Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in India/Archive 7

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2021
In the introduction, please change As of 12 June 2021, India has to By of 12 June 2021, India had because a date weeks ago ought not be discussed in the present tense. 64.203.186.87 (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: That would not be an improvement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not? It's no longer June.  An article shouldn't be written as if it is.  64.203.186.87 (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request
Can someone add the following info at the botton of Section 6.1 (about undercounting of cases and deaths)?

A report by Article14, a legal advocacy group, compared mortality data obtained under the Right to Information Act and claimed that the number of people who died in 24 districts out of 75 in Uttar Pradesh from 1 July 2020 till 31 March 2019 was, cumulatively, 43 times higher than the total official Covid-19 death toll reported over this period. The report also said that not all of the excess deaths could be attributed to COVID-19, and a diversion of health resources could cause other deaths to rise, while maintaining that the vast divergence in average general deaths and excess deaths over a part of the pandemic "calls into question UP’s official Covid-19 death toll of 4,537 by the end of March 2021". The article claimed that during the no-pandemic period between 1 July 2019 and 31 March 2020 the 24 districts registered around 178,000 deaths. Over the same period in 2020-2021, deaths increased by 110% to 375,000, an excess of 197,000.

45.251.33.64 (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  -ink&amp;fables  «talk»  16:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * But this is a report which has been explicitly attributed to the publisher (as opposed to a news report)? Am I missing something? AFAIK attribution is enough in cases like this. 45.251.33.12 (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: You have to provide a source rather than just saying a report. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * But there is a source at the end of the paragraph. Or do you mean a news report? 45.251.33.78 (talk) 04:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm confused as to why no one approved this request, as the article and source you provided seem very reliable. MiddleAgedBanana (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: As per previous declines, it looks there is a consensus that the source is not reliable per WP:NOTRELIABLE policy Run n Fly (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Ahmedabad
Ahmedabad is a single city and a one-time small research done by a regional newspaper is  WP:UNDUE since this  article is about the whole India. It can be moved to COVID-19 pandemic in Gujarat if necessary but including every possible report about particular cities would mess the article. Ratnahastin tålk  15:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thats not how due weight works... The due weight is brought to the table by the coverage from BBC, Quartz, and Times of India... Which are most definitely not regional papers. If you think that the body of the text would belong at COVID-19 pandemic in Gujarat with only a summary appearing on this page you can argue for that. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I was only referring to the creator of the report as the text noted. Not those who provided coverage to it. I agree with the compromise you have proposed and will work on it. Ratnahastin  tålk  15:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you were "only referring to the creator of the report as the text noted. Not those who provided coverage to it.” then you were not making a WP:DUEWEIGHT argument at all, please review that concept again. I was not proposing a compromise, I was letting you know that an argument was available to you, I do not at this point endorse that position. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, if you do want to pursue that arguement, I would suggest presenting your version here before making any changes to the article. For what its worth, I don't think that's a valid arguement considering localised reportage is primarily what we have at present and removing them will practically bare the section of everything. It's also quite feasible to expand the section with sub-sections if necessary, it wouldn't "mess the article". Tayi Arajakate  Talk 16:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree that that the body of the text would belong at COVID-19 pandemic in Gujarat with only a summary appearing on this page. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Citation no. 5 and 18 are same
.. 117.234.24.204 (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Political Communal content
Paragraph from 'A Sikh' to 'arrangements' should be removed out. 117.210.168.175 (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Recentism issues
Approximately 18 months from the onset of the pandemic in India, this page has considerable issues with recentism, or to be more precise, with content that, with more perspective, we can see has recentism issues. There's far more detail about the initial months of the pandemic than the subsequent year or more; and much of that content is barely comprehensible now. Examples include the blow-by-blow information about testing, and announcements about efforts researching drugs. I will make an attempt to prune some of this, but input from others on how to tackle the broader problem of perspective would be welcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that this page is an unsalvageable mess. It is better to reduce the article to a stub and start expanding afresh. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Every bit of the article is perplexing. Why a separate section is devoted to India's stance on various issues concerning the origin of the pandemic? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're going to get consensus to do that, TrangaBellam, but I think you should certainly dump sections which are egregious. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Discrepancy in reporting on max estimate of excess COVID deaths from the CGD study
Some sources list the max estimate of excess COVID victims to be 4.9 million. This is corroborated by the study itself. Does anyone know why other articles have it at 4.7 million? Is this a typo or error in news reporting?
 * The 4.9 million Covid Indian deaths (almost 5 million) is a insane estimate, that would mean India alone makes up for roughly 60% of the world's Covid death. There's seems to be a lot of estimates and reports that are either exaggerated or fake by independent sources, yet it could also be true but that is difficult to prove. Inaccurate estimates are circulating the internet.Vamlos (talk) 09:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, whether it is an insane estimate or not is not what I was asking about. I was curious if anyone knows the reasoning behind some news outlets reporting 4.9 million, as in the study, and others reporting 4.7 million, apparently citing the same study but which does not state this. I hope that clarifies things. Upon looking further, it looks like The "4.7 million" sources made a typo. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The news outlet reporting a exaggerated 4.9 million death could be politically motivated. How does one even confirm that many deaths ? They could say say 1 million or 10 million, 2 million or 20 million and still people don't know. America itself currently had the highest death tole and highest daily death cases recently but these are confirmed by covid 19 reports. Vamlos (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Here are many of sources I found that claimed 4.9 million deaths in India
 * Reuters, Hindustan times , HinduBusinessOnline , Telegraph , Yahoo , news24 , cgdev , news18
 * Basically most of the sources comes from Indian independent sources but I doubt it's credibility. There is even one source that claims 5 million Indian covid deaths but these are just numbers that anyone can speculate. Another source puts it at 2.9 million Ms Rukmini S, a leading data journalist, has written that the numbers she has gathered suggest a death toll closer to 2.5 million. Vamlos (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This particular estimate comes from a study done by an American non-profit, the Center for Global Development, which included the former chief economic advisor of India. The Indian independent sources and many others around the world are only reporting on the study. The CGD study is the original artifact. All the news reporting on this is reporting on the study itself. The study estimated 3.4 million to 4.9 million COVID deaths. The full study is linked in the first comment.
 * The estimate of deaths of 3.4-4.9 million by this study may seem high. Maybe it's not right that so much media around the world reported on the study without questioning its methodology. The thing is Wikipedia is based on verifiability and reliability, which includes publisher, author, and the particular content in the work. So far, the available sourcing across the board is only reporting on what the study says and its results without questioning or challenging it. If anyone can find a good source(s) challenging the accuracy of the study, please including it in the article.
 * Going back to the original comment in this section, the matter was a discrepancy in news sourcing on the study, where some news articles would correctly put the upper limit at 4.9 million as per the study, and other news articles would wrongly put this at 4.7 million which is not in the study. The second case looks to be a typo and some news media copy each other or go off of a report provided from a wire service without further scrutiny so these errors propgate. 4.9 million is the correct number for the upper limit going off of other sourcing and the study itself. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of COVID-Crypto Relief Fund into COVID-19 pandemic in India
Standalone article not required as there are not many updates DTM (talk) 10:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Nah, it would be better to keep this separate. HyperEagle (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of SAARC COVID-19 Emergency Fund into COVID-19 pandemic in India
Standalone article not required; lack of updates. DTM (talk) 10:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * This article should be deleted instead. The content is exactly the same as the relevant section in COVID-19 pandemic in South Asia and the separate article isn't really adding anything to it. The only difference between the two seems to be that of formatting. -Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Vaccine Maitri into COVID-19 pandemic in India
Merging this into the main article "COVID-19 pandemic in India" will give both topics more context. Most of "Vaccine Maitri" can be concisely expressed in a much smaller amount of space. International reactions saying thanks can be expressed in a single line "thanks". DTM (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Do not merge. Vaccine Maitri is an initiative to supply the vaccine to foreign countries. "COVID-19 pandemic in India" is a much larger topic. JS (talk) 05:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Instead, it will be preferable to merge this article into COVID-19 vaccination in India as it relates to vaccination.Boomchikaboomboom (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Evacuations by India related to the COVID-19 pandemic into COVID-19 pandemic in India
"Evacuations by India related to the COVID-19 pandemic" has too much detail that is not needed. This can be merged into the main covid article for India "COVID-19 pandemic in India" which will give both more context. Or, India's international response can be given a new article which can merge "Vaccine Maitri" and evacuations etc together. DTM (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's precisely because it "has too much detail that is not needed" that it should stay as its own sub-article. Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

New article proposal
Rather than the above merge proposal to merge international events into this main article COVID-19 pandemic in India, a new article can be created for India's international reactions and efforts related to covid which merges: DTM (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Vaccine Maitri
 * 2) Evacuations by India related to the COVID-19 pandemic
 * 3) Waiver from certain provisions of the TRIPS Agreement for the Prevention, Containment and Treatment of COVID-19
 * 4) Stranded in India
 * 5) etc


 * I would much prefer this option. This page has had issues with page size before and a simple merge might cause it again. -Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)