Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Poland/Archive 1

Delete political content
Since this is an encyclopedia entry, please delete the following useless political content: "Philosopher and law professor Jerzy Zajadło [pl] praised the discussion of the bill in the Sejm, in that the Speaker allowed members of parliament to discuss the bill under the principles of deliberative democracy, which he judged rare for the parliament dominated by PiS.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.223.14.210 (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Similarly please delete somethng called okop.ress - Is it any scientific or medial authority capable of "criticizing the delay"? What this criticizing is based on? On political bias for sure. And on free promotion on Wiki. OKO.press [pl] criticised the delay of 44 hours from the patient's arrival at the hospital to the announcement of the positive test result as excessive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.195.158.103 (talk) 13:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The bill in the Sejm is a political instrument related to the COVID-19 outbreak. The point of the critics of the law is that the party in power has taken advantage of the COVID-19 outbreak to push through a poorly thought through law that vastly extends governmental powers: the new law allows a state of emergency for 180 days both for the COVID-19 outbreak and for any other contagious illnesses, while the Constitution of Poland only allows a 60-day state of emergency, with a possible 30-day extension. Whether we agree or not with the analysis, this is a notable part of the COVID-19 outbreak in Poland. A law professor and a former judge of the Constitutional Tribunal are reliable sources for criticising a bill in parliament. OKO.press is, according to the pl.wikipedia article, a political-social information service specialising in investigative journalism and fact-checking.
 * A secondary point of one of the critics is that the party in power has used the panic about COVID-19 and an exceptional freedom to debate in parliament to trick the opposition into voting in favour of the law. 23:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Whatever political activity is related to the virus outbreak it is politics not modical topic. Please, if you are so much concerned about political side of the situation, create a separate article on the issue or go to any political page but not use this article to raise political opinions. The contents that were deleted are political opinions not facts and should be removed from the article. It looks simply ridiculous when reading about the sicknes cases you fing PIS or whatever about politics. Not to mention that the opinions that are cited origin from completely nonsense sources. Nothing like oko.press is known or recognized for "investigative journalism", although I understand this is an opportunity used by this service to grab audience attention. Therefore it is advertising using the Wikipedia having no factual value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.248.165.107 (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * This is an article about a medical event in a society. That society has been preparing for and is reacting to try to handle the event. I hope that explains why the parliamentary bill and the concerns about the bill are part of this topic. The situation is quite similar in many of the country-specific COVID-19 outbreak pages: dissidence and multiple points of view on political/administrative/governance actions are a normal part of social events in democratic, illiberal-democratic, and even in most authoritarian countries today (North Korea is about the only country with no significant dissident movement).
 * - trying to focus attention on my supposed political intentions is a logical flaw. It violates WP:AGF. Please read WP:AGF.
 * - law professors and former members of constitutional courts tend to be recognised by the Wikipedia community as reliable sources for their opinions about bills of parliaments. These opinions need to be NPOVed if they are disputed. If you have a concern about sourcing or NPOV, then please focus on the specific source(s) that you are concerned about and the text that you feel violates NPOV.
 * - OKO.press is internationally recognised for its investigative journalism. See the sources.
 * And welcome to Wikipedia!
 * Boud (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC) (remove ambiguity in phrase Boud (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC))
 * I have took a look at OKO.press and I cannot find sources for "internationally recogni[z]ed" unfortunately. I found out that it was created by Agora, with people from Gazeta Wyborcza (own by Agora). Even on Wikipedia Gazeta Wyborcza is know by its political interests. I also want to add that from the cited sources on OKO.press's article it seams that they are self promoting by using Agora's "subcontractors". I have to agree that they do not have medical expertise by themselves.
 * I think that some of members of constitutional courts have a conflict of interest with PIS, because currently they are former members of constitutional courts.
 * BartłomiejN (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources for OKO.press being internationally recognised are in the OKO.press article: Politico: ; France 24:
 * OKO.press does not have a strong claim to medical expertise, but that is irrelevant. The article analyses the timing: 2 March morning: patient telephones his GP; the delay to getting a confirmed result was 44 hours (or more; the author conservatively assumes that "morning" = noon); the medical analysis takes at most 18 hours according to (a reasonable medical source for information like this); the OKO.press author allows 4 hours for transport from Cybinka to Warsaw, which leaves 44-18-4 = 22 hours of delay; he proposes that even if the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic were considered a non-urgent issue, in which case waiting 8-10 hours on 2 March evening before sending the sample to Warsaw might have been reasonable, there would still remain 10 hours between obtaining the results and announcing the result publicly. Judgment of the delays (beyond the max 18 hours' analysis) does not require medical skills - that's an administrative/political task, which journalists can comment on.
 * Regarding conflicts of interest between former members of constitutional courts and PiS, sure, that's obvious; that's why their opinions are attributed. Readers can decide whether former members of constitutional courts or current members of a political party are more reliable sources of information. We also attribute the information we have from the Ministry of Health, which has an obvious conflict of interest - it's headed by a minister chosen by the political party that controls all three traditional branches of power (executive, legislative and judicial) and has just awarded a 2-billion-PLN funding bonanza to the state-controlled media TVP; the MOH has a vested interest in giving the impression of the health system having been in good condition and prepared for the pandemic, and of effectively managing it. Whether or not that's true or false, what counts is the sources. The MOH and the government of Poland are not good sources for objectively assessing the performance of the MOH. Boud (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * OKO.press does not have a strong claim to medical expertise, but that is irrelevant. The article analyses the timing: 2 March morning: patient telephones his GP; the delay to getting a confirmed result was 44 hours (or more; the author conservatively assumes that "morning" = noon); the medical analysis takes at most 18 hours according to (a reasonable medical source for information like this); the OKO.press author allows 4 hours for transport from Cybinka to Warsaw, which leaves 44-18-4 = 22 hours of delay; he proposes that even if the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic were considered a non-urgent issue, in which case waiting 8-10 hours on 2 March evening before sending the sample to Warsaw might have been reasonable, there would still remain 10 hours between obtaining the results and announcing the result publicly. Judgment of the delays (beyond the max 18 hours' analysis) does not require medical skills - that's an administrative/political task, which journalists can comment on.
 * Regarding conflicts of interest between former members of constitutional courts and PiS, sure, that's obvious; that's why their opinions are attributed. Readers can decide whether former members of constitutional courts or current members of a political party are more reliable sources of information. We also attribute the information we have from the Ministry of Health, which has an obvious conflict of interest - it's headed by a minister chosen by the political party that controls all three traditional branches of power (executive, legislative and judicial) and has just awarded a 2-billion-PLN funding bonanza to the state-controlled media TVP; the MOH has a vested interest in giving the impression of the health system having been in good condition and prepared for the pandemic, and of effectively managing it. Whether or not that's true or false, what counts is the sources. The MOH and the government of Poland are not good sources for objectively assessing the performance of the MOH. Boud (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion, but no Category:AfD debates page created
Proposed deletion, but no Category:AfD debates page created, at present. How about it? --Kyuri1449 (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The deletion was opposed because the topic of a suspected SARS-CoV-2 outbreak is overwhelmingly notable according to multiple reliable sources. If we wanted to be pedantic, we could start a move request to temporarily rename the article to 2020 suspected coronavirus outbreak in Poland. Boud (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks. This article is referenced from jpwiki template of 2019nCoV. --Kyuri1449 (talk) 07:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Wrong place
Zielona Góra is not at that place where marked it is more down in Poland more in the hilly places but neat the border of Germany. Hi poland (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Lubusz Voivodeship (LB) is marked on the map, not the town Zielona Góra. North ("down", towards sea level) from LB is West Pomeranian Voivodeship (ZP). I don't see Zielona Góra marked on the map at all. Boud (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Where to update the table, chart and map
Links for editing convenience (there are also 'v t e' links - view - talk - edit) that appear in both of these: [several successive edits by me] Boud (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Poland medical cases - many references are here; please put original references here, and repeat references in this main article; that way, if someone includes the template somewhere else, it will also have the references;
 * Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Poland medical cases chart
 * Commons:File:COVID-19 Outbreak Cases in Poland.svg
 * Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Poland medical cases by voivodeship - some original references with details per województwo can go here; if/when there are 10s or 100s of new cases per day, data from more local medical sources may be needed to complement the MOH data.

10 March ambiguity: 20 or 21 in total as of 15:00 CET?
Thanks to the MOH choice to not publish clear tables of data, we have confusion. Right now the dominant interpretation for the new cases today is that there was 1 new one in mazowieckie this morning, and early this afternoon, 1 new in mazowieckie and 2 new in Cieszyn in śląskie. The question is whether the first and second MZ cases are identical: Until the MOH clears this up, it seems to me that 21 seems the more widely spread interpretation, but I propose that we avoid edit-warring on this. What's needed is a good source. Boud (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC) Boud (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * identical (20 in total): RMF 24
 * different (21 in total): Dziennik Wschodni Życie stolice ESKA śląskie Gaz Wyborcza

Mika: is he in the 20 or 21? or the 22nd?
The next ambiguity is Mika. Is he included in the 20 or 21? Or is he the 22nd? Until the MOH feels that it wouldn't be a terribly bad idea to clarify the numbers, the world is left guessing. Boud (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC) Boud (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'am also a little confuse about how many cases we have right now, according to TVN24, worldometers and GOV we have 20, , , but some news and sites are saying that we have 21, update --> but recently more and more pages are talking about 20, for example Gazeta Wyborcza is now saying that we have 20 cases. Natanieluz (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You're right that right now the 15:18 entry at this GazWyb page puts 3 for Warsaw, and all the other numbers agree with us.
 * This should be cleared up when the MOH tweets its next summary statistics of the number of tests done, subdivided into negative and positive results; after that the media will follow (unless they're still suspicious and pressure the MOH to clarify). The MOH seems to publish these tweets on foreign servers of an authoritarian organisation (for decentralised non-authoritarian communication, see Fediverse) once per day. Boud (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would assume 20 - Mika is mentioned here as "one of 20 cases". Juxlos (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * ok, everything is clear now because we have another new case confirmed and total cases also confirmed by that tweet - Natanieluz (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that 21 in total is clearly the MOH's latest count. Congratulations on finding the "government's" (the URL and the web page don't seem to give any credit to the MOH) web page listing the cases! But it looks like there's some delay between the MOH providing information and someone managing the page updating it. Right now it gives a total of 19 cases: for mazowieckie only 2 instead of 3; and for dolnośląskie only 3 instead of 4. At least it's a more conventional backup to tweets. I added it to the external links. Boud (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources comparing number of tests to population?
In Template:COVID-19 testing, right now Poland is 26th highest and 6th lowest in the 31 countries listed. If we had any notable sources commenting on this, that would probably be interesting to put in the article. The ranking itself doesn't say much, and the list is incomplete because of either governments not publishing test counts or Wikipedians not finding them. The logarithmic range is more interesting: South Korea with 3800 tests/million and Guangdong province (in China) with 2800, a big bunch of countries with about 100-1000 tests/million, and Hungary, Poland, Turkey, US, Vietnam being in the 20-50 tests/million range, and only PH and IN are lower with 6 and 3, respectively.

The Polish MOH would probably argue that the quarantine and monitoring counts/million also need to considered. And the "age since first detection", for countries likely to have detected cases quickly, would be an important factor in interpreting these values. Poland only detected its first case on 4 March. Testing people very unlikely to have been infected is a waste of resources.

Anyway, if someone notable in a reliable source has commented, then that might be worth including. Boud (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

11 March 33?
There are rumours circulating that the total has gone up to 33, compared to the MOH's last tweet. Any serious sources? Boud (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The rumour was before being reverted. Boud (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

12 March refs needed
Boud (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 49 lab-confirmed cases as of 14:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC) - rumour or source? The MOH only gives 47 in its tweets.
 * rumour of 1 recovery - someone added a google link to a map which requires enabling javascript for google maps - not much of a serious source.

Recovered people.
How it is possible that in less than 10 days (first positive test comes from 4 March, Polish gov claims that we have 13 recovered people on 14 March) we already have 13 recovered people in Poland? Natanieluz (talk) 10:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm highly sceptical too, but so far we are treating numerical update messages published by the MOH on non-Polish servers (Twitter) as reliable sources, so the question is whether or not we should treat statements by the PM's office on the same foreign servers as reliable sources. The best thing would be to have other sources so that we can NPOV the information in the prose part, and put something like "13[ref1] or 1[ref2]" depending on what the sources say.


 * Can anyone find other sources, e.g. saying what the definition of "recovered" people is?


 * Or do we consider the PM's office (KPRM) as unreliable? Boud (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * as far as the confrimed cases from MOH tweets are accurate (because other media also states same values), Iam not sure if that tweet about recovered cases are reliable, this is only a statement by Polish GIS, and its not corfirmed by Polish MOH or Polish Prime Minister. Natanieluz (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The reference we have right now for the 13 recoveries is a tweet by KPRM. If we also have a statement from GIS, that would seem to me to be more reliable than KPRM - it should be a medical judgment, not a political one. Boud (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Credibility (this is not an external source, just thinking things through for credibility): To accept the KPRM claim as literally true in the sense of repeated negative nucleic acid tests for SARS-CoV-2, that would make sense if, for example, about 100% of the people lab-confirmed as infected (by the same nucleic acid tests) about 7-8 days ago were, as of yesterday, SARS-CoV-2 negative. Right now the COVID-19 page says . If the SARS-CoV-2 positive identification is typically one week after onset (defined by the first symptoms?), then two weeks after onset would give "clinical recovery" one week after SARS-CoV-2 positive detection. About 80% of cases are mild. With the statistics we have so far, the statistical noise separating 80% from 100% of cases (as of around 7-8 March) is too big for the difference to be significant. I assume that there should be repeated nucleic acid tests that are negative separated by a few days. So the claim seems credible, but would imply that positive SARS-CoV-2 detections were typically made a bit over a week later than the onset of symptoms, requiring either that people delayed a lot (5-6 days?) before being tested or the tests were very slow (many days?) or the MOH delayed before making announcemnts or some combination of these. Disclaimer: this is only a credibility argument; content for the article has to be based on external sources. Boud (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, since the Ministry of Health and KPRM IT departments seem to be incapable of running their own Fediverse servers running Mastodon (software) or other interoperable social network servers that would make sense in a democratic country, we are in the situation where we have to speculate whether or not these two accounts on servers run by Twitter, an authoritarian, secretive, non-democratic, centralised organisation, which is not even in the EU, are really under the control of the MOH and of KPRM. There's a high chance that info about the accounts being faked would circulate quickly, but more subtle information about how Twitter intervenes in the MOH and KPRM tweets is much less likely to be known (either by MOH and KPRM or by the wider public). The consistency of the information published later by Polish media does tend to support the validity of the info, but with less and less face-to-face contact, the risk of the media repeating info from California without really checking (e.g. telephoning personal contacts for unofficial confirmation) will increase. Having local servers run by the ministries in Poland, instead of being published in California, would tend to decrease the chance of fake news. Boud (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It's about definition. The GIS and then KPRM called those people 'ozdrowieńcy' (eng. convalescent) which means that they don't have symptoms of COVID-19 but they are not free from it. They haven't been fully recovered yet. 13:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.37.72.231 (talk)


 * Here's a GIS source, but it doesn't give any useful information, it only says . Boud (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * So I asume, we need to wait to a MOH or/and KPRM press conference that confirmed/deny this recovered cases, every couple of days there is a conference with Polish Minister of Health Ł.Szumowski during which there are presented actual, latest data. Natanieluz (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That depends on how much detail Szumowski presents, and whether or not any journalists ask the right sort of questions. If the MOH and/or KPRM end up being vague, or choose a definition different to that of WHO, that doesn't constrain en.Wikipedia. Anyway, please add comments, or reasons for supporting/opposing the options in the proposal below. Boud (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * this tweet is not longer available Natanieluz (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Here is a source[pl] for that by Jakub Kosikowski. Also definition[pl] in polish Wikipedia with source state the same. BartłomiejN (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is a source[pl] for that by Jakub Kosikowski. Also definition[pl] in polish Wikipedia with source state the same. BartłomiejN (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

(Nie ma wyleczonych w Polsce. Lekarz wyjaśnił, o co chodzi z "13 ozdrowieńcami" Pinkasa) - that may help Natanieluz (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Polish contribution in isolating COVID-19 Italian strain.
Dr. Maciej Tarkowski under the leadership of Professor Massimo Galli succeeded in isolating Italian strain of virus. Can it be added to this article? BartłomiejN (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't see much point adding it to this article. I would propose integrating it into Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 or COVID-19 vaccine. Several of the sentences in the first article are misleading: The first anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were created within a few days, so the hope has not just started "now", it started two months ago. Strains of the virus have been isolated since a long time ago. See what is right now ref [48] at SARS-CoV-2: https://nextstrain.org/ncov . At least at nextstrain.org/ncov, where scientists have already been tracking SARS-CoV-2 evolution for a long time, I do not see any info on the strains present in Poland right now. Info on the strains that are circulating in Poland would be relevant to this article, it seems to me. This sort of research would confirm what the patients state about their contacts (recent travel to DE, IT, contact with people who recently were in DE, IT, ...) and would give strong hints for tracing the transmission chains the SARS-CoV-2 positive patients in Poland who have no idea how they are connected to sources. Doctoral students working on isolating SARS-CoV-2 strains should be given permission by their supervisors and deans for entry to their laboratories for this type of research, which in my judgment should be justified as an exception to the temporary university isolation rules. Boud (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: definition of recovered from sources
Please state Oppose A or Support A or similar, or Comment, and give reasons. See WP:NOTVOTE for a reminder on !voting. Boud (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Proposal A: we only consider the numbers of people stated by Ministry of Health or GIS sources as being SARS-CoV-2 free, in the sense of laboratory testing, to qualify as "recovered".
 * Proposal B: we consider the numbers of people stated by Ministry of Health or GIS sources as being ,,ozdrowieńców" (en: convalescent) to qualify as "recovered".


 * Support A, oppose B - WHO's official investigation advice, page 2, says Under the spirit of WP:MEDRS, we should follow the WHO definition rather than vague statements about convalescence from KPRM and GIS. Boud (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A, oppose B - per Boud's reasoning. YBSOne (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A, oppose B - we need follow the WHO definition, not the "polish" made one Natanieluz (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A, oppose B - the second option leads to misunderstandings and, consequently, the reproduction of false information Miszak1804 15:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A, oppose B - WHO definition should be followed as it defines exactly, when patient should be classified as recovered.BartłomiejN (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A, oppose B - Polish law (art. 2, p. 19) defines convalescents as people, whose symptoms have disappeared. That doesn't mean that they are recovered. Kapi2289 (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment But if there are not enough tests and people do not get two negative specimens but are simple sent home because they are better, they are still recovered. This source lists total recovered. I am not sure what is being proposed? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Proposal A says that we follow the WHO definition, requiring two successive SARS-CoV-2 tests to be negative, separated by at least one day; Proposal B says that we follow the Polish 2008 legal definition of "convalescent", which says that a person is symptomless. Worldometers just collects info from other sources. Is information on the contagiousness of someone who feels better and is symptomless strong enough to ignore the WHO definition? The topic is being debated in the Polish-language media; in this article an immunologist states, in which, in summary, Grzesiowski says that a symptomless patient can remain infectious "some days" after becoming symptomless, but he disagrees with the WHO definition, since he says that a patient can remain infectious typically up to 14 days after symptoms appear, while WHO says that a recovered patient typically becomes SARS-CoV-2 negative 14 days after symptoms disappear. Regarding the discussion here, you may be able to change people's minds, but for the moment there appears to be overwhelming consensus among the active editors in favour of WHO's definition. Boud (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Actually, Grzesiowski effectively seems to be consistent with WHO in terms of a definition; he only disagrees in terms of whether the typical 14-day time scale starts from first symptoms (him) or from last symptoms (WHO). Grzesiowski states - "The medical definition is someone who certainly does not have the virus". The newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza requested the health agency Główny Inspektorat Sanitarny (GIS) for clarifications and promises to publish the answer. The article is timestamped 15.03.2020 17:16 = 2020-03-15 16:16 UTC. Boud (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Discuss on the talk page, don't edit war
and were done without waiting for consensus. We've just had a short time for people to comment so far, so please comment or add reasons to support/oppose one or both of the proposals in the section just above this one, and don't start an edit war. Boud (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Boud (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Jarosław Pinkas, the minister of Główny Inspektorat Sanitarny (GIS) said, that in Poland we have 13 convalescents ("ozdrowieńców" in Polish). But, in this law, article 2, point 19 says that convalescent ("ozdrowieniec") is a person, whose symptoms have disappeared. That doesn't mean that the person is recovered. So in Poland we have 13 convalescents, not 13 recovered people. Kapi2289 (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * these pepole gonna get recovered, there mostly recovered so their recover, their may be convalascents, but their gonna get recovered fully in 1,2 days Andreiii3213 (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Andreiii3213: If you have some concrete reasons to state, then please add them in the appropriate section. Boud (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Kapi2289. The new specustawa doesn't seem to refer to the text string ,,ozdrow", but 1.2 (page 1) refers to the ustawa z dnia 5 grudnia 2008 which you have linked to as the default law. So I agree that if GIS/KPRM are following the legal definitions in Poland, then it means symptomless people, not people who have recovered in the WHO sense. That leaves open the possibility that GIS/MOH/KPRM might need to issue a decree (rozporządzenie) with a definition that matches the WHO definition, if they're worried about the WHO definition not having legal status in Poland. Boud (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * do You even read our discussons? You are starting a edit war, we DON'T have any recovered people in Poland, " today (16 March 2020) at MOH press conference, Polish Minister of Health (Łukasz Szumowski) was asked by TVN24 journalist/ reporter if we have any recovered patients in Poland, and he say that we dont have any, he also said that the term "uzdrowieńcy" is the name of the people who is felling better and better, but still have COVID-19 virus" Natanieluz (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "these pepole gonna get recovered" falls under WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL and is a speculation about future possibilities. YBSOne (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Your source did not state anything about recovered (by WHO definition), and there was no evidence of any statement by Government about that! I have send an e-mail to TVP with questions about the sources; and now they have changed the graphic. BartłomiejN (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject COVID-19
I've created WikiProject COVID-19 as a temporary or permanent WikiProject and invite editors to use this space for discussing ways to improve coverage of the ongoing 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Please bring your ideas to the project/talk page. Stay safe, -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

New quarantine numbers
In ref name="MOHPL_833suspected_17Mar" we have. To me the interpretation is: 14,531 quarantined that are presently fully registered as being under quarantine; 22,979 who returned since the new rules about compulsory quarantine for anyone entering Poland from anywhere and are "announced" for quarantine but the administrative processes to register them and get local police to organise random checks and so on are not fully completed (for example, these people should be under quarantine but some or many have not yet been checked to be at home by GIS (,,Sanepid") or police).

, there was a suggestion that I don't understand how "Liczba objętych kwarantanną" can refer to "objects" (places of quarantine?). And if this were intended to refer to places of quarantine, then why not state the number of quarantined people who are not the recently-returned people? Can someone clarify 83.30's reasoning?

My proposal is to use the sum of the two numbers, 37510 = 14531+22979, as the number of quarantined as of 17 March.

I don't see much point in separating the two numbers. In early data we had "home quarantined", which we later simplified to "quarantined", because the MOH dropped the qualifier "home", there is a range of quarantine types, and the 2-day school quarantines of 6+7 March of about 600-700 pupils/teachers are clearly present in the data (see the table).

83.30 - if you have inside information that the publication on the Californian server was misleadingly stated, then please get that information published somewhere where Wikipedians can use that: we can't use private information as sources for our articles. Boud (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Explanation: 83.30 - please see obejmować#pl - ,,objętych" does not seem to be related to the English word "object", which in Polish corresponds more or less to obiekt. Boud (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Wait with updating COVID-19 cases chart until the end of the day
For at least a few days I observe that the COVID-19 cases bargraph (https://0x0.st/iaqe.png) is updated during the day, using partial data. That is giving a false impression about the shape of the whole chart. Please consider waiting for the end of the day with publishing the stats. Wikipedia is not a news source and it doesn’t need to provide information as soon as possible. In particular if the information may be easily misinterpreted. --  wiki mpan (Talk) 15:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and most of the COVID-19 pandemic related pages are updated frequently throughout the day. Anybody who looks at graphs and wishes to interpret them has to think a little about where the information comes from and use his/her own reasoning to decide what to infer from the graphs. Information from "today" and from "yesterday" will quite often be incorrect and need to be updated. Even info from a week ago or a month ago can turn out to be misleading. If someone seriously tries to draw conclusions from just the most recent one day's data, then s/he probably should not be trying to interpret the graphs at all. Boud (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

27-year old non-COVID death
I think we should write deaths: 5 + 1 not due to coronavirus. If we don't write that anywhere, then people might think there is 405 active cases (5 dead and 1 recovered), while in reality there is 404 (5 dead to covid, 1 dead for other reasons and 1 recovered). In fact, there are sites that get data from Wikipedia and wrongly say there is 405 active cases! E.g. https://mapakoronawirusa.pl/ Piotr Obst (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Why not count it as 411/5+1? (Confirmed/dead to covid + not due to covid) Piotr Obst (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

20 March - death of 27 years old women
Today it was announced dead of a 27-year-old infected person. The MZ then stated that it did not count her as part of the death statistics, but there was no information as to whether she was excluded from the number of those who were infected. The Medical Centre in Łańcut officially reported that the cause of death was coronavirus pneumonia and sepsis.

Should we remove a person from the number of affected people and correct the statistics? It seems that the MZ is not giving the correct data again. Kendokoluszki (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

fb of Medical Centre: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=650798155678127&id=346299969461282

twitter of MZ: https://twitter.com/MZ_GOV_PL/status/1241020645707825153


 * yes we should remove it, even their removed the dead person from total deaths, so theres no need adding like 5+1 thing Andreiii3213 (talk) 17:28, 20 march 2020 (UTC):


 * I'm not talking about remove from deaths, but corrent number of cases from 411 to 410. She is dead, so it is not understandable to treat this person as an active case of illness since she didn't officially die by coronavirus. In my opinion, we should count this as 411/6 or 410/5. Kendokoluszki (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)::


 * I think we should write deaths: 5 + 1 not due to coronavirus. If we don't write that anywhere, then people might think there is 405 active cases (5 dead and 1 recovered), while in reality there is 404 (5 dead to covid, 1 dead for other reasons and 1 recovered). In fact, there are sites that get data from Wikipedia and wrongly say there is 405 active cases! E.g. https://mapakoronawirusa.pl/ Why not count it as 411/5+1? (Confirmed/dead to covid + not due to covid) Piotr_Obst (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * No, adding 5+1 is misleading for some pepole, we should consider add 6 deaths with special adddon that 1 death is with other reasons or not do it at all, also these cases are confirmed casses, with recovered and deaths these are confirmed not active cases, hope i explained about confirmed cases [User:Andreiii3213|Andreiii3213]] (talk) 18:38, 20 march 2020 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify the question: We only directly show (in the tables and graphs and chart) the total number of lab-confirmed cases, and the number of "living SARS-CoV-2 positive people in Poland" is only shown as the orange-red part of the horizontal bar chart. So (apart from the prose part), the question, as I understand it, is whether or not we include this unfortunate 27-year old in the infobox parameter for "deaths", and in the columns for daily and total deaths in the table that lists this. Do I understand the question/proposal correctly?


 * In principle, there could be other cases of someone being SARS-CoV-2 positive, and dying from a reason not directly related to the infection. For example, the hospital equipment or roof crash - I think in China there was a case of a tent in a field or a hospital collapsing. So I've posted a question on the WikipediaProject COVID-19 talk page for suggestions, or for others to join in this discussion here.


 * Proposal: include the 27-year-old's case in the single-number count of the "deaths" parameter in the infobox (so (at the moment) it would be 6, not 5, and not "5+1"), and as the value 6 in the horizontal bar chart, and as the value 1 daily, and 6 total, in the detailed table, and add notes that one SARS-CoV-2 person died for a reason unrelated to COVID-19 but is included in the death count. The main reason: the number of such cases in the long term is likely to be only a tiny fraction, so there's no point complicating the tables or the infobox with this case. For people opposed to the proposal, it would be necessary to modify the infobox structure, so there would have to be consensus at Infobox pandemic talk page to add a parameter such as unrelated-deaths-of-SARS-CoV-2-positive persons (with a shorter but understandable name!); and consensus to modify the medical cases chart there would have to be consensus at the Medical cases chart talk page. Boud (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

'COVID-19 deaths in Poland by voivodeship' table - date error
There're 2 entries "21 March 2020" in the 'COVID-19 deaths in Poland by voivodeship' table. Pls, correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.122.22.228 (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Number of SARS-CoV-2 tests in Poland
For the moment this is just a sentence to start the section. Boud (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

There are many problems with and :
 * The WP:LEAD is supposed to summarise key points from the body of the article. If there's any controversy, then first the material should go in the main body, and then a short summary can go in the lead.
 * We are not allowed to publish original research in Wikipedia articles. The ourworldindata reference given is a table that compiles data in its own way; it is not a source well-known for fact-checking. --- Counterargument: the source gives links to govermental agencies which published the numbers --- this is not original research, just compilation of official data...
 * The source itself does not justify the claim as stated in those five edits. The table puts Poland below 14 other EU members. Since the EU has 27 members, that puts Poland just slightly below the middle (median) of the EU, assuming that the EU members absent from the table have lower values. So "one of the countries with the lowest" is not justified by the source. --- Counterargument: data in ourworldindata puts Poland below 17 other EU members and below UK (CEDC overlooks UK yet). There is missing data for 8 countries of which 2 (Portugal and Netheralnds) due to detected number of cases are highly unlikely to have performed lower number of tests per 1e6 population than Poland. That leaves only 1 known (Croatia) and 6 probable (Grees, Hungary, Luxembourg, Malta, Bulgaria, Cyprus) with lower number of tests per 1e6 pop than PL.
 * The second source, balkaninsight.com, has interesting information, but it doesn't justify the particular sentence.

To our new editor: on a wider point, I would fully agree that this article presently has very little material critical of the Polish health authorities and government in general, both for past and present actions. This is mainly (in my judgment) because nobody has had the time and/or energy to add such material, even though there's plenty of it in standard mainstream Polish news media. I propose you try adding material in the body of the article, in appropriate sections, and others will help you improve it. You should also make yourself familiar with the guidelines and policies, such as WP:AGF and WP:OR. Boud (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * shows that s/he has not read WP:AGF and WP:OR, nor this talk page section. Anyone feel free to revert that edit. Boud (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Neighbours graph
Some suggestions by PracownikFizyczny, which I've copied from User talk:Boud in case others wish to discuss them, are here:


 * a) Please always use the red color for the most important country, in this case: Poland
 * b) Please arrange the countries on the graph's legend roughly in the same order as the are placed in the figure, namely, from top to bottom: DE, CZ, PL etc so that the eye need not search the entire graph to localize the next country in the graph
 * c) remove labels from the "y" axis for the multiplicities of 2 (2, 20, 200, etc.)
 * d) on the y axis, introduce minor tics (in gnuplot: "set mytics 10"). Their length is typically half the length of ordinary tics
 * e) it should be possible to draw the "30% slope% curve as a dashed line. Ths would easily indicate that this curve is different in nature and does not represent any country. Also, please do remove the symbols from its ends!!! You can also reduce the line thickness for it. ... PracownikFizyczny (talk) 09:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I can see how to do a) and b) using Template:Graph:Chart, which I agree are useful. I don't see the point of c). On a log scale, 1 is much more important than 2, and 2 is much more important than 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. See Benford's law. d), e): These would be nice, but for the moment nobody seems to have inserted these options into the mediawiki/lua code. You're welcome to look at the lua source and play in the sandbox over there to experiment with changes, but please integrate the changes at de:Modul:Graph so that improvements to the code can be easily updated in all the different language Wikipedias. Boud (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

115 or 116 lab-confirmed infections on 23 March?
According to the Ministry of Health announcements on the California server(s) outside of the EU, 23 March has in : Mouseover on the links should show quotes from tweets to check if there are errors comparing tweet content to reference names. From the names, I see ((28+5+4+4+4+3+3+2+2+1+1) + (2+2+2+1+1) + (16+5+5+4+3+3) + (8+3+2+1+1)) = 116.
 * "MOHPL_28MZ_5WP_4DS_4PM_4LU_3SL_3WN_2ZP_2MA_1PD_1KP_tot749_23mar" [58] in the voivodeship template on its own
 * "MOHPL_2DS_2LD_2ZP_1LU_1_PK_tot692_23mar" [59]
 * "MOHPL_DS16_LB5_OP5_MA4_LU3_LD3_tot684_23mar" [60]
 * "MOHPL_SL8_MA3_KP2_SK1_LU1_tot649_23mar" [61]

Which is right: the individual data in the MOHPL@California messages which give 116? or the summary data "749/8" which would imply 749-634 = 115 new cases on 23 March? Boud (talk) 11:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * according to that Polish MOH wrongly dubbled that 1 case from Greater Poland Voivodeship and Lower Silesia, and in that tweet they said that we have 684 cases (that was yesterday of course) Natanieluz (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice find. :) My attempt to interpret that is "1 case from WP that authorities from WP and DS both included in their counts" (for example, someone resident in a village in one of the two województwa who was taken to a hospital in the other. Fix: . Boud (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Confirmed cases on graph.
Can someone add confirmed cases to chart? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natanieluz (talk • contribs) 16:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Done with a new graph. Unless the analysis laboratories become overwhelmed and can no longer keep up or the health authorities stop quarantining and monitoring people, the confirmed/deaths data will be almost impossible to see on a linear (not semi-log graph) graph. Template:Graph does not seem to have a semi-log option. Boud (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but will you agree that adding the accumulated cases figure to the first graph would be better related to the presented information? Or a graph showing accumulated figures for confirmed cases, recovered and (hopefully none) death cases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.248.165.107 (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure what the proposal is in the first question. Showing either the daily or cumulative number of lab-confirmed cases on the COVID-19 monitoring in Poland graph would (at least for the moment, and hopefully for a long time) be invisible to the typical reader, if we limit ourselves to writing graph, which calls the Template:Graph template and uses mediawiki server software, because this template and module do not have a semi-log option. A semi-log plot would be good to show these together, but some volunteers would need to regenerate these graphs, e.g. as svg files or png images, each time these are updated.
 * For the long term in terms of cumulative totals of lab-confirmed cases, recovered and (I agree, hopefully none, like in DE) deaths, I don't really see strong arguments against any particular choice of graph styles - there are several different options being used on the various COVID-19 outbreak pages. Personally, any of the styles of Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Italy medical cases chart, File:2020 coronavirus patients in China.svg, or File:Log-linear plot of coronavirus cases with linear regressions.png would seem reasonable to me. Until/if there's a dispute about which is best (for example, see this informal but clear community view in response to the claim that semi-log graphs should be removed from the main COVID-19 outbreak article), I think that the real question, apart from the very easy to edit wikisource-text graphs, is who is willing to create and update the graphs. I think that whoever does the work will effectively get to choose the style.
 * The DE case would be the easiest to copy, since in the section 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Germany it uses graph. (Someone added the horizontal bar style independently at the top of the DE page.) Boud (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ The horizontal bar graph style uses bar box, not an external tool; this probably explains why it's widely used. I've also shifted the line graphs into the main text, which is what the other main EU articles that I checked do. Boud (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Great people! Thank you for the excellent job being done here!

I have just one question - do you think it is feasible to add to the garph showing cases a count number of days since first case in each date line? Keep well!
 * 17:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.255.56.134 (talk)

Any more confirmation or denials of the Warsaw MSWiA 19 March and 24 March COVID-19 deaths?
See Template_talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_data/Poland_medical_cases_by_voivodeship. I propose we discuss there, since that's where the data template is. Boud (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

A new proposal for the place to discuss is to centralise the discussion here on Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Poland (instead of discussing them on the template talk pages). Boud (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC) (clarified ambiguous proposal, sorry!) Boud (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Powiat map
Is it possible that the map used in article depicting geographical presence of the virus positives is divided by powiat rather than regions? It would be much more explaining the situation. In other case even 20 cases may make the whole map red. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.195.158.103 (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone would need to prepare a free-licensed svg map divided at the powiat level. Boud (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The svg map needs to be only adapted for the purpose: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:POLSKA_mapa_powiaty2.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.248.165.107 (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So most of the work is already done. Inkscape: Path - Trace Bitmap - Color - Multiple scans - Ungroup - and other options in Path should in principle be enough to convert this to an svg map. Boud (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Megaemce (talk) 08:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Please consider changes to the map because since yesterday at least in the below counties of the Masovian voivodship new cases were dicovered yesterday: Węgrowski and Pułtuski.
 * 1) 77.253.105.52 (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please send this request (or any further) inside file discussion Megaemce (talk) 05:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposals for handling COVID-19 deaths unreported by MOHPL
Some media have reported COVID-19 deaths that are claimed to be excluded from the MOHPL (Polish Ministry of Health) tweets. The question is how these COVID-19 deaths (from media that are Wikipedia notable in the sense of having an en.Wikipedia article, or at least a pl.Wikipedia article, and tend to be accepted as reliable) should be treated in this Wikipedia article. Please state Support, Oppose, and/or Comment, for one or more of the proposals A, B, and/or C, giving reasons (see WP:NOTVOTE), preferably in the spirit of Policies and guidelines. (Reminder: Wikipedia aims at WP:NPOV, not neutrality.) Boud (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Proposal A: include these in all of our tables and the infobox, with obligatory references (one full copy, preferably in one of the two template tables, and repeats in other places).
 * Proposal B: include the info in the prose text, with a subsection title such as Unofficial COVID-19 deaths. (Right now there's already a small paragraph on this.)
 * Proposal C: add a column for Unofficial deaths to the Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Poland medical cases table, and exclude these from the other numerical totals.
 * Comment Proposal A could be difficult to maintain, because in a few weeks the number of deaths could go up to a few hundred, and keeping track of both the MOH official count and the unofficial count will be difficult in terms of editing. This is a practical argument, not an argument of encyclopedic aims. Boud (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Proposal C - for me this is the best, coz of in matter of time we will have a very big differences between officials (MOHPL) and that "unofficials or not yet confirmed", so my suggestions is that we should have 2 separate columns in Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Poland medical cases, the "official deaths" or "confirmed deaths" and unofficials ones. Also for me we should stay with that "official" number on main page and on COVID-19 deaths in Poland by voivodeship Natanieluz (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think that's consistent with proposal C. Though I would avoid making a difference such as "confirmed"; "official" vs "unofficial" seems to me to avoid showing bias in favour of either source. Boud (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Proposals B and C. Proposal C will provide the sourced information to the reader in a systematic sourced way, and will be more easily manageable (checked for self-consistency) than proposal A. Proposal B - I think this should only be for the first few, and then some of the more notable cases, e.g. if a whole bunch of newspapers talk about some COVID-19 deaths that are unreported by the MOH (though in that case, the MOH is likely to publish a correction due to the public pressure, or else it will convince the newspapers to withdraw their claims). Boud (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Proposal B thats the option what actually i wanted to do to avoid edit war over a thing 5+1 Andreiii3213 (talk) 10:36 29 march 2020 (UTC+1) —Preceding undated comment added 08:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - we already have differents in numbers (e.g. when somebody is adding another "not officialy confirmed" death, that person is not updating the number in other temples - and we have mess). Natanieluz (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment In principle, an un-involved editor is supposed to close proposals, but we're a small number of active editors here and we seem to have consensus, and you can easily complain if you think my summary is unreasonable. Boud (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Informal summary by an involved (non-independent) editor: It seems to me we have support for both proposals B and C, which do not contradict each other, and no support for proposal A. So I think it's safe to go ahead with these, which I'll have a go at in a moment... Boud (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the tidying up is done, though probably we'll find some corrections still left to do later. I see that MZ and DS cases are not yet provided today :(. I opened an informal proposal to add unofficial deaths to the Infobox outbreak template. Anyone is free to add arguments for/against there. Boud (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * yea, I have already corrected (probably) most of them, as of MZ and DS - almost every update including Mazovian Voivodeship is published about the evening time, as of DS- we will se if next update from MOHPL will include cases from that voiv. Natanieluz (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hm... How are you going to "uncount" medial hoaxes about the "unreported deaths"? To me it sounds really ridiculous, as for an ecyclopedia to do what you propose above. But have your play! #77.253.105.52 (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read neutral point of view - this is one of Wikipedia's fundamental policies. If there are some serious sources that report COVID-19 deaths and others that disagree, then we report the claims of the different sources. We have the same problem with MOH hoaxes. If we have reports on errors in the MOH official data, then we also have to WP:NPOV the MOH's original claims. In principle we could study the various laws and decrees (rozporządzenia) that define how the MOH should function theoretically - this is highly transparent (even though the laws and rules are complicated, and mostly only written in Polish), which is good - but how the MOH really works in practice is a different question. Could you please provide us with some reliable sources (in English or Polish) describing how reliable the MOH is considered to be in general, and in particular in collecting and publishing statistics about Polish epidemiological situations (like HIV, with 1000 new infections per year in Poland and only 5% of Poles having done ever done a HIV laboratory test; and influenza, for which vaccinations are normally not funded under the standard medical service NFZ)?
 * In relation to your point below, this is why having detailed references matching the claims is crucial. Wikipedia does not publish truth, we publish the best NPOVed information we can based on reliable sources, with fully transparent and public editorial procedures and related decision-making procedures. Boud (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Spread of SARS-CoV-2 within and around Poland
Why On 26 March, the Minister of Health Łukasz Szumowski claimed that European solidarity in the provision of medical equipment to Poland had failed. OKO.press qualified the claim as "false" and accused the minister of deliberately misleading ... is in section "Spread of SARS-CoV-2 within and around Poland"? BartłomiejN (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The idea was that this was related to the European aspect of managing the pandemic. I agree that it doesn't quite fit into the Spread within and around Poland section. How about a subsection with a name something like Medical supplies in the Epidemic controls section? There are other aspects of medical supplies that could then be added - the lateness in getting into the tender process is only one element of all the things that are happening (people making masks and giving them to hospitals, people 3D printing the top part of face shields for medical personnel; voivodeship-level governments acting without waiting for centralised services that are a bit confused and slow; without excluding things that the MOH and government are managing well, of course, even though we already mostly present the MOH POV in the article). Boud (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * If it is related to the European aspect of managing the pandemic then it should be here. There is a special section called "Criticism of response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic". Note: About this MOH POV, in case of raw data yes, in case of text I would rather tell that article is biased on Agoras POV. I will not event comment this "NIPH_NIH_U07p2_pls_ignore". BartłomiejN (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * This is the European aspect to the degree that it involves Poland. Any objections to a Medical supplies subsection of Epidemic controls? Boud (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * That would be grate if we will find valuable informations. BartłomiejN (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ Feel free to add more. There is quite a bit of useful info floating around. Boud (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Problems with "Tarcza Antykryzysowa".
Should we mention in this article about "problems" that opposition is creating with "Tarcza Antykryzysowa" (delay), problems that opposition have with presidential election, which will probably (maybe) be on 10 May 2020? BartłomiejN (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * There are many COVID-19 related issues in relation to the ,,Tarcza Antykryzysowa" law proposal and so on, and especially in relation to the topic of the 2020 Polish presidential election, but my feeling is that the presidential election issue is too big for this article, and only a brief summary of the content placed in another article should be placed here. The idea is that the editorial work in NPOVing would mainly be in the other article, and the summary here would more or less match the part of the lead over there that relates to the COVID-19 pandemic. There are strong claims made by the two main camps (pro-delay and anti-delay) and by others listing arguments for/against (putting people in lethal danger as a crime in Polish law, deliberately putting a massive number of people in mortal danger as a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and so on, and many pieces of information will be perceived as being motivated by political parties and so on. I think it would be good to separate that from this article.


 * The article 2020 Polish presidential election would need some work to shift all the photos to thumbnails rather than tables, because right now there's a huge amount of vertical space devoted to candidates, rather than to more general comment on the election itself. I think that the style of a neat row (two rows) as in 2015 of candidate photos would be plenty, rather than taking up so much space.


 * For ,,Tarcza Antykryzysowa", a major part is supposed to be part of "epidemic controls", it seems to me, so I think a few sentences on it would make sense in that section. Boud (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Voivodeship statistics: 30 March 19 un-summable cases from śląskie
Looking at (right now the latest) of our voivodeship table, we have for śląskie/Silesian on 30 March:
 * 19 + 6 + 8 from three different archived MOHPL tweets; this gives 33;
 * The sum for 30 March is, which is 19 more than our sum for 30 March in the totals column which states 192;
 * The sum for śląskie is  which is 320, which is 19 more than our sum for śląskie.
 * The present sum of sums is, which is 19 more than the official total of 2946.

If we ignore the 19 śląskie cases from 30 March, from ref "MOHPL_SL19_PK13_OP12_LU10_MA7_LD6_DS6_KP4_ZP4_WN1_PM1_tot2215_31mar" = https://archive.today/S1faA, then we can leave the per-day and per-voivodeship totals and grand total unchanged.


 * Proposal A: Change our śląskie 30 March value to 14; keep the reference and add a note to say that 19 cases are ignored in order to match the MOH per-day and per-voivodeship totals.
 * Proposal B: Keep our śląskie 30 March value at 33, and update the incorrect sums. Disadvantage: unless the MOH corrects itself, we will always have 19 more cases than the MOH official value. Checking that our values match the official data will be more difficult because we'll have to remember that there's this correction. Worse: later on there could be more errors.

Or anyone else who has done some updates or is willing to do them later: Any preferences or arguments for against A or B? I would tend to go for A, because whoever does the updating (right now almost only Natanieluz) is more likely to prefer an easier task rather than a more difficult task. Boud (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Proposal A: is better for me, and I am not sure if I had made that mass or what, but that has to be done. Natanieluz (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The mess is the MOH's fault, not yours. :) With the effort you're putting in, nobody has any moral right to criticise your editing. This could be of the style   You could probably go ahead and do this without waiting for long. If a consensus emerges in favour of B, then the note could easily be removed later. If someone from the MOH is keeping an eye on our table, then maybe s/he will sooner or later get the MOH to publish a tweet with a correction... Boud (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Poster about sneezing and coughing
I organized the translation of this freely available poster to 30+ languages, including Polish. Please forward to local chats, social network channels, municipalities, companies, etc.

More information: https://pesho-ivanov.github.io/#Sneeze

For suggestions, questions and corrections, please write on my talk page.

Cheater no1 (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * comment: first of all there is a typo "Nie kichajdopóki nie przygotujesz chusteczki" need to be changed to "Nie kichaj(space here) dopóki nie przygotujesz chusteczki". Natanieluz (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The intention is fine, but Wikipedia is not the place for advertising websites, or distributing files to "local chats, social network channels, municipalities, companies". Also, image credits on image files in WMF Commons are normally expected to be in the Commons page about the image file, not shown in the file itself. That should be discussed at Commons, though, not here. I'm not so familiar with Commons policies, I mostly just see their result. If you search through Commons policies you should find more information. See also WP:NOT. Boud (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the fixes! Cheater no1 (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestions. In fact, I was quite hesitant to spread the poster through wikipedia but these were the suggestions I received by fellow wikipedians (1, 2). Indeed, I may simply remove the links from the pdf. Cheater no1 (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Archiving proposal
Are there any objections to automatic archiving of this talk page with ClueBot III and the parameter | age=336, so that discussions that have not been edited since 14 days get archived? See Help:Archiving_a_talk_page for details, or look at Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic for an example - links to the archives are near the top. Boud (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support/ no objections, good idea, this Talk page is already too long :), Natanieluz (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ Apparently the robot typically does this once in a few days. Boud (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)