Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Misinformation section photo/visual

One proposed visual, of the Xinhua News Agency building

A while back, there was general agreement that we don't want to use any one person's photo for the misinformation section. More recently, I tried adding a photo of a news agency in China that has been among the ones spreading misinformation. It was swapped out for a video, which was then removed for having promotion at the end. What visual should we have for this section? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Acalycine and 107.190.33.254: Okay, so we've had some tangential discussion on the caption which I've sectioned out below, but to get back on topic is the photo itself desirable? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I suppose the image is fine for its purposes, but I still do not accept the premise of its inclusion here. I don't see evidence of actual 'misinformation' spread by Xinhau detailed in the Telegraph article. Are there any other sources for this specifically? Acalycine (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Some quick Googling turned up this: [1]. If there's another news agency that better exemplifies misinformation, we could use that instead (perhaps Fox News?). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Looks like an op-ed encouraging Zhao's line of questioning and asking some rhetorical questions about double standards. I don't see what I would call 'objective misinformation', (i.e. somebody claiming with confidence that this came from a lab, or somebody claiming it can be treated with bleach), nonetheless this probably fits in the Misinformation section as a conspiracy theory. I support either this Xinhau visual, a visual of the Chinese diplomat floating the conspiracy theory, or the video of President Trump (see below). Thank you! Acalycine (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Xinhua caption

Assuming you were the one who added the current photo + caption about Xinhua, may I ask this: how does the Telegraph source provided (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/04/05/china-floods-facebook-instagram-undeclared-coronavirus-propaganda/) show that the news agency has been spreading misinformation about the origins of the virus? All I see is ads for an op-ed, an ad for a transcription of an address by Xi Jinping, and two ads for (seemingly biased) videos about China's response. I just don't think these ads constitute misinformation about the origins of the virus. Thanks. Acalycine (talk) 09:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The article is rather clear that "Chinese state media is flooding Facebook and Instagram with undisclosed political adverts whitewashing its role in the coronavirus pandemic and pinning blame on Donald Trump"; and this is also rather clear that "the Chinese government misled the world about the coronavirus.". I don't think it is in dispute that the Chinese government and it's puppet state media have engaged in misinformation (the only question, which is not too relevant for this discussion, is "how much?"). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

What you have just posted does not answer my question. The caption (and therefore my post) is talking about misinformation about the origins of the virus. You have not demonstrated that, and it sounds like you're close to breaching WP:NPOV. Regardless, would you say that having "Chinese state media editorials have criticised President Trump's response in the United States" is more neutral than "Chinese state media is flooding Facebook and Instagram with undisclosed political adverts whitewashing its role in the coronavirus pandemic and pinning blame on Donald Trump"? I take issue with the term 'whitewashing' - that does not sound neutral at all. I would also advise you to look at the consensus about adding conspiracy theories about the origin of the virus. Thanks. Acalycine (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The IP is very much in compliance with WP:WikiProject Novels as far as I can tell... {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Ha, thank you. Acalycine (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I meant the news article you were referring to. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Of course, I have no problem to it being rephrased more neutrally, I was just saying that it's rather unanimous that there has been some form of misinformation coming from Chinese authorities. Of course, if there's nothing in the news about misinformation regarding origins then it can be left out. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand and agree with rephrasing it more neutrally, but I am still confused about what misinformation specifically you are talking about. What did Chinese authorities say that constitutes 'objective' misinformation? Not trying to debate here, just seeking to know what the claims are, because the Telegraph, to me, does not show any evidence of objective 'misinformation'. (For example, I don't consider an op-ed as misinformation, because it's an opinion and is labelled as such). Acalycine (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I actually wasn't the one who wrote the caption; I believe I borrowed it and the source from the misinformation article. I haven't read the article super closely, but if it'd be more accurate to leave out the word "origins", that'd probably be okay. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Trump video

Why not add the most damaging example of bad info to date...--Moxy 🍁 12:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Press briefing: President Trump suggests (at 1:14:14) that disinfectants such as bleach could be used on the coronavirus, by injection or other means.

Yes I agree with User:Moxy. I think this is nearly the most notable as well as clear instance of misinformation so reasonable to add here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I support this. Do we have consensus? Acalycine (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Be very careful with the caption under the photo. So we don't do misinformation ourself. Iluvalar (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree need better caption. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, this is okay to me. The caption needs to be improved as mentioned above, though, so that we note clearly that what Trump is saying is considered misinformation. I'd also want the video trimmed to be only the part where Trump actually says the misinformation — it's great that we link to the timestamp where the relevant part is, but the first few times I reviewed the misinfo article, I didn't click on it since I assumed it wouldn't link to the right timestamp and had no interest in watching all of an hour+ long press conference, and I assume many readers may think similarly. No one is going to want to watch the whole thing anyways, and even if they did, I'd have concerns about including it raw without context, as I'm guessing there's probably misinformation in other parts of it, too. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree this would be the best visual, for the reasons Moxy and Doc James give. It seems more clearly relevant than a photo of the building of a news agency where it's not clear that the agency spread misinformation (at all, let alone so regularly that it would be sensible to single them out as the literal poster example of misinfo). (Likewise, the document—written in Chinese, not legible to a large portion of the English Wikupedia's audience—ordering Li Wenliang to stop spreading "rumours" does not seem like a good image for illustrating misinformation, per se, since as Acalycine says in the subsection below, the main inaccuracy seems to have been that since it wasn't known at the time that this was a separate virus from SARS, he referred to it as SARS; it could work as an image of "information dissemination", as suggested below, but that section is short and may not need its own image.) Similar to Sdkb, I would definitely prefer if we could use an except that consisted of only the relevant statement we're intending to highlight (although I'm not opposed to using the full video if no-onen has the energy to upload the excerpt). -sche (talk) 06:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Definitely support - I'll have a go at making an excerpt. Acalycine (talk) 06:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is the excerpt I trimmed. Suitable or not? We should perfect the caption before using it. Acalycine (talk) 07:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think that this page should be used for scientific information, not for political talking points and propaganda. David A (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended discussion on the politics of this

I assume that you believe the video/other proposals do not constitute technical 'misinformation'. May you please explain why you don't think they are examples of technical 'misinformation'? Merriam-Webster: incorrect or misleading information. Please note that listing examples of misinformation on this page can be political, but that is ultimately irrelevant as that is not our purpose. For example, stating that a political candidate campaigns on abortion rights is political, but it should be included nonetheless. Ultimately, we're selecting the most prominent example of misinformation through consensus. If you disagree, feel free to discuss your reasons. Acalycine (talk) 08:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC) I simply believe that it is unprofessional for an encyclopaedia to use a global pandemic as an opportunity to slam a politician that many of the editors find stupid and distasteful, when the focus should lie in trying to present matter-of-fact information, and to avoid massive amounts of deaths, famine, global depression, and possibly resulting global warfare from the fallout. David A (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC) For example, Xi Jinping is far more responsible for the pandemic than Trump is, and is running around a thousand concentration camps for political dissidents, but we still avoid focusing specifically on him, despite that he objectively is far more genuinely evil than Trump. David A (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Your Orwell quote in your user page is quite ironic here. Acalycine (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Look, I am just neutral about Trump, which hopefully isn't considered a thought crime yet. However, I think that a brief video clip featuring somebody that you dislike saying something stupid inserted into an academic article without further context, does not seem much more appropriate than some public figure getting a custard pie in the face and making a pratfall inserted into an article about cooking. It is the sort of thing better left for meme threads in discussion forums. David A (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC) somebody that you dislike: I don't think anybody here has said this. Why are you assuming things? without further context: There is context, and there will be context provided in the caption, alongside context in the misinformation section it will be included in. Do you consider his comments misinformation or not? Thank you. Acalycine (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Most active Wikipedians that I have noticed seem to strongly dislike Trump. In any case, I believe that he made ill-considered offhanded statements about something he did not understand or think through, but not that it should be taken as extremely relevant deliberate propaganda based on his deep personal convictions. The media uproar surrounding the issue was very overblown i.m.h.o. David A (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC) deliberate propaganda: who said this was deliberate propaganda? The consensus reached here is that it is misinformation. Misinformation is different from disinformation. Surely an Orwell reader would know the difference . This video should be added as it is the most prominent example of pure misinformation so far. That doesn't mean inclusion of the video is partisan, nor does it mean inclusion = calling Trump a deliberate propaganda-artist. It will and should adhere to WP:NPOV. Thank you. Acalycine (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC) It still reads like an attempt to make a controversial politician look foolish by inserting an irrelevant pratfall video to me, but I suppose that we will have to agree to disagree. David A (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC) David, "they" find trump stupid. Sure. But that's exactly why they feel neutral to acknowledge that medias did misinformation quoting him poorly. The question he asked live to his guest was, hmmm.., suboptimal already. I'm glad I have a source about Dr. Birx face of disbelief at that moment [2] XD. Contrary to Sdkb, I was looking live. But the media claim (and the pretty on point lysol's ad) about him suggesting anyone to just go do that, was complete misinformation. And I think that's what everyone here want to talk about right ? The next link is just a vlog : [3]. Iluvalar (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Okay. I thought that this was about Trump saying something stupid that supposedly encouraged people to inject themselves with disinfectant, so I preferred if the page stayed professional, as it deals with a very serious issue. A global depression, mass-starvation, and potential warfare are far more important than personal sentiments about Trump. David A (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Good job cutting the video down to the relevant portion for use here. Anyone want to propose any changes the caption (above, on the full video file)? -sche (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's my attempt:

U.S. president Donald Trump suggested at a press briefing 23 April that disinfectant injections or exposure to ultraviolet light might help treat COVID-19. There is no evidence that either could be a viable method. (1:05 min)

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, as detailed in the hidden section above, I still consider this to be pointless, trivial, and irrelevant pratfall video "gotcha" propaganda inserted into an article detailing an extremely serious subject matter. Let's all please try to focus on how to avoid as much death, suffering, and economic destruction as possible, rather than constantly obsess about getting Trump no matter what. David A (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Support this caption. Maybe insert 'on' before '23 April'. Are we good to post? Acalycine (talk) 06:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I've added it. (David A, in what way is Trump volunteering misinformation a "gotcha"? It arguably is "propaganda", but not in the way you seem to think.) It's a great illustration of what the section is about, a world leader spreading misinformation. -sche (talk) 07:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I still think that including a video of a politician misspeaking in an in itself trivial manner is unprofessional and slanted derailment of the article, but if nobody here agrees with my points, there isn't much that I can do about it. David A (talk) 10:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

David, what makes you think any of us here are professionals? Are you getting paid for this? I'm certainly not. A press briefing dedicated to a pandemic is not trivial. Acalycine (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia should ideally strive towards being professional, not onesided propaganda, to take its responsibility as something that the public can rely on. And an ill-considered offhanded comment that is a very small part of the total information briefing is trivial, especially compared with the sheer severity of the global crisis situation in sum total, which is what this page should focus on. David A (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Why can't the article focus on both? How far off are we from the byte limit on this page? You're presenting a false dichotomy between information and...more information. It's the most well-known example, therefore we should include it. End of story. Acalycine (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Another option

Document issued by the Wuhan Police ordering Li Wenliang to stop "spreading rumours" about a possible 'SARS virus' dated 3 January.

Oh wait, hold up, I found another good option at the China article. This could be placed in the "information dissemination" section rather than the "misinformation" subsection that comprises most of it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

How is this technically misinformation? He was punished for Posting untrue statement "7 confirmed SARS cases at Wuhan Hua'nan Fruit and Seafood Market", which is technically true - it wasn't SARS (which is deadlier). I agree that his statements may have helped raise awareness about the virus, and help people take precautions, but this is of course in hindsight. Acalycine (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

EDIT: is your proposal that a) Li's statements were misinformation or b) the police's letter was misinformation? I may be misinterpreting you above. Acalycine (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Acalycine: My contention isn't as strong as either of those, but rather just that the document is an important part of the story of information dissemination about the pandemic. The information dissemination section is about 80% the misinformation subsection right now, but we could put in an image aligned to either one (although not both, since there's not room). It looks like we may be moving toward agreement on the Trump video above, so hopefully this won't be necessary as a backup, but just clarifying, since if we do need a fallback this would be my choice. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Second sentence of lead

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.

---

The second sentence of the lead was recently changed from The outbreak was identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. to The outbreak was first identified in Wuhan, China, with the earliest case likely beginning in early December 2019. following edits going back and forth a little from Yodabyte, Acalycine, and myself. (Also pinging Doc James, who thanked me for my partial revert.) How should we phrase this? I lean toward more concise language if we can manage to use it accurately. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

For context, I believe there are two seperate 'disputes' here: a) 'identified' was originally changed to 'originated' by Yodabyte, then reverted by CaradhrasAiguo, then reverted again by Yodabyte. I then changed 'originated' to 'identified' as I did not see a reason provided for the change to 'originated', and thought that 'identified' was more technically correct. b) In this same edit, I added with the earliest recorded patient's illness beginning as a supplement to the already-existing early December 2019, as it would not make sense to say that it was identified in early December (this is not supported by the source). So essentially the disputes have been over a) originated vs identified and b) whether or not to include with the earliest recorded patient's illness beginning [in early December, 2019]. Thanks! Acalycine (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I am for more concise aswell. It was first identified sometime in December https://www.who.int/csr/don/12-january-2020-novel-coronavirus-china/en/

I support this "The outbreak was identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019." which is what we have currently. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: Agreed, but with early December rather than December. Is that okay with you? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I prefer just "December" The Lancet article says "In December, 2019, a series of pneumonia cases of unknown cause emerged in Wuhan, Hubei, China, with clinical presentations greatly resembling viral pneumonia"[4]

WHO says "The cluster was initially reported on 31 December 2019, when the WHO China Country Office was informed."[5]

The symptom onset as of Dec 8th is in retrospect not when it was identified as this disease. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The outbreak was identified in late December. The onset of symptoms was early December. Acalycine (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

"The outbreak originated in Wuhan, China, in early December 2019" still seems to be the most accurate NPOV wording (please point out where I'm wrong on this). The word "early" should definitely be included in the sentence since Dec 1 is not only the "early" part of the month but literally the first day (as opposed to say Dec 9 which would be borderline mid-Dec so "early" probably wouldn't be necessary). Reliable sources also say it is likely the virus originated earlier sometime in November (expert estimate suggests an origin between 22-24 Nov 2019). That said should the wording be changed to something like "the outbreak originated in Wuhan, China, in early December 2019. Some sources say the outbreak began earlier in November 2019". Here is one NYT article with Nov date: in Wuhan...where the virus is believed to have been circulating since as early as November[6]Yodabyte (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The November hypothesis is discussed later in this article, and labelled as 'unconfirmed'. Here's what is sourced in this article. Regarding "identified" vs "originated", I would still posit that "identified" is the better choice. To me "originated" implies that there is consensus regarding the origin of the virus, when in-fact a source of zoonosis or other transmission has not yet been identified. I would also say that your additional sentence suggestion is possibly at conflict with a need for conciseness (if a consensus on conciseness has been reached here). Lastly, is that 22-24 Nov estimate from genome analysis? It looks familiar. Acalycine (talk) 09:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

originated implies that there is consensus regarding the origin of the virus...Right now there appears to be consensus amongst RS that it originated in China. That is why that language belongs in the lead.Yodabyte (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Which reliable sources specifically? Can you point me towards scientific articles that conclusively show the origin (location) of this virus? The History section of this article does not seem to reflect a consensus of which you speak of: There are several theories about where the very first case (the so-called patient zero) may have originated. The Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 article also does not seem to reflect this consensus: There is no evidence yet to link an intermediate animal reservoir, such as a pangolin, to its introduction to humans....The original source of viral transmission to humans remains unclear, as does whether the strain became pathogenic before or after the spillover event.. Acalycine (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The first valid information I know about come from this source [7], there was an estimated 75815 people infected only in the city of Wuhan by January 25. In that context, knowing there was 1 case in December doesn't help much finding the origin. We also learned recently that there was also at least 1 case in France in December. The next big data point I know about is Lombardy on March 16, they had ~400 deaths a day (the first city in the world to kinda test most of them). Iluvalar (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't exactly understand the relevance between your statements and what I'm asking/discussing, specifically regarding a claim there is scientific consensus on the conclusive origin of the virus. Can you explain what you mean? Thanks. Acalycine (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

There is none, that was my point. Sorry for the confusion. Iluvalar (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Outbreaks get identified in a place, then they attempt to find the source. With this particular outbreak that became a pandemic, no one yet knows the source, or "patient 0" as it were if indeed there was such a patient. For example, in food borne outbreaks of things like salmonella, one might be able to trace to the source being a comtaminated food handler etc. However, this pandemic has no known source, thus far. WP:CRYSTAL to use any other words than "first identified" IMO --Almaty (talk) 07:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with User:Almaty Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I maintain my agreement with this compromise position of "first identified". It's the best option. Personally I think with the earliest case likely beginning in early December 2019. is favourable as it conveys an important piece of information which should be in the lead, but of course if consistency is paramount I will agree. Thanks. Acalycine (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

We also know that it was in France in December now (although I haven't had a chance to find or criticise the method of testing old samples if it is indeed published) --Almaty (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

True, but that may not be relevant as the "earliest case" in this discussion started at 1 December - the French case's sample was taken on 27 December but I'm not sure when onset happened (don't think its mentioned in the study which hasn't been peer-reviewed yet iirc, would be interesting to see if they can do genome analysis on the sample). Regardless, it's not concrete evidence of the origin of the virus (i.e. zoonosis location), as with the 1 December case in China. Thanks. Acalycine (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey

Seeing as if discussion has appeared to stall, I think we should finalise consensus on this. Options:

1. The outbreak was identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019.
2. The outbreak was first identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019.
3. The outbreak originated in Wuhan, China, in early December 2019.
4. The outbreak was first identified in Wuhan, China, with the earliest case likely beginning in early December 2019.

• Support 4 firstly, 2 secondly Acalycine (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• support 2 only becuase 3 and 4 are incorrect per the sources, and 1 is unnecessarily non specific . --Almaty (talk)

What source contradicts 4? Here's the source I'm using to make that assertion. Acalycine (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Your source as well contradicts four. It states Major gaps in our knowledge of the origin. Wikipedia since the start of the article and throughout its progression, on many aspects, has attempted to state that we know things that we simply do not know. We don't know the origin. We have theories. It is a legitimate theory that it may have originated in France or Italy. --Almaty (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I think you misunderstand me. I agree that we don't know the origin and personally I'm sick of people claiming the opposite. I agree that you don't support 3, but 4 is technically correct. It was first identified (unless you want it to say 'first publicly identified) in Wuhan. 4 only states that it was identified there, not that it originated there. The 'earliest case' is supported by the source. I fear you misunderstand my position here. Acalycine (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The earliest case is not known, China is sitting on some data if SCMP are to be believed, and also that cases occured in France and Italy in December. So its not likely, thats why we are ambiguous about that. --Almaty (talk) 04:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying that anybody knows the earliest case, only that the 1 December case is the earliest known so far. The French/Italian cases' disease onsets begun later than 1 December, no? The 1 December case is detailed in the source linked. See Figure 1 (B). Are you suggesting we should drop the term 'likely'? I think 'likely' is needed because there may be earlier cases than 1 December discovered in the future. The source linked conclusively supports 4, though - I'm not sure what your dispute with it is. Are you suggesting there are other scientific sources demonstrating earlier cases than 1 December? Please link if so. Acalycine (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support 3 or 4 - Lancet uses "emerged" so maybe that wording is better than originated/identified but 3 or 4 is most accurate IMO. As far as including "early" I don't understand why there is any serious issue since it is literally a fact (i.e. Dec.1 = early December). Like I said above I don't think this would be that important if it was Dec. 8th or 9th but the added detail of "early" should be included since it was Dec. 1st. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yodabyte (talk • contribs) 12:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

To me, 3 implies the origin of the virus was Wuhan. There is no scientific consensus on the origin, as per the multitude of sources in this article, hence why I think 4 is the better choice as it reflects the consensus to the most correct degree. Personally I don't have issue with 'early' - does anyone here? Acalycine (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Either 2 or 4. -sche (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Either 2 or 4. QueerFilmNerd^talk 03:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose 4 as unconcise. Prefer 2 given that "first identified" is more appropriately cautious language than "originated". No view about whether or not to add "early", since I'm not willing to read the sprawling dialogue that occurred above when I asked about it and I don't want to give an uninformed !vote. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support 1 as concise. 2 would be second choice. 4 is overly long and oppose 3 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Since voting has stalled, it looks like we have a consensus for 2. I'll edit the lead accordingly. Acalycine (talk) 14:36, 11 May 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.

Highway sign image

The editor EelamStyleZ has been adding and re-adding his own photo in this article despite being reverted numerous time. Besides the questionable WP:Ownership traits being displayed, they are using deceitful edit summaries "unexplained rv" despite clear revert edit summaries being provided. The photo they are attempting to add is dark, and of poor quality. I understand they are proud of their own picture, but repeated reverts and refusal to use talk page is unacceptable. Gizapink (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Neither image appears to be significantly worse or better than the other (they both adequately illustrate the topic); one was taken in overcast weather, the other is sunny (but both are clearly visible); one is bilingual, the other has a longer English-only message. None of these are major differences. In any case, an edit war over relatively similar pictures seems excessively silly. @EelamStyleZ: If you think that your image is inherently superior and should be used instead of the other one would you please explain it here? Otherwise per WP:STATUSQUO I'd suggest we keep the previous image. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gizapink: It's not about ownership. Your explanation of "poor quality" is completely subjective. The Toronto image was added to the Socioeconomics section as early as this edit. You decided to replace it with an image of Ottawa that is not only overexposed but of similar resolution. A dark image does not constitute to poor quality. Both the Ottawa and Toronto image illustrate the same subject. So without exactly describing what you mean by "low quality", it seems you are completely hypocritical with your accusation of WP:Ownership. Your threats of "Do not remove!" are pretty childish. I could invoke a number of WP guidelines but I think it's pretty clear what you're trying to accomplish with these edit wars. EelamStyleZ (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Your image is taken at dusk and has poor lighting. A better Ottawa image is available. Plain and simple. You keep adding your own picture and it is coming off quite childish. Gizapink (talk) 05:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

My two cents is that the Toronto sign has the advantage of being more legible at thumbnail size. Both images are adequately lit, and in general I agree with 107.190.33.254's comment. On a balance, I weakly prefer the Toronto image. -sche (talk) 07:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You're still giving nonconstructive, opinionated explanations as to why your image should replace the existing one. Both are exactly the same (taken from a moving vehicle through the windshield it seems) and one does not prevail over the other in terms of quality. It's better to keep the status quo and leave the existing (Toronto) highway sign image. If your issue is with dusk (it was actually dawn), there are multiple images taken in low sunlight on the page. It is perplexing as to why this one bothers you the most. Until a general consensus is reached, I advise you to stop adamant reverts. Also, using my own words right back at me, especially on my talk page is really a class act. Thank you to 107.190.33.254 and -sche for your inputs. EelamStyleZ (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually you are the one who is not following consensus. The Ottawa image was up for weeks before YOU reverted it for YOUR photo. Weeks up = consensus. I understand you took a drive into the city and want to showcase YOUR image. But a better one came along and was up for weeks before you started throwing a tantrum. Gizapink (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Check your facts. File:Covid-19 Freeway Sign in Ottawa, March 2020.jpg, the image you're trying to promote, was created on April 25, 2020 (falsely labelled as March 2020 on the file name). That date is gathered when you upload to Wikimedia Commons using the file's metadata. The image that you don't like for whatever reason and constantly trying to take down with amateur expanations, File:COVID-19 highway sign in Toronto, March 2020 (cropped).jpg, was created by me March 28, 2020, was added to the COVID-19 pandemic article in this edit on April 9 (cropped to reduce file size later by another fellow user), well before the Ottawa image was even created. Looking into it a little further, that Ottawa image was apparently produced with an iPhone 8, whereas the Toronto image was created with an iPhone XS Max. So with regards to your reasoning of "low quality", I'm ready to discuss the differences in both in terms of camera and image processing. I rest my case. - EelamStyleZ (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but your poor quality image was replaced and stayed in place for several weeks, which constitutes consensus. Then you began to repeatedly vandalize the article with adding your own image in repeatedly despite being reverted. You used deceptive edit summaries to try and fly under the radar with you disruptive edits. Gizapink (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Both of you need to put the stick down and walk away from the dead horse. This back-and-forth could, maybe should, attract admin attention. Between you, choose a photo and end this back and forth. doktorb _words^deeds 15:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I’ve made my case. This user simply wants to have it their way, taking it personal, exploding with different accusations each time. I agree actually, some more administrators could pitch in. Perhaps remove the two images all together if consensus can’t be reached. My point is, an adequately functional image in that section shouldn’t be replaced based on “low quality” when the user is replacing it with an image that isn’t any better and seems to only view this as a city vs city war. EelamStyleZ (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Dude, you're the only one taking this personal. You're also projecting quite a bit and throwing out a lot of accusations. Relax, take a deep breath. I've never exploded or made different accusations. A better lighting daytime image came along and was used for several weeks. Plain and simple. It's been you that has thrown a child-like tantrum and made deceitful edit summaries when your own photo was no longer used. Gizapink (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I've switched back(?) to the Toronto image, as it is clearer. Gizapink you seem to be the only(?) one preferring the Ottawa image; if you wanna have a whole RFC on this, I can't stop you, but the comments above suggest letting this go is the more supported course of action... -sche (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

[{ping|Gizapink}}: you claim, in your edit summary, that the Ottawa image is the "consensus image", but I see no consensus for it above. Edit-warring over something this lame is inadvisable (though still blockable). -sche (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

It's so funny how he claims I use deceptive edit summaries under the radar, yet he accuses my edits as "vandalism". Classic. Grow up. - EelamStyleZ (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

It’s even funnier that I’m being told to “grow up” by a guy throwing a tantrum because his cell phone picture he took on his big trip into the city got replaced. I think you should take your own advice and grow up. It’s not that big of a deal. Gizapink (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Update, he has been listed for edit warring and it's not his first, earlier resulting in a block. Personal attacks seem common with him too. Not surprised. - EelamStyleZ (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding reports of November case to History section

Should we add this report of a case from November? The source for the case was according to government data seen by the South China Morning Post. Acalycine (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest to include it first at the Pandemic-in-China entry, then wait for non-chinese sources to report on it before including it here at the pandemic entry.--Forich (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistent colour schemes

Good day. I am inviting everyone to give their views and opinions about the inconsistency of colour schemes on density maps by country/territory. It seems like most countries are not using the colours used in File:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map.svg and adding legends on the map itself. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@HueMan1: That's a good topic to bring up, and something that's been bothering me for a while. As it happens, Jeandré du Toit has just brought it up at the COVID-19 WikiProject. Let's discuss further there to keep everything centralized, given that this could affect many articles. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: That's a good thing to know. I thought no one has noticed it yet. Thank you for informing me! —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 00:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19 § Best universal colors for maps and graphs?

USS Kidd and MV Artania

These two ships appear to have dropped out of the statistics table. I can't find any mention or note as to why. Is there a reason and have their numbers been incorporated elsewhere ? Many thanks Alert Ted (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Alert Ted:, the two ships have been removed because their count is included in the total of their respective countries. MV Artania numbers are counted in Australia numbers in all official counts (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:COVID-19_pandemic_data#Ship). USS Kidd numbers are counted in the US numbers. You can find more information here: COVID-19 pandemic on cruise ships and COVID-19 pandemic on naval ships. Raphaël Dunant (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Additions to UK and Iran

@Steelechloe817: Thanks for your recent additions to the Iran and UK sections. They look well written, but they're unfortunately too long for this article, which has room for only a few paragraphs per country. Would you be willing to try trimming them down to a sentence or two each, and moving the more detailed information to the specific articles for Iran and the UK? Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

WHO

thought Id post this here, regardless if its incorporated into this particular article....."The cost of inaction: COVID-19-related service disruptions could cause hundreds of thousands of extra deaths from HIV". www.who.int. Retrieved 12 May 2020.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

An article on the effects of COVID19 on other health conditions could be useful at some point. It is likely to result in a resurgence of measles and polio in the long term as the world concentrates on just this one disease. Is having negative effects on cancer and cardiac care already. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: which highway sign should be used?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Clear support for Option A over Option B. (However, this shouldn't be taken to mean that there is strong endorsement of using a highway photo in the first place; if we find a better candidate in the future, it may be removed.) Now, can we please get back to discussing things that actually matter? (non-admin closure) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Should the highway sign pictured in the article be sign A or sign B? -sche (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

A.

B.

I can't believe we're having to have a whole RfC about this, but here we are. Prior discussion at #Highway_sign_image, WP:LAME edit-warring visible in the article history. -sche (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

My apologies this pointless disagreement had to stoop to this level, but I see it as an opportunity to distinguish good faith edits from bad ones and discourage edit warring/personal attacking without engagement and consensus. Thank you for this RfC. - EelamStyleZ (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

This was not the original image that was replaced. I see you've edited the image to remove your cars smashed windshield and zoomed in on the sign. Had you presented this image in the first place it would have never been replaced. Well done. Gizapink (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

---

A is clearer and more legible at thumbnail resolution. -sche (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

A This is ridicoulous as an RfC, but A as per comment above and the fact that this is English Wikipedia, no real use of having half of it in French. Zoozaz1 (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

A Despite marginal quality/compression issues, A is much more legible due to larger text and no foreign language component. The text also pops a little more as the bright sunlight in B leaves the surrounding image a little washed out. BlackholeWA (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

A, definitely a ridiculous RfC, but I agree, A is easier to read. QueerFilmNerd^talk 01:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

A, much easier to read, closer-up. Acalycine (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

A, I agree with all above. It is more easy on the eyes. OyMosby (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

A, obviously. Agathoclea (talk) 08:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

A, Not a big deal, but A. Its easier to read. The most rediculous RFC I hove contributed in yet. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 13:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• A the one you can read. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:20, 13 May 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.

Position of template

{{COVID-19 pandemic data}}

This template covers a number of aspects of epidemiology and thus I have put it at the top of that section. It has been their most of the time over the last couple of months. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

seems reasonable--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—2405:205:1108:DF39:0:0:2B21:A8A1 (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

You haven't said what you think is wrong with the coordinates. The only coordinates in the article are those in the "Index case" field in the infobox, and those certainly indicate a location in Wuhan. If you still think that there is an error, you'll need to provide a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at the COVID-19 WikiProject on standardizing various aspects of maps

 You are invited to join the discussion at w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19#Best universal colors for maps and graphs?. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Photo request

This would be much better than just a map showing its location. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 10:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

What about this? Not the best image though, an interior view would be good. Acalycine (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the only one I found, too. It's not really good enough to be usable; we want a photo of a market, not a street. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 10:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

About legends for each map

I don't know if this question is already asked, but I found none in my searching. I want to use {{Legend}} for each legend for each map. But I don't know if that is the best move considering most of the maps themselves not using the template. Is it okay for me to change it or is it because that template will be affecting the loading time for the page? SNN95 (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@SNN95: Are you talking about adding legends where they don't exist, or about switching the code so that it starts using {{Legend}}. If the former, yes, please do that, it'll be helpful for accessibility. If the latter, it was changed to help with the size limit, yeah. You may also want to see this conversation on legends more generally happening right now. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 10:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: About switching the code into template. But anyways thanks for that info. I might left it as it is now. Thanks again. SNN95 (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Should we switch the lead infobox map from cases per capita to deaths per capita?

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.

---

Per Metropolitan's arguments here, the death count is a better metric at this point of the severity of a pandemic in a given region than the case count, since the latter is highly dependent on the region's testing capacity. Accordingly, I propose that we switch to using the deaths per capita map as the top map in the infobox, with the others collapsed beneath. Sdkb (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. For months, we have focused on case counts. I see no compelling argument to change this right now. I understand that testing is not being evenly applied across regions but the case count (and cases per million) is the best number we have right now to measure the extent to which the pandemic has impacted each region. And testing volumes are increasing dramatically everywhere. Death rates are greatly influenced by each region's healthcare system quality and capacity. I'd oppose changing for now. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

One way to look at it might be that we want the map to reflect the fact that some countries' weaker healthcare systems are leading to higher death counts there. Sdkb (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Support. The current stage of the crisis is of a different nature than what it was in january, requiring us to change our perception on this. Some countries such as South Korea or Germany have tested at a very large scale, even people with very mild symptoms or no at all [8]. However, in many other countries such as Italy, Spain, France or the UK, healthcare systems are totally overwhelmed and the testing capacity is saturated. Testing is limited only to the most serious cases and healthcare workers [9]. As a result, the number of confirmed cases reported daily remains steady, not because we're nearing its peak but simply because there's no testing capacity to report more. Using this metric as the main one can easily lead to very fallacious conclusions about the maturity and intensity of the epidemics from a country to another. Obviously deaths count has its own bias as well [10], yet, very sadly, the number of deaths will never reach any saturation point like testing does. As such, reported deaths remain, despite its flaws, a much better metric to get an idea about the intensity of the epidemic in each country. Therefore, it would seem wiser to use the deaths metric as the ranking by default on Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data table. Metropolitan (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I think these concerns can be fairly addressed with a footnote. We're already seeing death-to-case ratios vary by an order of magnitude from one country to the next so I really don't think counting deaths is a fair indicator of anything. Testing capacity limits are rapidly being resolved and cheaper and faster tests will come to market over the next few weeks. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The first map is based off a recent consensus formed here. It's to early from that to change it in my opinion. — RealFakeKimT 14:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

  @RealFakeKim: When I formulated the question for that RfC, you'll notice that I referred only to "per capita" vs. "total", and left out the word "cases". That was a deliberate choice, since I anticipated we might at some point want to switch to using death counts instead. I'll leave it to others with more medical/statistical experience to decide what the best approach is at this point (I haven't been persuaded to wed myself to one or the other yet), but I don't think that that RfC should be used as an argument against switching. The other maps RfC might serve as a slightly better precedent, but it was a little muddled since it was asking about per capita vs. totals/cases vs. deaths/collapsed vs. uncollapsed all at the same time. Plus it was started over a week ago, which is meaningful given how rapidly the situation is evolving. Sdkb (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: Death is not the only consequence of the disease, and the constant fixation on the fatality rate in the media can likely be of partial blame for the complacency seen among the general public (e.g. "It's no big deal, only 3.5% die!" or "Don't worry, only boomers and retirees die!"). There are plenty of infected patients that do not die, but end up in ICU and require emergency intervention, not to mention we don't fully understand the long-term chronic implications of the disease yet (e.g. lung tissue scarring, and whether or not patients are able to eventually regain most of their pre-infection lung capacity). The spotlight needs to be on infection, and not excessively on cases of death. --benlisquare_T•C•E 17:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This is an incredibly important point. I'd also add that as treatment improves in coming weeks and months, the death rate will become a weaker and weaker indicator of the pandemic's reach. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support Per capita confirmed cases were always dependant on testing capacity, and as the pandemic continues and countries like the US fail to increase testing capacity, the numbers quickly become misleading. Unfortunately, deaths are not subject to the same issues of testing capacity; we could test no one and the rate of reported deaths would remain the same. Given the known issues with testing capacity in many countries and the growing death toll, per capita deaths are a better representation of the extent of the pandemic. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Wouldn't this depend on the country's (or local provincial) specific procedures? If there is little to no testing capability for cadavers, then if an untested patient dies, wouldn't the cause of death be recorded as unrelated pneumonia? If the local provincial/national policy was to cremate all pneumonia-case bodies, tested or untested, would they record all bodies as coronavirus cases? --benlisquare_T•C•E 02:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Not necessarily. The testing capacity required to have an accurate count of deaths is much lower than the testing capacity required to have an accurate count of infections. If we ballpark the death rate at 3%, you'd need 30 times more testing to identify 90% of confirmed case than you would need to identify every death (and that's assuming we never test someone without the disease). It also is more likely that in regions with limited testing capacity, tests will be limited to severe cases which are also the ones most likely to die, so cases that lead to death are more likely to be identified well before actual death. I find it unlikely that covid19 deaths will go misreported as pneumonia-related deaths since every doctor in the world is on the lookout for patients with pneumonia-like symptoms. Even if there are the occasional errors, the much greater error is using data we know represents testing capacity and not infection rates and then tell readers that it represents infection rates. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

In some countries, the number of deaths counted depends on testing, so the whole point is moot. For example, in Iran, it is said that they classed the deaths as pneumonia or other causes if they had not been tested for the virus. Hzh (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support As @Wugapodes: stated. The readers want to make sure these details are there for them to see. We cant have anymore misinfomation or missing detail on such heavily worked topic. Regice2020 (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Death is only one of the possible symptoms of COVID-19. People who spend days in ICU and place a significant stain on the healthcare system are also to be accounted for. The main map should reflect the spread of COVID-19, not the number of respirators available to save people. Moreover, countries that under-report the number of cases often also under-report the number of death. Of course if the global consensus goes towards death per capita map, then we should follow it!Raphaël Dunant (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Is the most object quantity (with least amount of uncertainty) Voorlandt (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• oppose per Raphael Dunant--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep as is Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Death numbers are much more comparable between countries. For example Iceland and Norway have tested a large portion of the population, so the map gives impression of high, but very few died, which is a more reliable number. Also: We should always prioritize numbers per capita over absolute numbers.Tomastvivlaren (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose No good reason to change it, especially as the death rates appear to vary considerably between countries, over ten times the difference in some cases (e.g. very low in Germany but very high in Italy). Hzh (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

  The above is likely explained by Germans testing much more than Italians by now. The above is a reason to prioritize the death map, not because deaths are the only important thing, but because deaths are probably a better basis for an estimate of the real cases than the confirmed cases are; both confirmed deaths and confirmed cases are subject to incomplete testing, but deaths would seem less so. Ideally, show both per capita maps and drop the map with absolute numbers, and then it will be no longer so important which of the two maps is prioritized. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

No, since some countries don't count deaths they haven't tested, they simply attribute deaths to other causes like pneumonia, therefore death number would also be unreliable. Hzh (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Too soon. There will come a time. But right now for a current event what is more of interest is the infections/infection rate. --Calthinus (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The per capita map just needs its ranges tweaked or added to. It's far too homogeneous in colour to be helpful at conveying the data. Worse, it might be misleading, implying some countries have similar rates when it's anything but. If you're going to lead with that map you at least need to include the specific numbers in the following chart because, as it stands, it requires users to look all of the information up themselves and do the math.135.23.106.211 (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The article should switch to using a harmonic mean of infection rates, hospitalization rates, intubation rates, and fatality rates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.111.74 (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support The deaths per capita, although comes with its own biases, is a better indicator of the effect on the region and is less affected by the saturated testing capacity in many regions.--17jiangz1 (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support, as per 17jiangz1 and others. The cases figure is known to be all over the place because of different approaches to testing from country to country. It could be off by more than an order of magnitude. Deaths, while still having some differences in recording, are much more comparable. Bondegezou (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The reasons given above are strong and convincing. Cases are nowhere near as reliable a statistic as deaths. The only valid argument I see in opposition is that a pandemic is not characterised by deaths but by cases. While this is true, one could argue that the impact of a pandemic is indeed better characterised by deaths. I feel that argument ends up being a 50/50 about what is considered important, with equal validity to those who say deaths are more important and those who say cases are more important. With equality on that argument, and the reliability argument favouring heavily the use of deaths as a metric, I definitely support this change.Wikiditm (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per others' comments. I don't see how "for months, we have focused on case counts, why should we switch now" is a good argument. If you have focused on the wrong thing for months, shouldn't that be an incentive to focus on the better measure immediately? Once cases become the better measure again, you can always switch back. Only tangentially related: in the "Deaths" section, can someone explain to me the difference between "death-to-case ratio" and case fatality rate? The section makes it seem like those are two distinct measures, but (and I am not an expert), to me they seem to be the same thing...? Felix.winter2010 (talk) 8:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support - The cases map is certainly misleading, as it makes the most efficient countries like Germany and South Korea look like problem cases. Quite the opposite. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Case count is largely meaningless as a means of comparing the epidemic in two countries, due to the huge discrepancy in testing regimes. It's comparing apples to oranges. The death count, although not completely consistent (some countries may be less likely to test for COVID in a postmortem than others, for example), is certainly much better than case count, because most deaths will be recorded unlike many stay-at-home-and-isolate cases which are not.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

  The argument simply doesn't make sense. Countries that don't test much, whether on the living or the dead, won't register deaths as being due to Covid-19. I'm not sure why people would also assume that post-mortem test is something even done in most countries (I would think most countries don't do it when even rich countries like Germany don't). This is in addition to countries that have been accused of deliberately downplaying the number of deaths. Hzh (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

  The countries that test less focus their small number of tests, and they focus them on people who are more likely to carry the disease; that's the idea. In such countries, covid-infected people are more likely to escape testing than covid-infected dying people (dying of covid or with covid.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

It's still the same problem - those who don't test won't assign the deaths to Covid-19, I have no idea why people assume that those who died would be automatically attributed to Covid-19. For example, in China people who died from flu for many years were attributed to other reasons, giving China an unusually low death count compared to other countries - [11]. Hzh (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

My post does not suggest that "those who died would be automatically attributed to Covid-19", nor is it concerned with "those who don't test" but rather with those who focus their tests, and the only non-focused tests would be random-sampled tests from general population with no pre-selection bias. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Both – because deaths lag cases by several weeks, but also they are arguably the more reliable statistic. Countries like S Korea and Germany have kept things under control by much more extensive testing which gives comparatively high case figures. I maintain the graphs of new cases and daily deaths on this page and lacking any better measure I use the weighted average of the two figures to pick the top 5 countries. If a statistician can suggest a better combination I'm open to it. Chris55 (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Having thought about it for a few minutes, it's probably better to use the geometric mean. Chris55 (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to take the mean of two statistics which aren't independent.Wikiditm (talk) 09:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The focus should be on infections/cases for now, since deaths lag the infection rates by weeks. There will be a time to include both deaths and cases, adjusted for population, but now is not the right time. Rwat128 (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Impact is better shown by case counts at the moment. We have deaths just below. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 09:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Death count is a lagging indicator. Moreover, death count has a very strong correlation with the age of those infected - South Korea and Germany both had to deal with younger patients than Italy or France. Yes, case count is a function of testing, but death count is a function of age and hospital capacity. Deaths can be under counted too - NYC and Wuhan have both revised death counts upwards weeks after deaths occur. Cases are a far better representation of outbreak severity. Nmurali02 (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support Cases are too unreliable. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose We currently show both cases per-capita (first) and then deaths per-capita. This has been quite stable for weeks. It is also the order it is generally reported (e.g. World Health Organization). Maybe this is breaking news to some people, but figures for death counts also suffer from a lot of distortions: different reporting criteria for different countries, test capacity, protocols for post-mortem testing, etc. --MarioGom (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support New studies are showing the case numbers to be extremely unreliable. While some countries like the UK are under reporting their COVID-19 deaths, it's still far more reliable and important. -- Jeandré, 2020-04-19t16:15z
• Support Case counts are mostly a reflection of how many people have been tested. Death is easier to track and more reliable. There’s also the idea that the best tracker is excess deaths,, but we’d need WP:MEDRS to use them. Benica11 (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Death counts are also a reflection of how many people get tested, they're not more reliable than case counts. Here for example the number of excess deaths in Ecuador suggests that the actual deaths from Covid-19 may be 15 times higher than the number of deaths reported in that country - [12]. Excess deaths would be more interesting, but there are not widely reported. Hzh (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support While number of deaths and total cases both rely on testing to an extent, the former should remain a more reliable indicator (at least in developed nations), since more severe cases seem generally prioritized for testing. Pyrhan (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment this discussion seems to have run its course, but !vote totals are pretty split. Can we have someone close this? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • User:Sdkb, I have to close this as "no consensus". Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Compromise: Default, show both maps and add a warning text

A suggestion for a compromize while waiting for people to agree here is to show both maps in the infobox - currently only the number of infected per capita is visible by default. The number of deaths per capita should also be visible immediately, as that is more reliable.

A second suggestion is to add a warning below maps of the number of infected people: "Numbers are not comparable as different countries have different testing strategies". 82.196.112.105 (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd oppose showing both maps by default. The image panorama is quite good, and it shouldn't be pushed so far down that people need to scroll a bunch to see it. I'd support having some sort of caveat in the caption, as is done currently for the Europe map (we at least need to get consistent), although it might make more sense as an efn (footnote) than as direct text. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that maybe putting the deaths chart in a collapsible may be the better way to do this for now. Swordman97 ^{talk to me}

• Me Too -- Move this article and do we have to delete this article? Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

We should be trimming the maps......as 70 percent of our readers have all maps expanded causing a scrolling nightmare. Most see opening paragraph then a wall of maps.... most wont scroll beyond the infobox at this point. Want to keep readers give them prose text.--Moxy 🍁 14:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy: the issue with sidebar collapsing not working on mobile is tracked at T247701. The maps are useful, though, so we can't just get rid of them. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 12:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Should be moved till solved Ratio of Android app views with a scroll action (Around 32% of pageviews do not involve scrolling down - i.e. reader look only at the top of the page with 60+% only scrolling down 2 times). This means on this article the majority only read first paragraph because of scrolling thur maps. Set the page up so 2 scrolls gets readers the full lead.....and to the TOC in 2 scrolls (Most readers look first at TOC - 45% of time is spent scanning a page looking at the TOC) Investigation of information behavior in Wikipedia articles. .--Moxy 🍁 13:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)a

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.

Short description issue

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Short_description#Short_description_broken_at_COVID-19_pandemic_and_possibly_elsewhere. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

"cure" claim by California bio-firm

https://www.investors.com/news/technology/coronavirus-treatment-sorrento-says-it-has-cure/ 50.111.6.129 (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Research needs to progress a long way beyond the stage they're at before any claim can be made that this is useful for the general population. And I think we would would need information direct from a scientific/medical source rather than an investors' website. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

as far as being verified, there is no verification - however, this company has ties to China

Subsection about pandemic in Brazil, Germany and Russia

It's strange that there is no special subsections for situations in Brazil, Germany and Russia from top-10. Is it due to political views of Wikipedia contributors. Or, maybe, these countries are not such important as the USA, France and United Kingdom? I hope, the information on the Wikipedia will be more politically neutral than now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cannor147 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Each have their own article. Look around more before posting in a silly manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.61.192 (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, Cannor147. There was a large discussion about which countries to include a while back (listed as current consensus item 5), and Brazil/Germany/Russia didn't make the cut. The world situation has changed since then, and I'm open to exploring the possibility that bias against non-English speaking countries may have contributed to the prior decision. But before they can be added to the article, there needs to be discussion here that leads to a new consensus reached. This article is extremely pressed for space, and there's just not room to include every major country, so you'll need to argue why those three are as important as the ones currently included according to some criteria. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree 4 neutrality we need to have sections on the worst hit countries. Top Ten.Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" --Moxy 🍁 00:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• The countries listed in the article reflects the situation around a month or two ago, since then the infections in a number of countries have increased considerably. The situation has changed, therefore we can revisit which countries to include. Being in the top 10 in the number of cases isn't a good indication how bad the situation in their countries, since many countries grossly under-report their cases. I would say yes for including Brazil and Russia, but no for Germany, possibly we can remove France as well. Germany isn't that interesting apart from keeping its death rate down. Personally I think Sweden is a more interesting example to include given their different policy to the rest of Europe. Hzh (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

"Coronababy" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Coronababy. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 17#Coronababy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 15:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

useful?

would this be useful here [13] and [14]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

For us, the data is primary source. Maybe there is something useful to dig in the reports ? I am still really surprised that everyone seem to take this inferred dates as TRUTH. As far as I know, a switch of base in RNA can happen in both direction, Any mutation could have happened BEFORE the common narrative. We still find new lineage of 20+ mutations all linked to the first completely hypothetical case without never ever questioning the chronology ? If someone can explain this to me... Iluvalar (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

fake info re WHO

The article contains sentences such as:

The WHO issued its first technical briefings on 10 and 11 January, warning nations about a strong possibility of human-to-human transmission and urged precautions due to the similarity to earlier SARS and MERS outbreaks.[789][790] On 20 January, the WHO said it was "now very clear" that human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus had occurred, given that healthcare workers had been infected.[791] On 27 January, the WHO assessed the risk of the outbreak to be "high at the global level".[792]

However, this is clearly contradicted by official tweets such as https://twitter.com/who/status/1217043229427761152

As Jan 14, the WHO was still telling the world that preliminary investigation revealed no evidence of human-to-human transmission.

Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #ChinaFlag of China.

"warning nations about a strong possibility" "strong possibility"?? on January 10/11? What's the source for this? It is clear that Wikipedia is being edited by people who embedding fake information that can easily be disproven. --64.121.152.158 (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

"Preliminary investigations" - that's all that needs to be said Ed6767 (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

"What's the source for this"; if you looked at the citations you would have seen numerous citations like http://archive.is/7Pgq4, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/15/against-humanity-trump-condemned-for-who-funding-freeze, and https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/09/who-cited-human-transmission-risk-in-january-despite-trump-claims. Also, January 14 is a different day than January 20. Zoozaz1 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't change the fact that WHO issued a number of statements saying that there is no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission for a week or so relying on Chinese sources, for example this no evidence of significant human-to-human on 5 January 2020 [15] ignoring Taiwan's warning in late December. I'm not sure what technical briefings are, but if it is not public announcement and only made in private to other agencies, then the WHO is failing in its public duty, saying in private something different to public announcements. The wording as it is is clearly trying to absolve WHO of blame, using sources that are trying to blame Trump, which changed from "warned of potential human-to-human transmission" to "strong possibility". It would make it a POV statement relying on non-neutral sources. Hzh (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hzh: relying on Chinese sources - this is quite literally WHO's mandate. All they can do is rely on the information given to them by States, and are under no obligation to even disclose such information against the wishes of the State. This is international law. Look at the 2005 IHRs. I'm not sure how somebody could criticise NPOV wording after knowing what WHO's mandate and powers actually are. They're not weapons inspectors. Furthermore, can you link to Taiwan's 'warning'? Because the most recent RS say Taiwan's 'warning' wasn't a 'warning' at all, but merely a request for information about the atypical pneumonia which is...standard for most states to be asking. Thanks. Acalycine (talk) 02:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The Taiwan CDC warned WHO by email of seven cases in Wuhan as well as requesting information - [16]. They also started implementing control and quarantine measures the same day they sent the email. That is however by the by to the more salient point, which is that the WHO issued public announcements something different from what they say in technical briefings, which appeared to be private communications - The Guardian said they have seen the communications, but did not publish the sources of these communications, so we can't even know what is being said in these communications since different reports in The Guardian said somewhat different things. The WHO is guilty at the least of dishonesty in their public announcements. Hzh (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll allude to Tedros' response here and point out that the WHO had received many such requests for information from States at the time of this e-mail, that the first report came from Wuhan, and that Taiwan was asking for information, not 'warning' the WHO of anything. The WHO was receiving information from Wuhan on the same day, and had knowledge of the same internet reports/rumours that Taiwan had knowledge of in order to make the inquiry to the WHO. To be honest, none of what you have said regarding the email is a strong rebuttal of any of these facts (assuming you still claim the email was a 'warning'). They also started implementing control and quarantine measures the same day they sent the email. - this is fantastic news for Taiwan and speaks to their quick pandemic precautionary response, but I'm not sure how this is relevant to your original point. I'm also not sure I entirely understand your point regarding announcements: the WHO is guilty at the least of dishonesty in their public announcements. - which ones do you refer to? Thanks. Acalycine (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

If you ignore that telling them that there were at least 7 cases of "atypical pneumonia" to be a warning, then Wuhan did not warn WHO either since they were only informing them. There were many statements by WHO even after their technical briefings that warned about human-to-human transmission risk on 10 January (as claimed by The Guardian) - here the public announcements all said there is no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission and no cases of infections among health workers - 12 January 2020, 13 January, 14 January, as well as tweets on 14 January and 16 January (although it said later that day they cannot exclude the possibility of human-to-human transmission). This is just me googling for a few minutes, there might be more if I look further. Hzh (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The e-mail got the information about the 7 cases from a news report, presumably from China. My point is that it's not a warning when WHO was already aware of the situation. If you're telling me the following constitutes a 'warning', you and I must have a very, very different idea of what 'warning' means.

News resources today indicate that at least seven atypical pneumonia cases were reported in Wuhan, CHINA. Their health authorities replied to the media that the cases were believed not SARS; however the samples are still under examination, and cases have been isolated for treatment. I would greatly appreciate it if you have relevant information to share with us. Thank you very much in advance for your attention to this matter. - this is transparently a request for information, as one can see by the second-last sentence.

Wuhan did not warn WHO either since they were only informing them. - very much a false equivalence here, Wuhan used proper notifying channels in their formal notification of the situation on the 31st - this on the other hand was simply an e-mail.

Here are the facts, courtesy of WHO officials:

WHO emergencies director Michael Ryan said on Monday, however, that Taiwan did not tell the WHO anything it did not already know. "There was no reference made in that query to anything other than to what had previously been reported in news media and actually referred to a response from the Wuhan health authorities clarifying and confirming that the cases existed," he said. "The information from Taiwan was in line with information that we had received from other sources," Ryan said. He pointed to "more detailed" information received on Dec. 31 through its Epidemic Intelligence from Open Sources platform from Wuhan describing the cluster.

In regards to although it said later that day they cannot exclude the possibility of human-to-human transmission - your admission here is precisely the point. These announcements do exactly what you claim WHO has failed to do: tell the public the same information it was giving in technical briefings. I'll note that they were labelled as preliminary investigations as well, and I'll also direct you towards this 14th of Jan. government post that explicitly says h-2-h transmission cannot be ruled out, and this tweet (if you haven't seen it yet). Since you haven't really expanded upon this point: technical briefings, which appeared to be private communications - can you link me to the information regarding these private comms.? Not sure how you could know about them if they were private, unless there was some news report afterwards.

I must say, these are pretty standard (and weak) contentions by now which have been debunked and rebutted time and time again on Wikipedia and elsewhere - so if you don't have any revelatory/novel arguments I don't really see the point of continuing this, given the mountain of evidence against this line of argument. Thanks. Acalycine (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You seem to get hung up about something (with regards to Taiwan) which I said is by the by with regards to the main point. You'll have to ask The Guardian about the technical briefings, since they did not give any information on the sources, no links, nothing (which led me to suspect that they are private communications). It does seem like you are excusing what the WHO is doing, the point is with the dates - they insisted on emphasizing no evidence of human-to-human transmission (repeating the Chinese line) days after they were apparently talking about "strong possibility of human-to-human transmission" on 10-11 January (per The Guardian, although they did not give sources that say that). That is evidence of their deliberate failure to inform and warn the public, however much you wish to deny it, it is in their public announcements on 12-14 January. Hzh (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Note also that most prominent early victim Li Wenliang who warned about possible SARS-like disease in December was hospitalized on 12 January, which made the Wuhan source dated 14 January that says "no clear evidence of person-to-person transmission" an outright lie. Wuhan authorities must have also known cases of infections among health workers by 12 January, especially when you consider that Li Wenliang wasn't even treating patients with pneumonia (he was treating someone with an eye infection who was later revealed to be also infected by coronavirus). Hzh (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You don't seem to know the difference between sustained and limited human-to-human transmission. From their point of view, cases like Li's could've happened from exposure to faeces or other bodily fluids, which is an example of limited human-to-human transmission, and is the case with many infections - it usually happens within families. That's different from sustained human-to-human transmission, which is the case with COVID-19 (i.e. you get it from somebody breathing on you). Investigations were still on-going at this time, as they mention in the tweets. I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore. Here's yet another WHO warning from 14 Jan. Acalycine (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no mentions of any difference between sustained and limited human-to-human transmission in their 12 and 13 January public announcements, and any such difference is irrelevant since they had already supposedly warned about human-to-human transmission in technical briefings on 10 and 11 January, which is entirely the point of The Guardian articles trying to defend the WHO. Still, on 13 January, they said that there has been no suggestion of human to human transmission of this new coronavirus. There have been no infections reported among health care workers (link given earlier). That they also said no infection among health care workers indicates that they did not make any such distinction (and Li was already infected and admitted to hospital by then). The point is that they already considered human-to-human transmission a strong possibility before that, but they chose to ignore that, using instead Chinese announcements (which thanks to your link to a Chinese statement, we can tell that they are outright lies given that by that time medical workers were already getting infected). You can make the excuse that Wuhan did not inform the WHO of infections among health care workers, but the WHO choosing to ignore what they said in their technical briefings while trying to assure the public there is no evidence of human-to-human transmission is a dereliction of duty, and that is entirely on their fault. Hzh (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to get into the political stuff which is ultimately irrelevant to us as editors anyway. We go by sources not our personal feelings of who did what. But I don't understand the intrigue above. It's not like the WHO is running meetings at where they're sharing all the secrets of the novel Coronavirus in secret with whoever, and the Guardian. If the Guardian are talking about it, it's quite likely it was on the internet, or widely shared with journalists or maybe in a few cases sent to the various partners/governments a number of who likely have copies they can make available.

Indeed a quick search finds [17] which while saying Current data suggests that there is no or limited human-to-human transmission also says:

For other coronaviruses such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, human-to-human tranmission occured due to breaches in IPC practices. Thus, the central focus of any prevention/control strategy is protecting healthcare workers with appropriate IPC supplies and ensuring basic health logistics at responding facilities.

A complicating factor is the WHO website is set up to ensure people get current guidance and not old stuff that is out of date, so I'm guessing some stuff is either gone or hidden somewhere. Still Internet Archive etc helps. Of course since we're talking about stuff which developed rapidly there's no guarantee all we're looking for is archived, still it's likely some has been.

And indeed it's easy to find other stuff e.g. [18] which while not commenting on human-to-human transmission, does recommend early recognition so IPC can be implemented quickly. The “evidence of amplified or sustained human-to-human transmission” well since it includes a direct quote it's easy to find, [19]

That's actually potentially a good place to look for other documents. Although I'm not sure how good the filtering is, since the period we're talking about is early January you can just sort by issue date and go to 2020 [20]. That said, I didn't find anything else. The home care stuff was 20th January [21] so seems to be largely outside the dates of concern since I think there's agreement that by 20th January the WHO was clear there was human-to-human transmission. The RCCE stuff which I'd already come across doesn't seem that relevant and is also dated 26th January [22] (I may or may not have come across a draft in the archives, I can't recall because as said it doesn't seem that relevant).

The Reuters report seems to confirm the press briefing. I don't know if you can find a complete record of it somewhere, but as a press briefing it's obviously not secret.

BTW, the Thailand example is an interesting one. While that news briefing just mentions no evidence for human-to-human transmission, this more detailed disease outbreak news [23] says:

As the traveler did not report having visited the market linked to most of the other cases, it is vital that investigations continue to identify the source of infection. To date, China has not reported any cases of infection among healthcare workers or contacts of the cases. Based on the available information there is no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission. No additional cases have been detected since 3 January 2020 in China.

Additional investigation is needed to ascertain the presence of human-to-human transmission, modes of transmission, common source of exposure and the presence of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic cases that are undetected. It is critical to review all available information to fully understand the potential transmissibility among humans.

i.e. while they said there is no evidence, also said we need to work out what actually happened here.

Basically, from what I can tell, early on the WHO was saying that there was no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission, I assume since they felt from the information available at the time, there was indeed no clear evidence. However they did warn that given the experiences with other Coronaviruses, countries should be on the lookout for such transmission, and also in healthcare settings, take precautions as if these was such transmission, based in part on experience with previous Coronaviruses. They also suggested the public follow normal advice for dealing with respiratory illnesses i.e. washing hands, keeping away from people who are sick, covering with your elbow when sneezing or coughing. [24] [25] After a while, they began to warn that there may be limited human-to-human transmission but it did not seemed to be sustained. This culminated in their 20 January announcement that there was human-to-human transmission.

I assume they expected that relevant experts would either directly read or be advised by those who read their technical briefings, rather than going by 320 character limited Tweets. It may have been true that by 14 January, Li Wenliang was in intensive care, but I don't see any reason to doubt it's true that the Chinese government didn't tell the WHO that he was. I don't think it's even clear the central government knew of his case. Heck, are we even sure those in charge of his case had even decided it was nCoV by then?

P.S. I think the "strong possibility" may be poor wording on the part of the Guardian. It's possible these words were used in the press briefing on 14 January although I couldn't confirm that. I'm not convinced these words were used in the technical briefings. I'm not sure if they commented on the possibility, I suspect they lacked sufficient information to come to a judgment on that. However based on previous experience they did say that precautions should be taken as if if there was human-to-human transmission in health care settings. Note that although the 15 April Guardian article uses those words, the sentence is worded in such a way that it's unclear if they are referring to the press briefing, the technical briefings or both. And they link to the 9 April report as evidence for the technical briefing stuff, yet those words don't occur in the 9 April report.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the trouble to find the sources (although the date for some is uncertain since no precise date is given [26]), but I'm not sure it clears up anything with regards to what the WHO was doing. What do you think possessed them to keep repeating "no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission" when they could have just said they don't know? The WHO already had experience with SARS and MERS, and should therefore be advising people to be cautious because of the possibility of human-to-human transmission instead of saying "no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission". Any evidence would need to be provided by China, and people studying the outbreak looking back said that there had been "human-to-human transmission" as early as mid-December [27], so all the "no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission" is likely to be falsehood promoted by China. Hzh (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)