Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Nicaragua

Covert cases
Above a translation from Spanish Wikipedia. Not sure how (or if) include it

"On the other hand a group of independent medical experts formed by 70 doctors and researchers from the country, denounced to the international community the existence of at least 316 cases of Covid 19 in the country.

On April 30, 2020, died a patient who had been discharged weeks ago, a 70-year-old man living in the department of Estelí, who had already recovered and was tested negative by the Ministry of Health for coronavirus. This strange pattern of deaths has occurred in many other countries, suggesting possible permanent injuries caused by the virus. After his death, health authorities recommended burying him immediately.

On the same day, the Nicaraguan Medical Unit denounced the existence of 20 cases of covid 19 among medical specialists as a direct consequence of the house-to-house visit program implemented by the Ministry of Health in the midst of a pandemic. Similarly, it has been reported that the government is threatening medical professionals who leak information on the true situation of the coronavirus in Nicaragua.

After a week of secrecy by the government, on May 8, 2020, the Citizen Observatory COVID19 Nicaragua, whose data provides official medical reports rejected by the Ortega regime, said that the actual number of infected would be 781 people and the number of deaths 135. Meanwhile throughout the country, a lot of stealth burials began to take place late at night, with gravediggers wearing special clothing".

Pacostein (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Covid 19 in Nicaragua
Even a cursory review of independent news sources, such as abc news, the Guardian, Al Jazeera, or Reuters, reveals this article to reflect only Nicaraguan government propaganda. The article greatly underplays the prevalence of Covid 19, and the number of deaths; it grossly misrepresents the Nicaraguan government response, and does not even mention the government campaign to cover up the true extent of the pandemic in Nicaragua. It should be taken down immediately. KGVincent (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Issue of neutrality
I am not quite sure if I am entering these comments correctly as I am not familiar with using talk pages, however I hope I will be understood. I am commenting because I am the person who has made the predominant updates to the page over the last 9 months or so.

This page has been tagged on the basis of neutrality and being unbalanced. A comment in the talk page says that it refers to "government propaganda". But the page uses official government sources for its figures EXACTLY LIKE ALL OTHER PAGES ON COVID CASES IN OTHER COUNTRIES. We all have our doubts about government figures in many countries worldwide, but at the current time there are generally no alternative reliable sources and government sources are the only sources which are generally used.

Reputable sources such as John Hopkins and Worldometer (if the latter is regarded now as reliable, I am unsure, altho it seems to be cited frequently on Wikipedia these days) also rely on the same government figures.

Nevertheless, I have tried to ensure that prominent attention is given to alternative views, criticism from opposition parties, and alternative figures given by the Citizens Observatory, altho the latter organisation reveals nothing about itself and gives no provenance for its figures, and therefore cannot reasonably be regarded as a reputable source.

I have now reorganised the page as it was showing structural problems as a result of being added to gradually over a period of time. A lot of the detail about figures now seems excessive, so I have slimmed that down a good deal, whilst giving attention in clearcut sections to the response of the government and criticism of that response.

If anybody wants to add additional information on that criticism, or provide any other figures which might be regarded as reliable (I know of no other) they are more than welcome.

In the meantime I would suggest that there is no justification for retaining the tag (why is it labelled May 2020 when it was just added in January 2021?) and would request that it be removed.

Jamespoke (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

article is out of date
Looks like this hasn't been seriously worked on since summer 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.46.152 (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)