Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in South Korea/Archive 1

Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2020

Afentev (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Change ". on 10 March" to ". On 10 March" in "Drive-through testing site" section.

 Done Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Trend of confirmed cases graph

This graph has to be semi-log, that is vertical axis with the number of cases has to be in logarithmic scale.Smutny (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• 0222 코로나19 예방수칙 포스터 영문.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

A bug in the infobox

Number of confirmed coronavirus cases by region.r
Can someone remove the r at the end? I can't see it in the code.--Adûnâi (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Fixed the template.[1]―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Just calrified a bit about "대구 코로나19" "controversy"

Seriously, what kind of people look at "대구 코로나19 대응 범정부특별대책지원단 가동" and parse it as "((대구 코로나19) 대응) 범정부특별대책지원단 가동" instead of "(대구) (코로나19 대응) 범정부특별대책지원단 가동" ...

I'm surprised that nobody looked at articles like "오늘 서울 미세먼지 수치 높아" and complained about using "서울 미세먼지". (Well, actually no, why am I not surprised...)

67.164.28.51 (talk) 19:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

reasons for infections

Deleted this section as it was irrelevant 125.231.84.160 (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Xenophobia

The event also marked a sharp rise in xenophobia across the country as foreigners found themselves barred from many facilities and events. The reasoning behind this was to help prevent the spread of Covid-19.
Should this really be mentioned? Of course, the Koreans will be weary of any people coming from China, isn't this common sense? How can it be dubbed "xenophobia"? Is forcefully locking people up in quarantines "cases of mass incarceration"? Of course, not! And one of the references is a Facebook post whose content is literally a picture and a subtitle literally amounting to "Excuse me?"? This liberal Christian bias of universal love is so insane on Wikipedia...--Adûnâi (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Parentheses

@아드리앵: Why have the parentheses been removed in the table?--Adûnâi (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Adûnâi: It is beneficial chart, from 18 Feb 2020, Parentheses shows that massive infection starts from the case of Shincheonji Church of Jesus the Temple of the Tabernacle of the Testimony church in Daegu. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

What is this even supposed to mean? "Beneficial"? A user has unilaterally removed the parentheses from the table, although every other Wuhan disease article has them.--Adûnâi (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I mean that the chart is beneficial and I support recovery of the chart. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Fatality rate

Dear Wikipedians. Please refer to the updated part about fatality rate and update it when it's possible. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

As of 8 March 2020, South Korea has about 7,040 cases and 44 deaths (fatality rate:0.62%), with over 130,000 people having been tested. It's lower than WHO's global death rate which is 3.4%. In comparison fatality rate in China is 3.8% and Japan is 1.3%

References

I don't see how the high rate of tests and screenings conducted in South Korea explains the low mortality rate of the infected when compared to other countries. The testing helps to increase the effectivness of the quarantine and prevent infections, which will lower the total number of deaths and the mortality of the population as a whole. But once you get infected, the tests will not help you survive. Regarding the number of fatalities in relation to the number of infected, there must be other factors, perhaps a lower incidence of comorbidities known to prompt a more severe course of the disease. At any rate, the section needs to be changed to reflect that, and as long as the factors leading to the lower mortality are unknown, best not speculate. Cancun (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Please stop adding "reasons for infections"

It is irrelevant. Korea has tested .34% of their population. There are likely many more cases out there. 114.38.70.45 (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

International Analysis clean up

This whole section needs a cleanup in relevance and grammar. It looks translated from Korean and some sections lack relevance for an encyclopedia. Furthermore, do we really need a whole section related to reaction in Germany? 114.38.80.84 (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Mismanagement of the Outbreak

Please stop blanking this section. The contents of this section cite reliable sources, and they are not perennial sources nor are they editorials. Thus they do not constitute WP:NOR, WP:RSP, WP:RSOPINION, WP:SYN. As for WP:UNDUE, mismanagement of this outbreak is a serious issue of note, with majority of Koreans holding the government accountable. Blanking everything about his mismanagement is a serious violation of NPOV. Other NPOV issues exist in other sections, such as the section on President Moon's approval rates. President Moon's approval rate, according to realmeter[2], the majority of surveyed Koreans evaluate his administration negatively. Yet this section makes no mention that while 44% of the surveyed Koreans in the cited survey evaluated Moon positively, a larger majority of 48% evaluated Moon negatively. The entire section on Impacts and reactions look like one of those self-praises by the government, with complete ommissions of criticisms against it. If you think there's something wrong with criticisms on the government's mismanagement of the outbreak, please explain here how it violates Wikipedia rules. Because I do not see any violations. They are based on reliable sources and inform readers of Wikipedia of the other side of the story of this outbreak. Koraskadi (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Koraskadi:, please stop your WP:POINTy behavior on WP. If there is an dispute between editors the issue needs to be discussed before the edit. Pleas follow WP:DR policy. Jeff6045 (talk) 06:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

On this revert[3], Jeff6045 claims that The sources do not support the claim. Also the quote or opinion from the individual members is not reliable sources in WP.. Which sources do not support what claim? Which source is a quote or opinion from a single individual? Explain please. Koraskadi (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I don't appreciate your behavior on me. Please keep civility. The sources which express contentious opinions are not reliable in WP. For example, the source from Herald news seem to be clearly reflecting reporter's controversial opinion. Jeff6045 (talk) 07:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Also I suggest ypu to read WP:NOR and WP:SYN. For example "The impeachment petition was on pace to set a record high for votes on the Blue House-operated platform" is not what the source is saying. (Aginst WP:SYN policy) Also "Moon was criticized for hosting a celebrity-attended chapaguri party during the onset of the Coronavirus outbreak, a day that saw South Korea's first covid-19-related death" is clearly original research. (Against WP:NOR policy.) Regardless of those two, there are several controversial claims against WP policy on your edit about Mismanagement of the Outbreak. Please keep neutral point of view on this article. Jeff6045 (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Koraskadi: Additionally, the title, "Mismanagement of the Outbreak" is completely original research. Are there any non-primary sources that could support your claim on this? Jeff6045 (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Mismanagement of the outbreak is perfectly valid. Is your objection with the content or the title? 116.241.74.129 (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It is both. Jeff6045 (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Why? The governments handling of the outbreak was criticized by the Korean Medical Association. 116.241.74.129 (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

References

The order of the items in the map legend

The map in question is COVID-19 Outbreak Cases in South Korea.svg. It was red-blue. I have added green (at the end). But @이강철: has added green to the beginning of the key on the map page itself (green-red-blue). Which order is correct?--Adûnâi (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The file was in red and blue order, and I added green. However, the case progression is grey (no case), blue (suspected), red (confirmed), and green (14 days no confirmed cases). I thought green was the most up-to-date, so I lined it up first. --이강철 (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject COVID-19

I've created WikiProject COVID-19 as a temporary or permanent WikiProject and invite editors to use this space for discussing ways to improve coverage of the ongoing 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Please bring your ideas to the project/talk page. Stay safe, --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Seongnam Church Outbreak

Please add this to the article. Recent outbreak at Seongnam Church. https://www.nst.com.my/world/world/2020/03/574973/new-coronavirus-cluster-linked-south-korean-church-46-test-positiveUnibrow69420 (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Column Tested.Current

In the large "by region" table, under the Tested column heading, is column heading Current. Someone please include some explanation. What is meant by "Current"? Clutterslave (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Nobody knows what this column stands for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.209.20.158 (talk) 06:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Daegu Nursing Home Cluster

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/south-korea-reports-152-new-coronavirus-cases-total-number-of-infections-rises-to

Please add this, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unibrow69420 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

One of the best, not the best responses

Added sources comparing South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Vietnam's successful handling of the pandemic.Unibrow69420 (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong are no longer successful handling of the pandemic. They are suffering the second wave of Coronavirus Cases.[4] South Korea has successfully contained a Shincheonji cluster, but not all of its cases.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I did not mention Hong Kong. Taiwan has less than 200 cases which is remarkable.Unibrow69420 (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

How to be ahead of the spread ? Illustrations

File:How it spread-tree.png

How to cut asymptomatic virus spread.(Illustrations by tree algorithms)

How to cut asymptomatic virus spread.(Illustrations by chain algorithms)

How to cut asymptomatic virus spread.(Illustrations by waves algorithms)

Korea is the perfect case for ahead strategy. Yug (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Yug (talk), Thank you for your interesting Illustrations. It would be shared with other countries to stop coronavirus pandemic. Goodtiming1788 (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

School Postpone

I don't have time to edit the article, so I will provide the sources.

1st: March 2 --> March 9(updated in English Wiki) Source: http://www.donga.com/news/article/all/20200223/99835113/2 2nd: March 9 --> March 23 Source: http://www.edupress.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=4976 3rd: March 23 --> April 6 Source: http://www.kgmaeil.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=236418 4th: (Announced on March 31) Differs by school grade. Please note https://news.joins.com/article/23743670 P.S. 4th postpone makes schools open online on 4/9 or later depending by grades(Middle School&High School Grade 3 : 4/9, Middle School&High School Grade 1~2 + Elementary School Grade 4~6 : 4/16, Elementary School Grade 1~3 : 4/20) Also, kindergartens will postpone until online service available

For details, we may use the Korean wiki page!!! Adding my sign, Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 06:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC) Added P.S. note Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

New map added to the infobox

Recently, user Ythlev made a large number of coronavirus maps presenting confirmed cases of COVID-19 relative to the number of inhabitants for different countries, and placed them in the infoboxes for each respective country. In at least one case (Poland), this sparked a discussion as to whether Ythlev's map contributed positively to the article, and led to Ythlev's map being removed.

In the case of South Korea, I am the author of the animated map that has been presented alone in the infobox since March 2 (and updated with new data each day since). However, on March 30, Ythlev placed his/her map in the top of South Korea's infobox as well. I moved it down to the other maps that illustrate current states of the coronavirus case in South Korea, but Ythlev moved it back. Therefore I think this is a matter that should be discussed here.

Personally, I do not think there should be another map other than the animated one in the infobox, and not the map produced by Ythlev in particular. A few reasons follow:

1. The article is about the "coronavirus pandemic", that is, the outbreak (spread) which now is a process that has been going on for over two months. This is captured in a self-containing fashion in the animated map.

2. The map made by Ythlev has a few issues. It does not have a caption. The description is merely one sentence, hardly enough to describe the complexity of the map. The data source used in the creation of the map is unclear, the only reference is a link to the ArcGIS website. Is the map based on secondary data? How are the (many) special-cases treated, such as transferred patients? Are only active cases included? How was the population data obtained, and when is it from? Additionally, it is not clear when the data on which Ythlev's image is based on was obtained, in the version of his/her map uploaded on March 31, 2020, "2020-03-31" is written in the image. However, regional data for March 31 is published by the Korean government the following day. Hence, it isnot clear what the date refers to, and if secondary data is used, it is indeed unclear when the data was obtained. Is the map based on secondary data? Is the map based on secondary data? Are only active cases included?

3. Ythlev's map is limited to a state of the outbreak, which indeed is relevant and interesting. However, there are three more such maps also available in the article for the coronavirus pandemic in South Korea. Therefore, I argue that Ythlev's map is more suitable among those. Indeed, even if the infobox should have two maps, it is not clear why Ythlev's map (especially given the above) would be included.

I hope to hear from more people regarding this, and that it can be resolved in whatever way that is best for the article. Statistologist (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment to point 1: Why should readers have to wait for over a minute to see the current distribution? Ythlev (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment to point 2 until "...when the data was obtained.": By that standard, the figure of 882,000 on 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic is even less "clear" and should be removed. The purpose of that figure and distribution maps are to give a rough understanding of the topic. If anything, there is inevitably going to be some binning (colouring two values the same colour), so it wouldn't be "clear" regardless. I already provided the data source. The answer to most of your questions are held in the source, not by me. Ythlev (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment to point 2: Is the map based on secondary data? What is "secondary" data? You are not quite clear yourself. Are only active cases included? In the infobox: Confirmed cases: 9,887. I don't know why that doesn't need clarification but when I write "confirmed cases", you think it could be "active cases". Ythlev (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Ythlev for the input. In order to keep this discussion easy to follow, it will be better if we keep the inputs separated instead of editing within each others inputs, so I collected your comments and placed them below my input. I am not sure how you would like to format the comments now when they are moved, but I added a basic reference in the beginning of each comment so please feel free to correct it in whatever way you prefer. Statistologist (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you have nothing to say to that? Ythlev (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2020

by gender/age section

I update this based on korea CDC daily report

change This

Current confirmed COVID-19 cases in South Korea by gender and age (vte) Classification Cases Fatal cases Number (%) Number (%) Rate (%) All 9,661 (100) 158 (100) 1.64 Sex Male 3,834 (39.69) 80 (50.63) 2.09 Female 5,827 (60.31) 78 (49.37) 1.34 Age Above 80 437 (4.52) 80 (50.63) 18.31 70–79 640 (6.62) 45 (28.48) 7.03 60–69 1,218 (12.61) 21 (13.29) 1.72 50–59 1,812 (18.76) 10 (6.33) 0.55 40–49 1,297 (13.43) 1 (0.63) 0.08 30–39 1,002 (10.37) 1 (0.63) 0.10 20–29 2,630 (27.22) 0 (0.00) - 10–19 513 (5.31) 0 (0.00) - 0–9 112 (1.16) 0 (0.00) -

to

All 10,062 (100) 174 (100) 1.73 Sex Male 4,013 (39.88) 92 (52.87) 2.29 Female 6,049 (60.12) 82 (47.13) 1.36 Age Above 80 456 (4.53) 86 (49.43) 18.86 70–79 668 (6.64) 49 (28.16) 7.34 60–69 1,266 (12.58) 24 (13.79) 1. 90 50–59 1,887 (18.75) 12 (6.90) 0.64 40–49 1,350 (13.42) 2 (1.15) 0.15 30–39 1,052 (10.46) 1 (0.57) 0.10 20–29 2,734 (27.17) 0 (0.00) - 10–19 528 (5.31) 0 (0.00) - 0–9 121 (1.16) 0 (0.00) -

this is from https://is.cdc.go.kr/upload_comm/syview/doc.html?fn=158589492613400.pdf&rs=/upload_comm/docu/0015/

thank you JeongbinLee (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Case fatality rate

As of 24 March 2020, South Korea has about 9,037 cases and 120 deaths,[9] with over 348,582 people having been tested, a case fatality rate of 1.33% ist totally outdated. Actually 1,9 %. --2A04:4540:6C1D:B600:E1BA:8F39:2D61:D14E (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Government measures

Can anyone cite this? https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/rest-of-the-world-news/s-korea-to-use-electronic-wristbands-to-implement-quarantine-measures.html

The use of electronic bracelets. Thanks. --83.38.50.205 (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Correction request

Since you're blocking me from editing: Government reactions/The number of inspections "The Blue House announced on 28 February the current status of coronavirus tests in Korea, comparing the testing situation in the United States and Japan. The number of inspections was 26 and 120 times higher than in those countries respectively as of 28 Feb. The cumulative number of inspections was about 53,000 by South Korea, while Japan was about 2,000, and in US about 440 cases were examined" Should be ...testing situation in Japan and the United States or else the 26 and 120 are backwards. Also, the correct number would be 27 not 26 as one would round up.184.181.109.140 (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

"Corona in South Korea" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Corona in South Korea. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2020

The opening line of this article is nonsense. Please change:

"The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic spread to South Korea on 20 January 2020, when the first case was announced."

into

"The first case of COVID-19 in South Korea was announced on 20 January 2020."

203.241.147.21 (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Jack Frost (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2020

Add {{pp-semi-indef}} 182.239.85.238 (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done TheImaCow (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)