Talk:Social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Anthropology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. COVID-19 Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: Libertarianism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Low-importance). Medicine: Pulmonology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force. Philosophy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Viruses Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

WikiProject COVID-19 consensus WikiProject COVID-19 aims to add to and build consensus for pages relating to COVID-19. They have so far discussed items listed below. Please discuss proposed improvements to them at the project talk page. General Superseded by TfD October 2020 and later practice - consult regular {{Current}} guidance. Refrain from using Worldometer (worldometers.info) as a source due to common errors being observed as noted on the Case Count Task Force common errors page. (April 2020, April 2020) For infoboxes on the main articles of countries, use Wuhan, Hubei, China for the origin parameter. (March 2020) "Social distancing" is generally preferred over "physical distancing". (April 2020, May 2020) Page title COVID-19 (full caps) is preferable in the body of all articles, and in the title of all articles/category pages/etc.(RM April 2020, including the main article itself, RM March 2021). SARS-CoV-2 (exact capitalisation and punctuation) is the common name of the virus and should be used for the main article's title, as well as in the body of all articles, and in the title of all other articles/category pages/etc. (June 2022, overturning April 2020) Map There is no consensus about which color schemes to use, but they should be consistent within articles as much as possible. There is agreement that there should be six levels of shading, plus gray   for areas with no instances or no data. (May 2020) There is no consensus about whether the legend, the date, and other elements should appear in the map image itself. (May 2020) For map legends, ranges should use fixed round numbers (as opposed to updating dynamically). There is no consensus on what base population to use for per capita maps. (May 2020) To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Other talk page banners

Material from Social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was split to other pages. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter pages, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter pages exist. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic (talk | history) on 13 May 2020 from this version Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic (talk | history) on 13 May 2020 from this version Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic (talk | history) on 13 May 2020 from this version

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 May 2020 and 3 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yuxin L-.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! What do you think about a section on the draft for internacional reactions from experts, businesses world leaders, etc...?

I'm able to supply the article with sources from portuguese and/or English. For example...

1. On 4th of February, Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa [President of the Portuguese Republic] admitted that the epidemic of the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 in China "affects the economic activity of a very powerful economy and thus affects the world's economic activity or could affect". He also admitted the possibility of economic upheavels due to the break in production." ^[1]
2. "From the cellphone manufacturing industry to soy, the impacts of the coronavirus on the brazilian economy"^[2]
3. "Coronavirus. China near a severe economic crisis"^[3]
4. "Deutsche Bank says that the coronavirus may contribute to a recession in Germany: "It is a risk for the world's recovery""^[4]

Thank you and good edits! :) FranciscoMMartins (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes good idea. Include it!!!! Starzoner (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thank you for the feedback, I'm on it! Perhaps I will even include some aditional sources :) FranciscoMMartins (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions about Moving Europe countries economics paragraphs to 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Europe and Asian countries economics paragraphs to 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Asia.

Thanks. ~Nick~{talk} 18:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but now a lot of countries have a lot of their own articles about the outbreak there, so why not turn this page into a redirect and move them all? 39cookies (talk) 07:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Today makes the third day the stock market has plunged but the article is still on Monday. It would seem if we are going to create an article on current events it would be more up to date. Otr500 (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak#Creation of a Stock Market article Elijahandskip (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, that discussion is archived here. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another discussion about splitting the stock market section. There's been talk about it (with more support than oppose), but the existing draft seems abandoned considering the level of things that happened in the last week or so. Juxlos (talk) 11:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Juxlos: I think that's appropriate now given the OPEC deal falling through and today's sell-off in response to it is unrelated to the coronavirus outbreak. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can argue that the entire OPEC affair is caused by the coronavirus, but yeah, it seems like the article desperately needs updating. Let's wait until the end of trading day if media refers to it as a "crash". Juxlos (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Been doing my best but market insanity is difficult to keep up with. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Juxlos: On second thought, it seems to me that because the effects of the oil crisis will be in effect disinflationary, perhaps all of this content (stock market and oil markets sections; perhaps even the Black Monday (2020) article) should be separated and merged into its own article. Why was the OPEC affair caused by the coronavirus? I haven't been following the oil markets. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Saudi wanted OPEC to cut oil production because the coronavirus demand reduction, but Russia played hard so Saudi decided to go f*ck it and instead dumped their oil all over the place. So the drop is not directly because of coronavirus, but certainly anyone writing about this in 50 years would at least mention coronavirus. Juxlos (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Juxlos: I'm persuaded. These all should be merged into a separate article. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly? After seeing all this develop in 24 hours, I would refrain from merging until the dust settles. Italy just deleted their economy after all. Juxlos (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Juxlos: I certainly think it's fair to wait. I think if the market trends downward for the remainder of the week, I do believe we should merge them. Despite being on net up, last week wasn't exactly the picture of strength in the stock market either, and if you have three weeks in a row (and the third week was indirectly caused by it), I think it's justifying merging all content into a separate article. (Apologies for subsequent pings if you're already following the article. I'm not sure what exactly the etiquette for it is.) -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since the Saudis probably anticipate that the G20 central banks are going to cut rates anyway, that's probably why they wen't ahead and made the decision that they made. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the point to have a separate article on financial impact due to coronavirus outbreak. We do have an article on Financial impact of the Boeing 737 MAX groundings which might not address much financial issues compared to global financial crisis caused by coronavirus. Abishe (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The title should end with the word pandemic, for consistency.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing a title of "Financial impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic". That draft article with the word "selloff" in the title is too narrow. --HSukePup (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just "Coronavirus pandemic bear market" since at least 6 major stock indices in Asia-Pacific, Europe, and the United States are now officially in bear markets anyway? -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should do that; the sell-off is now significant enough to awaken the "bears". 9March2019 (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this split. I would prefer Financial impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, as I need a location to add bond market info and this article is already too cumbersome. The oil, stock, and bond turmoil is all interwoven. Note that I think historians will eventually have a pithy name for the insanity that is happening right now, but this title will work for now. - Featous (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Featous: The movements in the long-term bond market and the stock market are closely linked because it's where most of the financial capital from the stock market was going until the yields stabilized, so it seems to me that a section on the bond market would be appropriate in an article with the title I've proposed (though with one modification: "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic bear market"). -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - the financial consequences are already so widespread and complex that they deserve their own article, and it doesn't need a crystal ball to predict that these consequences will grow further. The main article could also benefit from removing a quite long section that may not be of interest to every reader. The main subject is a health crisis after all, not a financial one.Renerpho (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - To be clear (since new pages have been created since my first entry in this discussion), I would also argue for splitting the content from the Stock market section of the article along with the Oil prices and Bond market sections and merging them with the 2020 stock market crash, Black Monday (2020), Black Thursday (2020), and 2020 Russia–Saudi Arabia oil price war articles into a single article. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - per reasons cited above, and this conversation (scroll down to Britishfinance's post). Even though it is difficult to tell if we're dealing with separate economic issues or not, no one would reasonably be able to deny that we are in a bear market, and that the virus has already influenced the stock market, with several crashes already from February to March. Therefore, I would like to take my draft and start work on Financial impact of the 2019-20 Coronavirus pandemic. Would this be a good move? Thank you. Actually, a more accurate title would be "Financial crash (or recession) related to Coronavirus pandemic". Zanygenius_{(talk to me!)(email me!)}

@Zanygenius: Not until we have a consensus on whether to split and what the name of the article should be. Also, the 2020 stock market crash, the Black Monday (2020), and the Black Thursday (2020) articles have all been merged since my last entry, so I don't know what that will do to this discussion. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CommonKnowlegeCreator: Sure thing. I thought they had just decided (per section below) not to merge the articles? Also, what name do you think would be best for a Financial impact article? Thanks, Zanygenius_{(talk to me!)(email me!)} 15:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also Support this, and the topics are so big, but keep the title to Financial impact of the 2019-20 Coronavirus pandemic – avoid any NPOV terms in the title like "crash" or "recession" (there is no actual recession confirmed as of yet), that are just going to be a time-sink with people rightly reverting/RPM them. Britishfinance (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Britishfinance: Thank you for the input. It turns out that a few mintues ago, someone just split out the Financial impact article. So now we can build off of that, right? Zanygenius_{(talk to me!)(email me!)} 16:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Britishfinance: It seems to me that the title I proposed is from a NPOV. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. You should probably also update the general template on the coronavirus too. Britishfinance (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Britishfinance: I don't know where the general template for the coronavirus is. I've now started a discussion on the new article's talk page for a name change. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there was consensus for a split, I've been bold and gone ahead and moved the content to the templated target location of Financial impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. This is without prejudice to further moves to a more accurate title. The article is big enough to start feeling unwieldy and I didn't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Cheers, Featous (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Featous, CommonKnowledgeCreator, and Britishfinance: Thank you all. Featous I think that will be fine for the time being. I guess we'll see what the consensus on the name is. Zanygenius_{(talk to me!)(email me!)} 16:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@9March2019, Britishfinance, Featous, and Zanygenius: Thanks, Featous. Could all those who believe that the 2020 stock market crash article be retitled to my proposal leave a comment? -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CommonKnowledgeCreator: Good idea. I saw your proposed name, and it appears to be neutual, backed by credible sources, and a term that would catch on quick. Zanygenius_{(talk to me!)(email me!)} 16:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Supporting split: Major Econimic impact is expected waraning separate article for economic impact.

Now that the outbreak has wreaked havoc on everyone's economy, the lead should be rewritten. In its current state, there is a significant focus on the impact on China. Juxlos (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Might consider dating every reference IN article. Things are moving so quickly that a $300 billion economic impact estimated in February now seems laughable. Frankly just looks like crappy information in the lead paragraph of the article. Sure, a number of weeks ago someone might have said 300 billion as a number, but unless we’re constantly updating with more current estimates, let’s at least date the information very very clearly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.224.195 (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs a table collecting total economic damages with their costs. It's hard to find it out from various sections and articles. Aminabzz (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest moving "Transportation" out of "Market sectors" and making it into its own section. The reason is that "Market sectors" tends toward specifically economic impacts within each individual subsector. In contrast, effects of and restrictions on transportation in the context of COVID-19 are sweeping in their own right, starting right from the beginning with the Chinese New Year and Wuhan as transportation hub. It could even have its own sub-article the way some other sectors and subsectors do. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest moving "Financial impact" so that it becomes the lead-in to "Market sectors". "Market sectors" would then be renamed "Financial impact"). - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I am taking all country- and economic sector-specific examples out of the lede. That is what sections are for. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic has had far-reaching consequences beyond the spread of disease and efforts to quarantine it. The economic consequences of the pandemic are posing a major destabilizing threat to the global economy, with local effects such as record stock market plunges, trade disruptions, and panic buying. Political consequences have resulted in increased political turmoil as government leaders fall sick and parliaments are shut down. Transportation consequences have played havoc with international trade, supply lines, and personal travel. No part of the world has been left unaffected."

Hi, @66.11.171.90:, I just noticed your posts. Because the pandemic has such a widespread effect, we would ideally cover transit, social, and financial impacts in separate articles. For now though, I would work on sectioning out each part. Once you feel you have a decent article to split, it it is reccomended you start a draft (example links provided above for convenience).

Regarding the lead, go ahead. A good heading is a general summary of an article. Currently the paragraph you have here contains info that has been debated, so please consider references to avoid unintended bias. Thank you, Zanygenius_{(talk to me!)(email me!)} 14:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While you have this page on semi-protected, I can't go ahead. (I am an IP, and intend to stay that way ... even though I am the one who originally suggested a version of *this* article on the ITN talk page.) If you like it, copy it. If parts of it are too controversial, blur those parts or drop them. (I am not wedded to the politics sentence in any case, but as long as there is a politics section here, there probably should be a politics sentence.) You are an experienced editor, you know how.

As to new sections vs new articls -- of course there are going to be new articles! exactly the same as for the other sections here which have their own dedicated articles and links to them. I think I said as much in the other proposals. That did not stop editors from making *those* sections, and it should not stop us from making *these* sections -- quite the contrary. *When* a sector splits off into another article is the time to discuss dropping or condensing the sector, not before a single word is written. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tenebris, that was definitely faster than normal for Wikipedia to semi-protect an article. In the meantime, you can submit ideas here, or (with the assumption that you are in decent standing), you can actually fill out a request form to edit the article yourself. I was once an IP myself, and I personally loved not needing to know a password each time, so I get it. It's completely up to you rather you stay that way. Here is two articles you may find interesting. Creating an account and Staying an IP. Zanygenius_{(talk to me!)(email me!)} 17:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, for me it is more about defending this one of the pillars of WP against a determined erosion. (In fact, I just now got kicked out of my own home article that way ... ironically by someone who essentially is a brand-new drive-by editor in that article, never mind that he is a member and I am not. Other members actually stood up to argue the point on my behalf! (this was not a request by them) but uselessly ... and one of them actually apologized for the action on my talk page.) So you see, preserving this WP pillar is important, perhaps more now than ever. Filling out a specific request for editing would defeat the point. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebris, Okay. I had a look at your talk page,and I definitely can see why you don't want to be registered, and that's fine. The only thing I have trouble understanding is which pillar you are talking about (I assume WP:5P3 or WP:5P4) and what this has to do with the semi-protected edit request stuff. Could you please explain? Thanks, Zanygenius_{(talk to me!)(email me!)} 03:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Also just know, I refuse to look at an Admin different from an IP. If I do, please let me know so I can correct it. The only exception is vandals and even then I give them some courtesy as human beings.[reply]

First of all, I always seem to end up discussing this with precisely those who have been most fair with me, in part because they have been fair with me and are willing to consider what I am saying. I do know that you personally have done absolutely nothing I would object to in any manner! Heck, even though I am arguing against the sweeping rules regarding the semi-protected status on a different page (knowing it is an uphill battle, even with other registered users trying to defend against it because of me), I can see the reasoning for protecting a vitally important core page directly linked off the main page ... although I do find it interesting that the preferred action always seems to be semi-protection, never outright protection (considering that registered editors can be every bit as disruptive as IPs!). The pillars in question are "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute", combined with "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility". Subsequent meta-discussion on this point continually makes it clear that both of these pillars do refer to both IPs and registered members, and that this is an important tenet ... but in practice, things are a bit different. (laugh - notice which essay I got pointed to by the editor who posted before you? It was not Wikipedia:IPs are human too.) In particular, the moment things get rough, IPs always seem to be the first ones sacrificed to expediency. A bit like "Animal Farm" really; to paraphrase, "All editors are equal, but some are more equal than others." - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tenebris, Thank you for the clarification, and definitely agreed. Hey, wasn't that maxim in Animal Farm's revised seven commandments? That was a good book. :) User:Zanygenius/chat/mail On 1 July 2020, this user is expected to move to Zanygenius2 or retire. 13:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh btw, to whoever added "sic" to the title -- "lede" is the U.S. spelling used for an intro to a journalistic article. It has become moderately common currency in WP for the above-the-ToC section. I always used to write "lead" or "intro" myself, until I learned that. It is said that the shift in spelling was specifically to eliminate any confusion, but I cannot corroborate that personally. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting, I thought maybe lede was a Latin or British thing? User:Zanygenius/chat/mail On 1 July 2020, this user is expected to move to Zanygenius2 or retire. 13:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of the "some commentators suggest" sentences that essentially feature WP:CRYSTALBALL speculation from China watchers, but this sentence in particular is really wrong to say that protest is rare in China. Our own article on protest and dissent in China cites "180,000 incidents [of mass protest] in 2010". 70.15.123.13 (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just got done re-reading that sentence as it appears in the article. Yeah, "rare" is not right. I will correct this later today, likely with: "Bostock suggests that people backlashed against the response of the Chinese government^[1], due to a perceived lack of a solution, as well as dishonesty."^[2] (This is where the current Bostock reference fits in) I think that would adequately cover this while staying neutual. Would this work better? From, Zanygenius_{(talk to me!)(email me!)} 17:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. 70.15.123.13 (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can also checkWP:WEASEL and WP:EWW, my only quibble is that a claim that "some experts hold this view" should be backed by two citations espousing the views. If you can't do that, the claim should drop the plural. --TZubiri (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States:

18% of Americans reported that their work hours reduced or that they had been laid off because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Of those affected, a quarter of households making less than $50,000 had experienced cut hours or a job loss.

56% of Americans considered the coronavirus outbreak a “real threat,” while 38% said it was “blown out of proportion.”

• https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-03-17/coronavirus-layoffs-work-hours-jobs
• Camila Domonoske Poll: Nearly 1 In 5 Households Has Lost Work Because Of Pandemic March 17, 2020 NPR.org

X1\ (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, @X1\: I would definitely add this to 2020 stock market crash, or better yet Financial impact of the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic. I did try to create a draft where unemployment was discussed, however it never really take off. Thoughts? Stay safe, User:Zanygenius/chat/mail On 1 July 2020, this user is expected to move to Zanygenius2 or retire. 16:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think Unemployment due to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic could probably a standalone article. Juxlos (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See more at Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States#withholding unemployment claims data, add here or ?. X1\ (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The unemployment rate is probably around 13% – higher than at any point since the Great Depression; per https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/03/upshot/coronavirus-jobless-rate-great-depression.html

X1\ (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well wait for official statistics. Juxlos (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a draft at Draft:Media coverage of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic to, well, cover the coverage. As a lot of stuff had happened in the past 2 weeks alone and the media coverage had grown as exponentially as the virus, some help in expanding it would be appreciated. Juxlos (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This BBC page provides an overview (of events, not of coverage), and is continually updated. Likewise, images

can be replaced by files that are also continually updated, rather than for specific dates. TGCP (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a BBC overview of how use of media has been impacted; radio up, music streaming down, internet up etc. TGCP (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to economictimes.indiatimes.com, on 19 March 2020 the Indian government has banned the export of ventilators and surgical/disposable masks.

In his discourse to the nation, the Prime Minister Narendra Modi said that "there will be no shortage of essentials and the nation will not have any shortage of anything" (sourced by indiatoday.in).

India is likely to have been affected by an issue of massive access to the media information. Infact, the Indian leader also requested the citizens to inform at least 10 people of the measures to prevent the pandemy and of the Janata Curfew. The latter is an initiative to encourage the people working in essential services taht will involve citizens by standing in their doorways and clapping and ringing their bells. Even this aspect is related to the topic of the WP article as an unique initiative in the world.

Hope this helps to improve the article.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Micheledisaveriosp, Yes I think that will be helpful. Feel free to put it under here. User:Zanygenius/chat/mail On 1 July 2020, this user is expected to move to Zanygenius2 or retire. 19:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Zanygenius. I've done the edit partially. Eventually, it can be mentioned the speech of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Hope you may complete the WP article before moving to the part 2 of your user profile or before being retired. The latter would be worst, I think.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Micheledisaveriosp, Thank you. That last part isn't set in stone yet, it's something I'm considering, largely due to excessive business in my life. The first part, will happen, so I'm in alignment with my area account on Wikivoyage. I should be able to help you complete the article before that happens.By the way, I incorporated the notice into my signature here, and intend to update it. Cheers, User:Zanygenius/chat/mail On 1 July 2020, this user is expected to move to Zanygenius2 or retire. 22:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

During the last few weeks, there has been far less media coverage of riots, violent protests, terrorist attacks, illegal immigration, organised crime etc. than beforehand. Has there been a major reduction in (some types of) crime this year as a result of the pandemic? Alternatively, has crime hardly been affected, but the media is (almost) ignoring most non-coronavirus stories? Jim Michael (talk) 08:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, Jim Michael. Can you find RSs that address the topic? X1\ (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is dangerously close to original research. --TZubiri (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Argentina The pandemic and the global economic and financial slowdown triggered with it arrived to Argentina in a moment in which the country is in recession since 2018 and in a debt crisis. The government of the brand new president Alberto Fernández is at a crucial point in ongoing talks with its creditors in search of a restructuring of the payment of the contracted foreign debt."

The first sentence is just a mess. The second alludes to an unrelated financial problem. Please delete this.

Perhaps we can then write something using a more relevant source regarding the government imposed 14 day quarantine. https://www.lanacion.com.ar/politica/coronavirus-argentina-gobierno-alberto-fernandez-nid2345300

Thanks. --TZubiri (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Context is important. The pre-existing economic condition in Argentina has been made worse by the virus. Countries with strong economy have better chances at coping with the impacts. TGCP (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the interest in Argentina, but the recession, debt crisis and debt restructuring are frequent if not constant in Argentina, to the point that it's irrelevant to the timing of the coronavirus, and pretty much absolutely irrelevant to the Pandemic, it's like saying that the coronavirus hit USA amidst a recent interest rate change. There are notable economic incidents relating to price controls ( https://www.lanacion.com.ar/sociedad/el-control-de-precios-y-las-denuncias-en-medio-de-la-pandemia-nid2346375 ) and welfare payments ( https://www.pagina12.com.ar/254962-quienes-y-cuando-cobran-los-10-mil-pesos-anunciados-por-el-g ).--TZubiri (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading that during World War II, automobile factories changed to providing equipment needed to fight the war. The same things is happening now. Factories intended for one purpose are being changed to another purpose as they relieve shortages of masks and other products. Alcoholic beverage companies are making hand sanitizer. I heard this on the radio and on TV.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The main source about the WW2 industrial conversion is probably this book ISBN 9780812982046 ; here is an 80min lecture on YouTube on it. William S. Knudsen was the main coordinator. TGCP (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, but I'm talking about what we're doing now. World War II was just a time when it was also done.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Current state of the article mostly reflects rather general description of impact on the world's life meanwhile there is much more practical way to describe it in/on the country-wise/bsed way so I'm here to make the following proposal: describe events in country-wide fashion for the sake of easier understanding, rather than compiling everything into a pile of discrete information. Leave your thoughts below please. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 20:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States:

Economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis project that the number of unemployed Americans could reach as high as 47 million – about 32% – as a result of the coronavirus. St. Louis Fed economist Miguel Faria-e-Castro wrote in a research paper last week that this is “a rather unique shock that is unlike any other experienced by the U.S. economy in the last 100 years.”

• https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/30/coronavirus-job-losses-could-total-47-million-unemployment-rate-of-32percent-fed-says.html

X1\ (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a labor market subsection, so there? Juxlos (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I am reading you correctly, Juxlos, you don't sound sure. X1\ (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's already covered now in the unemployment subsection. Juxlos (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something about the movements being created and strikes being planned/held. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.172.233.110 (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha has described Israel's forced quarantine of South Koreans as "excessive".^[1] Israel Today published a Korean complaint that "Israel is Treating [Korean and other Asian] Tourists Like Coronavirus".^[2] In the Russian cities of Moscow and Yekaterinburg, Chinese nationals were targeted by quarantine enforcing campaigns, as well as police raids, which were condemned by human rights advocates as racial profiling.^[3] The Chinese Embassy in Germany has acknowledged a rise in hostility against its citizens since the outbreak.^[4] Children of Asian descent were ostracized and mocked over their origins in middle schools near Paris.^[5][6] Many French-Vietnamese report also being subject to harassment since the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan.^[7] Local authorities in Bolivia quarantined Japanese nationals despite them having no coronavirus-related symptoms.^[8]

As COVID-19 cases in China fell while those in the West and around the world rose, anti-Western sentiment has risen in Hong Kong as well as Mainland China, as expats are accused of introducing a "second wave" of the disease.^[9] According to The Guardian, Westerners and other foreigners in China have reported increased incidences of xenophobia against them, with a recent online article having the headline "Beware of a second outbreak started by foreign garbage". Similar issues have been noted in other parts of Asia.^[10]

Anti-Caucasian sentiment has also risen in Thailand, where Westerners are accused of spreading the disease.^[11] As the pandemic has progressed, there have also been isolated instances of prejudice against Westerners, particularly Western tourists accused of importing the disease. Thai Health minister Anutin Charnvirakul made negative comments about "dirty" Westerners, saying they "never shower" and are more likely to spread the virus than Asians.^[12][12] In March 2020, foreigners from Europe, US and Israel started facing xenophobia and discrimination in India, including evictions from rented homes.^[13]

There have been reports of anti-Roma xenophobia in some EU member states.^[14] Islamists have exploited the disease to foster anti-Western sentiment.^{[15][better source needed]} There were also false rumours in India, amplified by bloggers and some social media channels, that some Muslims who returned from Dubai refused to undergo coronavirus testing for religious reasons.^[16] Muslim gatherings organized by the Tablighi Jamaat have resulted in large increased of cases in Malaysia, Pakistan and India,^[17] and in India, this has triggered Islamophobic reactions and increased communal tension.^[18][19]

The Anti-Defamation League^[20] and Life After Hate^[21] observed that in addition to the wave of anti-Chinese xenophobia online, there was a white nationalist and white supremacist^[20][22]-fuelled wave of anti-Semitic and racist anti-Israeli agitation, including but not limited to claims that Jews and/or Israelis were spreading the virus, but also an online campaign to infect Jews with the virus as a means of murder.^[20] The ADL was especially concerned with the prevalence of anti-Semitic messaging on Twitter, Instagram,^[23] Steam, Discord and TikTok combined with the increased internet usage by children after school closings.^[22] The FBI also warned that white supremacists groups were plotting to "expose Jewish people to coronavirus" by having members "use themselves as bio-weapons" to infect areas Jewish people are deemed likely to visit.^[24][25] On 23 March, the FBI foiled a terrorist^[26] plot by a white supremacist to use a car bomb to blow up a Missouri hospital overflowing with COVID-19 patients, with the man having referenced far-right conspiracy theories that the virus was "engineered by Jews", online before he was shot and killed in an altercation with FBI agents.^[26][24]

On 30 January, the WHO's Emergency Committee issued a statement advising all countries to be mindful of the "principles of Article 3 of the IHR (the International Health Regulations)", which the WHO says is a caution against "actions that promote stigma or discrimination" when conducting national response measures to the outbreak.^[27]"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

6.2.5.Gambling and betting industry' According to the American Gaming Association, the industry will be hit by losses up to $43.5 billion in economic activity in the following months. Some projection was that the sports gambling industry may lose $140 million alone in the fourth weekend of March (21-22nd of March 2020) on lost NCAA basketball tournament bets. ^[1] Gambling companies are eager to shift customers from retail into online casino and poker games in order to fight the loss of revenue due to the cancellation of sports fixtures and the shutdown of betting shops. Gambling groups increased the advertising of online casino games and play on social media. Some argue that virtual racing, as well as draw based games, are also proving popular. ^{[2] [3]} Some software betting providers have specially designed campaigns promoting online betting solutions in order to attract betting companies. Long term consequences to the betting and gambling industry might be: Death of small retail operators and providers, increase in M&A, more focus on online, innovation in online meaning that even the existing products like the sportsbook will pay closer attention to obscure sports like soap soccer or quidditch and more prominent spot for virtual games online^[4] Ladyearlymorning 06:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Hi @Ladyearlymorning: thank you for your contributions. I reviewed your request and there are a few concerns I have before I would be able to implement the request. The information backed by the source from CNBC appears to be directly lifted from the article directly which would cause a copyvio concern see here. If you could please rephrase this sentence. Also the bit "alone this weekend" could be confusing to the reader leading to the question "what weekend?" It would help if you could provide a timeframe if possible. The source FT.com is locked behind a paywall so I can not verify it. While there is nothing against using sources like this it would help if this information can be supplemented with an alternate source that is not locked behind a paywall. After these concerns are addressed (primarily the first two) please change answered=yes back to answered=no . Again thank you for your contributions! Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 04:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: Editor modified existing request above please see this diff. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 01:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Added section now that issues have been addressed. Thank you! Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 02:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add a notice about

• {{COVID19 GS editnotice}}

to the Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic article. 36.77.78.48 (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now:This request should be made at here which I have moved this request there. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 22:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like we should have a section about the environmental impact of the reduction in human activity due to the corona virus, but I'm not sure it fits into this article, which is specifically titled "Socio-economic impact". There has been a documented reduction in seismic activity due to fewer trains and cars on roads, a dramatic reduction in air pollution in India, and reductions in ocean noise with expected positive impacts on whale populations. I'd like to add a section about these impacts someplace, but given that this article focuses on socio-economic impacts I don't think it fits and we don't seem to have any other article it fits into. I don't think there's enough material to justify a stand alone article. Thoughts? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just got Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the environment off the ground the other day. The lead is already excerpted into the main pandemic article, and might as well be excerpted here too if you want (check the main article to see the code to use). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the main article is semi-protected, I'm asking for edits to be made here.

Specifically, the part on Southeast Asia should separate each entry by country, and also link to the main article about the current pandemic in (specific country). Also, the part on Sri Lanka should link to the main article 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Sri Lanka.

Salosin2009 1 (talk) 06:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In cases when fast progress of the pandemic occours we observe severe impact on the age structure in local areas like villages when strongly beeing affected. Mabe if could be a subject to apply this on regions like Bergamo / Italy. In Germany this has been reported for a city in the regeion Heinsberg / NRW when a number of 15% of the local people is considered to be immune already agains COVID. StatistikusMaximus (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear what the graph is showing because none of the numbers (especially the X and Y axes) are labelled. Also, English Wikipedia uses periods as a decimal maker, not commas. -- Beland (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important topic but it's too soon to get info that is meaningful, consistent, and authoritative. There have been studies of past epidemics, such as this one analyzing that tuberculosis deaths declined after Spanish flu because TB was a co-morbidity that made it more likely someone infected with flu would die before 1920 rather than in later years:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139993/

In addition, secondary effects from economic impact should be mentioned in the main article, such as the likelihood that economic downturn in developing countries will increase the infant mortality rate due to malnourishment:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3791093/

A meta-study that estimates:

GDP rise of 10% = 1/200 lower infant mortality (e.g., malnutrition decreases)

GDP fall of 10% = 1/200 higher infant mortality (e.g., malnutrition increases)

Thus a severe economic slowdown could cause thousands of infant deaths in such countries. Martindo (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and trimming of outdated news or quotes from Jan and Feb 2020. I pruned some. Zezen (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support split mentioned at in the maintenance tag. Is this the section for that, Beland? I can't tell. Rationale for support: These are discrete topics, and splitting can help keep the article from becoming overly long. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think the March proposal was already adopted, resulting in Financial impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. I moved this to a new section. -- Beland (talk) 08:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are sections about the impacts on movie, television, and even video gaming, but the obvious one is missing. Somebody should add the section about coronavirus impacts on music, like the halting/delay of music productions and cancellations/postponements of concert tours. PlanetStar 23:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the music industry coudl be a good basis. Starzoner (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking this could be improved by a less wordy title, perhaps just Socio-economic impact of COVID-19 (on the model of Economic impact of HIV/AIDS), or the even more succinct COVID-19 socio-economic impact. A similar style might also work for many of the subtopics.--Pharos (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first idea might encounter some opposition since it's not the virus itself causing the impact, but rather the pandemic. But I'm open to considering it. The second idea doesn't sound right to me. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sdkb. Without "pandemic" describing it would make the article describe the effect the disease in general had on the economy and society. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the stuff in the United States section is from January and February, and reports socio-economic impacts which now appear trivial. We need to bring it up to date with information about unemployment (I added something), hunger (food bank lines), shortages and disruption of supply lines for food and essential supplies, loss of revenue to state and local governments... there is more. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beland, can we discuss first before unilaterally splitting and renaming the page? As I understand, the page is meant as a "catch all" format for the impact, which leads pointing to other impacts, such as cinema, schools, religion, and other stuff. Plus, this is on the main page; see the ITN section titled "impact", which is a generalized form of "impact" of the pandemic. As such, this page is a first page/cover page/intro, to the pages dedicated larger scale impacts and fine print.

I'm sure that a more specific page can be set up for social and economic impact. Starzoner (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a discussion in April, and only one other editor commented, in favor. See #Split proposed, April 2020, above. This article did not do a good job of summarizing all the impacts, and at COVID-19 pandemic#Impact, it's not linked to as the top-level article. (Nothing is.) I've already redirected the main page link to Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is a better title if we want to make a main article for all impacts. -- Beland (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this drastic split should have been discussed BEFORE hand with MORE people, as its a huge page and sudden change. Just looking through the history doens't give any sort of indication of possible invitation for more people to discuss. Also, the march discussion was about splitting specific content into their own page as they would be overwhelming onto this page. It did not include a complete REVAMP of the entire page and its cope. Do please get more people to say yes when dramatically altering stuff. Starzoner (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit put the {{split}} tag on the article page, which is the standard procedure called for on Wikipedia:Splitting. The March discussion is unrelated to the April discussion; perhaps there was some confusion about which the tag was referring to, even though the titles of the articles to split into are different. It looks like you removed the merge tag in this edit, without commenting on the April discussion or including an edit summary. -- Beland (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• SARS-CoV-2 without background.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has been widely reported that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a rise in discrimination and hate crimes towards Asians. Wouldn't this come under social impacts? It could then link to the main article of 'Xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic'.^[1][2][3][4] ViolaTravelCard (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Egladfelter (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Egladfelter (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added a paragraph describing the post-quarantine transmission risks. This seemed like valuable information as understanding the transmission helps to slow the spread. I added two sources for my information that go further into detail if anyone would like to add more or check out the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egladfelter (talk • contribs) 14:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Abdullahimohd (talk) 09:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC) addition in to the article Suicide happening of the above listed factors all of a sudden piles pressure on the victims which may become too much to handle for some of them. With the absence of support system to mitigate the effects of the abrupt changes , the risk of suicide increases for the affected persons.[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]