Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United States/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

There are a lot of sections that are starting to bias toward heavy criticism of the US Executive Administration response, without any attempt to balance the section by calling out critical responses which may be biased. Typically, articles include sections along the pattern of "Administrative Response" followed by a "Criticism" section. As of now, the criticism citations are not being called out separately. This detracts from the wiki goal of factual and unbiased content. 70.231.77.227 (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully the article will soon begin to report positive news as the CDC begins to deliver more of the tests that it has been promising and the president begins to quit quit saying so many things that don't match what the medical experts are saying. Also, he did present an excellent package of plans to help us all get through this emergency and that should go in the article now while it awaits confirmation by the Senate, and that will help to even things out. Gandydancer (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the article could benefit from extending the description of the response of the administration and the CDC and moving criticism to designated sections, such as "charges of mismanagement". However, it is difficult to extend the description of what the government has done when it has done so little. --hroest 17:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

It's all relative. China waited nearly 8 weeks after its first case before imposing any local travel restrictions or quarantines, while it took the U.S. just 9 days from its first case to limit international travel. China then criticized the U.S. for doing too much, not too little. --Light show (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the medical institutions in the US are nowhere close to start wide testing for the virus. In fact, there is a catastrophic failure with this [1], unlike in South Korea. This is one of reasons US will pay an enormously high price for this pandemic in terms of wide closures of everything and people get sick and fired from the jobjs, instead of acting in the same way as the South Korea did. Only 6 to 8 thousand people were tested in US so far. "It's insanity" doctors say [2]. True. My very best wishes (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

South Korea is seen as the "best" practice, but US is not performing too badly either. France and Germany, both with higher infection rate than US (in terms of numbers and in terms of infection/million) also didn't follow South Korean standard. Despite performing worse, I don't see much criticism on French articles. SunDawn (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The section titled, "Trump Administration Statements" seems one-sided. It starts out saying, "From January 2019 to mid-March 2019, President Trump consistently downplayed the threat posed by the coronavirus to the United States, giving many optimistic public statements.[49] He initially said that he had no worries about the coronavirus becoming a pandemic.[50] He went to state on multiple occasions that the situation was "under control", and also repeatedly suggested that the virus would suddenly vanish.[51] He accused Democrats and media outlets of exaggerating the seriousness of the situation, describing Democrats' criticism of his administration's response as a "hoax".[50][52]."

But we can also see from Trump's official signed proclamation back in January that he said, "Outbreaks of novel viral infections among people are always of public health concern, and older adults and people with underlying health conditions may be at increased risk. Public health experts are still learning about the severity of 2019-nCoV. An understanding of the key attributes of this novel virus, including its transmission dynamics, incubation period, and severity, is critical to assessing the risk it poses to the American public. Nonetheless, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has determined that the virus presents a serious public health threat.

The CDC is closely monitoring the situation in the United States, is conducting enhanced entry screening at 5 United States airports where the majority of travelers from Wuhan arrive, and is enhancing illness response capacity at the 20 ports of entry where CDC medical screening stations are located. The CDC is also supporting States in conducting contact investigations of confirmed 2019-nCoV cases identified within the United States. The CDC has confirmed that the virus has spread between two people in the United States, representing the first instance of person-to-person transmission of the virus within the United States. The CDC, along with state and local health departments, has limited resources and the public health system could be overwhelmed if sustained human-to-human transmission of the virus occurred in the United States. Sustained human-to-human transmission has the potential to have cascading public health, economic, national security, and societal consequences." ^[1]

Perhaps can add some of these statements in to counterbalance the information given from the more recent media sources. Carleditor (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The section on "Trump administration statements" was more neutral as of earlier today at 11:35. That version was followed by a series of edits by Starship.paint that appear to have given it more of a point of view. I think we should revert the section to plain factual statements of what Trump has said. A good start would be reverting it to that revision. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ka-Ping Yee - I've reviewed that version, as well, and it also contains opinionated one-sided bias. A non-bias section would provide context to statements made, such as what statements were made in media, and what official statements were made by the administration (media interviews and rallies are not official statements). Providing cherry picked statements is standard partisanship practices. For the last month I was using Wikipedia as a source of information for my clients and colleagues in the travel industry. It's been good for factual stats to show what the actual numbers are. But when I see sections like this which display only one side of the story, I have to rethink using this as an informational resource as it's bad for business to jump into the political fray. Carleditor (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree. A section devoted to disconnected statements with no context, especially in a list form arranged by dates, does not belong in this article. I suggest we cut down the cherry tree, and remove the section. Then any relevant quotes can be added back to the article in proper context. --Light show (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I tried cleaning up some of the more overtly partisan parts of the new section, but it's still a bit of a mess. I would support it's removal unless significant work goes into improving the writing, organization, and relevance, eliminating partisanship/creating balance, and placing the commentary in context. Unfortunately, there is a lot of work to be done with this article as a whole to get it up to Wikipedia's standards, at least so long as people keep adding things that violate the neutrality and relevance rules and make messy organizational choices. Rmm413 (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the questionable new Communications section, the opening Preparedness and prior warnings section seems even sloppier to me. Briefing of successors is normal, so why is this so relevant to this article's discussion of the government's response that it must be highlighted? Why also should Lisa Monaco's opinions be so featured, when she is not involved with the outbreak response? The main paragraph about the fewer positions is couching commentary as news as currently written. I think this section as is should go too. Rmm413 (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you're right, @Rmm413. The section would be better utilized sticking to all official relevant statements and actions, regardless of how the chips fall. It currently seems to be attempting to build a particular narrative. I.e. Trump removed 1 position created by Obama(even though the CDC has over 10,000 employees already). Therefore, Trump is at fault for the CDC's lack of preparedness. I've seen the same memes on Facebook and I think these narratives are particularly suitable for memes. By the way, I would edit it, but I do not have enough edits yet to do so.Carleditor (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

May I inject a bit of a South African perspective on this matter: take the presidency of The Old Man (Mandela, of course) and Thabo Mbeki… or if you want to go further down, Jacob Zuma!

Mandela was such a good president that even when he took what I may judge as incorrect decisions, people believed that it will all work out. But then came Mbeki, most of us even today remember as an Aids denialist, something he does not want to be called, only after the damage is done. This made him popular… infamous rather. Before Aids started killing in numbers (since HIV takes time to reduce one’s immune system before opportunistic infections result in death), it was called “American Invention to Discourage Sex” (AIDS!), being discovered by American scientists. A president questioning the link between HIV and Aids, is actually giving credence to this and other forms of buffoonery. Maybe not intentionally but effectively. That was a jab. An upper cut is when anther of our presidents says he took a shower after being sexually involved with HIV positive woman. The fight against HIV just becomes much harder, especially amongst the less educated. Now we are a leader in the world when it comes to HIV infections. GREAT!

Now Trump.

Simply using the word “hoax” on climate change then, and now on Covid-2 has impact on the fight against the disease (and climate change, not to mention my believe of the link between the two). His audience, who may also be less educated, takes these things to heart. Couple that with the poor start or late testing, USA is heading in another direction right there… as we can all now (20/03/2020) see the stats.

No news is good news. Good news is not news. That Mbeki led a cleaner government will not even be remembered. It is the bad that a leader does which carries weight, since he is voted to do good, not bad.

But then, Trump was elected to build the wall, to get out of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, to invade Iran or something, so on and so on.

So, I do not think mentioning the bad that Trump does as biased. It is the long term impact that we need to worry about. And there is a lot to be worried about when it comes to USA today.

Encyclopaedia is a record for now and the future. The good, the bad and the ugly needs to be recorded yes… factually. Concerned people will be quick to state the bad. Those of us who want to have balance, then let us add the good that Trump does, if any. Do not just accuse the concerned people of just being biased.

Add your counterbalance. Rangoane Mogosoane (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I would add more to make it balanced and provide it context. However, I am unable to because of the semi-lock on the article. Carleditor (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem with your take is that 1) we are not talking about un-controversially proven facts (such as your debunked claim that was recently in the article that Trump called the virus a "hoax" rather than the criticism of his handling of it: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-coronavirus-rally-remark/), 2) much of the sort of material we are discussing has been added with overtly partisan phrasing, which violates Wikipedia's rules, 3) some of it is of very questionable relevance to this particular article (just because it gets published somewhere doesn't mean it's actually important or relevant enough—we can’t include everything!), and 4) it will chase away people who only want the basic facts and not arguments written in politicized language—people that might actually find the information in this article helpful. There are numerous partisan takes on this subject out there in places that are far more appropriate than this article, which is supposed to be an encyclopedia article not a forum for political arguing matches. Once we allow this article to be a place for political debate, it will be hard to keep it under control and we will lose the proper focus of this article.

If we are going to focus on controversial criticisms, like usual they should be in their own section at the end of the article, with an effort placed on accuracy, neutrality, relevance, brevity and balance. That would actually abide by Wikipedia's rules unlike much of what is being added to this article, which too often mirrors currently popular political talking points that are very much still being debated. I certainly don’t agree with the idea of someone trying to force me to write possitive things about Trump solely to balance out partisan writing from the left that isn’t supposed to be in the article in the first place. How about we just don’t politicize the article from the start and work a little harder to make sure we are fully within Wikipedia’s guidelines? Rmm413 (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I did not say Trump called coronavirus a hoax. Look again.

But do you think his audience picked it up the way you are laying it out? Why are 80%+ of Democrats worried about Covid-2 while only 42% of Republicans do, according to some surveys?

HIV is preventable through condom. Simple. Coronavirus you get by merely breathing or just touching after the infected plus it is infectious up to 9 days on certain surfaces… this is a super virus. I worry about it changing the world as we know it. That more than 55% of Republicans don’t is seriously worrying.

You are not forced to add balance to the article. But note that all the statements stated here are not false or fabrications. And they relate to a response(s) to the pandemic, by the president. So, they are very much pertinent. And coming from the US presidents, everyone aught to be worried… like our former presidents questioning the link between HIV and AIDS! These are facts! Put in relevant section. Unless as you say we have a different article for such. That is cool too. Yes, we cannot add everything, but they must be noted especially since they are alarming. Rangoane Mogosoane (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Rangoane Mogosoane is correct: RSs show individual peoples' world view / ideology / values prioritizations are associated with how they are responding to the pandemic situation. See March 6 item, and Poll: As Coronavirus Spreads, Fewer Americans See Pandemic As A Real Threat March 17, 2020 NPR.org item. X1\ (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Escandar (talk · contribs) added the following as the first sentence of the Congressional response section: "On January 30, Democrats in Congress were still focussed on discrediting the President's acquittal in the Impeachment trail." This seems to me to at least violate the "prefer nonjudgmental language" part of NPOV, and also of questionable relevance in this section, as most Congressional responses to the virus didn't begin in earnest until weeks later. I think it should be removed; does this sound reasonable to others? ␄ –Nucleosynth (t c) 15:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Ugh, I hate to say this, but this feels like an NPOV violation, and a big one at that. The heading is "Trump administration statements," but what follows is a list of ridiculous and harmful things said out of ignorance or malice or political gain. This is not a representation of statements from the administration. (Many administration officials have been quite rational.) I think this topic needs coverage in the article, but the title and the section content need to reflect each other. I would personally endorse changing the heading to something like "Criticisms of presidential statements," or something like that, but then that would mean finding notable people who have criticized these statements. Dcs002 (talk) 06:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The NPOV problem has been discussed above. I endorsed moving the statements there to the Controversy section, and fill the current section with his more pertinent comments regarding the coronavirus crisis.SunDawn (talk) 06:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I would agree that the section is badly named, especially given that Donald Trump doesn't always speak for the Trump Administration (Oval Office address for example, wasn't a completely accurate description of the administration's policies). If we wanted to keep quoting the president directly perhaps it would be better to change the section heading from "Trump administration statements" to "Statements from Donald Trump". Moosesheppy (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

This I agreed. As Trump now lead daily press conferences most of federal statements would be from him. SunDawn (talk) 07:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The controversy section shouldn't be removed since it pertains to the problems COVID-19 treatment is facing as a whole in the US.Alexceltare2 (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I agreed that it shouldn't be removed. I wonder why it was removed. The point of that section is to group controversies by US government, which may include other government entities (such as Florida governor that reject the closure of beaches) SunDawn (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dcs002, SunDawn, Alexceltare2, and Moosesheppy: - I have written three new paragraphs at the top of the section. Several new sources this week have summarized, and highlighted, pertinent responses by Trump to the outbreak as noteworthy on their own. I have also added responses by other Trump administration officials, as highlighted by a source from POLITICO. starship.paint (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The section, along with much of article, is being used as a dartboard, IMO, with Trump as the target. He's mentioned 111 times in the article, compared to Britain's Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, for instance, who's mentioned only six times in the UK article. The section of cherry-picked criticisms is almost 600 words, beginning with darts like, "Trump consistently downplayed the threat," " he had no worries," situation was "under control", "hoax", "frequently promoted misinformation," "without scientific basis," "suggested that the outbreak would be over by April," "virus would vanish "like a miracle," "he underestimated the projected time," "inaccurately stated," etc. And those non-encyclopedic darts are at the very beginning of the section. Essentially, in the entire section, none of you have managed to find anything positive to say. Which makes the section way too personalized and criticism focused. In fact, the entire section should not be included for that reason alone, as any relevant material should be used in context within the article. --Light show (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Light show: - if commander-in-chief Trump has communicated poorly about the virus, one would expect reliable sources to reflect that, and they do. Have you actually read the reliable sources? I will include the 12 articles I added below. Then, ask yourself, have I misrepresented the sources? Have I cherry-picked 12? If you can't find a similar number of other sources stating otherwise, then I have reflected the majority view of the sources accurately, and thus negative material about Trump is actually due to public figure Trump acting negatively during this crisis. starship.paint (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but as I mentioned earlier, there is nothing simpler than for someone to armchair post criticism about some notable. You added 12 about Trump, the president. How about someone less political, like Megan Markle, which Google gives 12 million criticism articles for. Or Boris Johnson, which gives 14.4 million. It's so easy, which makes such a compilation worthless. Comments should be included in context within the article, not as a separate bulletin board. Then it would called editing, not cut-and-pasting.--Light show (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Light show: - I believe I linked to 10 reliable sources, not anyone sitting from their armchair. Megan Markle and Boris Johnson are not part of the Trump administration. Donald Trump is the #1 most important person of the Trump administration, and of the United States right now. In context of this article, he is the #1 person to respond to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States. If you can't see that, I can't help you. starship.paint (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I would like to second that. Any decision Boris Johnson makes is subject to parliament approval. However, Donald Trump can sign a decree/Executive order on the spot. This makes Trump the highest authority over what decisions are implemented at federal level in the US. I know that many sections on US related articles sound like WP:LIBEL against Trump but someone has to take the blame for avoidable mishaps. A solution might be to rename Trump did... to Trump Administrarion did....Alexceltare2 (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

If that's the case, than some might offer the opposite opinions than are stated here (see next comment) and sprinkled throughout the article. After all, the U.S. has five times the population of the UK, got its first imported infections two weeks earlier than the UK, has the same ratio of cases, yet has close the same number of confirmed deaths so far. That's possibly because due to some of his unilateral acts, and despite his unrealistic optimistic comments, a third of the U.S. is in lock-down mode, undergoing great suffering and high unemployment, while the UK has so far only closed bars, restaurants and gyms, something even China has complained about. Your comment seems to imply that parliaments may be a barrier to quick actions during a crisis.--Light show (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Whatever they say, the current US administration is guilty as sin [15], and it will be held responsible. My very best wishes (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Starship.paint: Nobody said that we should paint Trump positively. What me and other editors are asking is to either put all of his controversies on one section, or add more neutral or positive comments by him. For instance, there is no single mention about his call to make sacrifice if I don't put it there. No mention either about his plan to stop house repossession, his comments about nurses, his comments about FDA, nothing. His Chinese travel ban that is done days before first outbreak (and Pelosi's reaction that call him as racist) is not mentioned. I don't ask him to be praised, I asked all editors to be WP:NPOV and to represent all of it accurately, instead of just picking up the negative statements. I have to iterate too that in other similar wiki page (Italy, Germany, France, etc.) there is very minimal content about criticism to their leadership. Surely criticism should be there too? SunDawn (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• @SunDawn: - I believe most of us are volunteers and are not getting paid for this. This means that we are limited time and effort to expend (I myself did not edit at all from 11 March to 17 March). There is no rule that if I include content of criticism of the United States, then I must go and edit Italy, Germany, France, perhaps also China, South Korea, Japan, Iran, United Kingdom, etc? It would never end, I do not have the time. Anyone who wants to include such content is free to do so; if you feel strongly about this and have the time to do so, I urge you to do it. I am not opposed to any content you have mentioned above. It would very much help if you bring the sources here. starship.paint (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• SunDawn, the His Chinese travel ban that is done days before first outbreak is mentioned in 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States#Travel and entry restrictions. No mention either about his plan to stop house repossession - 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States#Other policy responses. Man this Government response part is a mess, I'm trying to reorganize it. (EDIT: now both of the above are in 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United_Statess#Other federal policy responses starship.paint (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Starship.paint:, The HUD entry is one I put in. My point about travel restriction is that there is no "comments" on its efficacy, while the travel restriction includes references to colorful comments from a governor. SunDawn (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Hopefully, someone will read this and fix the gap that you have identified. starship.paint (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to say why I'd like these criticisms to be left in somehow. They show direct evidence that the president has not kept himself informed in a time of a major national crisis, he has disseminated harmful untruths, and by doing so, he has worked against US preparedness. IMO, in a historic perspective, this is of encyclopedic importance. This is not a political statement but a contributing factor (of unknown magnitude) to the severity of the pandemic in the US. However, if this rationale is used, the quotes must be limited to those that contributed to poor US preparedness, such as denying the problem, delaying the administration's response, giving poor or contradictory advice to the public, or maybe justifications for poor or ineffective allocation of resources. I know this probably reads like I'm trying to impeach him again, but we're talking about presenting the president's quotes in the context of their role in the evolution of the pandemic in the US. Maybe if RS can be found to support that notion - that his quotes have affected the course of the pandemic - it would be a tidy package. Anyway, this is my justification of why the quotes should be left in. The president's effects on the course of the pandemic are encyclopedic in nature. Dcs002 (talk) 08:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

That section seems useless at this point, since countries are beyond tracing world travelers. The section only includes some random news clips, in any case, which goes against guidelines. --Light show (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman, The President as Bystander: Trump Struggles to Unify a Nation on Edge. Mar 12, 2020 NYT

School superintendents, sports commissioners, college presidents, governors, and business owners have taken it upon themselves to shut down much of American life without clear guidance from Trump.

A former homeland security adviser repeatedly tried to be patched through to Trump or Mike Pence to warn them how dire the pandemic really is, but was blocked by White House officials.

and

• Terry Gross (March 12, 2020). "Reporter: White House Knew Of Coronavirus' 'Major Threat,' But Response Fell Short". npr.org. Fresh Air

The White House knew of coronavirus’ “major threat,” but infighting at the Department of Health and Human Services and the need to flatter Trump impeded the response to the coronavirus.

X1\ (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think closing schools and restaurants are the responsibilities of the federal government.SunDawn (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

But having a coordinated response to the pandemic is. If one school is open with students potentially sharing the virus (while the next is being more responsible in cutting classes) defeats the collective effort. So yes, it makes sense to have leadership and direction.

Just that creating such a different section is not necessary. There are sections already mentioning this poor leadership. Slot the contribution there. Rangoane Mogosoane (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Is there a section you recommend, Rangoane Mogosoane? X1\ (talk) 07:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmmmmm!... there were sections mentioning the president stating how "the tests are beautiful" and also how he just did not want to hear about this coronavirus as the media is making it look worse than it really is... but all those have been removed. I wonder by who and why!

There is Controversy section at the bottom... I think slot it there. Hoping they do not remove. Rangoane Mogosoane (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

It appears things have changed. New options? X1\ (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Some editors are talking about the president in this section, so perhaps joining in there is better given that any consensus in this section might get overridden and vice versa. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

This is commentary and doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. If the article is thorough in detailing what state and local authorities are doing and the spread of the threat itself, then people should be able to draw their own conclusions. Have a little faith in the readers not to need overt political commentary. Rmm413 (talk) 09:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Why Rmm413 do you just talk of what state and local authorities are doing, but not at the national level? More than obviously the federal level is relevant; some examples the Defense Production Act of 1950, national border closures & restrictions, US military activities, and national equipment purchases. X1\ (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

No, of course, the national response must be discussed. I was referring only to the topic of this thread and its editorializing and one-sided judgmentalism. There are literally thousands of articles that argue against each other that we could include if we start down that path--and if we do, according to Wikipedia's rules we will have to including opposing claims too to maintain neutrality and I would really hope the article doesn't end up looking like a political battleground from some online forum. You must know that your position is controversial as it is the standard conservative position that local governments are closer to the people and can better judge exactly what they need--and that's not even mentioning how many conservative media and political figures have been praising Trump's handling of this through the roof. Do we really want to include it all? Rmm413 (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean your position, Rmm413? X1\ (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The title of this thread. I assume because you were the first poster that you were the one who was arguing: "minimal presidential leadership: Trump as Bystander; add?" Also, of course, the sources you wanted to use all point toward this single, controversial narrative. I suppose we can build that narrative in this article, but once again to abide by Wikipedia's neutrality rules on controversial topics we will need to include the sources and political figures that dispute this narrative (as either false, misleading, or actually a beneficial thing depending on the source). Rmm413 (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Asking if a RS is appropriate to add is not a position in my definition.

Wikipedia needs to maintain neutrality, avoiding false balance and whitewashing. Since there are media organizations, or segments of, that cheerlead for this Administration, seemly no matter they do or don't do, it would be false balance for Wikipedia to propagate those sources, and particularly wrong without obvious attribution.

Given DUE weight, opposing claims should be added.

I disagree it is an exclusively American conservative position, in America, local governments are closer to the people and can better judge exactly what they need. I don't even see that as a position, and appears to conflate axes of The Political Compass.

Our positions are the same in that national response must be discussed. X1\ (talk) 06:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I was not suggesting whitewashing, not attributing claims, or ignoring due weight. I was advocating for not marshalling select sources in order to form a controversial politicized narrative in an encyclopedia article (explicitly or strongly suggested). In fact I wasn’t even just talking of conservative news sources or politicians to provide balance, but things such as Newsweek’s article: https://www.newsweek.com/californias-democrat-governor-praises-trumps-coronavirus-response-every-single-thing-he-said-1491294, where California’s Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom praised Trump for his support and for following through on everything he told him he was going to do to help. This is of course just one potential example of many.

I was not claiming that anything is an “exclusively” conservative position, but federalism and the decentralization of the federal government have been major features of mainstream American conservatism for many decades. In fact some conservatives believe that the sort of “leading” you are discussing violates the Constitution’s 10th Amendment. I’m actually surprised to find anyone arguing this topic with me considering how widespread a general attitude it is, not just among politicians but even among the conservative justices on the Supreme Court. It is even a plank in the most recent (2016) official Republican platform (https://gop.com/platform/we-the-people/): “Every violation of state sovereignty by federal officials is not merely a transgression of one unit of government against another; it is an assault on the liberties of individual Americans… We pledge to restore the proper balance and vertical separation of powers between the federal government and state governments — the governments closest to, and most reflective of, the American people…”

The national response is already discussed extensively in the article, so I don’t see how that is controversial. You seem to want to guide readers toward specific conclusions and that’s a different topic.

Rmm413 (talk) 09:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

While I disagree with your repeated use of ideological arguments (you used the phrase "conservative" seven times) and your ideological arguments paradoxically appear to favor the national leader, a U.S President, intentionally being a "bystander" (behavior described by the NYT, NPR, and also this March 20 WaPo, among other RSs) - the idea, I guess, in this case is something similar to primum non nocere; I will not, per Rangoane Mogosoane's suggestion, respond to this thread further. I have populated the NYT ref for future Readers. X1\ (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

X1\, I think many here see the thread as judgemental/partisan/unnecessary and all. In any case, you are only going to add one line with less than 20 words probably on this. Maybe you should just leave it out. We are only at the beginning of the outbreak in the USA (or the real knowledge thereof), especially with 5000 cases uncovered just yesterday. There is a lot to discuss and add to the article than this.

Though it is worth noting that the South African government (the cabinets of ministers, with the president) closed all schools in tandem with less than 100 repatriated cases, before the community spread.

Rangoane Mogosoane (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The maps in the lead section are in pretty urgent need of updating. The map on cases and deaths by county shows no deaths in Washington state! Someone please either update or remove it (I'll tag it for now if I can find an appropriate tag). Overall, there seem to be too many similar maps. I'd suggest taking a leaf from the main pandemic article and collapsing most of the maps, leaving only the most relevant one at the top. Sdkb (talk) 05:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Good observation. The map is extremely delayed and in need of update. I suggest it be removed until someone makes the necessary changes. -- Veggies (talk) 06:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

(A link to the file) It looks like User:Democratic Backsliding created it and has only made a single edit on the 20th. Perhaps if it is updated a bit more, it can be used, but it should be accurate to a specific date at the least. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Values for 3/19 do not correspond to those from other sources (e.g. Johns Hopkins reflected 14,250 confirmed cases for the day. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.59.207.186 (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

As has been done for the cases charts for Italy and UK, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data/Italy_medical_cases_chart&oldid=946194252

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data/United_Kingdom_medical_cases_chart&oldid=946201520

CountMacula (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@CountMacula: If you are comfortable with editing templates {{2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United States medical cases chart}} isn't extended-confirmed or semi-protected. Since this kind of thing has been done on other charts I don't think it would be controversial. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 21:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Alucard 16: I can do it if I know where to get the data. I'm not familiar with the sources or the history though, so it might be better for someone else to take this on. If it's just filling in the blanks and calculating some daily growth rates, I could do it if someone provides the data source(s).CountMacula (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@CountMacula: @Alucard 16: I just took care of it -- hopefully this is what you're looking for. Bluegreenmagenta (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

There is an error between 2nd of march and 3rd of march. Cumulative goes from 6 to 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:983:63EA:1:59E4:510A:8534:7CDE (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anybody calling out that specific table being removed. That was a really great table that showed the progression of cases by individual states and by dates. Is that table still available anywhere or was it consolidated to only one row of data for current accumulation in the other table?

I thought that the new cases by date and state table was killer. Really easy to dump into excel and do a bunch of data off of and I would check it daily to see the increase of new cases by state and see what the trend was.

Hoping it is still hidden somehwere!

-A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.24.153.161 (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

It is still the same template page, but it is no longer transcluded here (or anywhere else). I don't know why.

Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United States medical cases

--84.133.217.146 (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The table (including references) was too large and was messing up the page's display. The talk section above called #Post-expand include size exceeded discussed this, and they decided to replace the table with a link to it. 68.7.103.137 (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we put a more prominent link to the table? Perhaps a link from a section header? It is very useful, and having fewer eyes on it means people can't use it or update it as frequently as needed. It needs several dozen updates per day, so several volunteers looking at it per day. I feel it is perhaps the most important collection of data points pertaining to this article. dudzcom (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Should this page have a table similar to the main coronavirus pandemic page but instead of showing countrywide totals its for the states? That might be a good idea. ArmageddonAviation (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I would support this idea. I believe most (if not all) states have a tally online. I could help to implement this. Bluegreenmagenta (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

For reference, here is the table on the main page Bluegreenmagenta (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Wait, isn't there already one in the last-ish section? Rcul4u998 (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Good eye -- it looks like it. I'm working on a template now, based off of the country-by-country one. I'll share more soon. Bluegreenmagenta (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Here you go -- Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/U.S. cases by state. I updated the page with this template. Bluegreenmagenta (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I think this table should be moved to the beginning of the article, for thematic consistency with the global page as well as accessibility. JoelleJay (talk) 03:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I no longer see the table. Where did it go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.229.196.17 (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

So many sources for state data. Wouldn't it be more uniform if the numbers were just taken from one trustworthy source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.21.154.12 (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

There is a mistake in the COVID-19 cases chart. On 2020-02-21 it goes from 57 down to 20. Tavadyan (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

i saw in CNN that NYC and LA have instructed doctors to not test for covid unless it affects the treatment. seems to me that this will skew the data to the low side and make finding the inflection points problematic. could you please put a note in the text somewhere to the effect that numbers may be inaccurate due to inconsistent testing.

thanks

jb 2601:601:9800:2F2E:B518:E771:2171:A9E7 (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I have several serious gripes about State by State summary table. Frankly, this is the only thing on the page I am interested in, and probably it's the same for many other people. If you come here daily for the statistics, you aren't going to want to read through hundreds of pages of mostly Trump bashing before you get to the real information. I mean seriously, even if you like reading Trump bashing, you don't want to keep reading the same thing day after day, you want new information and the table is where you find up to date info (sometimes). The intro section is so long, I have to page down NINE times just to get to the link to the table. And the numbers don't add up on the table. Today the Total in the recoveries column says 171 but the numbers actually add up to 36. Can we PLEASE do a better job here??? //rant offDrHenley (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it is time for a separate 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States by state article? For better or worse, the U.S. response has been largely dictated at the state level.--agr (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, you're more than welcome to dedicate your own time to help the nearly 900 editors who have contributed to the page, if you don't think we're doing a good enough job. Rcul4u998 (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

"Too many cooks spoil the stew." One more will not make it better, no matter what he does. So I just encourage the 900 to try to do their best. DrHenley (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Can bookmark the statistics section, so web page opens there directly. Can also open the state statistics table directly instead of this page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data/United_States_medical_cases_by_state Additional comments at bottom of new section on this talk page. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

website about coronavirus in United States for Russian people http://covid19eng.com/ 80.244.22.234 (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please phrase your request in the format of "change X to Y" and provide sources. Mgasparin (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

An article that discusses the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States wouldn't be complete without an analysis of the media itself. Aside from an unknown number of outlets and websites that are devoted to satire, conspiracy or other business as usual - the most useful tool to spread beneficial propaganda is the media. It's important to distinguish beneficial propaganda from harmful. For example, the most useful way to "flatten the curve" may be to convince or persuade people to isolate, behave differently or be afraid. Similary, we are seeing numbers of the infected and casualties which are regularly updated and are undoubtedly being obsessively followed by some of the public. But it is difficult (or impossible) to determine an actual number of infected but the media isn't making this obvious. Some reporting includes a growing list of public figures, politicians, celebrities and athletes who are typically portrayed as faithfully isolating or in self-quarantine. What isn't reported behind a "doing well" selfie or a "I beat it" testimonial or official headshot is usually access to the best medical care available. This is not the case for millions of Americans nor will it ever be. Moreover, the celebrities who make the news are rarely one who is or was in any mortal danger. I suspect that a new and growing number of celebrity survivors will make the headlines in the near future. This is not to say the grim tolls are going to be hidden or inacccurate at that same time. The media may or may not be helpful but it is tightly controlled, easily censored and may not have acccurate information but most of the public can't understand this easily. Clearly this can be harmful. The public has little to no ability to control the spread of information. This should not be confused with free speech or adding content to the talk section of Wikipedia. The media will lead us in and out of this crisis and their interests have historically been less than benevolent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.120.224.85 (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I'll figure this out later, but I don't know how to do this now. This image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lab-specimens-tested.jpg is 4 days out of date, which is an eternity given its context (viz., the number of reported cases must be understood in the light of the massive increase in testing that has been occurring over the past week or so). CDC updates this every day at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/testing-in-us.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Ftesting-in-us.html. Thanks! Holy (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@HolyT: Good point, thanks! I believe I've correctly uploaded an updated version of the file. ␄ –Nucleosynth (t c) 15:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nucleosynth: Thanks! There's a more recent one that goes to 20 March, which may have come out after your update. Holy (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@HolyT: Updated again! I'll try to keep it updated, but it's also not too hard to do -- underneath the "File history" section on c:File:Lab-specimens-tested.jpg, there's an "Upload new version" button. Just use that after you go to the CDC website and right-click "Save as" the image itself. ␄ –Nucleosynth (t c) 16:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nucleosynth: Thanks again! I will try that myself over the next few days. I figured it must not be too hard. Holy (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the Statistics - State number of non-repatriated cases by date section, the "New cases per day" graph, 5287 should be 5420. Thanks! Wikiguyinco (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please cite your sources. Mgasparin (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The chart of daily deaths in the United States has an incorrect line in it, between the dates of March 2 and March 3, supposedly showing the deaths from Feb 21. Thanks for all your work!!!! 135.180.4.126 (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Mgasparin (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Marisa Taylor Exclusive: U.S. axed CDC expert job in China months before virus outbreak March 22, 2020 Reuters.com

On Feb. 25, the first day the CDC told the American public to prepare for an outbreak at home, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused China of mishandling the epidemic through its “censorship” of medical professionals and media.

X1\ (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. X1\ (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

1172 Cases 34 Deaths 5948 Tests Completed 41 of 64 Parishes Affected

My source: https://www.wwltv.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/interactive-map-coronavirus-in-louisiana/289-0193f4c3-7f55-48c0-b44f-d56d9a9a1850 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuckeyT (talk • contribs) 19:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone support me creating maps to add to the Statistics section for the following topics?:

1. Death rate (deaths per total number of confirmed cases)
2. Deaths per capita (deaths per million people)

Feel free to add other topics that you think should be added. ––Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with those two. I also think that the "testing" bit should be expanded, chiefly the number of testing done every day. We can check the number of testing today, but I don't know if we could know the number of testing few days back.SunDawn (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Also,

1. Death to Recovery ratio?
2. Recovery to total cases ratio?

I'm working on the death rate map and should have it done soon. ––Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

This article or U.S. state and local government response to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic would benefit from a map of the areas affected by stay-at-home orders, perhaps color-coded by when they came into effect. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 19:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@JayCoop: Thanks for creating File:COVID-19 stay at home orders in the US.svg on short order. I didn't realize you were working on this map, so I created File:COVID-19 outbreak USA stay-at-home order county map.svg at about the same time. It includes counties that got ahead of their states, but over time it may be more difficult to maintain than the state-by-state map, so I don't have a strong opinion about which one we should keep on Stay-at-home order. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 23:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mxn: I think it's better to use your map since it goes down to the county level. What a nice coincidence that we were working on the same thing though. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 01:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mxn and JayCoop: Comment: Just wanted to say "Thanks!" to you both for putting these together. I have been wanting something like it as well! Hope to see it added to one of the primary articles, if it hasn't been yet. --Resplendent (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

X1\ (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Besides the Johns Hopkins data, see also a great updated archive of day-by-day testing (positive and negative) data for Colorado and other states in the US, at https://covidtracking.com/api/ See also graphs based on the data at [16] and [17] ★NealMcB★ (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The Trump administration asked states to hold off on releasing unemployment claims data before the regularly scheduled national report of weekly U.S. jobless claims. Economists at Goldman Sachs, meanwhile, predict that filings for unemployment will show 2.25 million Americans filed for their first week of benefits this week, eight times the number of people who filed last week and the highest level on record.

• https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-ask-states-to-keep-quiet-about-jobless-figures-11584676698
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-20/u-s-weekly-jobless-claims-could-exceed-2-million-goldman-says
• https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/19/economy/unemployment-benefits-goldman-sachs
• https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/20/politics/labor-department-states-unemployment-numbers-coronavirus

X1\ (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

As long as the clarification by the DOL that "State data is regularly embargoed until the national numbers are published on Thursday morning and states are asked not to share their data until that time," and that the embargo only last until next Thursday I think this should be included on the economic impact.SunDawn (talk) 08:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The U.S. economy is deteriorating more quickly than anticipated with more than 84 million Americans at home because of shutdowns to combat the coronavirus. The United States Department of Labor is expected to report that roughly 3 million Americans have filed first-time claims for unemployment assistance, more than four times the record high set during the 1982 recession.

A JPMorgan Chase economist told clients that the jobless rate could spike to 20% from today’s 3.5%. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis President James B. Bullard predicted that the U.S. unemployment rate could hit 30% in the second quarter, with a 50% drop in gross domestic product.

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/03/20/us-economy-deteriorating-faster-than-anticipated-80-million-americans-forced-stay-home
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-22/fed-s-bullard-says-u-s-jobless-rate-may-soar-to-30-in-2q
• https://qz.com/1823251/coronavirus-could-leave-30-percent-of-us-workers-jobless-fed-pres-says

X1\ (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The structure of this article appears to be based around political content, with medical content marginalized and even completely missing. I was just trying to find a place to add this content, and the structure is so odd, that there is no place for it. The chronology of illness in the US should include mention of how many that were brought back on the flights from Wuhan and quarantined later got sick, then we had the first case of unknown origin. And ODDLY, we don't even mention that we brought people back from Wuhan.

From this version, this article needs to have half of the politics cut, and get some focus on the medical. I've raised this issue before on this page, here, here, and so have others. Is it time for a POV tag? This is the second time I have added basic medical info that was missing: last time, it was the first case in the 35-year-old traveler returning from Wuhan. We have an entire section here discussing a general topic (Containment and mitigation), but neglect the basics in the United States. The article mentions the WHO tests were rejected, but doesn't explain why. The article goes into off-topic discussions in the Testing section. The Research into Vaccine section goes into content relevant to the Disease article that does not need repeating here. One has to sort through reams of off-topic and overtly political content here to figure out that ... we never mention illness in those brought back from Wuhan, and we never mention the first case of unknown origin. Article needs a top-to-bottom restructuring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. A big part of the article is just about politics and criticism. While the timeline does mention some events like the evacuation of citizens from Wuhan, we should restructure the article to mention several important medical and chronological aspects relevant here in the United States, not just politics. MJVAccount (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

This chart is at the bottom of the article, while in articles on other countries it is close to the top. My Wiki-Fu is weak, can somebody explain to me why it is this way or how I could change it? Chaosquo (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this looks like trying to hide the numbers (which are most probably inaccurate anyway in absolute terms, but show the progression of the virus). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcaron (talk • contribs) 23:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The Trump administration is considering a special enrollment period for health coverage under the Affordable Care Act because of the coronavirus crisis. Open enrollment for states that use the federal exchange ended on Dec. 15. A special enrollment period because of coronavirus would be aimed partly at ensuring people don’t put off getting tested or treated because they don’t have health insurance. About 30 million Americans are uninsured.

• https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-considers-special-enrollment-period-for-affordable-care-act-due-to-coronavirus-spread-11584814494

X1\ (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The stats section, or at least the table with the state cases, should be in the first non-introduction section; this is arguably the most critical info to readers and it's ridiculous to have it buried at the very bottom of the article. No one except the people dedicated to reading through all the Trump administration responses is even seeing it!

Additionally, I'm aware of the various discussions noting case number discrepancies, but this really needs to be addressed more seriously considering the 18,000-case difference between the global page (WorldOMeters) and the table in this article (I don't even know the source anymore), both of which claim to be current as of 22 March. The source should at the very least be listed in the notes section and ought to include the hour it was last updated. Edit: I just saw Dr.Henley's complaint outlining the same issues; sorry for the redundancy! JoelleJay (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The statistics section would be more useful if it tracked more important data, which the rate of spread, which is about 3.25 days doubling. Spain and Italy are doubling at about once every 5 days. It is disappointing that media and technical resources are not tracking this. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The statistics section images overflow to the left of the page, this can be fixed by applying the following css to the tr element in the tbody immediately below the statistics header.

display: flex;
flex-direction: row;
flex-wrap: wrap;

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.61.131 (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Should it be noted somehow, somewhere, that the deviations of deaths per cases are dramatic. Taking just a few examples, using current WP stats, in the U.S. it's 1%, S. Korea, 1.2%, France, 4.3%, UK 5%, and Italy 9%. It's possible it reflects the number of tests, but don't know. From just those examples, it would make the U.S. 900% safer to be in than Italy during the pandemic. Thoughts? --Light show (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It is way, way too early to make a statement like that. COVID-19 spread is still accelerating. I'm sure the mortality rate will change in coming days. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Of course. I wasn't thinking anyone could make any statement like that in WP. It was the deviation issue that seems relevant, being that others may be using our figures. --Light show (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted somewhere. It is just statistics that less people die in United States than in France or Germany.SunDawn (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

https://www.dvidshub.net/search/?filter[type]=video&filter[tags][]=covid19nationalguard&filter[date]=20200301-20200323&sort=date Victor Grigas (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

We need to find a better source for recoveries. I knew JHU wasn't really all that reliable for statistics. We will to find a source that is reliable or something like that. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

JHU isn't reliable? Has that been decided already? We touched on it, but I don't know if a consensus was reached. -- Veggies (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Please see this section above for discussion on JHU. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

This seems unnecessarily long and clunky. Most country and state articles just say "pandemic," and I think we really should limit the template to reading just that. Master of Time (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The public health department update confirmed cases everyday on their website. These numbers are kept in Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United States medical cases. However, the total confirmed cases on John Hopkins website is much higher than the total of each states. It appears that John Hopkins is taking data from [1point3acres] and [worldometers]. It's unclear how they come up with higher number of cases before they're officially reported.

One very simple example, JHU says NY state has 12,315 confirmed cases, but [New York Health department] just updated by 4PM claiming that the total is 10,356. I'm wondering who is more believable.

Should we stop using JHU data but to use the sum of each states' official number? --RedAstray (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

If you are worried about reliability, perhaps bring it up to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard given that they did have discussions on 1point3acres and Worldometers twice. Personally, John Hopkins has been discussed here as being trusted, though a few users did not prefer it as a source. Additionally, to use the sum of each state requires a source for each state, which would add up to 56 sources to the article. (Some of the templates here are doing this already, so maybe we can link to them.) --Super Goku V (talk) 05:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Since CDC has stopped reporting aggregates and many officials are calling for a halt to testing for all but "essential" cases does such data have relevance any more. Based on the current size of the ever widening gap in numbers between sources and the fact that testing is now well behind the curve the numbers are not indicative of reality in terms of numbers infected and given the rate of progression will only grow more wildly inaccurate. I get wanting to chronicle the issue but doing so with inaccurate data is a disservice. The methods currently in use here have lead to the publishing of data which at times even under-report data from cited sources (e.g. previous comments on the CA numbers). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.59.207.186 (talk) 05:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Presumptive cases part of the explanation? We know actual are not representative due to under testing. If family member of one who test positive comes in sick diagnosis could be made sans test. How are states reporting? JHU? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.59.207.186 (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't trust JHU to keep the necessary and accurate update on the statistics of this outbreak. At one time, their systems is overwhelmed and never updated much. That is considered deemed unreliable at best. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Given the biases Wikipedia is known to have, it's rather dismaying to see that this article until just now included eight paragraphs across three level-4 subheadings on the impact of the virus on sports, but not one sentence in the lead section and no article section on the xenophobia and racism that has accompanied the virus. I'm adding a bit on the latter, but please, someone slim down the sports coverage to make this disparity a little less glaring, restore a proper balance of WP:WEIGHT, and help get this overall page back down to a more reasonable length. Sdkb (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I just took a stab at slashing the sports section down to size. Those of you more knowledgeable about sports may want to review to see if I took out any of the more important sports/tournaments or kept in any of the more minor ones. Sdkb (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• The author of this section may not be aware of another article devoted to this issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_xenophobia_and_racism_related_to_the_2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic

Note that race and sports can devote attention away from other pressing issues and is used extensively in propaganda for this and other control purposes. The ability and effectiveness of topics that inherently trigger volatility, emotionalism are psychological tools that are used extensively in the media. This does not mean racism against Asians or anyone else isn't a problem now, previously or during the 2020 cornoavirus epidemic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.120.214.148 (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The plots in "CDC reported US totals" would be more informative as semi-log plots, with the number of cases/deaths/recovered on a log scale. That way, the growth rate shows as the slope of the plot, and the smaller numbers at earlier dates are shown as clearly as the larger numbers for more recent dates. I'm not an experience editor, but if people agree, I can change the y axis to a log scale. -- motorfingers : Talk 22:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

A map like this one, showing Global Distribution of Epidemic Preparedness as of Sept. 2017, would be nice to have if anyone cares to make one or see if this one can be used. --Light show (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Just noticed that it's available per Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license, covered in Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Does anyone want to add it? --Light show (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The map is interesting, but I don't know that this wp article is the best place for it.

Were you thinking the U.S. in contrast with the rest of the world, for the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States#Background and preparations section, Light show?

Yes, since I see the 2nd para. and some others discuss worldwide issues. It would also help break up the large block of text a bit. --Light show (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it would. On second thought, here may be a good place. X1\ (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The map looks to me pretty much like just a proxy for GDP per capita, so I'm not sure how useful it is. It's also unclear what criteria are being used to make it. And (more minorly) its formatting leaves a bunch to be desired compared to the SVG maps we have at the infobox at the top. Given those concerns, plus the lack of U.S.-centricness, I'm not inclined to add it. Sdkb (talk) 05:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)