Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Tag for ongoing event?

Should we use a current events template from here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Current_event_templates Billlion (talk)

I have mixed feelings about this tag, however I think it can be added in this case. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC).

Forecasting

It might be good to include a line or two about the Oxford study that proposed that up to half the UK population might be infected. https://www.ft.com/content/5ff6469a-6dd8-11ea-89df-41bea055720b (paywall) and elsewhere.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC).

Clap for Carers

Given it's now more than just a one off I've created a separate page for the Clap for Carers event and linked it. I feel like there's almost certainly enough information and mainstream press attention to warrant it at this point. --Philipwhiuk (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Government daily press conferences

This topic would make a good page by itself, wouldn't it - who was at the press conference each day? what were the announcements? and so on. Snowman (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Template - death figure/dates

I've grouped these as they all appear to be referring to the same thing. As per the note on the template with figures for each day on 25th March PHE changed the way they are reporting the deaths. From 25th on the daily number announced refers to deaths at 5pm the previous day. This is why the template records these on the previous day. The case number is correct up to 9am the same day the numbers are released. In terms of tracking the epidemic it is more useful to know the date the figure is correct for, rather than when it was announced. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  20:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Missing data

I think that the data for the 25 march is missing from the graph on the right hand side and the data for 26 March has been shown as the data for 25, and the data for the 27 show and the 26 March. e.g. should be 25 MARCH 465 deaths 26 MARCH 578 deaths 27 MARCH 759 deaths — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.147.55 (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is a problem as described above. The correct source data is here, and is updated daily;

https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/documents/Historic%20COVID-19%20Dashboard%20Data.xlsx Prospero42 (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Change in recording of deaths

On 25 March Public Health England started to shift the timeframe for which deaths were reported. From 26 March onwards the deaths reported relate to 5pm of the previous day; whereas previously the counts related to 1pm of the same day (for 25 March for 9am of the same day). The statistics table should be updated to reflect this to allow for more accurate cross-country comparisons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:9602:A000:496E:76D0:E020:A683 (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Whats going on for the reporting of deaths from the 27th? The gov website shows the figure as lower than how the media have shown it. Jonjonjohny (talk) 09:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

And yet every other country does it differently. Rather than trying to be different, why not copy every other country (regardless of it being correct). I assumed that the figures pertain to date of reporting rather than anything else.86.46.69.153 (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The point is that the time series for UK reporting has a discontinuity on 25th. This at least requires a footnote in the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:9602:A000:51F:C32A:E7CB:90B3 (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Timeline for death

The number for deaths are showing on the wrong line on the wrong line ie the deaths for 28th March is showing for the 27th and so on.

Is this something to do with time of recording of deaths or does it need fixing? Mn1548 (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Someone is f*cking with the figures again 456 on the 25th missing and everything shoved up. 86.46.69.153 (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Should the figures match what the government published or should we make up our own Wikipedia numbers? Here are the government numbers: https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/documents/Historic%20COVID-19%20Dashboard%20Data.xlsx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg321 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Recovery Update

The lack of recovery graph on this article has me scratching my head. Why is there not a graph for recoveries when every other country has one?

Also, why is the lack of recoveries inconsistent here? Writing this on the 3rd April with *apparently* 205 recoveries, yet between the 22nd-31st March it was stuck on 135 for a long time. Why has this not been updated on the main bar chart at the top of the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.115.12 (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Because the government stopped renewing the recovery data from 22 March. The figure 205 you have includes the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies, excluding which the data is still 135 as unchanged. Currently, I don't think there is any other source for the recovery data of the UK excluding the BOTs and CDs. Chbe113 (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Timeline

This article's getting quite big, and I've no doubt it's going to continue growing for some time, so I was wondering whether we should create a timeline to rehome some of the information. I notice there's one for the United States so it's something that could be done. I'd be happy to create and work on such an article. What do others think? This is Paul (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2020

Please can we add a link to London 2020 pandemic wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_London 2A01:4B00:87C5:4F00:6160:7F70:F374:1F40 (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC) -- Done Jamietw (talk) 11:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Government figures

The Guardian newspaper has reported that the historical figures the government has been releasing have been increasing. The Guardian gave the example of the deaths that happened on Sunday 29th March 2020 and showed that whilst originally the government reported 159 deaths that historical figure had risen to 463 by the following Friday (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/04/why-what-we-think-we-know-about-the-uks-coronavirus-death-toll-is-wrong). 2001:16B8:1E5F:C100:952D:A610:B369:F354 (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

mistake in statistics

Iamahumanbeingunfortunately (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC) Iamahumanbeingunfortunately

On March 20th, the total number of confirmed cases is off by 18. It should be 72 800 and not 72 818. This affects the rest of the data going down. Can someone with authorisation correct this?

Unnecessary meta information?

Why is there meta information about a template (not specific to the article) on the page?

That is not the case for similar pages, e.g. for Italy, Spain, and France.

--Mortense (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Timeline bar chart

Could somebody please convert the bar chart in the Timeline section to a horizontal layout, with time running from left to right, ideally automatically scrolled to the far right most recent data. Or simply chime in if you agree or disagree, but also haven't got a clue how to make that edit. Cheers. nagualdesign 00:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not aware that this is possible. That is generated by a sophisticated template that does not appear to have a landscape option. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  10:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Changeover in reporting day

The note to the "COVID-19 cases in the United Kingdom" table says "Deaths reported for 24 March only cover from 09:00 to 17:00 on Tuesday 24 March. Subsequent reporting is for 24-hour periods from 17:00 to 17:00." In fact the deaths reported for 24 March are (correctly) for the period 9am 23 March to 9am 24 March. Deaths reported for 25 March are for the period 9am 24 March to 5pm 25 March (long day). From 26 March onwards it's 5pm to 5pm. Nothing wrong with the numbers. It's just the note that's confused. 2A01:E34:EE61:5F0:5139:AF14:668D:9A3D (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

New article on the education shutdown

Following on from this discussion, I've created 2020 UK education shutdown, mostly copied from the education shutdown section in this article. Feel free to make any edits/suggestions for improvements! Bellowhead678 (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Moving averages

It might help to have a 3 or 5 day moving average on the new cases and deaths charts. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 22:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC).

Serious under-reporting of deaths

From the figures published by the ONS at https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending27march2020 yesterday it's clear that the government has been underestimating the number of deaths from Covid-19 by at least 50%. It still hasn't instituted any measures to speed up the reporting of deaths outside of hospitals (particularly care homes) and so only figures up to 27 March are available. By my calculation there were 1,698 deaths up to that date compared with the figure of 759 currently being used if one includes the whole UK. Hence current figure for total deaths should read 8,029 not 7,097.

The new stats only cover England (because of the way that Public Health England has been constituted) and it's unclear whether Wales, Scotland and N Ireland figures include figures from death registrations. I've yet to find any publishable source that reflects UK-wide figures. Worldometers.info hasn't yet updated its stats.

But if the situation since 27 March is the same as before (and there's no reason to suppose it isn't) then the current UK death figures are closer to 15,000. I'm not saying this should be put on the page as the figures haven't yet been published. Chris55 (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

We have to be careful on Wikipedia about inconsistency. The death figures are of a "type", namely those in hospital. There may be many legitimate and illegitimate reasons for those figures being used, it's not for us to judge. What we can do is represent the death figures as officially released and perhaps have a section where ONS figures are quoted and cited to have a true encyclopedic representation of the different numbers for our readers to make up their own minds. As the figures change so often, and so rapidly, and in such large increments, it shouldn't surprise us that there are inconsistencies. Wiki can only report, it shouldn't judge. doktorb _words^deeds 10:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

That's why I didn't put it on the page, doktorb. I put it here in the hope that another reader can find a reputable source that I haven't been able to. But why should only deaths in hospital be reported? That makes no sense at all. The system in England is seriously disorganised. Chris55 (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

We can only comment on what reliable sources comment. We can only suggest there is an error with the type of testing if other reliable sources make the comparison. I'm sure when this is all settled, there will be research and other comments on exactly how many deaths there should have been, and a commentary on what the status was at the time. As with all current events, the info won't be 100% accurate. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

What the reliable source (mentioned above) currently says is that the number of deaths in England between 5 March and 27 March is 1,642, compared with the current figure in this article which is 759 for the whole of the UK. The other wiki articles for Scotland Wales and N Ireland record 56 deaths during this period, so one could deduce that the total for the UK is 1,698. But that's clearly putting together several sources and I'm not proposing that. The England article has no tables. Chris55 (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think they've underestimated them, they always said they are reporting deaths in hospital of confirmed sufferers, and always said the total number of deaths will be higher. These numbers are reported in good faith on the same basis as other countries. Consistency is what is required, for comparisons. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I now see that I've been misinterpreting the tables. The ONS paper is concerned with reconciling the registrations inside and outside hospital so it is only the outside hospital figures that are extra: in one week (up to 27 Mar for England and Wales) this amounted to 38 out of a total of 529. So the extra is only about 7%. Chris55 (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The situation is even more complicated than I thought. The ONS document that I quoted seriously underestimates deaths in care homes and at least one source (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/09/covid-19-hundreds-of-uk-care-home-deaths-not-added-to-official-toll) is now investigating it seriously. I acknowledge that the big table on this page does record death certificates and hospital data separately, but all the other tables, including the first table on this page are not being updated to take these into account. Since the ONS is trying to reconcile the hospital and registration data, there is a need to correct the major tables. China did this in a block on 12 Feb when it reclassified a large number of cases and maybe that's the only way to do it. Since the British government isn't testing many reported cases it's impossible to know the real extent of the current pandemic in England. Chris55 (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2020

Change words in lead section from

• On Thursday 9th of April, Boris Johnson was released from the intensive care unit, however is still in hospital recovering.

to

• On Thursday 9 April, Boris Johnson was released from the intensive care unit, however is still in hospital recovering. 36.77.78.48 (talk) 09:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Went to fix and noted that "9th" has been changed.  Done Sun Creator^(talk) 20:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Death certificates

There are two death columns. Deaths in hospital, and deaths based on death certificates. I think this is good and useful. It is not clear to me though whether death certificate deaths relate to England and Wales, or the whole UK (including Scotland and NI). I think we should try and make it the whole UK otherwise it is a misleading comparison to the hospital deaths columns. In any case we should make it clear. Jopal22 (talk) 12:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

There is a problem with death certificate deaths that didn't occur in hospital though; they will generally be based on a doctor's opinion, and not on test results. So they will be subject to error. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's obviously the case. Whether samples have been saved in all cases that would allow post-burial confirmation is doubtful. But we are only reporting what the authorities say. And at the moment the ONS says there are 1,642 deaths in England up to 27th March whereas the main Wikipedia tables say there are 759 for the whole UK. Chris55 (talk) 11:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

This statement has just come from NHS England:

NHS England has announced 866 new deaths of people who tested positive for Covid-19, bringing the total number of confirmed reported deaths in hospitals in England to 8,114.

Of the 866 new deaths announced today, 117 occurred on 9 April while 720 took place between 1 April and 8 April.

The remaining 29 deaths occurred in March, including one on March 5.

So 117 people died yesterday, either from, or with, COVID-19. However, we'll report the full UK total, including the 866 from England, for 9 April. This is extremely misleading to say the least. In effect, we're taking bits of previous days, in some cases going right back into March, and assigning them to a single date. The slope on the graph is meaningless if you want to use it to get a picture of how rates are changing. At the very least we need a strong 'health warning' about these data. Arcturus (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

FYI, the clarify my original remark. The "Confirmed new COVID-19 cases in the United Kingdom by area" has a Deaths=>Death cert. column. From the title of the table and the column name, I would assume this is UK deaths by date of death with cause of death given as coronavirus on the Death certificate. At the bottom of the column it has "Deaths in England and Wales (ONS)". Therefore was confused if it's E&W or UK? Jopal22 (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I've just been comparing the English and Scottish records. The Scots also have 2 counts going: one by Health Protection Scotland counts all people who have had a positive test for COVID-19 and died within 28 days . The National Records of Scotland measures all deaths where COVID-19 was mentioned on the death certificate by the doctor who certified the death (https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/covid19stats). This includes cases where the doctor noted that there was suspected or probable coronavirus infection involved in the death. The NRS work on a weekly basis and expect registrations within 3 days. Now the NRS numbers are 60% higher than the HPS numbers. In England (& maybe Wales), the ONS numbers are 70-78% higher than the daily counts released on gov.uk. Given the rather arbitrary restriction about hospitalisation in England these are plausible. Why the English are taking so long to do the count is a mystery to me. Covid-19 was made a notifiable disease as long ago as 5 March so they could insist on all doctors reporting with 24 hours. Chris55 (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

BAME

Is there an issue with BAME in the UK?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/10/uk-coronavirus-deaths-bame-doctors-bma — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.155.241 (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The issue is probably noteworthy enough to mention (Keir Starmer also mentioned it). Feel free to add information as long as it is reliably sourced. Anywikiuser (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

There should be more recoveries in the UK to the people who have been given PPE and Ventilators?

Boris Johnson and 99 year old man have been recovered and the woman have beaten the COVID-19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:864F:9E00:4C9D:2B1C:3BCB:56CF (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Unlike many countries like Italy and Spain, the government stopped counting recoveries three weeks ago. Anywikiuser (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Additional cases for 26 March to 9 April

The following is from the 10 April update to Number of coronavirus (COVID-19) cases and risk in the UK. I suggest adding these cases to the daily figures in the table and chart for 26 March to 9 April. Adding them all to one day would generate a spurious peak in the chart.

"Today’s figures for positive tests have been adjusted to include positive case results from swab testing for key workers and their households (pillar 2). These will be included in the daily figures from today, 10 April. If these results were excluded from the figures, as they have been previously, the daily increase in the number of people who tested positive would have been 5,195. Data on positive case results from swab testing for key workers and their households between 25 March and 8 April is available below."

Date	Positive results
Wed 25 March	0
Thurs 26 March	5
Fri 27 March	10
Sat 28 March	69
Sun 29 March	46
Mon 30 March	241
Tues 31 March	243
Wed 1 April	278
Thurs 2 April	222
Fri 3 April	265
Sat 4 April	296
Sun 5 April	341
Mon 6 April	254
Tues 7 April	374
Wed 8 April	331

The daily total for 9 April is given as 5,706 and so the "pillar 2" number for 9 April is 511. JonH (talk) 08:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Third slide at the 10 April press conference charts the same "pillar 2" numbers, and adds 511 (again) for that date. --Wire723 (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that these cases should be included in the standard case count. But on the timeline chart, use a different colour to show cases added on by this change in reporting (like what was done for the China chart). Anywikiuser (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Today's update has pushed the figures down by one day, but I think that is a mistake. If you add them up, plus 511 (as above) and plus the new daily figure of 610 you get their cumulative "pillar 2" total of 4096. I suggest using the "pillar 1" total until this is sorted out. JonH (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The numbers presented by PHE are currently a bit confused - sometimes showing the daily case increase of about 5k, but giving a cumulative total of a larger rise. I suggest we hold on for the moment and wait to see if made clearer in the government figures. There are likely to be similar difficulties about how to integrate the death certificate data. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  19:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Timeline bar chart

Is it possible to clarify whether

(a) the bar chart places the confirmed cases bar to the right of the deaths bar, or (b) whether the deaths bar is overlaid on top of the confirmed cases bar (ie hiding the left hand part of it)?

The graphic looks like (a), but this would presumably double count deaths in terms of the overall length of the line, since the deaths will already have been counted as confirmed cases.

Or have I just misunderstood the graph completely?

Either way, a scale would be helpful.

Friendly regards to all, Springnuts (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The deaths form part of the confirmed cases bar, no double counting. The template generating the graph does not have a scale option so can only be read from the total numbers at the side. The template has a talk page also: Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United Kingdom medical cases chart Best wishes, |→ Spaully ^~talk~  23:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Trend lines on graph

I think that the graph showing the number of cases and deaths under 'Early to mid-March 2020' should not have trend lines since they are somewhat arbitrary and could easily lead to false assumptions about the likely future trends.

I don't know how the graph is currently produced - is anyone able to make this change?

--Perokema (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. It's not clear what's being shown with the trend lines, and they constitute original research anyway. The chart without trend lines would be a useful depiction, but with them it is inappropriate for wiki. Have removed.Wikiditm (talk) 09:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

High Fatality Infectious Disease

The UK.gov HFID list is referred to in the background section. It isn’t explained on the page why it’s notable that covid-19 has been removed from the list but truly problematically the reference given doesn’t actually support what is written. The link leads to is an example of the list from the time when the virus was on the list. Article needs a proper reference and also an explanation of why the information is important. Dakinijones (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Deaths in info box should be renamed to “Deaths in hospital”

I would purpose that “Deaths” in the info box and in heading be renamed to hospital deaths

The uk government are excluding deaths within the community and in particular nursing homes, which potentially account for 100’s of deaths. This is misleading. Reference are below but there are hundreds of more examples

References: https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-hospital-deaths-in-uk-top-10-000-11972242

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/10/ministers-urged-to-include-care-home-deaths-in-daily-uk-coronavirus-toll

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1267414/coronavirus-deaths-in-UK-care-homes-official-figures-latest-news-updates Bpb101 (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the UK is not including numbers of people dying at home. --83.38.50.205 (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I would support the change, thouhh for consistency it should be added to other articles. Anywikiuser (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I would oppose the change. I believe it would effectively be WP:OR By implication it singles out UK statistics as partial when the other articles for this pandemic are all basing their statistics on official government figures such as these. Unless there is a very solid reference for the UK excluding deaths from their statistics in a way other governments are not, then singling it out should be rigorously avoided. Post pandemic we may have good secondary references to support such a move but that would take solid research by eg academics not newspaper reports. Dakinijones (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It would be fine to do as long as it's done consistently on other country's pages. Anywikiuser (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

This is broken down for the Frence Covid wiki page and now the uk are starting to release community deaths. Bpb101 (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Recoveries

Just a question, why have recoveries been removed from the timeline? Mn1548 (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

In the UK, the government stopped counting recoveries three weeks ago. Anywikiuser (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Are there other competent sources that provide estimations?

Ahh Thankyou. No other sources that I know of. Mn1548 (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Timeline created

I've created Timeline of the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United Kingdom using the entries from 2020 in the United Kingdom as a basis but it's a work in progress and more needs to be done. Please feel free to help and do whatever you can. As this article is now 300K in length (and likely to increase in size) perhaps we can migrate some of the stuff from here to there. This is Paul (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Bar chart display issue with latest figures

Good morning all. On Firefox running on Ubuntu 18.04, now that the number of confirmed cases is into 6 figures, the last digit of the number overlaps the opening bracket of the percentage rise. Display is fine on Chrome, Chromium and on Safari running on iOS. I leave it to others to decide whether this is a coding error in the table, or an interpretation error in Firefox :)

Friendly regards,

Springnuts (talk) 07:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

... and now, though the article is unchanged, it is fine. Sorry to waste electrons. Springnuts (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Guardian: Boris Johnson missed five coronavirus Cobra meetings, Michael Gove says

My be useful to include somewhere

• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/19/michael-gove-fails-to-deny-pm-missed-five-coronavirus-cobra-meetings

John Cummings (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

11 Apr death figures

The death figure for the 11 Apr are wrong, it should be 10612 and not 10621. 82.28.89.159 (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, do you have a source for this information? MadGuy7023 (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes I do, it's called the fundamentals of mathematics; 9875 + 737 = 10612. The value currently there is a typo. 82.28.89.159 (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

No takers to correct this error? 82.28.89.159 (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. A complicating factor is what we do if the source disagrees with the WP:CALC result. However since we seem to be using Twitter for one of our sources, I checked and confirmed from [1] that it actually agrees with the 10,612 figure so this isn't an issue here. Therefore I have made the change [2]. Note that the template currently has no protection, so you should be able to make changes yourself, just make sure you explain what you are doing in your edit summary. Nil Einne (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Timeline

Please move the Timeline section back up the article to beneath 'Background and prior preparation' and above 'Government response'. This will be inline with almost every other country's article on the coronavirus pandemic and make it much easier for people to see a quick snapshot of COVID-19 cases and deaths in the chart -- it's daft one has to scroll all the way down the page to see it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.229.58 (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

"Corona in England" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Corona in England. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect value for cases in 18 April

Can someone please correct the figure for cases on the 18 Apr, it states 5526 but the figure should be 5525. This is a maths issue rather than anything else as the totals are correct for the 5525 figure. 82.28.89.159 (talk) 11:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Also the total hospital deaths for 21 & 22 don't add up (or am I missing something?). They should be 18091 and 18707. 82.28.89.159 (talk) 11:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

This may be because of past figures being corrected. Anywikiuser (talk) 11:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Correct, and this happens all the time. See gov.uk, which says today, for example, "23 April notes: The difference between the cumulative numbers from today and yesterday for tests is 1 higher than the daily increase figure. This is due to a revision of historic test data at a PHE lab. The difference between the cumulative numbers from today and yesterday for deaths is 22 higher than the daily increase figures. This is due to Northern Ireland revising their historic data." --Andreas JN466 13:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

There is an even more considerable discrepancy today: "The difference between the cumulative numbers from today and yesterday for deaths is 84 higher than the daily increase figures. This is due to Wales revising their historic data as a result of one of the health boards reporting data late." So the daily increase figure reported today is 684, but the total has actually gone up by 768. --Andreas JN466 14:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

This article's lead now presents death figures of those hospitalised as though they were overall death figures, when the actual figure is likely to be twice as high

I'm sorry, Asarlaí, this, saying "18,738 people with confirmed infections have died (mainly in hospital)", won't do.

We can' present that figure of 18,738, described by gov.uk itself as deaths "of those hospitalised in the UK", as the complete UK death toll – not when we know that thousands more have died.

Just today, the WHO released a statement saying that up to half of all coronavirus deaths in Europe have happened in care homes. The Financial Times similarly estimated this week that 41,000 people had died of the virus in the UK so far.

It may not have been your intent, but you're essentially airbrushing thousands of care home deaths out of this article's lead. We need to fix this. What's the best way of doing it? Andreas JN466 23:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

For those who died in a care home or private home, those would (probably) be unconfirmed infections, rather than confirmed infections. Anywikiuser (talk) 11:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I have boldly added a sentence about the FT study to the lead. Edwardx (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

A way forward is to add a section discussing the variety of numbers available and explaining/discussing the various sources and meanings of both the actual and speculative numbers. But I don't think that they should be just added to the lead if they are not first presented with due weight, and balanced, elsewhere in the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Edwardx, what you added to the lead has been taken out again by another user arguing that as it was not in the body of the article, it should not be in the lead. I've used your work to add a couple of sentences in the Statistics section, and I think a short mention in the lead that the daily figures released do not – and do not claim to – reflect the complete death toll would be appropriate. It should also be noted that in many other countries that have centralised reporting – France, Belgium, German, Ireland for example – the daily figures do include care home deaths and deaths in the community. (The French data used to be like the UK data, i.e. hospital deaths only, but then jumped up by several thousand a few weeks ago when they added their non-hospital deaths.) --Andreas JN466 14:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't currently have access to the FT article, so this may be unrelated, but the excess morality has not just been due to Covid infections. (Excess morality is the extra deaths in the last few weeks, relative to the number of deaths that would normally happen.) There has been a significant increase in deaths that are unrelated to Covid. This may be due to people being reluctant to seek medical help. Anywikiuser (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

From the FT article, quoting David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at Cambridge University: Some of those who died from other causes may have been too scared to attend hospital or did not want to be a burden on the health service so they could be seen as possible indirect victims of the virus, he argued. But he added, the sheer number of deaths caused by the virus meant, “there is no suggestion that the collateral damage — however large it is — is anything like as big as the harm from Covid”. --Andreas JN466 22:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Map on infobox

Can this map be fixed as it's not helpful. The timeline shows 138,078 cases but the range in the map key show cases ranging from 25,098 to the entire UK. Mn1548 (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The map in the infobox (now) shows cases per million population, which one are you referring to? |→ Spaully ^~talk~  06:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Ahh sorry, missed the "per million". Mn1548 (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Bulky content and quotes from anonymous sources in the section "Criticism of the Government's response"

In my view this section is rather too bulky and has a newspaper-style tone with a number of quotes. There's an anonymous "No.10 adviser", two anonymous "government officials" and an unamed "member of the Cabinet".

The criticism is mixed in with a survey suggesting "millions of people are going hungry". But the content is not specific as to what the level of hunger actually is – are some people skipping one meal a day, a couple of meals a week or more than that ? And the hunger levels of these millions of people before the pandemic are not explained by means of comparison.

Guidelines at WP:CRIT state: "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints."

I certainly accept that some criticism of the government's response is appropriate for a balanced article. But there is, however, already criticism of the government in a number of other sections, for example in the Testing and surveillance section it states: "The government and Public Health England were criticised for what some saw as a failure to organise mass testing". And the Equipment section highlights criticism of the "unacceptable" shortage of protective equipment and has criticism from Anthony Costello about the slow response from the government to testing. Mr Costello also features in the specific section criticising the Government's response.

There's already criticism of the government in the Overview section – criticising "a lack of transparency around the scientific evidence being used to inform the government response."

In my view the Criticism of the Government's response section is too bulky and some of the quotes should be trimmed as per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER for a neutral encyclopedic tone. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Most of the criticism section seems to be a dump of random quotes (I see the same subject in two different areas of the section proves the point) and just feels like we seem to have some negative section for any event now, see Olympics (controversy sections when things ain't controversial) just for the sake of having it, even though it could be fitted elsewhere. None of what I see needs to be in a section by it self and should be in gov response, testing and consumers section. Also engineering and research and innovation need to be merge as they are in a way similar and copies of each other. Games of the world (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it's okay; it's a good review of the most prominent critics and criticisms. The formatting is a bit OTT maybe, but the content is fair enough. --Andreas JN466 10:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to edit

You are cordially invited to edit Draft:Mismanagement of the 2019-20 COVID-19 pandemic. Calmecac5 (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to edit

You are cordially invited to edit Draft:Mismanagement of the 2019-20 COVID-19 pandemic. Calmecac5 (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

'Deaths per day' information

Hi all,

The graphs for 'deaths per day' are rather misleading, and should probably be labelled 'deaths registered per day' with a note stating that although they were registered on a particular day, the actual date of deaths can be weeks earlier. In fact as I suggested at the main chart, it would likely be far better and provide a far more accurate picture to create a chart of the date the deaths actually occurred, rather than simply when they were announced.

Best wishes, 2A00:23C7:E1C:B600:A8B0:7E09:C8B2:6978 (talk) 10:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Map: Cumbria.

Please color in Cumbria per https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51738837 -- Jeandré, 2020-03-05t14:10z 14:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

London, London, London

Were all the pictures supplied by one person who lives in London. London restaurant. London supermarket, London doctor's surgery, people in London wearing masks. Is UK just London now? Why so London centric? There's a big wide world outside the M25 even if Londoners don't know it or care for it

Please consider diversifying the images a bit ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.80.121 (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible SARS-CoV-2 related multi-system inflammatory state requiring intensive care in children

Primarily related to the UK but noted in many other countries as well. Could possibly be mentioned in the article? (although far too soon to make any concrete assertions)

Medical sources
[3] [4] [5]
Other reliable news sources
[6] [7] [8] [9]

--Bangalamania (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Spin in favour of government

This article says the UK government acted "On the same day as the [Imperial College] report was released".

But, that's not really correct. This report from Imperial College was their 12th such report. 11 very similar reports went without such action from the government.

It's a highly biased revision of history to imply that the government acted as soon as they had this information. Neither of the sources make a direct connection between these two events, so it is an original claim on this Wikipedia. If I were able to edit this (or delete it), I would. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:2711:5700:CD30:6F33:760B:F2B1 (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the phrasing makes an inapt link, so I've changed so that both report and change of direction are recorded as a date.Pincrete (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It's been widely assumed in the popular press that Neil Ferguson's report from Imperial led the government's change of course. But Ferguson argued in an interview that his report was one of several developments that caused it. Anywikiuser (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Clarity on death statistics

Could it please be made much clearer in the statistics section that the number of deaths given per day is the number that were *announced* on that day, *not* the number who actually died on that day? Ideally the data would be updated to reflect this, but at a minimum a much clearer set of headings would help. The corresponding graph (titled 'deaths per day' is actively misleading as it shows deaths announced, not deaths occurring, and the downward trend is not evident. As an example, this graph suggests that 813 people died from the virus on 24 April in the UK, when the current (as at 25 April) known figures are 105 for England (with figures not available for Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland). If there are any queries about this I'm more than happy to discuss the best way of representing the info.Marthiemoo (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. --Andreas JN466 18:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

A bigger issue is that UK deaths don't seem to include deaths in nursing homes, as far as I can see. In some places, these deaths reportedly account for about 85% of the deaths - if UK were as high, actual deaths could be 6 to 7 times higher that shown here. While it's unlikely to be that high - it is concerning that they aren't reflected. Nfitz (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

An even greater issue is that the deaths announced are only those reported, not occurring on the previous day. I'm not sure whether hospitals are reporting these directly or whether they rely on register offices receiving registrations of death from next-of-kin up to five days later (eight in Scotland), or even longer if a doctor's certificate isn't available. Either way, there are delays running into days, especially over weekends, between occurrence and reporting. The only reliable stats for the date of occurrence of death are those compiled in arrears for England & Wales by ONS, for example https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending10april2020. AlanS51 (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

AlanS51 The home nations are also individually compiling the actual dates of death, I linked to them here.

At the very least however the 'deaths per day' heading is, as stated above, misleading and should be changed to 'deaths reported per day' and a footnote added stating 'This information lists the date that deaths were reported, although the date of death may in some cases be some days before the reporting date'. I would be very grateful if someone could do this for me since the article is protected. Thank you. 2A00:23C7:E1C:B600:A8B0:7E09:C8B2:6978 (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done creffett (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Updating Death Statistics - Precedent

Putting a note here due to the breaking news that the UK will now be including care home deaths in its figures. The precedent from the France article (who began including care home deaths a couple of weeks ago) is to include the new figures as a continuation from the old figures, but with an additional note to explain the rather large increase in deaths from yesterday to today.Wikiditm (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I came here to make the same comment. We will follow this precedent. Thank you. --Spaastm (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree, we should follow the precedent. This is Paul (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The "all settings" figures are now available from 2 March, so the new figures should be included from then. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean? Link a source and I'll fix it. --Spaastm (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Spaastm: see this on GOV.UK. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Thanks, but do we have information on how many care homes deaths happened each day from March 2 to April 28? I couldn't find that. --Spaastm (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Spaastm: there's a link to a csv file about 3⁄4 of the way down this webpage, is that what you are looking for? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Yes! Thank you so much. I'll update the table right away. --Spaastm (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I've just seen this. I updated the table to show hospitalised deaths throughout, and didn't look here as I didn't imagine the outcome of a discussion would be to show inconsistent information. It is my understanding that the international standard for comparison is hospitalised deaths, and that is what is shown in nearly all equivalent national pages. It was also not clear to me the additional note in either the`France page or this one. I strongly advocate showing hospitalised deaths only for consistency both within the graph, and for comparison with similar national pages. Jopal22 (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The Italy article uses figures including deaths outside hospitals (see its Talk page) while the France article now shows deaths both in and outside hospital as well as a total (here) which might be the best solution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.72.67 (talk)

There is little international consistency in this. e.g. Belgium includes all Covid deaths if they are signed on the death certificate whether or not testing is done and consequently has the highest per capita figure in Europe. The UK government is still only including deaths where PCR testing has been done despite the fact that until now it has made limited provision for testing in care homes. However since it is now official policy to include deaths in care homes, the table should reflect this. It's easy enough to get the data from here. Chris55 (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

UK Date for UK page?

Style wise, it looks odd to have the year first on a page thst relates to UK data. 2A02:C7F:764B:1C00:191:7627:2A00:56D9 (talk) 10:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion?

Paintspot where was the discussion you say you were following to move this page - as this is the main page for this subject, and I don't see it here? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion was at the main article for the pandemic. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: so not relevant to this independent article then. Was there a notification of that discussion here somewhere, that has perhaps got lost in the move? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It's clearly not independent. You can see if you read the move discussion that there was almost unanamous consensus that if the RM passed that other articles on the subject of COVID-19 would also be moved. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: that would surely depend on whether a notification of that discussion had been posted here, and I don't see one, hence my question above. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. A notice should have been placed here. I'd suggest an WP:RM if an alternative name better suits the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, there should have been a discussion here before anything was done. I've moved the timeline article so it's got the same naming structure as these as it was forgotten. This is Paul (talk) 11:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Recoveries?

Is there no official estimation of data reagrding recoveries? ♆ CUSH ♆ 09:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

No. Chris55 (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes i am confused about this too. Why there isn't any official figures for number of recoveries! HeroNumberZero (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Deaths column error?

This is from Andrew Cormie.

I think this page has an error in the hospitals total deaths column.

I have kept an Excel file, using the figures given by Government, and I periodically check it against yours.

On my file I have always reported the date as the date on which the tests were done – not the date on which reported, (which is the day after).

Your page reports all figures as if they took place on the day reported. I am not complaining about that, as it's just a choice as to how to do it.

But in the Hospital Deaths column you have changed this, I presume inadvertently, on your 25th March

The following is from my record, the first row my dates in March, the next the deaths total, the next the increase per day.

The final row is your dates

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

281 335 422 463 578 759 1,019

48 54 87 41 115 181 260

22 23 24 25 25 26 27

On the 25th the total was reported by Govt. as 463 and that was for the 24th, so is recorded in my file as on the 24th.

But in your page you have the figures 281, 335, 422, 578, 759, 1019, missing out the 463, and shifting all subsequent up one row.

Your figures go on then same as mine, but in line with my dating.Zembu (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe the reporting changed on 25th March to be reported as at 5pm rather than 9am. This is mentioned in the note below, and means there is a one off jump as the period is for 32 hours rather than 24 Jopal22 (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Bar chart deaths on 4 May

At the time of writing this chart, which claims to show "hospitalised deaths reported per day", shows 693 deaths for May 4. This matches the official figure for deaths in ALL settings, but previous bars match the official number of hospital deaths. I know that none of these figures are complete, but is there some inconsistency here or am I missing something? Viewfinder (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Since I wrote the above, the chart has been corrected, thanks. Viewfinder (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

np. The government have made it confusing by having multiple definitions......and for some things different definitions between England, Wales, Scotland and NI! Jopal22 (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2020

Under Statistics:

Change:

"The Office for National Statistics (ONS) issues a weekly report, which counts all deaths where coronavirus was mentioned on the death certificate; not necessarily as the main cause of death. This figure is higher because it also counts deaths where no test was done.[650][651][653]

The World Health Organisation cautioned on 23 April that up to half of coronavirus deaths in Europe were among care home residents..."

To:

"The Office for National Statistics (ONS) issues a weekly report, which counts all deaths where coronavirus was mentioned on the death certificate; not necessarily as the main cause of death. This figure is higher because it also counts deaths where no test was done.[650][651][653]

A group of Scottish researchers examining data from hospital deaths reported by the Istituto Superiore di Sanità and Scottish government found that when age, sex and comorbidity profile are accounted for the victims of the disease would have been expected to live for over a decade longer.

The World Health Organisation cautioned on 23 April that up to half of coronavirus deaths in Europe were among care home residents"

Sources:

https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15849.1 https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/05/02/would-most-covid-19-victims-have-died-soon-without-the-virus https://www.epicentro.iss.it/coronavirus/bollettino/Report-COVID-2019_26_marzo_eng.pdf Mrnifjc (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see no original research and primary, secondary, tertiary sources before reopening this edit request. Aasim 00:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Exercise Cygnus

Can a confirmed user please link to Exercise Cygnus or www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/07/revealed-the-secret-report-that-gave-ministers-warning-of-care-home-coronavirus-crisis Thanks 2A00:23C6:3B82:8500:4D11:B353:10A5:1C66 (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Death rate urban vs rural

"Statistics from the ONS published on 1 May 2020 showed that the death rate from the disease had until then been "six times higher among those living in major cities than in rural areas".[672]"

What does this statistic mean? Does it mean that for any person infected with covid-19 they were 6 times more likely to die from it if they lived in a major city than if they lived in a rural area? Or does it mean that for those given populations 6 times more people would be infected if they lived in a major city, with the likelihood of death actually the same for any given infection? It is not clear whether it is describing a much greater risk of infection in major cities or a much greater lethality among infected persons in major cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.10.242 (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It means death rate per head of population. This probably means you are six times more likely to be infected in urban areas, and just as likely to die when infected. But...... given BAME people are more likely to die from it when they catch it, and BAME people disproportionately live in urban areas, it could mean for instance you are 3 times more likely to catch it in urban areas and on average the death rate of those who catch it is double. Jopal22 (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Splitting

This page is getting too large and so we should consider splitting off sections. I might start one about testing. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a sensible plan. I created a timeline article a couple of weeks ago as that section was starting to get quite long. There's still some stuff to move over to it, but spin-off articles on other topics would help to slim this one down a bit. This is Paul (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Timeline section is quite long especially seeing as there is a separate page for it. Perhaps on the main page there should just be a short few paragraphs about the events instead. Nooby person1 (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Best way to deal with this is to move most of what is only relevant to each of the 4 nations to that article. 90% of this, as it exists, is only relevant to England. This is the mistake the BBC does by referring to "NHS" where in fact there is no such thing; it does not exist. I've also added a crucial bit that health is devolved to all 4 nations, right at the intro, as this is essential information to the reader. Should this not be clarified, I think we are putting people in danger as Wikipedia is giving info about one country which is incorrect in the other 3 countries. It verges on fake news; I don't blame the editors, it seems that 99% get London / England / Westminster / BBC news. John Jones (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I've now started to move text only relevant to England to COVID-19 pandemic in England. John Jones (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It might help John if you stop repeating the same comments and making veiled attacks on people claiming bias in the article. Whether you like it or not the simple fact is Scotland's population only makes up about 10% of the UK, NI and Wales are smaller (look at the voting stats from the election last year, but no idea why Scotland have so many seats, which is more than 10% of Parliament lol) and Wales is a principality and when you look at many things it is England and Wales, not Wales on its own and that includes healthcare. So the so called bias that you state is not disproportionate to the overall view of the UK. However the article does need splitting cause it would get way too long if you started clarifying each fact, by stamping it down to country, region etc. and is too long in the first place, and needs a good ce to remove duplicate and redundant info Games of the world (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Healthcare was devolved to the Welsh and Scottish governments in 1999, and Wales hasn't been a principality since the 16th century. Capewearer (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the page structure is okay as is: the majority of the article content is where the majority of the population live. Perhaps, if this page is split into its nations, it'd be better if this page is changed to COVID-19 Pandemic in England (because then less would have to be changed) and there are other pages made for the Scotland, Wales and NI? Nooby person1 (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Location of the infections/deaths chart

I've now seen it moved to the bottom of the article twice, after being moved back up near the top in between. This is different to the layouts for every other country. It's a little dystopian...like trying to bury bad news at the back of the paper. Samuel Carnall (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's up and down like fiddler's elbow. Please can it be left at the top like everyone else? 2A02:C7F:CC25:D000:5C86:1E28:195A:3CCB (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The data looks more at place in the Statistics section. Adding it to the top also pushes the lead and infobox down. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

As has been pointed out by other users in their edits, most other articles (e.g. France, Italy, Spain, the US) have the timeline chart towards the top of the page. The chart is perhaps the most important single piece of information for most readers and should be found quickly. That being said, the other articles I mentioned have the chart in the 'Timeline' section, it just so happens that the this is the first section on most articles, whereas it is at the bottom of the page for this one. I suggest either moving the Timeline section above the Government Response section and having the chart as an illustration, or creating a new section above Government Response for the sole purpose of housing the chart, but keeping the rest of the timeline info at the bottom of the page. There have also been remarks to the effect that having the chart at the top of the page causes issues for mobile users, I suggest making the chart collapsed by default on mobile to address this. Vrtr47 (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess the majority of people come here just to look at the chart, so why is it now halfway down this long article? Just about every other COVID country-specific article has it near the top, so why not this one? (this comment moved from end of Talk - I didn't notice it was already being discussed). Arcturus (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Arcturus: other articles that I looked at have the big chart in the 'Timeline' section, which is in various locations within those articles. Perhaps if you moved that section further up in this article that might be acceptable? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Another point; the chart is at the bottom of the article, but the source for the data is in the InfoBox at the top. Again, this makes the whole thing cumbersome. I suggest the Timeline section is placed at the top of the article. Arcturus (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Arcturus: the source shouldn't be in the lead as the lead is meant to be a summary of sourced content in the article body! The chart should use data from the body and not from the lead. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@DeFacto:. Sorry, I didn't mean the actual top. I think putting the Timeline section, incorporating the graph, after the Background section would probably be the best place. What do you think? Please move it if you agree, or I'll do it later this evening (UK time) assuming no major objections. Arcturus (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah the chart is big and ugly but it's the only thing I actually look at if I read the article. It's frustrating to have it stuck right at the bottom. If we could have some best of both worlds where the chart is at the top but doesn't screw up formatting then that would be awesome. talk to !dave 18:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I moved the section up towards the top of the article. Only problem now is that there's a lot of white space around. Maybe someone could have a crack at sorting it out? Arcturus (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I took a stab at cleaning up the whitespace. Thanks for the move. It's the first thing I look for as I pull up each country article and was disappointed to find it dumped to the end yet again. I hope it remains near the top. -- Tom N talk/contrib 02:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)