Talk:COVID-19 lockdown in India

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2021 and 24 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SharmaPrachi12. Peer reviewers: EyobKeflinkiel, Olivia2701, Kachina123.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Second Wave of Covid-19 (2021)
Many states are imposing partial lockdown. I think it's best if we update this page on any developments rather than create another page. Most of the information pertains to 2020. --Sitaphul (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Noòoooooooooo 59.95.234.14 (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

CDDEP, Johns Hopkins and Princeton
I was thinking of fixing the CDDEP report content that was added this morning, but before I got to it, a certain number of "FAKE ALERT" reverts had occurred.

The problem is media's misunderstanding of how Universities work. Universities do not publish research or authenticate them. Rather, their researchers are expected to publish their research in peer-reviewed journals. Before the publication, it is common for them to issue them as University-branded technical reports. These reports do not however mean that the University has certified the research results.

CDDEP is on the other hand a research lab/thinktank. So its reports are institutional. However, that doesn't mean much in this case since CDDEP is just an upstart lab. There is not much weight to be associated with it.

So the report is certainly not "fake". But it is unpublished research. The lead researcher is listed as Eili Klein from Johns Hopkins. Princeton's involvement is in terms of Ramanan Laxminarayan, who appears to have a part-time appointment there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The story regarding the JHU logo:
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

End
So will be able to go out on 14 April 2020? Or 15th? Will there be measures to have a slow roll out so shops are not over crowded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgkprog (talk • contribs) 08:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not predict the future. But see the "Effectiveness" "Reception" section for projections from the experts. CDDEP models say that even with the lockdown, a peak of 1 million hospitalisations are likely to be seen in July. India has only 100,000 ICU beds, a tenth of what would be needed. So, restrictions in some form will be needed for the foreseeable future. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Feedback
I wonder if this can be added to the, "Reception" section. Any feedback is welcome!&mdash;Souniel Yadav (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * At least you answer !&mdash;Souniel Yadav (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is fine. It is scientific research. So, what is the problem? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a "mathematical" model which is why I was hesitant (in fact, I will skip it because of the next "quotation" by Dr.Anthony Fauci which seems more reliable)!-&mdash;Souniel Yadav (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Among [this], [this], [this], [this], [this], [this], [this] and [this], which is best to use for this article to show the importance of social distance maintenance?&mdash;Souniel Yadav (talk) 05:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is about another country, another situation. Not at all relevant to this page.
 * There is no argument that the earlier the measures are taken the better. But the question is what measures are taken? Before the nationwide lockdown, there was already a central lockdown in about 80 districts where COVID cases were found. The various state governments had extended that to 280+ districts, which was never justified. Then Modi extended it to the whole country which also had no justification. The health ministry had developed a containment plan in February itself, which was shelved for no good reason. Right now, Modi is competing with his own chief ministers to show who can more brutal. None of this is explained by Fauci saying "earlier measures". Completely irrelevant. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Stealing groceries and alcohol
, I want to add that burglars are stealing groceries and alcohol as people are staying at home which makes houses untargetable, citing this as a reference. Is it acceptable?&mdash;Souniel Yadav (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nah, this also falls under WP:NOTNEWS. If it gets prominently mentioned again and again, then it would be worth revisiting the issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * & apart from above thing...I am just thinking how people are dealing with dry days . Dey subrata (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * & perhaps you can add that alcohol prices have sky rocketed and being sold illegally citing references. I also read that alcoholics are drinking alcohol based sanitizers.&mdash;Souniel Yadav (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * &, "States have favoured opening up liquor shops during coronavirus lockdown. Apart from reports of surge in illicit sale of liquor and attempted suicide by some persons, the real logic behind the move could be drying up revenue for these states" according to this. Can we put that in our own words and add it to the article?&mdash;Souniel Yadav (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Cleaner rivers
, Rivers have become cleaner due to the lockdown. Can we cite this and this reference for the same and add it to our article?&mdash;Souniel Yadav (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, because it is an unprecedented outcome. But you can consider adding about it on the main articles about these rivers. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 06:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * (Sorry, didn't get the ping). I think the environmental impact (mostly beneficial) of the lockdown can certainly be added as a section. Rivers would be part of that. Pollution is down. Wildlife is enjoying the traffic-free streets etc. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes very good 59.95.234.14 (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Section for - Fake and Unverified News in MSM
WP champions... Throwing the idea of adding a section for Fake & Unverified News reported in MSM related to lockdown. I had added a section for it but one of the editors has reverted with the opinion that it doesn't satisfy WP:UNDUE. I believe it is appropriate for this article to have a section for unverified news propagated in MSM related to lockdown. All views are welcome. Major unverified news which turned out to be false/fake: 1. ABP Majha - News head arrested and Bombay HC condemned the news carried by the channel 2. NDTV - False news about Arunachal Pradesh food shortage busted by Govt of AP and Kiren Rijiju. NDTV updated with corrections and issued a clarification on their official Twitter handle. 3. Scroll.in - News about Bihar children eating frog busted by PIB FactCheck and labelled as FAKE
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmmanjesh (talk • contribs)
 * Because it is derailing from the main subject and is WP:UNDUE just like any details about the other side of these incidents would be WP:UNDUE as well. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 06:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, "derailing" would be a controversial word. I believe you meant to say "insignificant" for the topic... The reason I feel this topic is significant is that when we talk about lockdown, role of media is a very relevant topic when it carries unofficial and unverified news as it will have a negative effect on the lockdown. Like in the example of ABP News, an unverified news jeapordized lockdown restrictions in Mumbai and was the major topic of discussion. It went so far to get an FIR registered against a key person of the media house. One of editors highlighted a good point on my talk page about a reliable source needed to justify the need to talk about unverified news. Here's an observation Honerable Supreme Court Coronavirus lockdown fake news and panic driven migration caused untold misery to migrant labourers supreme court. This observation holds a key significance - "“It is therefore not possible for us to overlook this menace of fake news either by electronic, print or social media.”... Hence, unverified news which has got enough coverage is very much a relevant topic. And the article about lockdown in India is incomplete without it. Bmmanjesh (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , you may be right about the need to cover fake news in this article, but it has encyclopaedic value only if there was a clear cause-effect relationship worth noting from the fake news report(s). We must stay away from WP:RECENTISM and think about the WP:10YEARTEST when adding such content. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, such info could go in Misinformation related to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India. SerChevalerie (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Why Credible citation are removed from some of the parts of article? Saifullah.vguj (talk) 07:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Citation
Why The citation are removed from the Articles? Saifullah.vguj (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , The the link that you tried to add: - is dead. And can you explain why you keep adding this - "Why is corona a still big problem?Find Out" ? Shanze1 (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sadly it wasn't archived in the Wayback Machine either. If anyone can find a better source, please add it. SerChevalerie (talk) 08:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay thanks, If I send you a live link can you upload it. Saifullah.vguj (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

https://m.thewire.in/article/government/gujarat-police-inquiry-migrant-workers-container-trucks/amp Saifullah.vguj (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Found the desktop link for the same and added. Shanze1 (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Dependence on unreliable sources
139 million migrant workers are not unemployed like The Wire claims but total of 140 million Indians are unemployed. https://www.cmie.com/kommon/bin/sr.php?kall=warticle&dt=2020-04-21%2010:40:01&msec=873

The Wire is also used on "Reception" even when their bias is strong. They call lockdown "punitive" and have no source to backup their statistics.

Can we stop using an unreliable or otherwise anti BJP source like The Wire who is pulling estimates out of thin air? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.18.17 (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If the Wire's estimates are wrong, that does not justify your REMOVAL of the content. Fix the estimates with better WP:RS if you can. We only use what sources what are available to us, and The Wire is reliable. In any case, you are clearly POV-pushing. Please stop, or we will have to resort to page protection. SerChevalerie (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why stick to even The Wire or correct their nonsense estimates for something for which no official estimates are available? You are the one pushing this unreliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.18.17 (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have any good estimates that can be cited? WhoAteMyButter (talk) 07:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Feel free to take this to WP:RSN. SerChevalerie (talk) 07:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not the right time to engage in petty stonewalling. It's an unreliable source and you have no justification to back up their false statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.18.17 (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed the edit warring in the article history and would strongly recommend that consensus is gained for including the information and reference that is in dispute, as the publication has been discussed at WP:RSN before. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 07:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The discussion there concluded that The Wire should be attributed when used, only if necessary. But this subject does not need this dodgy source as it survives better with more reliable sources. 122.170.18.17 (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , the content remains until consensus to remove it has been achieved. And IP user, the content was rightly attributed when used controversially, and the figure of unemployed labourers was only off by a little. You also keep talking about "more reliable sources" when in fact you don't help us with any of them and simply remove content. SerChevalerie (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I told you already "Why stick to even The Wire or correct their nonsense estimates for something for which no official estimates are available?" Don't pretend that you cannot read. Come back with reliable sources to back your superfluous estimates and dont resort to this poor source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.18.17 (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have backed a reliable source, The Wire. You claim that there are better source available. So cite them. In any cases, I have added a few more sources. SerChevalerie (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Source fabrication does not count. Care to quote them out? I am sure you won't because that will clear the agenda you are pursuing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.18.17 (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What source fabrication? Those are all reliable sources., care to comment on what you meant? No consensus for removal of the content has been achieved. IP user only has a problem with the figure of 139 million migrants in the first case (and there are better sources for the same), and the other claim was sufficiently backed by WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, as discussed in WP:RSN. SerChevalerie (talk) 08:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I am finding the claims by IP editor to be accurate so far. You were the editor who added the information and it was reverted. Now per WP:BRD you have to gain consensus before restoring it. Coronavirus is a subject which is fraught with tons of misinformation. Stick to only authoritative sources or highly reliable sources and don't use Wire for a sensitive subject such as this. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 08:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , IP user also removed the a large amount of content that there are other sufficient sources to in the "Migrant workers" section. You may restore that. SerChevalerie (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * large? Only removed following text : "An estimated 139 million migrant workers from the countryside work in India's cities and towns. With factories and workplaces shut down, they were left with no livelihood.[55] Following this, many of them and their families went hungry." Which was sourced to The Wire. 139 million migrant workers are not unemployed like The Wire claims but total of 140 million Indians are unemployed. Even BBC report said total unemployed are 122 million of which 91 million are small traders.Wire's claims have no connection with the reality.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.18.17 (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Here and here are more sources. There will be a lot more. The Wire may be a disputed source (according to you), but the content that I added was neutral. IP user is firing claims and is not citing any reliable sources themselves to counter the claims. SerChevalerie (talk) 08:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * IP user, I have cited a source from WEF above for the 139 million. And you have removed the sentence With factories and workplaces shut down, they were left with no livelihood. Following this, many of them and their families went hungry., which is sufficiently backed in the rest of the paragraph. So don't accuse me of POV-pushing. SerChevalerie (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So which source claims that 139 million migrant workers were unemployed? I cited BBC report too above which disagrees with such false figure. Is an opinion piece that only speculates the numbers around 200 (not 383) and The Hindu only talks about deaths of 3 migrant workers. How any of this is compatible with the claims made by The Wire source which whines WHO recommended lockdown as "punitive lockdown"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.18.17 (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Restored the suggested part with a better source on Migrant Workers: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_pandemic_lockdown_in_India&diff=956433296&oldid=956426937 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.18.17 (talk) 09:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Fully protected the page for three days. Find a conclusion to this discussion in that time, please.  Anarchyte  ( talk •  work ) 11:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC) IP user, thank you for finally making some sense. I will create a new draft here for consensus to be achieved with additional RS. SerChevalerie (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The paragraph didn't say that 139 million migrant workers were unemployed. It said, An estimated 139 million migrant workers from the countryside work in India's cities and towns. which is backed by the new source from World Economic Forum in 2017. If you were not happy with the grammar of the overall paragraph, you could have modified it without removing the content. What you did was uncalled for.
 * Thank you for attempting to restore the remainder of that paragraph with the Firstpost source.
 * I never quoted the line about "punitive lockdown" from the article from The Wire. In any case, it was sufficiently backed using WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, as discussed in WP:RSN. and IP user, in my successive edits I added sources for The Wire's claim that deaths had been caused due to the lockdown, with reasons ranging from starvation, exhaustion, suicides, road and rail accidents,. Give me some time to find reliable sources to back the remaining claims of police brutality and denial of timely medical care. All the reported deaths were among the marginalised migrants and labourers. Since the exact number of migrants' deaths is pretty controversial and will need multiple WP:RS to confirm, I agree to its removal.

Fact check
, clearly the pending-changes protection is not working. I would recommend long-term semi-protection. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) The mention of "139 million migrant workers" has been in the article since 29 May 2020.
 * 2) Google says 17,700 sites on the web mention this figure, including The Diplomat, India Today, The Telegraph, Observer Research Foundation, and the World Economic Forum.
 * 3) The text yesterday before the IP's edit-warring did not say that 139 million were "unemployed". It only says that they were left with "no livelihood", which is what happens to people on daily wages.
 * that's a discussion for a later date, though I will say that the amount of edits is too high for PC. If the article experiences obvious vandalism, request it at RFPP and I'm sure the admin will swap the remaining PC length for semi.  Anarchyte  ( talk &#8226;  work ) 14:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources are only estimating a total number of migrant workers according to a census. Sources don't say that lockdown left the "139 million migrant workers" with "no livelihood". No matter how you twist it, the removal of such false information was necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.18.17 (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No false information has been stated in the article. It is done exactly as the reliable sources do it. Did you check the 17,000 sources that Google shows? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "They were left with no livelihood" pointed to all 139 million migrant workers. This is how the article included false information because not all or even most migrant workers are without livelihood. I have checked each of the known sources which talk about 139 million migrant workers but not one says that all of them were left jobless or without livelihood. 122.170.18.17

Draft

 * I made modifications to both proposals, just for better understanding of what is being discussed. I still think that "Due to the lockdown, more than 300 deaths were reported" proposal ends with "most were among the marginalised migrants and labourers". This paragraph needs to be located at "Migrant Workers" section, not "Reception". 122.170.18.17 (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Firstpost source is not particularly good, but will still add it. SerChevalerie (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no conclusive proof that all deaths reported due to the lockdown were of migrants, and there have been numerous other cases too. Hence it hasn't been included in the section on migrants. SerChevalerie (talk) 11:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Reception means how the subject is reviewed. Deaths don't describe the "reception" of the lockdown. Can you move it to COVID-19_pandemic_lockdown_in_India? It has content about potential deaths (without lockdown), arrests over violation of lockdown, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.18.17 (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You do have a point there. However, I'm not sure if the "Effectiveness" section is any more appropriate. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Then it needs to go to COVID-19_pandemic_lockdown_in_India right below "It is now allowed in Maharashtra, Punjab and Kerala.[53][54]" And right above the "Migrant workers" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.18.17 (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Should the Migrant workers crisis be a separate article by itself?
Several millions of people migrating (some of them perhaps permanently) back to their homestate - many on foot- ought to be a separate article. This is unprecedented in the modern history of India

--Xooxwiki (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a good idea, and is something that we have discussed at . I have tried to filter out all the unverified claims and instances of WP:RECENTISM while expanding the section in this article, and I haven't seen a lot more new content to create an entirely new article yet. If the information expands further on this article (calling all contributors to help!) we may be able to create a good Start-class article and take it forward from there. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * .... The length of the section will be getting bigger and bigger only, its 1/4th of the article already now. A new article per WP:SPLIT or WP:CFORK will be healthy for the article. More than that the section in present form did not includ anything significant enough about deaths of the workers even after the deaths are now more than or around 200, simply the section is not justifying the scenerio. If I am not wrong today also there are deaths in MP and UP, a Odisha worker beaten to death in Gujrat. Now courts are also ordering states to disclose the deaths, Madras High Court orders the state to release the deaths in Tamil Nadu. A separate article is utmost necessary now. Dey subrata (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , noted, let's work on it then. Title as "Migrant workers' exodus during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in India"? Pinging for inputs. SerChevalerie (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to starting a separate article even though I am not confident there is material. The proposed title is too long. How about "Indian migrant workers during the COVID-19 pandemic". Not only the exodus but other travails should also be covered of course. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that sounds good. Dey subrata, any alternate suggestions? Also, any specific ideas for expansion that you'd like to see in the new article? I haven't created the fork since you first brought it IP because I've been having the same misgivings about the amount of content that K3 just expressed. SerChevalerie (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Then wait for a week more. Lets see what and how things develop. Dey subrata (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've begun working on it in my Sandbox, there does seem to be a lot of content already. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would suggest expanding Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in India which is currently too small. A separate article wouldn't be needed. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 01:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I have consolidated all the info on migrant workers from the various pages related to COVID-19 in India at Indian migrant workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Interested editors, please contribute. SerChevalerie (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

"Update" tag
An IP user has tagged the page as being in need of updating. While I don't disagree, what new information is significant enough to be added here? SerChevalerie (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't address anything about the increase in cases after the lockdown and the respective measures taken: , , , , , , ... It's not difficult to find information about it. 186.244.103.227 (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, will look into it. SerChevalerie (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on court functioning in India
https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.391 ❌ Good source, but please mention specific changes you want. Zoozaz1 talk 18:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

In pdf varient of corona
We should all varient of corona declared bh who in pdf details. With in india found all varient information 106.208.148.200 (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

About zenome seqvencing and dna test covid19
How do to zenome seqvencing details and dna test information 106.208.148.200 (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Indian rahat pakkage by pm
All details information rahat pakage in covid 19 by pm modi. Uses and bemefcial 106.208.148.200 (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 lockdown after and before sichavichana in India
After and before sichavichana in India 2409:4042:2E97:BA68:D9E5:7496:76D5:F233 (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Noob hfjjfbeuwhebshshsvsbshd dbdjdbd
Huvchhb 182.237.154.176 (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

English
English 2402:8100:3870:ACB3:1:1:1E98:63B2 (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)