling. It is not a substitute for discussion. Calling it something silly like "brainstorming" to overcome this is transparently an attempt to ram the need for a name change down everybody's throats. Stop this nonsense. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Administrator(s), please close this thread.50.111.33.78 (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

How ironic. The section is to encourage discussion and you are advocating closing the discussion. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

There has been discussion. The outcome was “no consensus”. Drop the stick and back away slowly from the horse. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi 199.66.69.88, I want to kindly notify you that I bringing this to ANI for your accusation of other people being disruptive for trying to drive title consensus. I can't bing it to your talk page because I can't, so I am just notifying you here... xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a different discussion. People are trying to find a solution to the current problem with names. You are not obliged to discuss it, nor should you try to stop other people discussing it. Hzh (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a different discussion. As was explained at least two failed RMs ago, simply changing the title of the discussion or coming up with some tailored scope doesn't make it a new discussion. This is the same discussion that was closed not long ago, with many of the same individuals refusing to hear that the discussion has been closed. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• I did not actually close any discussion, I just asked for a speedy close on a new requested move, and asked for no more formal requested moves until there was a more general discussion. In the recent move proposals, a name is suggested, but very few support it, and many other names are suggested. So instead we need to build a consensus on what should be in the title of this article. Since I suggested the current title, I am not in a hurry to change it. But if the commonly used name changes then the title here should eventually change. By having two opposed headings above, it will already divide people when discussing, instead of discussion what makes the name good. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:21, 14 February 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.

Proposal to only allow only registered accounts to vote in RM`s

Once we find the "stable" page name of this article. We should only restrict the next stable Requested moves to registered users due to past rm that had many unregistered users suddenly coming back from inactive after a month or few years when saw a direction that they don`t like on RM. Whether they directed certain individuals to side with them or not. The Wikipedia Five pillars still exists, but at this case it should not be implemented for the next stable rm and want only registered users to vote for a fairer process. Regice2020 (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments below to support or oppose

Not sure that I understand the proposal. Is there any precedent for this kind of restriction? And are you saying IPs should not be allowed to vote? Or are you saying among registered users, only autoconfirmed should vote? Or only recently-active autoconfirmed users should vote? I think there's a bot that does something like this by flagging all votes by users without a substantial edit history. - Wikmoz (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Voting for Registered users only for fairer process and waiving certain polices for this specific RM case. It very suspicious many of ips know how to link the right polices and know what they doing like people voted oppose. It almost like they are voting multiple times in the same side. 1 person using register account while the same person goto different locations as a ip to vote multiple times. It is completely ridiculous. Its noted previous RM had people were stealth canvassing to vote with them in same side. It was obviously notice after see number of voters with similar response like someone told them from another site. Regice2020 (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Let me get this straight... You want to discriminate against a whole class of editors in the name of fairness? Perhaps you don't know what that word means. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as this would be a violation of policy. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Since these discussions are not votes, but based on strength of argument, we may as well let the unregistered participate. But mere support or oppose votes will count for nothing. However I am recommending a break in requested move discussions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes there should be some sort of special restriction for this specific RM because its getting out control within 12 hours. That was only a part reason why proposed this idea to hopefully restore some control. @Graeme Bartlett: Regice2020 (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• It doesn't really matter. IP participation is always going to be scrutinized because of inherent unaccountability and WP:SOCK, so if it seems like blatant canvassing or sockpuppetry by IPs is taking place, there will be an inevitable discussion for their dismissal from the vote count. Not that voting count, especially when inundated with IP votes, should matter more the merit of points being made per WP:NOTDEM. Sleath56 (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

It isn't really true that IP editor participation will be scrutinised, given that recent discussions have been closed (or attempted to close) by non-admins who did not do such scrutiny, one did not even know how to present a valid argument for closing. The concern is that some are disrupting the discussion, and judging from what they write, they are not newbies, and likely to be people who already have an account for many years. Hzh (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I would advise you not to make such clearly WP:UNCIVIL comments, Hzh. There is also no difference in the validity of an admin and non-admin close, apart from an assumption that the admin will be more experienced (not always the case).
Additionally, the fact that one doesn’t spell out everything taken into account doesn’t imply total ignorance. I certainly factored in the risk of sock-puppets, which is simply another argument for a moratorium. A lock-down of IPs voting is unprecedented, and frankly won’t happen. That said, a note to mention the risk of sockpuppets in conjunction with a future RM or RfC is not unreasonable. Carl Fredrik ^talk 10:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It's more of a reference to someone else. You made a reasonably valid comment in closing, the other one closed the discussion going against consensus at time of closing, using an invalid argument. Hzh (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Suppport We have already seen IP editors trying to disrupt other people's discussion. A simple matter for them to register if they are not attempting to double !Vote as a sock. Hzh (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Censorship, propaganda, and police response

Recovered from archive at: 1 @FobTown: Missed your previous comment as the section here was archived. I think overall, we've arrived at a largely agreeable view on the section as the material contentions of it are very minor. I do have some points of order. Note that Mackenzie's comments are already within the #Criticism section and that I've removed it from here due to duplicative entries. The UN diplomat's opinion isn't largely notable because of WP:DUE DUE and more especially because it's an anonymous source. Additionally, the flow of the section is fine as is. My edits are to maintain chronological flow as this is an ongoing event and its the most neutral way to display the section. Reordering them otherwise leads to potential WP:SYNTHESIS and makes it difficult to incorporate new entries. I would have liked to put the censorship on social media reactions to Li Wenliang after the 30 January Supreme Court entry per chronology, but the current form of the section which in my view should be de-editorialized makes it difficult to excise. Sleath56 (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Why just have a few quotes from officials, when there are plenty of specific examples of how state media has been publishing "gushing reports" of the central gov't response, including speedy hospital construction and lock down of Wuhan? As said earlier, both state media praise and content moderators who block banned content are covered side-by-side in international media articles discussing the overall way that China's information operates, basically propaganda and censorship go hand-in-hand in a regime's attempt to control what citizens are allowed to hear and forbidden to hear. The Lunar New Year's Eve gala is also another example of the state media's selective coverage to promote or marginalize topics, so this constitutes another example of censorship. The "Criticism of Local Response" touches a bit on censorship and state media which is fine, but the main purpose of that section was to analyze the power dynamic between central government and local government.

At the moment unless new developments happen in censorship/propaganda, it is fine to keep censorship on social media reactions to Li Wenliang in the censorship paragraph for now.

I did lump the Supreme Court and Human Rights Watch opinions together since they are too short as standalone paragraphs, however I left the content unchanged.

I'll agree to reduce the UN diplomat's quote in Censorship as the full context of it goes in WHO response, however the UN diplomat's opinion is anonymous likely as they feared reprisals. In addition while John Mackenzie's viewpoint might be duplicated, it helps to complete the narrative for each section he is included, where the central government wasn't being forthcoming with the WHO nor its own citizens. A similar argument for having Steve Tsang quoted several times until I could find replacement sources. FobTown (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

" both state media praise and content moderators who block banned content are covered side-by-side". This is WP:SYNTHESIS unless you can find considerable RS who explicitly support the notion of a "two-pronged censorship tactic." It may be obvious to you and me that is what it is but unless a notable amount of RS depict it that way as a 'grand strategy,' it cannot be phrased in such a way. As I've said earlier: I've accepted many of the points you've made on the premise of "positive coverage" such that I believe it is relevant to the topic of censorship. However, the underlying point of an encyclopedia here which is WP:NOTEVERYTHING "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." While positive coverage is a part of it, the clear majority focus of RS is on the actual censorship and police actions. Incidents like the detainment of a citizen in Tianjin are very notable examples of this that have become diluted because of the scope of the section. I think what has already been said about positive coverage is a satisfactory enough summary and that WP:PROPORTION should be brought in mind here. The section is on Censorship and Police response, but there is very little on police response and I oppose further expanding it when there is such a lack of latter entries at the present. The focus should be to summarize the CCP's tactics and highlight the egregious that have been reported by RS such as the revelations of police incidents of detainments and other police actions, which haven't been covered almost at all despite the section being dedicated half towards police response.

The way in which the section is being reshuffled away for synthesizing the whole of it into one editorialized passage is making it difficult to add new information. The censorship of reactions to Li Wenliang should be on the bottom as its the most recent, but the way in which the section is structured now has it added bizarrely in the middle of an already large paragraph. I'd encourage you to stop restructuring the section away from the chronological. This is a developing event where such a method is the most expedient, and also it hinders the efficiency of including new entries if article flow is otherwise.

Additionally, I'm not sure why the passage "including Li Wenliang, an ophthalmologist from Wuhan Central Hospital, who posted warnings on a new coronavirus strain akin to SARS, later in December being warned by Wuhan police for "spreading rumours" for likening it to SARS" is being removed. It was added to give structural context to the picture, of which was your insistence that the picture of the police document remain in the #Censorship section instead of #Response where a passage on Li Wenliang has already been established. Sleath56 (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I think this is the right spot: @Sleath56:, your recent edit removed/broke a reference and started a paragraph in the middle of a word(!), in the middle of a sentence. I'm hesitant to try and bash it back into shape, and I'm hoping that you can sort it out. pauli133 (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Pauli133: Done. Thanks for the heads up. It's a challenge to juggle the retainment of new entries of merit and also restore the section's chronological structural flow when that's also repeatedly changed as well. Sleath56 (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Someone kept adding Li Wenliang to multiple places over and over again. If it is you, perhaps you should stop doing that, one single person should not have such prominence in this article, and all references to the person should be kept in one place. Hzh (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hzh: The entire passage on the Wuhan police in #Censorship is essentially duplicative to that in #Criticism of local response but argued as necessary in being doubly included here previously by another editor. The picture of the police document, which I moved to the latter section as that is where the context for Li Wenliang is developed was also contested by the same and moved to the former. As such, the note on the individual was appended doubly in the section here as an attempt to provide immediate context. The policy on a single person not having such prominence is already broken by the entries on Steve Tsang's opinion in both sections. Sleath56 (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The point is that duplicating the information unnecessarily bloats the article. You have two places where similar information on Li Wenliang are given (and that is after other mentions had already been removed), therefore try to merge the two, then you only need to mention Li Wenliang again without repeating the information. You should also try and see if what Steve Tsang said can also be merged (he isn't important enough to warrant repeating). Hzh (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hzh: Appreciate the feedback. That's essentially my position as well, but discussion has only been between myself and another editor since throughout, so I was unable to establish any agreement on it. The third opinion you've provided should be enough to highlight the merit of those benefits. Sleath56 (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The positive coverage does have significant RS too, and why just restrict it to quotes when there are instances to make it complete? Many RS have noted both censorship and positive coverage efforts. And in no way does expanding positive coverage diminish specific incidents like police detainment for online posts. While I considered spinning off positive coverage into its own section, the quotes from officials mention refer to both positive coverage and censorship which I would rather not duplicate.

Aim was to collectively categorize all types for each paragraph, rather than just do a pure chronological sequence of events. FobTown (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

As I said, the problem isn't not mentioning 'positive coverage' so long as RS cover it, the problem is synthesizing it as some two-pronged tactic in the section if considerable RS do not explicitly support that notion. The issue was dropped earlier, but now that it's been resurrected, the problem of directly quoting secondary sources is that the section should summarize, not quoting entire sentences from a secondary source which more zealous editors could construe as plagiarism. Quotes should be reserved principally for the place of primary sources (eg. Xi Jinping, Steve Tsang) with the secondary source providing context for how RS perceive or interpret the primary source quotation.

On organization, please stop from reordering it while the event is still ongoing. I admit I didn't see much of the problem to be forceful about maintaining this issue until the Li Wenliang entry came and had to be bizarrely incorporated in the middle of the section when it should rightly be displayed as the most recent entry on the bottom. Sleath56 (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I removed the point stated explicitly that it was a two-pronged tactic of positive coverage and censorship. How about noting that many international publication articles mention both positive coverage and censorship? Xi Jinping's directive "to strengthen the guidance of public opinions", among other official quotes, can be construed as supportive of both positive coverage and censorship. Will tone down the direct quote from secondary sources.

Agree with the point that Li Wenliang would have its own paragraph since it was a new development. I figured out that older/lesser events would get reduced into 1-2 sentence mentions.

The WHO officially commended China's handling of the crisis and so that remains as the lead, but its not unanimous among everyone and we don't want to jump everywhere around the article to find scattered criticism. FobTown (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the entry on Steve Tsang, one person's theory should not narrate and set the framework for the entire section when other RS already talk of the same thing well enough, especially when its duplicative. See discussion above. Additionally, adding "Propaganda" to the section title is obviously not NPOV, I'm not sure why you resurrected this when its been discussed days ago.

The WHO's section is for official reactions and WHO announcements such as the PHEIC declaration. Mackenzie has already been represented in #Criticism of Local response. The entry on the 'anonymous UN diplomat' has the problems I mentioned before, but it has obvious problems in the WHO section. Not all UN staff are WHO staff. The former are irrelevant in that section, especially if speaking on an unofficial capacity. Sleath56 (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Paraphrased Steve Tsang's quote and moved it to the end, as it bridges to the next part which is censorship measures. FobTown (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Removed it wholesale per above. The problem is no longer a matter of paraphrasing, its due weight as addressed above that other editors have opined as a concern. Sleath56 (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The other editor was specifically referred to the duplication of Li Wenliang being mentioned twice; this is okay as the details of the social media reaction to his death goes in Censorship and Police Response, while the details of his arrest and investigation go under Criticism of Local Response. But you can't take that editor's opinion as a blanket consensus to eliminate everything that you think is a duplication.

I don't think we go exclusively to #Criticism of Local response to find criticism on the WHO. I've found further information to expand the criticism under the WHO section, particularly as it applies to WHO director-general Tedros's approach to engaging China, which some have justified while others have attacked.

The positive coverage details (extensive coverage of hospital construction) appears nowhere in the article which means that it isn't duplication so restored it. 15:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Stop. Reread the discussion above. It's quite explicit that two editors are contesting its addition here and not without valid reason that has already been stated and unaddressed. Your explanations for keeping it are at present by not addressing the concerns despite the notification that a third opinion has been provided.

My statement on the WHO being a section for official response is not a mandate for you to further expand it in the area of concern. The WHO's section is for official reactions and WHO announcements such as the PHEIC declaration. Mackenzie has already been represented in #Criticism of Local response. The entry on the 'anonymous UN diplomat' has the problems I mentioned before, but it has obvious problems in the WHO section. Not all UN staff are WHO staff. The former are irrelevant in that section, especially if speaking on an unofficial capacity. Neither is a university professor's opinion relevant for insertion there. Sleath56 (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

No, the other editor specifically referred only to the duplication of Li Wenliang.

Only you are contesting the positive coverage details (extensive coverage of hospital construction), and your rationale for excluding it doesn't make sense especially if you replaced it with the Cyberspace Authority quote.

Reduced Mackenzie's blurb. FobTown (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Goodness. It's not a long discussion, I don't see what is particularly obfuscating you here.

Per @Hzh:: The point is that duplicating the information unnecessarily bloats the article. You have two places where similar information on Li Wenliang are given (and that is after other mentions had already been removed), therefore try to merge the two, then you only need to mention Li Wenliang again without repeating the information. You should also try and see if what Steve Tsang said can also be merged (he isn't important enough to warrant repeating). Sleath56 (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point, as that editor only complained about Li Wenliang, and both him and Steve Tsang was rectified.

But positive coverage details (extensive coverage of hospital construction) is not duplicating information. FobTown (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I've highlighted what's been said quite explicitly and there's nothing obfuscating about it. As said, when two editors have contested your point, it's a sign for you to explain the merit of its inclusion here instead of blanket reversing the section to your preferred style under one word edit summaries like "xenophobia". I've already listed many concerns with it above: As said, there is no need to frame the section under the theory of a single person when numerous RS already make the same points he is making, nor is it WP:DUE weight. From a substance standpoint, there is no difference in the two states, so I'm not sure what your point is for continually changing up the section like this.

The same applies to your edits to the WHO response. That section is meant for official responses. The three edits entries you made are a university professor's opinion, which is not relevant; an anonymous UN, I'm not sure if you understand not all UN officials are WHO officials; Mackenzie is the only entry that holds some merit, but who by his the very RS that quote him cite him as a lone voice in his theory within the WHO, meaning this is WP:FRINGE. If you want to expand the section to include criticism, then by WP:PROPORTION, support for the WHO's response would necessitate inclusion, which would bloat the section unnecessarily. Sleath56 (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm okay with your "xenophobia" section and didn't want it to be lost in your edit warring.

The other editor is not talking about positive coverage details (extensive coverage of hospital construction), plus positive coverage details (extensive coverage of hospital construction) is not duplicating information. If anything, you are forcing the reader to an obfuscated section in #Criticism of Local Response, when it wasn't even mentioned.

Steve Tsang has been dealt with.

The WHO has justified its response with support praising China, we just need to see the other side of that which is criticism. And its not WP:FRINGE as others have the same viewpoint too that the WHO is too beholden to China, while criticizing and justifying that approach in order to get cooperation from China. FobTown (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate the agreed exclusion on Tsang, first of all. I think we need to retrace the philosophies of our edits here, to further any continued constructive collaboration.

I think through looking at my version of the #Censorship section, you can see that I've principally highlighted direct and notable actions such as the Li Wenliang censorships and the specific government censorship tactics that have been declared. The point throughout has been to organize it with a mind towards WP:SUMMARY. To explain, the concerns I have with in enforcing the exclusion of the Tsang passage isn't because suddenly receiving 3O means your view is irrelevant, but because I consistently felt structuring the section through his personal government theory is unnecessary, its not WP:DUE to frame a section like that, especially when the various RS argue the same. The problems with the specific hospital entry I've held is that it is a minor incident, could be construed to be more of a mistake by the RS you've cited since the hospitals were already build fast by the same RS, and is an unnecessary detail to further the idea of the government's desire for positive coverage when the CAC entry explicitly states the government's demand against "negative stories".

The point of the #WHO response section is to keep a concise area for readers to see the official WHO responses to the outbreak as it doesn't have a place anywhere else. The section should indeed be expanded, but that should be through the inclusion of more recent WHO statements. Mackenzie is the only entry of relevancy as he is a WHO official, but when it's stated that he cited his opinions in an unofficial capacity and when the RS call him the "lone voice," it brings up concerns of WP:NPOV which indeed says: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Sleath56 (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Steve Tsang is no longer the "lead", as there are also plenty of other sources that agree with his view. That being said he still has the best way of summing it up, so that is why numerous sources have quoted him.

Fine to have the CAC quote against negative articles, followed by the actual examples of blocking of articles and directives to new outlets, and the effect was social media users initially evading censors using "Trump" or "Chernobyl" as well as an outpouring of calls for freedom of speech after Li Wenliang's death. By that precedent Xi Jinping was quoted on emphasis on stories fighting the epidemic (positive coverage) and I've included actual examples; not only making a big deal of hospital construction but also the Wuhan lockdown and the provincial quarantine, particularly with the FT noting that such selective coverage was effective enough to fool observers domestic and international. Due to a quote from an official stating that propaganda about the epidemic response will be high priority, I'm keen to expand the title to #Censorship, propaganda, and police response (there is so many examples of censorship and propaganda that no other title fits the bill).

I expanded the WHO section so it is not only Mackenzie's view and the UN diplomat's quote there, there are several sources who have noted criticism/justification for the WHO approach. And there is the petition calling on WHO director's resignation. I am also expanding it to note Taiwan's exclusion/inclusion as per the One China Policy.[1][2] Do you want to have a separate section called #Criticism of WHO handling? FobTown (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Your edits have been uniformly reverted, not because I view they are objectionable in their entirety, but because its quite bad form to impose your edits in the midst of when a DRN has been opened. Sleath56 (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I object to you establishing your version as the definitive one while the DRN is going on. FobTown (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus outbreak 'just beginning' outside China, says expert

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-singapore-interview/coronavirus-outbreak-just-beginning-outside-china-says-expert-idUSKBN2061KK https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/11/coronavirus-expert-warns-infection-could-reach-60-of-worlds-population

there isn't really a place for these in the article, but i still feel that they belong there. how should these be added?Pancho507 (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Can the article become extended confirmed(30/500)protected

This article is very contreversal, the coronavirus one is on 30/500 protection, and semi-protection might not keep out vandalism. Maybe when the epedemic is over make it semi protected, but I think extended confirmed protection would be crucial on an article like this, a major ongoing event that begun in November 2019 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:1E (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Why not changed to just fully-protected, which edit that done only by administrator. I think "pending changes" would more be necessary to used for this article because it will check in the edit whether the edit constitutes vandalism or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.69.53.66 (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:ECP States that Extended Confirmed Protection is only used when Semi-Protection has proven ineffective. Page protection shall not be enforced unless there is clear disruption going on. Everyone may edit wikipedia, and page protection is NOT to prevent disruption. @36.69.53.66: see WP:FULL for the Full Page Protection policy. Can I Log In (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

November '19 start date

According to Wendover Production's new video about coronavirus on February 11, 2020, it started in November 2019, so I think it should be changed. Also, add Wendover as the 564th source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.24.150.111 (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The video (1) purports someone contracted it in November, but no sources that are in the description back this. You need to source your claims. TeeCeeNT (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The first official case of an ill person was on December 1. Since there is an incubation period, that person must have been infected earlier, which was obviously in November. That's really a no-brainer.Tvx1 17:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

That does make sense, I was unaware that they back-identified a person that early. However, what is the user requesting here? That a sentence be included stating the virus was first contracted by humans probably in November? TeeCeeNT (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

We don't know when the first infection happened, so it's best to leave it out. One of the sources in the article says "the first human infections must have occurred in November 2019—if not earlier" - [3], meaning it can happen before November. All we know for sure is that it happened some time before December 1, 2019. The first person known to be infected does not mean that he or she is actually the first. Hzh (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The onset of the first symptoms is more interested. We do not know when the first infection occurred exactly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

YouTube videos are not RS. WP:YTREF holds especially true for a pop info channel like Wendover. Sleath56 (talk) 06:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok,so did you watch the video,or just make up the source?I am only ok with it if you actually watched it.2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:1A (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

As Sleath56 wrote, YouTube videos are not RS. WP:YTREF. I started to watch the video and it's unacceptable as a source. 1) It claims "The Wuhan Coronavirus began, like all new viruses, with a remarkably ordinary moment." That's speculation and fiction. We have no idea how it started. 2) It then says "In late-November, 2019, someone—it is not yet known who—ate a wild animal that, by chance, carried the novel coronavirus, and days later, started to feel the symptoms of what initially seemed like a bad cold." That's also speculation and fiction. We have no idea if the source was a "wild animal." Researchers have not identified any persons infected prior to the initial group of 41 people. We don't know when infections in humans started other than the cluster that was observed in late December. One third of this initial cluster seemed to have no connection to the seafood market. We have no idea if early people had when seemed like a bad cold - keep in mind that diarrhoea is often present with COVID-19 which is atypical of a cold. I stopped watching at this point. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Correction - I found the source for the Dec 1 patient.^[4] "The symptom onset date of the first patient identified was Dec 1, 2019." This person had no known connection to the seafood market nor any of the other cases. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2020

Request: in lead, please remove misinformation/racism and replace with initial denial of outbreak

In the lead, please remove the final paragraph

Misinformation spread primarily online about the coronavirus which ....  fear and hostility occurring in several countries.

and replace it with this

Early warnings of the outbreak by local Chinese doctors including Li Wenliang in December 2019 were initially censored and suppressed by provincial authorities before the central Chinese government implemented a more transparent policy.[5]

Reason: In the article body, the misinformation and xenophobia sections are quite short and based only on anecdotal sources (not on opinion polls, much less on academic/sociological studies), so should not feature prominently in the lead. The initial provincial suppression policy however has a long section in the article, is of general interest to avoid similar mistakes in other countries (Indonesia) and this should be briefly mentioned in the lead. 31.49.112.219 (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Both topics requested for removal are relevant to the lead because of their overwhelming coverage in RS. In case of the latter, the notability of which has been repeatedly discussed and affirmed on the Talk for that article. A current deficit in Wikipedia coverage and not RS coverage isn't grounds for removal. Sleath56 (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not follow your logic and request a second opinion by someone else. On Wikipedia, the lead is supposed to reflect the current article. The article is mainly about the outbreak and its handling by Chinese authorities. If, as you say, there is a different Wikipedia article which deals with misinformation and xenophobia, then it is not the job of the lead to summarise that other article. Secondly, you have not commented on my request to mention the original mishandling of the outbreak, and the currently more professional handling by the Chinese government. 31.49.112.219 (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome to a second opinion but I don't see how your point contests the relevancy of those two entries as pertaining to the outbreak. As your request pertains changes in the lead, the requirement is that you'll address the point made above which are that those entries satisfy MOS:LEAD. The second point was not added because the requirement for addition requires you to provide citations of RS on the assertion of "initially censored and suppressed by provincial authorities before the central Chinese government implemented a more transparent policy" Sleath56 (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

update lead REPLACE

Replace "the death toll had surpassed the SARS outbreak in 2003." WITH

the death toll had surpassed the SARS coronavirus (SARS CoV) outbreak in 2003.

This clarifies the ambiguity between the new COVID-19, which is a SARS and a coronavirus disease too, and SARS (of the 2002-2004 cases) which seems to be used interchangeably with the disease and the virus name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: outbreaks refer to diseases, not viruses. The disease is SARS, the virus itself SARS-CoV. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Donations for victims

I saw a Wiki Folklore banner at the top of the page. Perhaps Wikipedia should display a banner leading to organisations soliciting monies for the victims?Axe Dude (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. If possible, please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If you cannot edit the article's talk page, you can instead make your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2020

Change "racism and xenophobia" to "accusations of racism and xenophobia". Claiming that dislike for Chinese culture is EQUAL to fear of what is different or claims of racial superiority is an unsubstantiated psychoanalysis and random accusation based on NOTHING. It is a broad sweeping claim on a group of people, those who dislike China which they are entitled to dislike, same as racism. It is NOT substantiated that people who dislike Chinese culture think all Chinese people are the same. AT ALL. JUST BECAUSE IT'S IN VOGUE TO JUMP TO THIS CONCLUSION DOESN'T MAKE IT A FACT. Rjenman123 (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC) Rjenman123 (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: to avoid synthesis and original research, I have browsed through the sources for the sentence in the intro and the small section in the body. (I have not clicked through to the article specifically about the xenophobia and racism.) In those sources, the words "racism" and "xenophobia" occur in the context of quoting or reporting thoughts of individuals of Chinese or Asian descent, or something like "reports of racism/xenophobia are on the rise". The body paragraph accurately summarizes what sources say, so I've left it alone. I have changed the intro from "xenophobia and racism" to "Reports of xenophobia and racism" (Special:Diff/941003057). I hope I've made the correct call in avoiding synthesis and original research. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Reporting "xenophobia " is not appropriate. Claiming the people who dislike China all just fear things that are different is based on nothing and is totally insane. Rjenman123 (talk) 00:17, 16 February 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. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I think Rotideypoc41352's phrasing is fine. The sources absolutely support characterizing those incidents as xenophobia and racism, and it must be remembered that the standard for inclusion is verifiability rather than strict correctness. If we were talking about specific instances of xenophobia or racism, it might be appropriate to qualify those reports as "claims" or "accusations" in order to avoid BLP issues, but that's not where we are. As to the complaint that, Claiming the people who dislike China all just fear things that are different is based on nothing and is totally insane., I don't see this in the current article (and that's what we're concerned with here). I understand that there may be a lot of oversimplification going on in the media, and you seem to be concerned with a conflation of opposing/questioning the PRC government with the same sentiment towards Chinese people. But even if that is the case, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. I hope that better addresses your concerns. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2020

The name should be changed to 2019-2020 COVID-2019 outbreak. ArtistBookGirl (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

WHO seems to have made COVID-19 the official name. See https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-14/why-whos-official-name-for-the-coronavirus-matters/11964176 HiLo48 (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree Wuhan should be removed from the title and use the official WHO title Ganymede94 (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Just simply copy the text "Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak" from the WHO main page, which completely avoid original research. --Yejianfei (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Or rather Wikipedia:Move review. I advised you to review move history documented in this talk page's headers and consider it seriously before opening yet another move review request. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 07:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello ArtistBookGirl and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your interest in this topic. Title changes require consensus among editors. The title of this topic has been the subject of many extended discussion for two weeks. Some discussions are ongoing on this talk page and others. Unfortunately, we haven't found any consensus yet but I think we're slowly making progress and am hopeful we can get there within a week or two. For now, please do not open a move request. - Wikmoz (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The coronavirus did not start in Wuhan, it started somewhere 30km near it so the name should change to 2019-20 (town name) coronavirus outbreak so the name must change to that name. P.S. Can anyone research that town name near Wuhan? Remenber it is approx. 30km away. Wojciech 2020 (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Why has the link been removed? (Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in December 2019 – January 2020)

Has there been any discussion about the utility of the removal of the reference to the Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in December 2019 – January 2020 entry in this article? Because as of now, only the February article is referenced. I do not see a good reason to remove it from here.--Adûnâi (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Because, it is February ‘20, and it can get clogged. 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:AC (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Simple arithmetic? Or original research? Incubation time, mortality, and convalescence time

There is an elephant in the room. The deaths and recoveries are elaborately listed in the article, but nobody wants simply to divide one by the other to arrive at a mortality rate. I cannot imagine that it is "original research" to divide two numbers. Or, for the incubation period, to count the number of days between infection and diagnosis. Anybody disagree? If not, please add (as automatically updating functions in the tables):

Asymptomatics' mortality 0.3% based on 2 deaths among 592 cases outside China as of 14 Feb 2020. The third death outside China, the 80-year old Japanese lady, is excluded here as she has no known connection to the monitored cohort in Japan.

Symptomatics' mortality more than 2.2% and less than 20.5% (standard errors negligible) based firstly on 1380 deaths among 63859 symptomatic monitored cases within China, and secondly on 1380 deaths and 6723 recoveries as of 14 Feb 2020.

These rates fall within the range of previous coronavirus outbreaks (SARS in 2003 with 9% mortality, and MERS in 2012 with 30% mortality).

The incubation period is minimally 10 days (time from primary infection at the latest Jan 25, to seeking medical diagnosis on Feb 4, based on the Diamond Princess cohort) and maximally 16 days (time from primary infection at the earliest Jan 20, to seeking medical diagnosis on Feb 4, based on the Diamond Princess cohort). Based on the first 10 cases on the Diamond Princess. Update: after 13 days of incubation, a female taxi driver in the Okinawa islands (Japan) has fallen ill today (Feb 14) after the Diamond Princess visited the islands on Feb 1.

The convalescence period is longer than 9 days, based on the absence of recovered cases among the 10 first cases diagnosed on Feb 4 on the Diamond Princess. 31.49.197.109 (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This all constitutes original research because mortality rates are more complicated than the simple calculations you present. This is exactly why we have WP:OR rules! Bondegezou (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

To support your claim, could you please mention at least one "complication". My days as a virologist are long over, whereas you evidently are an expert. Thanks. 31.49.197.109 (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

If you divide deaths by recoveries, the result is not the mortality rate (particularly if number of deaths is relatively high compared to recoveries). For example, if there are 1000 deaths and 3000 recoveries then the mortality rate is 1/4 (not 1/3). 82.22.66.201 (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

There's the issue with the reliability of the reporting of numbers. It is far easier to count the number of people who died of the illness than to count the number of people who had the illness. A few days ago the number of cases jumped by 5,000 because of a change in the reporting methodology. Not forgetting that not everyone who gets the illness gets diagnosed. But even if that were fine, the policy of WP:OR still stands. Anywikiuser (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Your first point is true, hence the necessity to provide minimal and maximal estimates. Over time these two boundaries will converge, and when the outbreak is over and everybody who will die has died, then we will know the final precise value. I have now been even more conservative and adjusted the minimal estimate. As to your second objection: the question is not whether we want to conduct original research on the data on Wikipedia (answer: we do not), but do we want to display the current data in such a way that people understand them easily, i.e. as percentages, as bar graphs, as semi-logarithmic plots, etc. 31.49.197.109 (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

There are far too many questions about the figures published at the moment to think about doing that (reliability, methodology, under-counting, etc.). See for example the weirdly low number of deaths from flu reported in China - 56 reported in 2016, 41 in 2017, 143 in 2019 compared to the many thousands annually in the US [6][7]. Estimates by scientists suggest far higher number of deaths for flu in China (annual mean of 88,100, 95% CI 84,200–92,000 in the years under study) compared to the official figures [8]. There are various estimates for COVID-19 floating around, we should only use those by published by professionals, rather than trying to do any calculations ourselves. It would be OR to do it ourselves. Hzh (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Your point about potential influenza under-reporting is interesting but it would be speculative to transfer influenza figures to COVID-19 figures. We need to display the official figures that are available. That is all we have at the moment. In addition, I do not share your speculation of underreporting COVID-19 deaths: if the Chinese were indeed substantially under-reporting COVID-19 deaths (between 0.3 and 20 percent of cases as outlined above), then surely we would have seen a substantial proportion of the 218 cases die on the Diamond Princess in Japan? 31.49.197.109 (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Surely the argument is the other way round. Why is the number of deaths so high in China percentage-wise compared to the rest of the world? One possibility is that the number of infections is far far higher, but many of those infected did not go a hospital, and only the ones who are more seriously ill would go to the hospitals, thereby inflating the death rate. (The figures for flu also suggest the under-reporting of infections, for example only around 600,000 cases reported in 2019 in China compared the many millions in the United States which has a significantly smaller population.) There may be other reasons, but all of these would only be speculations, and it would be OR to include them, as would creating figures out of the data ourselves. We can only report the conclusion of professionals. Hzh (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You ask "Why is the number of deaths so high in China percentage-wise compared to the rest of the world?". Because the outbreak started in China several weeks before spreading elsewhere, so the patients in China have had more time to recover or die. We do not know the duration of the disease course with any certainty. But take the clear-cut Bavarian Webasto infection: infection on Jan 21, first four positive infection results on Jan 27, fourteen employees have tested positive meanwhile. Only today (Feb 14, that is after 18 days of disease) has the first Bavarian patient recovered. So how much longer for the other 13 Bavarians until recovery? And how many of those 13 might die? We do not know yet. The Chinese are several weeks ahead and therefore they have registered more final outcomes (whether death or recovery). 31.49.197.109 (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

A quick look at the number of recoveries vs deaths will tell you that your argument does not work. Far fewer recoveries percentage-wise inside China than outside China. Also try looking at the ratio of deaths vs recoveries (my quick calculation gives ~1:5 in China vs ~1:30 outside China, but you can try to get a more accurate count). Hzh (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I make it 14.3% recoveries inside China versus 11.1% recoveries outside China (percentages relative to the confirmed cases). This modest difference may be due to the overwhelmed healthcare system inside China. As for the excess deaths inside China (deaths vs recoveries) - perhaps dying of the disease may take longer than recovering from it. Not sure. Let us leave the interpretation of the data to the insiders, and simply stick to the bland minimal and maximal statistics as I outlined above.31.49.197.109 (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Huge thank you for the initiative and math work. Unfortunately, I agree that this would violate WP:OP. Regarding the incubation period, your analysis on the Diamond cohort may be correct but it's a very tough group since all of the subjects were in close confinement and would have been infected gradually as the virus jumped from person to person over time. Here are some of the incubation period estimates I've seen...

Based on 88 cases, a report from Eurosurveillance has the mean at 6.5 days.

Based on 10 cases, a paper in NEJM has the mean at 5.2 days.

Based on 1,099 cases, a paper on MedRxiv has the median at 3 days. Though this is PREPRINT.

Hope this helps - Wikmoz (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I find it difficult to reconcile these three papers (incubation time of 3-6.5 days) with the 13 days of incubation time witnessed by the unfortunate female Japanese taxi driver 13 days after the Diamond Princess visited the Okinawa Islands. Her 13 days' incubation period falls outside the 95% confidence interval reported in the first two studies (the third study does not seem to report a confidence interval). Either the cruise ship is harbouring a "slower" virus variant, or the three papers are systematically underestimating the time point of infection. My hunch is that a cruise ship full of non-Chinese has a precisely defined history of contact and infection, whereas a land-based infection study in Wuhan (such as these three papers) needs to make complex and possibly inaccurate assumptions when their infections occurred. The first few of the 14 well-defined Bavarian Webasto infection cases also took 6 days of incubation period, so at the upper end of the three published estimates, and the remainder of the 14 Bavarian patients incubated at least 6 days if not longer (we are not told in media reports whether they infected each other rather than from the primary source - a Chinese visitor). Taken together, my hunch is that the three published studies have systematically underestimated the time point of infection, and thus their incubation times are somewhat too short. From a practical perspective, the 13-day case of the Okinawan taxi driver indicates that a quarantine period of 14 days may be insufficient. We cannot do original research on Wikipedia, but perhaps we can mention the recommended 14-day quarantine period in the same sentence as the Okinawan taxi driver...? That hint might save lives. 86.152.165.16 (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm puzzled about the death rate. How is that calculated? It seems to me that of the few cases cited, there are 10+ days between diagnosis and death, and so an accurate death rate would be to divide the total infected by the number of deaths ten days earlier. The total number of cases is increasing by thousands each day, so if we divide the current number of cases by the current number of deaths, we get a figure well below what it actually is, if we accept that the true death rate is the percentage of individuals who die after contracting the disease. --Pete (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I have a different issue with arithmatic ... this time with the amount of time the virus can survive on surfaces outside of a host. I have was reading today in an effort to understand this and am confused by the seemingly conflicting information. I am not sure if I am reporting this correctly, haven't written on Wikipedia for many years, but thought I should let someone know. Under the Cause subheading it says "Coronavirus droplets only stay suspended in the air for a short time, but can stay viable and contagious on a metal, glass or plastic surface for up to nine days.[104]" and under the Prevention subheading it says "Coronaviruses can survive for a few hours on surfaces.[133] ". Can someone please validate and fix? Thanks. I-love-Adelaide (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

SG untracable cases steady; Japan local transmission growing exponentially

Singapore has had a stable number of about 7-9 untraced cases for nearly a week (presumably old cases find origins and new cases are untraced) while Japan's locally transmitted cases have been growing exponentially over three days. The SG case might be relevant for the lead here, since the SG PM brought attention to it. Or we can wait until WHO or another medical source decides that these are notable. Boud (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR. Your observations may be correct, but Wikipedia exists to document the knowledge of others, not to create and disseminate novel knowledge. We must wait for an authoritative source to confirm your observations. EMS | Talk 04:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Move Suggestion: 2019–20 coronavirus disease outbreak

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please use the #2019–20 coronavirus outbreak section to discuss this Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence of this article now starts with "The 2019–20 coronavirus disease outbreak ..." and that seems to be sticking. I kindly suggest that we have on that basis found the new name for this article, I suggest that poeple vote below over the next 24 hours, after which the thread should be closed (preferably by an admin). If there is general support for this proposal, then the closer should initiate a formal RM. I know that everyone is RM-shy after recent events, but I think the time has come.

The difference between this and the suggestion above is the added word "disease". But once again, it is the disease that this is an outbreak of, not the virus EMS | Talk 15:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Do we really have to do this again? Really? Ok. I opose on ground of WP:COMMONNAMES with a dash of WP:RECENTISM concern, a sprinkle of WP:CRYSTAL. Coronavirus is ambiguous (which coronavirus?) and COVID-19 is not established as common name. Wuhan coronavirus is the right balance of common enough and specific enough. Furthermore, I do not consider Sinophobia concerns as valid arguments are Wikipedia's job is not to right great wrongs, and Anglophone culture does not recognise naming diseases as negative (see Alzheimer's disease or Spanish flu). Melmann 16:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support - The COVID-19 name is now being used to describe the outbreak. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - In fact, a big strong Oppose. Really, we don't need to start this discussion over and over again. Raysonho (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I would support a formal RM submitted in two days time, on February 18, per the discussions held in the MRV. When that RM opens, the citation of 'RM repetition' is no longer relevant and I expect the quality of support and opposition to amount more than "I want this/I oppose this". The last RM devolved too much into WP:VOTE territory and participants of the February 18 RM should be reminded of WP:NOTDEM and expect to engage in points of order presented. Sleath56 (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Question: Sleath56, what do you think of February 20 instead? Sean Heron opened the MRV Feb 13, so it would close Feb 20. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352: If the view is that the new RM should procedurally start when the MRV closes, I'm sure @Sean Heron, as OP, may agree to close the request early, given as it was already closed and reopened at his request, yet he also expressed support for the 18th date in the discussion there. Sleath56 (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time per User:Melmann. The claim that the current name is problematic has never been adequately substantiated in my view, and I have seen no reason to change that view. I further object to Sleath56's attempts to dictate the scope of discussion, particularly that we should expect to engage in points of order presented. I do not plan on chaining myself to however a first-mover structures the discussion, and I urge all other participants to approach the disucssion as they would any other on Wikipedia. There is nothing special going on here, and the idea that this needs to adhere to some special structure compared to other RMs is unsupported by any policy or practice on Wikipedia. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

"we should expect to engage in points of order presented." This is basic WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOTDEM, not my personal 'dictation.' Consensus is established through addressing points made, not talking past one another. As stated, the previous RM devolved into WP:VOTE, which is not 'the norm,' and merits mention. The fact that there have been numerous protracted RM and that numerous discussion on this article's RMs have been opened on various noticeboards including on WP:AN/I: 1234 shows there is absolutely something 'special' in how irregular the RM process has been far from the standard "approach the disucssion as they would any other on Wikipedia." Through that, I don't see how the comment above which simply advocates the RM to be held with a constructive approach to consensus-building is inappropriate. I fail to see how your comment can be construed as anything more than an invitation to incite WP:IAR. Sleath56 (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Personal Closing Comments

1. I have no objection to this closure. Had it not already happened I would be closing it myself due to lack of the desired consensus or any reasonable chance of obtaining it at this time.
2. The suggestion of Sleath56 to not revisit this matter before 20 February is accepted and encouraged.
3. Even so, "Wuhan" must be removed from the title and "disease" or a related term (like "syndrome") needs to be added.
4. I am aware that any new name may need to be changed again in another month or two. However, the current title is quite stale, and any progress towards a more correct description of this outbreak in the title will be good (but this can also wait until after 20 February).

EMS | Talk 04:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@EUser:ems57fcva and EMS: As a note, I advocated for February 20 if the MR was not closed manually. As it now has, my endorsement would be for February 18, which derives from the discussion held in the Move Review. Sleath56 (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Hospitals

Classification of Chinese Hospitals article talks about a system of speciality hospitals - this is unclear if this "speciality" is in this system or is someone using the term wrongly in English - can someone who knows the chinese system check? AND then update the article appropriately - I put the same request on the first hospital listed's page.

This actually has a real world use in how people might prepare for such hispitals based on a working chinese model in other locations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Our Chinese article about the Classification of Hospitals in China (zh:中國醫院等級) notes at time of writing that 9862 hospitals have not yet been assigned a grade. This new hospital is surely among them. That said, the word "specialty" (專科) is in the full name of the hospital. Does that address your question? 97.115.240.136 (talk) 06:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Infobox map colors

I would kindly like to suggest that the coloring in the infobox map's colors be tweaked. At the moment, I feel like we're using to dark tones for relatively low number of cases. For instance the USA gets a really dark tone for just 16 cases among over 328 million inhabitants. Therefore I would suggest that we tweak which tone is applied to which range of cases. Currently the distribution is as follows (darkest tone on top):

• 1000+
• 100-999
• 10-99
• 5-9
• 2-4
• 1
• none

I suggest to change this to:

• 1000+
• 100-999
• 50-99
• 10-49
• 5-9
• 1-4
• none

An other possibility would be:

• 1000+
• 500-999
• 100-499
• 50-99
• 10-49
• 1-9
• none

Any thoughts?Tvx1 17:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I don’t have any particular feelings about color, just that we should be careful to follow MOS:CONTRAST with whatever is chosen. There’s already been a complaint about accessibility on a different chart on this page (see #Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2020 above). 199.66.69.88 (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tvx1: I'm the author of the map. It has initially been created on January 31st and the scale was determined according to what fitted best at the time. I agree it needs to be changed. The map is now displayed in 36 languages and as a result I feel a bit accountable to update it daily (which wasn't necessarily the initial plan). As told above, what's important is to keep a limited number of categories for contrast readability reasons. I agree with your first scale suggestion, it would fit better with the current situation. However, I need to adjust all frames of the animated GIF for this and I can't take the time immediately, I'll try doing this fast. Metropolitan (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for you reply. My proposal was exactly intended to update the shade distribution for the current situation. Do not worry to much about the time it takes to change. There is no deadline on Wikipedia. The most important thing is that the update is made.Tvx1 16:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tvx1: Map has been updated. Metropolitan (talk) 06:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Problem in counting

Since you reference the "tested confirmed cases" as orange only, this does not meet the graphics. Orange bar has to be (and obviously is) only the active cases which are still open, meaning neither dead or recovered. This is, because you are keeping them in one diagram. So I would propose to either move them into a new diagram or name this organge bar "tested confirmed cases (undecided / active). Kleinelucy (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion to remove the countries with recovered patients from the animated map

According to the animated map the disease is spreading while most countries with less than 5 patients now do not have any confirmed patients. So it is better to animate the map removing those countries gradually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samanpress (talk • contribs) 04:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we can change the colour to a paler pink to show former infection. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

47 missing cases

47 cases were missing from Japan so the GIF map must be updated again with 47 exta people to Japan. Wojciech 2020 (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned exta but it should be extra. Wojciech 2020 (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wojciech 2020: Comments for updating the gif would probably best go at Commons:File talk:2019-nCoV-outbreak-timeline.gif. (Right now I see 56 for Japan for 15 Feb on the gif map; the official WHO data at Template:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data/Japan medical cases give 53 for Japan for 15 Feb; in any case, chyba lepiej na gif talk page.) Boud (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Figures shown on the map are those officially published in WHO daily situation reports. Metropolitan (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Incubation period

Up to 24 days! - https://nypost.com/2020/02/13/coronavirus-incubation-period-may-be-much-longer-than-once-thought/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.109.70.54 (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

It has not been peer reviewed. . . Dannelsluc (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Please reword the lead

In ordinance with WP:AVOIDBOLD, Please change lead sentence of the article from:

• An ongoing outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) started in December 2019. It was first identified in Wuhan, capital of Hubei province in China, after 41 people presented with pneumonia of no clear cause.

to

• Since December 2019, there were an ongoing outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). It was first identified in Wuhan, capital of Hubei in China, after 41 people presented with pneumonia of no clear cause.

And please change date of the beginning outbreak from 1 December 2019 to 8 December 2019 because the outbreak actually started in 8 December. 36.69.53.66 (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC).

one needs consensus for any change in text--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Censorship and police responses

Why is the criticism section buried? Should we promote it? Could put in before the management section and call it China Censorship and Police Responses.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

per MEDMOS it should go after 'Epidemiology' section--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I've quite certain we had this discussion before. It's because that isn't a criticism section. It's a section that documents the CCP's censorship and suppression tactics, which is the subject of criticism but not 'criticism' in of itself. As this is a domestic governmental tactic, it precisely fits under #Domestic responses. I would support splitting the top level #Management section to #Domestic Management and #International Management, which I suppose would 'promote it' up. Sleath56 (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Why are the C.D (Clinically Diagnosed) cases merged?

In the "COVID-19 cases in mainland China" graph, the C.D. (Clinically Diagnosed) cases were represented using a different color (yellow) to distinguish them from the "tested confirmed cases (verified using nucleic acid test, represented using orange color) from Feb 12 to Feb 15. Why are the cases merged into one from Feb 16? The idea to distinguish these cases was not to mislead the viewing public that there was a sudden increase in the infected cases (which there was not). I strongly suggested that it be reverted back to the original scheme such that these two category of cases are represented differently. 98.207.237.179 (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The Health Commission of Hubei had not released any data on C.D. cases ([9]) and the WHO has now stopped listing C.D. cases separately ([[10]]), so it seems we're going back to reporting on only one case type. Over on the template talk we are still discussing how the data should be displayed. CheeseBuffet (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The section link into the discussion is here and the following section. There's no trivial solution (so far). Boud (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. After reviewing the discussion at the template talk page, I've changed my position from earlier. I now recommend that the C.D. patient data not be used at all in the graph: not from now on (since the Health Commission of Hubei has stopped releasing data on C.D. cases anyway), nor include them even for the period from Feb 12 to Feb 15 (the reasons are well presented at the template talk page so I am going to duplicate them here). 98.207.237.179 (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

"Cumulative calculated case fatality rate in China by date" graph is incorrect

This graph cites the daily WHO situation reports as a source, but the cumulative case fatality rate does *not* match the numbers given in the reports. For example, the WHO sitrep for February 15 shows cumulative total cases in China is 66,576, cumulative deaths is 1,524; this gives a cumulative case fatality rate of approximately 2.3%. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I adjusted the graph to properly match the cited source data. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. I think it was removed for some reason, I thought there was a comment pertaining to WHO politics when I checked on my mobile earlier today, perhaps I was mistaken. Please note that this is not an estimate of the severity of the disease but a commonly used easily understandable method during outbreak investigations. It is under the deaths section, because it pertains to deaths, not the severity. It will be changed and updated, that is why I made it in wiki code. No one brought up WP:SYN yet, which I need guidance on. I think it also gives another perspective to the main graph. I'll put it back in (kindly your version @Global Cerebral Ischemia: - I also received a thank for it, so we'll see if that version stays. Also note WP:MEDRS is happy with the WHO as a source. --Almaty (talk) 07:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, with that disclaimer below the chart, it is much less deceiving (it still is if people don't read it). However, I still think that the D/(D+R) should be included (in some form) in the same chart, since it is much more meaningful. You even mentioned that the CFR doesn't portray the severity of the virus, so, then, let's show something that actually tries to, because everyone else seems to be trying to downplay the virus. By the way, I had moved my original comment to the Graph_question section. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Stealth56: I am just one voice. If you think that tomorrow is a good time to start a new RM, so be it. For my part, allowing everyone an extra day or two to catch their breath is probably a good idea. But as I write above, the title is stale. The sooner it gets changed, the better. EMS | Talk 04:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

14 Infected Americans flown back to the U.S

Apparently at the last minute 14 infected Americans were let onboard the chartered plane for the evacuation effort in Tokyo. Does this add to the U.S infections in the infection/death/recovery chart? Link to article Dannelsluc (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The NYT added them to the US count "With the arrival of the 14 infected passengers from Japan, confirmed coronavirus cases in the United States nearly doubled, to 29." --Nowa (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

We should move the count from the Diamond Princess to the US, when they arrive. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

An explanatory footnote for this might be helpful as well. Something like, "On [date], 14 confirmed cases were transferred from Diamond Princess to the United States. This chart lists those 14 in the United States rather than on Diamond Princess." (this is just off the top of my head so feel free to go another direction with it, but I think it's a good idea to explain it since people might look at our numbers for the ship and say they're wrong). 199.66.69.88 (talk) 05:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2020

"As of 18 February 2020, 73,333 have been confirmed" ==> "As of 18 February 2020, 73,333 cases have been confirmed" Jeffnc226 (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• comment not a 'big' difference...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. DannyS712 (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)