Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in New York City

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 7 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ShawnBoom.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Why are you graphing clearly incorrect stats?!?
If you look at this data, for a few weeks, the numbers are higher than what appears on the New York STATE data — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:340:C502:10F0:7C1D:BBAB:E773:1A4D (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Why are you graphing an incredible (and false) decrease in death stats (for example) for yesterday.

When the nyc site clearly states that those stats are as yet incomplete?

It says “ Due to delays in reporting, recent data are incomplete.“

That is totally misleading.

And incredibly careless.

Do you really think deaths dropped from 150 to 4 in one day?

This. On a page that gets thousands of views a day. Slick.

Why would you misrepresent things by graphing that. That spreads misinformation. Destroys Wikipedia’s credibility. Not our finest hour.

Duh. --2604:2000:E010:1100:445A:2A97:BE94:C313 (talk) 05:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * All this data changes hour to hour, it will be overwritten with newer data soon.--Muddymuck (talk) 13:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It makes no sense to mislead readers by posting interim data. That suggests a steep decline. That is irresponsible. 2604:2000:E010:1100:81B7:3744:884B:9347 (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to put in the correct data. I will try to fix the table from the referenced site.  I don't volunteer for the graphs, though.Warren Dew (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The city's website says, "Information about cases over the last week will be incomplete..." How about we simply exclude the most recent week from the graphs? --Amcbride (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I vote for excluding whatever time period you suggest - that gets rid of the clearly incorrect drop on the graph. If that's a week, great. I don't care about the time period. I do care, and we should all care, about the misleading suggestion that we are going with at the moment that shows a steep decline - when there is none. 2604:2000:E010:1100:982D:6E52:9840:4385 (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing. Data from the current day should not be included until a final number is available. Including partial day results is a false data point. Natureium (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds like we have consensus. Anyone who knows how to make the change, please go ahead. I tried deleting the most recent week of data in the Wikimedia Commons table, but somehow that didn't seem to change anything here. I tried to add an xMax option to the graph template, but that didn't work for me either. --Amcbride (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * User:141.155.150.107 has deleted the graphs, which is probably the best solution for now., the problem is not in averaging; it's that the graphs are using the official data from NYC, which for some reason has decided to publish incomplete data for the most recent week. They're now counting new cases from the date of the test, not the date of the positive result, which means that as results come in they get added to various days' tallies over the past week. --Amcbride (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Amcbride is correct. NYC Health's new data format is a bit confusing, but it's the official tally and I think this is what we should use. I am using a script to pull the data and generate the markup (it uses Node.js so you need to be familiar with the terminal to use it). I agree there's no sense in including the current day, so I'm not copying that over anymore. I also clarified what the charts represent.
 * The bigger problem with the charts is that they are cached behind Varnish, which means it can take a while for changes in the data to take effect (bug report at T131885). It's quite frustrating, but it seems they update around once a day, which is all we need. Right now it's still showing outdated data, hence why you still see the misleading drop. If you want to see what it's supposed to look like, view the page in preview while editing. You'll also notice the charts look very crisp in preview, but are blurry post-save. I hate it. I almost just want to use a normal image, and update that every day. Thoughts?
 * Sorry for the confusion, &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  22:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there a way to make it not graph the most recent day? It looks like reasonable totals are just one day behind. Natureium (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree we should not graph the most recent day for now. Just have the last full day of totals. epicgenius (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't set a range, unfortunately, so I just removed the row for April 4. Of course, we're still waiting for the stupid cache to expire, so who knows when the fix will go live. Note we could easily change the chart to show overall confirmed cases/deaths instead. To me, total cases/deaths seems weird because the chart can only go in one direction (the number of people who are already dead can't go down), while per-day numbers will better illustrate when we're nearing the end. However, per-day stats are misleading people, so maybe we should go back to the overall totals? &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  00:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree we should not graph the most recent day for now. Just have the last full day of totals. epicgenius (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't set a range, unfortunately, so I just removed the row for April 4. Of course, we're still waiting for the stupid cache to expire, so who knows when the fix will go live. Note we could easily change the chart to show overall confirmed cases/deaths instead. To me, total cases/deaths seems weird because the chart can only go in one direction (the number of people who are already dead can't go down), while per-day numbers will better illustrate when we're nearing the end. However, per-day stats are misleading people, so maybe we should go back to the overall totals? &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  00:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

NY Daily News on sick nurses working at hospitals
I have started a WP:RSN discussion on using the NY Daily News as a source for this article on reports of sick nurses at NYC hospitals: WP:RSN. Comments welcome. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

videos appears to be public domain, cc licensed

 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Mo2GR2ViR4
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3A15XiXaHA
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SP5VKnUY_Y
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZSqQRR8sYw
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COtsFejtdU8

in case anyone wants to copy them Victor Grigas (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Data
Are there no new figures for the last days? Or are these figures to low to present, so anybody can see the china virus is finished and the lockdown had no effect.

I am also curious - I noticed the other day that the data in the table had indicated a total of 2 new cases one day, which didn't make sense. After looking in to it, it appeared that the person editing the data table made a mistake when fixing some percentage problems. And there was some discussion of the fact that the NYC.gov data source is a bit flakey (in that the most recent day's data may be considered 'interim' data). That all being said, the fact that today is the 20th, and the the table only has data up to the 17th (and even that day's data looks suspicious) makes me wonder whether the data should even be there at all. It should certainly include some disclaimers about what data can be relied upon, and why this data seems so much worse (and delayed) than the data on similar templates at the state/country levels. Douglaswyatt (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The source shows really only two new cases from 18th to 19th of April. Looks like the virus infected nearly all and is now running out of fuel. - https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page


 * That is just indicative of the problems with the nyc city data. If I go to the NY State data and look at just the stats for the Bronx, for instance, it says there were 549 new positive tests "today" (not sure what "today" is - maybe it's April 19th, since it says the testing data is as of midnight on the 19th).  Given how many cases are in NYC and what we know about Covid in general, it seems implausible that there really were just 2 cases between the 18th and 19th.  It looks like nyc.gov is just a bad place to look for reliable data.  Douglaswyatt (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Oxiris Barbot
The community consensus is not to follow NY Post or bklyner for any type of MEDRS content like the protection of homemade masks. The community wide consensus is to follow the WHO and other MEDRS sources. It would be irresponsible for a public health official to lie and say a homemade mask would protect you from becoming sick. Gammapearls (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Why are you deleting the statements of the top health official in NYC on this page - on the pandemic in NYC? That's absurd. This isn't being posted to give medical advice - but to have an encyclopedic article on the health matter in NYC. In fact, the statement is followed by a contrary view on following the top health official's advice. That's a lame reason for your deletion, and valueless.


 * What are you going to do next? Heavy-handedly delete the mention in the US Covid article that "Trump promoted the drugs chloroquine (also known as chloroquine phosphate)[404] and hydroxychloroquine as potential treatments"?


 * Please revert your deletion of RS covered text - this is not a medical article, giving medical advice, so your argument is not applicable. 2604:2000:E010:1100:1D72:2ADD:84F4:507B (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean by "In fact, the statement is followed by a contrary view on following the top health official's advice." She said "It gives people who are asymptomatic a false sense of security that if they wear this mask, they don’t have to wash their hands, they don’t have to cover their mouths and their noses when they cough or they sneeze." This can be included somewhere relevant, but it can't be inserted into an attack paragraph and followed up with some politicians calling for her resignation because that is not neutral editing. Sources can't be cherry picked to attack living persons. If you try to restore this again, I'm going to remove it until there is consensus to include it. I'm sorry you feel I am being heavy handed, but I tried to keep as much of your content as possible. Gammapearls (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edit makes no sense. It is the same as if you deleted the reference in the US pandemic article that "Trump promoted the drugs chloroquine (also known as chloroquine phosphate)[404] and hydroxychloroquine as potential treatments". In no world would that be viewed as acceptable on Wikipedia. The reference is indeed balanced. It presents her view. And it presents a contrary view. That's balance - not cherry picking.
 * Can other editors please comment? I'm unable to explain myself to Gamma, who insists on deleting this language for a reason I cannot understand.
 * And the deletion by Gamma as to the fact that it was asked that the top NYC health official's removal was requested by city council member specifically because of her advice on the pandemic - now restored - was especially absurd. And there is no good faith defense for it that I can imagine.

2604:2000:E010:1100:2182:CD3E:DEE9:DF26 (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect calculations in the data table?
On April 18, under the heading "Data", above the table of cases by day, User:108.15.31.114 added the line "The percentages of new cases is not calculated correctly above 100,000 cases," a claim which has remained in the article ever since. Is that true? If it is true, then how are they being calculated incorrectly, and could someone who knows what is wrong fix the calculations? —Lowellian (reply) 09:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: Another user removed the claim without explanation in this May 10 edit. —Lowellian (reply) 15:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Dubious claim on highest death toll ever
The article cannot claim that this is the deadliest ever. Many municipalities had death tolls in the 1918 pandemic exceeding this one. The provided source did not say that the present pandemic is deadlier than the 1918 pandemic. That earlier pandemic killed 500,000 to 800,000 people in the United States. The New York City death toll at that time may have exceeded the death toll in the current pandemic.Dogru144 (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * New York City's population has more than quadrupled since 1918 so the number itself is meaningless and looks more like another meaningless record attempt more suited for the headlines gasping mainstream media than an encyclopedia from a scientific point of view. Just saying.--TMCk (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Scientific studies are not the only use of numbers, but yes, numerical comparisons ought to identify the divisor or divisors. If none is given, then presumably it's some sort of gross number rather than a rate. Such reports are not as useful as those that are more specific, or rather the purposes to which they are very useful do not include epidemiology. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Virus was in New York City before March 1
This is the link that was provided from my source, but it is described as an unedited manuscript that could change before publication. My source says it is a published study.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Self-Published Source as source of information about itself
In a 01:52, 11 August 2021 edit, regarding the New York Young Republican Club's reaction to the vaccine mandate, I cited the organization's own webpage and its Eventbrite page, which seem to be in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines that "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Since the material I cited from NYYRC was regarding their own event, I feel that it may pass this test, in this case. Considering that WP:SOCIALMEDIA also redirects to the above guidelines, I also applied the same logic to the Eventbrite source. Does this analysis make sense, or am I missing something about Wikipedia editorial policy and we need to wait for journalists to write about their planned event? Kches16414 (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I just updated the sources since there was traditional media coverage of the event today, but it would nonetheless be interesting how my August 11 edit would relate to the aforementioned Wikipedia policies. Kches16414 (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Arrival date seems incorrect
Arrival date should be for first case in NYC. The cited article says nothing about a mid-December arrival date in NYC. 71.105.154.162 (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

influences on art / "in popular culture"
With more art and literature emerging about New York on Pause/the NYC pandemic experience, should we add an "influences on art" or "in popular culture" sort of section? I'm thinking of the pandemic photographs exhibited in Manhattan or published in art books, literature set in NYC during the pandemic, etc — not cursory mentions, thanks. Kentuckian in NY (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)