Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom/Archive 3

Lifting lockdown
, to avoid edit-warring, please, discuss your proposed changes here. I've asked you a few times in edit summaries to discuss here before repeatedly removing information from the article. The BBC reference you appear to favour gives little detail about who said what. What's your objection to attribution to the Counsel General of Wales, and the First Minister of Scotland, of the legal restrictions that exist in those two countries when travelling from England? Capewearer (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that it is a long page. A very long page by anyone's standards, do we really need a quote (I'm paraphrasing) if you come here you'll get fined when many people have stated that you shouldn't go to x, hence it is a better article as it gives more weight to the point. Plus as I said Sturgen said the same thing, so I don't see why we need to highlight a rather trivial point, with a quote, which the only difference I can see is saying you will get fined, which I've edited it to for the moment. In addition as I said previously the Jennick quote plus that driving quote really did look like a C&P out of the BBC article. But as I also said the Jennick quote is weird and switches subjects where it was and should not be in the article as it does not address any concerns that the Welsh or Scotts had made at the time and just reiterated what had been said all day. For same reason I find Sturgen's quote jarring and frankly I find her choice of words to be weird and again don't really see anything new or important to the article and find it weird. If I was to quote anything, I would quote Sturgon talking about the importance to state which measures are for which areas. For me quotes have to be unique and have value not just in the article for the sake of it or to push a POV that is not unique or can be adequately communicated without the quote. Games of the world (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please WP:Assume good faith of your fellow editors before accusing them of POV pushing. A head of government bluntly warning that people may die has a quite different meaning to mentioning that unnamed officials "warned against", which could mean a legal warning rather than a warning of risk to life. I agree about the Jenrick quote, and didn't intentionally re-add it. 17:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't accuse you of that in my essay above. Unnamed officials happens to be police forces, through high level members and academics, just because I choose not to name them, does not make them any less significant or less worthy than an MP. Games of the world (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see Wikipedia:UNDUE and BALASP as to why that quote, Strugen's and certainly the mention of a care home manager that you also insist on having and a supplier quote are inappropriate, give undue weight and balance to an arguement. Games of the world (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

, you have reverted my edits twice, when I tried to correct the order of the reactions to Johnson's speech on 10 May. All of the references are from after the speech. By grouping them with the sentence about the leak, it gives the impression that the leak was reponsible for the reactions. What's wrong with putting the reactions in date order? Capewearer (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It does not give that impression what so ever. The article clearly does not state that following the speech xyz happened, so you're jumping to a conclusion that is not there to be made. To take your view point, all apart from the NI reaction were from BEFORE the speech on Sunday. Also it is not good English, (sentence and paragraph construction) to jump from one subject to another and back and frankly ended up being a jumbled mess which is really hard for any reader to understand. The way it was and is currently, is absolutely fine and does not give any dodgy impression in regards to when something happened may or may not have happened as it does not give a timestamp so to speak on the reactions. Games of the world (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's get some other editors' views on this. Capewearer (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggested table for the opening
I suggest the following under the first two paragraphs. The first paragraph is essential to counter the present bias in the article and to clarify that each country has different laws. The first paragraph comes word for word from the article Health care in the United Kingdom, so it does not need censoring in any way. It's a fact and is absolutely crucial. My suggestion:

Health care in the United Kingdom is a devolved matter, with England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales each having their own systems of publicly funded healthcare, funded by and accountable to separate governments and parliaments, together with smaller private sector and voluntary provision. As a result of each country having different policies and priorities, a variety of differences now exist between these systems.

Deaths per 100,000 population of all 4 countries of the UK, as at 9 May 2020.


 * I've deleted the ref columns and used stats from one source: GOV.UK. This table is good to go. Wici Rhuthun 1 (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Diolch! John Jones (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Saw this has been added to the 4 country articles. The population of England is wrong. Jopal22 (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yesterday's figure! However the Infobox number of deaths on the COVID-19 pandemic in England article is frozen as it was 3 days ago at 27,432. John Jones (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The above table illustrates the opening paragraph of the article: ''. England and Wales are the UK countries with the highest recorded death rate per capita, while Northern Ireland has the lowest per capita.'' The selection of countries are made by www.GOV.UK. All data come from one place: www.GOV.UK. The source (www.GOV.UK) is dependable and the table should be included in the article. Why is this table being censored by one editor? Readers have the right to view this! Transparancy please! This is part of the bias in this article = pro England; hiding information on the other nations. How do I take this matter further to global Wikipedians, please? please read 90% England centric 10% other nations (above). I also believe that there are editors either paid or connected to the UK Government or a body such as Public Health England to suppress information on other nations. John Jones (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * this table is controversial and gives undue weight to one comparison measure and does not balance the table with the views that it is flawed. But let's not have two discussions about it on the go at once, the one at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in England can cover it. Also, please read WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOTBATTLE and WP:AGF. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

All businesses closed
This isn't true, or at least is highly misleading. No source is given. I suspect what is meant is "workplaces" rather than "businesses" have been shut? Either way, it needs a source.

It would be great if this article could give clarity on what the government has said to businesses in an advisory capacity, and what enforceable measures have been put in place. I recognise it's hard to find good sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.245.46 (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It would help if you could mention under which subheading the part you are mentioning is, so it's easier for us to find. Rotation4020 (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

90% England centric 10% other nations
this article is becoming way way too long. Test way to deal with this is to move most of what is only relevant to each of the 4 nations to that article. 90% of this article, as it exists, is only relevant to England. This is the mistake the BBC does by referring to "NHS" where in fact there is no such thing; it does not exist. I've also added a crucial bit that health is devolved to all 4 nations, right at the intro, as this is essential information to the reader. Should this not be clarified, I think we are putting people's lives in danger as Wikipedia is giving info about one country which is incorrect in the other 3 countries. It verges on fake news, but certainly political bias in favour of England; I don't blame the editors, it seems that 99% get London / England / Westminster / BBC news and have no idea about the other 3 Celtic nations. John Jones (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This sort of thing is always a mess. England is more than 80% of the population of the UK so it is always going to be weighted for English bias. Then a Scotland specific article is created which often is reasonably good. A Welsh and NI article follows, which are usually ok but not as good as Scotland. Then an England article is created just for completeness but no one updates it as there is not much you have to say different from the UK article. Then a London specific article is created which causes arguments. It tough. I've been trying to update the figures, and it is so confusing, sometimes the government is talking about England and Wales (e.g. ONS), sometimes the UK, let alone the confusion around changing the things included as COVID deaths etc. I'm not sure of the solution. Jopal22 (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Westminster insists that it is an 'equal union'! 25% of this article should go to each nation. OR, remove NHS England references to the correct article (COVID-19 pandemic in England). One of the crucial opening statements should be the differences between each nation, in a clear table. We're dealing with lives here, not the usual election etc! John Jones (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe let's get to what the core concern is here, rather than calling for articles to be created that, as Jopal has hinted, maybe we don't have the (wo)manpower for. You've referred to "lives in danger". Is the concern that deaths are downwards trending in England but not, or not as much, in the other parts of the UK? As a potential corollary, taking the lead again from what Jopal said, which pattern is true of England outside London? Samsara 12:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I find it curious that the main paragraphs you choose to delete concern the British armed forces, even when they are assisting in the Shetland Islands. They doubtless include people from all four nations.
 * One place where there is undoubtedly English bias is in the column of the statistics table which refers to deaths recorded via the registration services. It currently shows a total of 29,648 but if you add the figures from the National Records of Scotland and the Public Health Agency of Northern Ireland, my total is 32,111 for 24th April. Both of these are quicker off the mark than the ONS for England & Wales so there should be no delay caused by adding them. I am prepared to update these figures but I probably need to consult the editor who updates these figures first. Chris55 (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The danger to people is this: someone reading this article in Scotland is given information about the UK which could be very different to the information pertinent to Scotland etc. The 4 countries have different laws and they are being ignored in this article. There is no chapter about the 4 Governments and their local rules and laws. This article is an England based juggernaut which drives through the diversity of the UK, and the result is a mad mad mess: information pertinent only to England thrown at the other countries. The COVID-19 pandemic in England, ironically has purposely been left on the sideboard by most of you, in your claim that England = the UK. I could therefore follow suit and add everything from the COVID-19 pandemic in Scotland, COVID-19 pandemic in Northern Ireland and COVID-19 pandemic in Wales articles into this article, in order to balance this English colonial attitude. So, there are two options:
 * 1. we copy / paste things relevant only to England from this article to COVID-19 pandemic in England, or
 * 2. I will start copy / paste text from the other 3 countries into this article for it to be more balanced.
 * If there is another option, let me know; as it stands this articles is a snub to the Celtic nations and government and does not reflect the outside world. John Jones (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Making ultimatums like that is not helpful. Yes there is scope to state Scotland, Wales and NI govs passed emergency laws for the pandemic or announced this that or the other advice but not in the detail that I feel you are hinting at. But ultimately "No 10 has said Mr Johnson is in favour of a UK-wide approach, even if different parts begin to move at slightly different speeds based on the evidence for each nation." Games of the world (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting a way to make this less biased. No ultimatum in that! Your but not in the detail that I feel you are hinting at is uncalled for; the minor details of England will stay? eg 'the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge gave their support to a Public Health England campaign' - irrelevant to Wales, Ireland and Scotland; or 'a private lawn in the grounds of Kensington Palace which is used for royal helicopter landings, would be used for refueling (sic) the helicopters used by paramedics'.... If they had turned Kensington Palace into a temp hospital then it may have been notable. This is English-centric post-colonial nonsense, which is nothing more than dust in our eyes, where we really should be concentrating on all four nations. Re your last sentence: the devolved governments are able to end or extend lockdown independently of England. Boris may make declarations, but as it stands he has no authority to over-ride them, unless he brushes democracy under the table, of course. Zilch. Even the 23 March lockdown had been agreed by all four leaders prior to his announcement. Please stand aside form Boris / BBC gibberish and get down to the facts. John Jones (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think your personal feelings are clouding your judgement here. There is clearly a role for a UK COVID-19 article which deals with the overall response. I agree this article is getting too long, and the normal thing to do then is to split off natural sub-articles and keep a summary and link in the main article, as has been done with timeline and testing. It is also appropriate to trim unnecessary detail such as the rubbish about helicopter refuelling on a royal lawn. But we don't build a useful encyclopaedia by arbitrarily putting quotas on content. |→ Spaully ~talk~ 19:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I certainly have strong feelings about the issues involved: keeping articles balanced and well ordered; here, it means placing stuff related to Public Health England, NHS England and activities and decisions related to England in its right place within the redundant article COVID-19 pandemic in England. To do otherwise and equate England to UK would be giving the reader incorrect information, which, in this case is very very dangerous. Yes, I have feelings on the issue and so do many other Wikipedians and readers. John Jones (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your primary deletions in recent days have been about the British army, which is clearly relevant to a UK article and not specific to a home nation. I will remove the tag on the article unless at least one other person thinks it is indicated as I see no evidence that this is a broadly held view. Please keep up the good work in enhancing and ensuring the article includes broad UK views, I agree that there is a tendency generally for London/English information to predominate due to population and therefore editors. But please also be careful not to be overzealous in your changes or comments which can be disruptive. |→ Spaully ~talk~ 05:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Systematic bias tag - you have not posted "specific issues that are actionable within the content policies", and started discussion less than 48 hours ago. Tagging this high profile article without engaging in proper discussion and raising specific issues first is not helpful or constructive. As far as I can see from your comments most of your edits are accepted and are improvements to the wording, or adding other perspectives which is good incremental progress. |→ Spaully ~talk~ 06:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for accepting that the article is biased. Relevance depends on the location of the events: was the activity based in Scotland, for example, and not (as one user (see above) mentioned: whether there were Scotspersons in the British army! So if they used a helicopter to carry Covid patients in Scotland, then that information would go on the COVID-19 pandemic in Scotland article. This is usual practice on Wikipedia. As it stands, the bias in this article is too much for Wikipedia, and I will re-tag the article on Tuesday, if things have not improved. I accept your point that two days of discussion may not have been enough, so I'll wait until then. Now, it would be very easy to ask users from Scotland, NI and Wales whether they agree with this 90% English bias on such a high profile article, and yes, I think I could get "at least one other person" to agree with me. In fact, the bias is so high, I have a feeling that every single user from all 3 nations would like to say their say! So please deal with me here, change the article, or I'll accept your suggestion to ask others to neutralise this article, de-clutter ambiguous England=UK wording, de-colonise and make it acceptable and fair. John Jones (talk) 08:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your contention that the article should pay equal weight to the four countries ignores the simple fact that over 80% of the UK population is in England and over 90% of Covid-19 infections have been in England. So your headline actually says the balance is about right whatever you may think. Chris55 (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So it's not an 'equal union of 4 countries! As it stands, it's 92% biased in favour of England, even though there's a seperate article for England. The share should be equal, with all extra stuff placed in the other articles. Secondly, as I say in my opening paragraph, "Wikipedia is giving info about one country which is incorrect in the other 3 countries". I tried to address this earlier with one edit (change 'Government response' to 'UK Government response'), clarifying which of the 4 governments the heading 'Government response' referred to. To someone living in Llanbidyn Nodyn, when they hear that term on the radio, day after day, they will know that it refers to the Welsh Government. To you living by the Thames, you will think of the UK Government. Don't take people for granted. Yes, this article is about the UK, and all the diversity, people and governments within it. And as health is devolved, it strengthens the case that we should be very clear in the information we provide our readers. John Jones (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * John, this is not a discussion forum for the issue, it's about the content of the article. I agree with you about the unequal treatment of the countries by the government (having just been reading the leaked review of pandemic preparations from which the 3 non-English nations were entirely excluded) but that has very little to do with the main thrust of this article. Chris55 (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This certainly is the place to discuss clarity, and adding 'UK' would make it clear to the reader, Chris55. Nothing political about that. The political bit is ignoring other governments and nations, thus endangering the reader with incorrect / vague information.
 * Here's another example of England-bias. I've just moved the montage of 7 images (File:COVID 19 in England collage 1.jpg) of places in England from the main Infobox, and placed it in the relevant article (COVID-19 pandemic in England). An editor comes along and immediately reverts the edit with a very un-Wikiesque comment "Childish!", and no explanation as to why he or she has reverted my edit. Let's turn this round: if I placed a montage of 7 images of places in Wales in the main infobox, would that be acceptable? There is nothing childish about attempting to ensure that this article is neutral, fair and balanced, and which reflects the covid situation in all countries within the UK. As it stands, this article does not present viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone WP:IMPARTIAL, and it does not fairly represent all significant viewpoints WP:UNDUE. It also contains WP:CONTENTFORKING - the creation of two separate articles all treating the same subject (UK and England). John Jones (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've skimmed the article and in my opinion 96% is England centric, most of which should be moved to COVID-19 pandemic in England. Wici Rhuthun 1 (talk) 07:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, for a UK centric page, this is very English orientated. England's population is the largest in the UK, and its outbreak is far worse than the other nations which will inevitably give this page a more English leaning take on current events, but a reshuffle of information to the COVID-19 pandemic in England should be carried out in my opinion. Jxseph14 (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm thankful for all those who have contributed positively in this discussion. Good changes have been made, and the country-gap has narrowed. But there still exists a bias, and a great danger to lives. We need to address this. Yesterday Nicola Sturgeon said in response to Johnson's address, ""We mustn't squander progress by easing up too soon or sending mixed messages. People will die unnecessarily." This is what I said here three or four days ago. This article contains mixed messages to our readers. It is unclear, and could cost lives. It needs to change quickly. John Jones (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Taking stock
 * I agree that the article is a mess, and it confuses and it does not adequately differentiate between what is happening in the UK as a whole, and what is happening only in one or other of each of the four home countries. I'd favour removing all content which does not apply equally to all four of the home nations (it could be migrated to the appropriate home country-specific article if it wasn't already there). The we could have just a short single paragraph summary under a header for each of the four home countries with a 'main' template directiong readers to the appropriate articels. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Go for it! Wici Rhuthun 1 (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Interesting read for those who still think the UK Government speaks for the UK, in the Guardian:
 * In this pandemic, an important lesson: the UK is four nations.

This WP article needs changing, for 95% of the time the UK Government speaks for England only. John Jones (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, a snapshot of how things stand today would be worthwhile
Please feel free to add to this table, before I add it to the main article. Any suggestions etc, please discuss here.

I think maybe a couple of days should be enough.

As the whole of this article is about health, which is devolved to the 4 nations, this is critical so that we can start returning to a balanced, less biased article which looks at all 4 nations not just England=UK. John Jones (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This table is nonsense and should not be added. Games of the world (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is table-WP:cruft of the worst order. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Games of the world - in what way is it "nonsense"?
 * Lee Vilenski - please explain your rationale. We can verify all of this table with reliable secondary sources. Don't you agree? John Jones (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Prescription charges are nothing to do with COVID 19, especially as no one has changed the rules regarding this. In fact medication is nothing to do with COVID 19 - there is not an over the counter drug available. Two) what data base are you referring to? In the Grocer it was not clear as to what area it covered or how it was compiled. The other boxes are rather better being in prose as again it is confusing forcing so much intricate detail into a written box. Games of the world (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because you could create a table doesn't mean you should. We aren't a resource for people to check for up-to-date information, we are an encyclopedia. We aren't an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information, and that applies to tables like this one. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've now deleted the 'presecription' row, although in my opinion it is very relevant to a diseases which has > 200,000 in the UK, most of whom will need medication for a long term as they get better. Access to database: it's pretty obvious, and further info is in the link to the BBC website.

WP:INDISCRIMINATE - the restrictions mentioned are ones which have been created by all 4 governments, nothing indiscriminate about them, as they're some of the main restrictions people need to know about, especially after Johnson's half an hour of fake news on the 11th, where he gave very wrong information to the people of N Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Wikipedia needs correct information; this table is an attempt to do just that.

Here is my table v.2:

John Jones (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Statistics Tables
I would rather not attempt to correct this myself, but at the time of writing it would appear that the hospitalized death columns for Northern Ireland and Scotland are showing the latter and the former respectively. Viewfinder (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

UK Covid-19 Registration stats
Greg, I believe you keep the weekly ONS figures up to date on the UK Covid page. But you haven't included the figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland (NRS and PHA). I've been accumulating those figures over the past weeks and could update that columns but didn't want to do it without checking with you. Alternatively if you email me I could send you a spreadsheet with all the values and the links. Chris55 (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * , I noticed the most recent set of ONS deaths are out here on the tab 'Covid-19 - E&W comparisons' column E.  Do you want to add them to the data that you have and update the table? Greg321 (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, well done Greg! I looked this morning and couldn't find the complete spreadsheet at all. (I note this page says "Corrections".) I've now got all the data: the NI figures are getting harder to track down but I've finally found the PDF on the NISRA site, so I can do it. The NRS figures are published on Wednesday but last week's covered up to 3 May. Chris55 (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Brilliant. I am planning to update the whole of the cases side of the table as this has been lost since the government changed how it presented the data.  So hopefully we can get the table looking sensible again. Greg321 (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was harder than I thought since ONS had found a few new very early cases so that all the cumulative totals were wrong; and more. But I do think that table is over-complicated. Wouldn't the English regions data be better moved over to the England Covid pages (it's a nighmare on a mobile)? Perhaps I should raise this on the template page talk. Chris55 (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, lets put it on there, it is a mess at the moment. I think and  will have opinions on it too. Greg321 (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes there are a few issues. Updating ONS always means adding the separate E&W, Scotland, and NI together and updating all the figures even the ones already populated. I find I can just paste the numbers using visual editing mode from "Numbers" (the Mac equivalent of Excel), but can't do the same using Excel! The hospitalised deaths figures is annoying as the government doesn't tweet these anymore and so there is no permanent reference (and if we don't pick up a days number it is hard to retrospectively find it), plus unaware editors populate the graph below with the hospitalised+other death figures not realising it is inconsistent. Given we have separate England/Wales/Scotland/NI articles I would have no issue moving the English region columns to the England page. TBH I don't understand the figures being shown here, and don't know what the numbers in brackets mean. I would prefer we show the ONS deaths by country (E/W/S/NI) myself, and think testing is a legacy of the articles start when testing was more indicative than deaths. Jopal22 (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW I would update and backdate the deaths bar chart with the figures "in all settings" that the government is currently publishing, but with a footnote pointing out the discrepancy between these figures and ONS figures which clearly expose the existence of untested "excess deaths" that the daily government figures are omitting. Viewfinder (talk)
 * Yeah I get why you say that, but I think hospital deaths are a more reliable and consistent view to understand the virus's progress (as all deaths does not rely on a positive test result). Happy to go with the consensus. Jopal22 (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hopefully clear what I've done and I haven't messed it all up. Greg321 (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * While I have no problem with the purpose of this edit, I don't think for stats for the 4 nations which are listed by date of reporting (rather than date of occurrence) should be added together, due to different reporting times etc. in the 4 nations, and instead to determine the cumulative totals, the government website should be used. Numbers previously on the government website can be found here. -- Ted Edwards  17:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The English data isn't available on the old basis anymore (date of reporting Vs current data which is based on the date of test) so I don't think we can keep the table up to date using the old data. Can we get the non-english data on the same new basis? Greg321 (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , and  Given we can't get the cases data on a consistent basis across the UK, why don't we just remove the cases by country numbers?  We can have a total cases based on the numbers published each day. Greg321 (talk) 07:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A big improvement so far. I think the country cases can be done. Scotland (https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-trends-in-daily-data/) has been far more consistent. The data for Wales is there but only broken down seemingly to the village level. I could update that but I'm not sure about keeping it up. But Northern Ireland seems to have given in to Westminster and I can't find the daily totals.
 * One query at the moment: you've put N/A for the last row in the cumulative column, but isn't that the point of the dual heading for that column (which is now the wrong way round at the bottom)? i.e. just repeat the final cumulative figure. Chris55 (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've now added the Wales stats and they are surprising in that there are a few very early cases: earlier than England in fact. 22 Jan in Rhondda Cynon Taf, 27 Jan in Torfaen before 4 Feb in Cardiff which is cited as the first case. The website is public.tableau.com which I haven't come across before though it is referred to as "our user-friendly data dashboard on the Public Health Wales website" by Public Health Wales. So I presume it's genuine. It also changes the totals throughout though the numbers match at the end of the day. Chris55 (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added 3 columns for certified deaths by the 3 authories. Does it overload the table? Just about ok I think and avoids doing off-table totals. The N/A entries at the bottom of the testing column don't line up but I'll leave that to whoever's updating those columns.Chris55 (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Post-expand include size exceeded.
As of this revision, the post-expand include size has been exceeded. (templates at the bottom of the article are breaking and are not being displayed). I ask that all editors consider removing unnecessary templates from the article so that it remains fully functional. One way to do this is by removing excess references. thanks. Mgasparin (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as numbers go, we are at 1,990,718/2,097,152 bytes for PEIS, which is roughly 94% of the maximum, as determined by Wikipedia's technical limits. Please consider this when adding new templates or other transcluded information. Mgasparin (talk) 05:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:Over coverage
I've added this template as hardly any attempt has been made over the last week to move England related stuff to the COVID-19 pandemic in England article; neither does it differentiate between England and the UK. COVID-19 epidemic in Wales, Northern Ireland and Wales has hardly anything to do with the Westminster. It's a health issue, which is covered by devolved governments and NOT by Boris Johnson. This article is very biased against the three smaller nations and contains disproportional coverage of England. It is an attempt to deceive the reader that the UK = England. John Jones (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that coverage specific only to either of the home countries should be moved to the more specific article, leaving just a summary in this one, but to avoid confusion and misunderstanding, can you give some examples to show what leads you to say that the article "is very biased against the three smaller nations". -- DeFacto (talk). 15:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Take a look at my edits over the last week. And please read my comments on this Talk page. Blowing England=UK's trumpet takes the oxygen away from the other three. This is a a bad article. John Jones (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked, and must have missed the bits that were "very biased against the three smaller nations". Please give examples of all the specific cases that are very biased that still exist in the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Examples:
 * 1. All activities related to COVID-19 should be geographically placed (move to relevant country) eg Information such as the following should be copied/pasted to the England article:
 * On 17 March, NHS England announced that all non-urgent operations in England...
 * On 18 March, MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle announced that he had tested positive...
 * The first two working NHS doctors died... '''Which country? 'NHS' does not exist.
 * On the same day, Labour Party MP Angela...
 * Dr Jenny Harries, England's deputy chief medical officer, suggested...
 * England's deputy chief medical officer, told the government's daily briefing... Move to England; which government?!
 * NHS Nightingale Hospital Birmingham was officially opened by Prince William... the activity was in Birmingham; move to England article
 * On 18 April, Imran Ahmad-Khan, the MP for Wakefield...
 * Ceremonial duties, such as the Changing of the Guard at Buckingham Palace... activity is in England; move to England article
 * 2. Check that information is all nations or only England eg
 * On 17 March, the government provided a £3.2million emergency support package...
 * Boris Johnson made a statement on his daily briefing, announcing that all schools in the UK were to close on Friday... If this statement was true, BJ would be breaking the law; education is devolved!
 * The government directed people to stay at home throughout this period except for essential purchases...one exercise per day... [to end of paragraph] Which government? The Westminster Government can not 'direct people in Scotland etc to do this'; IT'S DEVOLVED!.
 * On the same day, it was announced the police would be given...
 * Chief Medical Adviser Chris Whitty also reported suffering from symptoms...
 * On 1 April, the government confirmed that a total of 2,000 NHS staff had ... Which government, which NHS?
 * Matt Hancock told the briefing... which briefing? The briefing led by Handcock is the England briefing!
 * Johnson stated that the UK was on level four, moving towards level three... table is for England only
 * On 12 March, the government announced... [to end of paragraph] Which government?
 * In Prime Minister Johnson's televised address to all nations of the UK 95% of his address was for England only!
 * On 1 March, Hancock said retired NHS staff... England only
 * 3. Talking down
 * ...brought Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the UK. Yes it's in the BBC ref; but the BBC are also very biased, and this kind of language is offensive.
 * Daily briefings were also held by the administrations of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. what an afterthought!
 * Regulations and legislation - whole chapter makes England default, other 3 countries again an afterthought
 * No time for any more. I think I've done around 10% I do think we've moved on in the last few weeks, less bias by now, but one hell of a way to go! John Jones (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to take personal feelings out of it. Administration (government) is a turn of phrase! Nothing wrong with saying also held and bringing in line (that is not offensive or untrue if everywhere else was already doing it. A lot of the stuff until last weekend was unilateral and all four nations were together so it is reasonable to say Boris said for all of UK. Look at the comments that the leaders were saying. Also Mps in Westminster represent all of the UK so if they have COVID 19 (I assume that's what all of the comments mean) therefore it is correct to be in the article. Boris Johnson made a statement on his daily briefing, announcing that all schools in the UK were to close on Friday... If this statement was true, BJ would be breaking the law; education is devolved! No it is factually correct. He just brought everyone together, by announcing last. The government directed people to stay at home throughout this period except for essential purchases...one exercise per day... [to end of paragraph] Which government? The Westminster Government can not 'direct people in Scotland etc to do this'; IT'S DEVOLVED!. AGAIN this is correct as ALL FOUR were acting together. Ceremonial duties, such as the Changing of the Guard at Buckingham Palace... activity is in England; move to England article Uk army and Royal house who represent the UK so perfectly fine to have on the UK page. On 17 March, the government provided a £3.2million emergency support package...What was the money for (if you want a proper answer) and in fact they are correct. They provide the money for all 4 areas the only thing finance does not cover was the LGA grants. Johnson stated that the UK was on level four, moving towards level three... table is for England only Wrong table is not for England only he said the UK is currently at. Talking about all of the UK. Regulations and legislation - whole chapter makes England default, other 3 countries again an afterthought Most of the other countries take their lead from the UK gov/England groups like PHE, hence why it does make sense why they take the lead. Games of the world (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ok, so nothing that is "very biased against the three smaller nations" then. According to the Oxford definition of the word at least. Oxford says "biased" means "Unfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something". And "prejudiced" means "Having or showing a dislike or distrust that is derived from prejudice; bigoted". There's none of that in any of your examples. It seems it's just that you don't like the level of England-specific content in there - so a bit too England-centric for your liking. But I see that, even if we assume you mean unbalanced rather than biased, that your examples are unbalanced themselves - they only show England-specific content, whereas there are plenty of examples of NI, Scotland and Wales specific content in the article too. Would you advocate removing all of those as well? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Games of the world - And you have no feelings? Your comment "Uk army and Royal house who represent the UK so perfectly fine" is loaded. Keep your feeling out of discussions like this please. Basically, your defence of the article is this: If Boris Johnson says "The colour of the sky over the UK today is bright red", then Wikipedia could say that, if that is relevant to the article. I agree. But it is also our responsibility to say that in fact it was dark clouds over Wales all day, Blue, sunny skies over Scotland and a mixture of grey clouds and blue sky over Northern Ireland. The article airbrushes over 3 countries, and this is not right. Wikipedia should be fair and neutral.
 * DeFacto - don't mince words to suit your argument. The article has a bias in favour of England=UK argument. That bias creates unfair prejudice against the 3 other nations. All my example show this. You agree that it is England-centric, and that's bias. When dealing with an article which has 90% bias towards one side, then of course, the way to create a fairer article is to remove some of that information. That's why I listed England bias, not Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales! You know this. You're grasping for straws. I (and a few others such as Capewearer tried to rectify this by adding information on Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Massive things have happened in these countries over the last 3 months which are still missing from this article, yet it contains a myriad of trivia relevant only to England. John Jones (talk) 07:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * sorry, but I think your argument is more about the balance and weight given to each country's coverage and not about bias or neutrality of content. Bias would be if the article gave more weight than the sources to, say, the negative and attack coverage on an aspect of the story than to positive and supporting coverage. Balance, on the other hand, is on the proportion of coverage given to each aspect of a story in relation to the sources. Wiki policy on balance is that it should reflect the balance in the reliable sources. Now I haven't done or seen a scientific survey on this, but I suspect that the sources probably have a similar balance to the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * sorry, but I think your argument is more about the balance and weight given to each country's coverage and not about bias or neutrality of content. Bias would be if the article gave more weight than the sources to, say, the negative and attack coverage on an aspect of the story than to positive and supporting coverage. Balance, on the other hand, is on the proportion of coverage given to each aspect of a story in relation to the sources. Wiki policy on balance is that it should reflect the balance in the reliable sources. Now I haven't done or seen a scientific survey on this, but I suspect that the sources probably have a similar balance to the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I oppose the tag. The article has plenty of coverage of all four nations.  Coverage of England is naturally going to be large because England has the bulk of the population, cases and deaths.  There is no clear correct proportion that we can aim for.  For an example of an article with a parochial outlook, see Workplace hazard controls for COVID-19.  This only covers the US and says nothing at all about the UK and other countries, let alone their nations and regions.  The article here is both broad and specific in its coverage of the different nations and so we're doing ok.  The tag is not helpful, just gives undue weight to John Jones' view and so should go. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article is both unbalanced and has a strong bias towards England. There's a separate article for England, which should be used to purge this article. John Jones' no. 2 given examples (above) exemplify the confusion as to which government we're referring to, and whether the grants announced by a certain minister is for England only or the whole of the 'United' Kingdom. Coverage should not be proportional to the population; each has its own government, NHS, Public Health service etc. What happens in the Workplace hazard controls for COVID-19 does not effect the unbalance and the strong bias in this article, and is no president for allowing unbalanced article to remain on Wikipedia. I've been through John's examples, I disagree with one only. This article is also a fork and should also be tagged with WP:POV, due to it's undue weight towards England and that the UK equals England. Cell Danwydd (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: Andrew Davidson's deletion of this tag contarvenes H:MTR by User:Andrew Davidson. The issue has not been adequately addressed since the tag was added to the article yesterday. There is a difference of opinion, and the core issues (unbalance and bias) still haven't been addressed. It also appears that the editors of this article do not understand the issues raised by the template. I've therefore reinstated the tag. John Jones (talk) 06:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree. on the 10th may I said, "in my opinion 96% is England centric, most of which should be moved to COVID-19 pandemic in England." Some good edits have been done since then, and now i would estimate that the over coverage towards England is around 90%. Keep tag until article becomes neutral, unbiased and fair. Wici Rhuthun 1 (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Instead of all the anti English bashing from some people, how about add more content to the articles to ensure each part covers all 4 parts of the United Kingdom. That would solve the problem. Over 80% of the deaths, and 80% of the population of the UK are England, and the UK Government handles all matters for England along with elements for the whole UK.  it is understandable that there is going to be some more content about England even on a UK article. RWB2020 (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Careful! Please list examples to back up your claim that I'm guilty of 'anti English bashing'!
 * Secondly, there have been over 5,500 edits on this article since it was created on 15:41, 26 February 2020‎. None of these are yours. You haven't edited one iota. So what brings you here my good man? An email from your group of fellow covert Wikipedians? So the old school tie group is working overtime in its defence of the England=Uk brigade! And you have the audacity to suggest that I 'add more content to the article'!!! That's exactly what I've been doing! Obviously you haven't been keeping your eye on the ball, but I forget, you've only just turned up, as you were asked to do so. Your account was started on 5 February 2020, and the only edits you have made have been in defence of the 'united' kingdom. Regarding your piece on population etc - yes, I agree to some extent, yes a small bias would be expected, but not 90% England, and not vague use of words like 'the government' when you have 4. The overall impression is that the UK Government is running the show. It doesn't; health is devolved. But then, if you're based in London, watching the BBC, then you would get the impression that UK is running the show and that the world stops as soon as you get to the borders. John Jones (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Until two weeks ago, when I came along, there was hardly any mention of Wales, although the sources in Wales were there, they had been pretty much ignored, due to the England-only bias. I've attempted to change that, and every time I do you, DeFacto, and Games of the world have attempted to remove that information. My edits were reverted at least 95% of the time (can provide list). This bias still exists against Scotland and Northern Ireland as the article gives more weight than the sources to England. The only sources you might know are English/England-based, but look wider. On top of this, the article is full of misinformation, vague, negative (and ignorant) edits which suggest that Westminster makes the decisions. It may well come over in that way to you, watching BBC London, with declarations being made by Johnson which seem to be about the UK whereas in fact he has absolutely no authority to enforce a lockdown in Belfast, Cardiff or Edinburgh, or on any health matters. The lockdown on caffes, restraunts would come from one of the 4 countries and enforced by the local authority, not Boris. Wikipedia should be neutral; as it stands this article churns out the UK government's balderdash using BBC as source.
 * Does the article mention that the sources re N Ireland say that:

etc etc etc.
 * 1) it is carrying out more tests per capita than the other countries of the United Kingdom
 * 2) almost half of all deaths were in care homes
 * 3) on 27 March leading GPs wrote an open letter calling for a complete lockdown
 * 4) the Department of Health's Permanent Secretary Richard Pengelly isn't even mentioned!
 * 5) no images related to N Ireland; their roadmap is available on Commons (both), but ignored here
 * 6) the surge in coronavirus infections on Ireland’s border with Northern Ireland
 * 7) Sinn Féin called for Covid-19 wage subsidy scheme to include women returning from maternity
 * 8) that Northern Ireland, which has a looser lockdown than the Republic

When dealing with one of the three Celtic countries we need to remember that their national media is equal to England's national media. The Scotsman or WalesOnline has equal weighting to BBC or the Telegraph. However many references to these sources have been removed by yourself. The article remains both biased and unbalanced. John Jones (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * feel free to fill the gaps. But if what you add contravenes any of the Wiki policies or guidelines, don't be surprised if it is challenged. Remember too, that if it is challenged, then (per WP:BRD) you may be reverted. The correct thing to do then, if you dispute the revert, is to raise a talkpage discussion (like this one) and to discuss the content, but without attacking other editors - the guideline to be aware of here is WP:AGF. If you think you have evidence that another editor is behaving inappropriately, then the first thing to do is to raise it with them on their user talkpage, and point out which policies/guidelines you think they are contravening, and give diffs and examples of the evidence that you think supports your feeling. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You got reverted or edits altered because you failed (deliberately in one omission from you) to show both sides of the argument or to present it in a neutral way. In addition instead of screaming at people remember it is not possible for one or two editors to read/have eyes on every single RS source for individual nations, so please assume good faith over omissions. Anyway, point 4, has he said anything interesting or of note? If he hasn't then that will be why he is not mentioned. 5. the road map doc should be on the NI page not here/we shouldn't have images from all four nations for the sake of it. The image should substitute one we already have for nation balance or bring something new. 6. is specific to Ireland/NI and has no place in this article. 8. is specific to NI and I read last week that they are taking more of a lead from Ireland due to them being joined unlike the rest of the UK which they are separated from, so therefore would not be appropriate for this article (otherwise why not mention France or Belgium who border the UK). Games of the world (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD states that a revert should be made only if an edit cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. Nearly all my edits were reverted rather than refined. Indeed, BRD does not encourage reverting, So please don't threaten with untruths before i've even edited. I do not either need to raise a talkpage discussion (like this one)! WP:BRD states: Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one. in this case a discussion has began (I raised it). Please read WP:BRD once again, as you seem to be unaware of the correct procedure! WP:BRD is used to reach a compromise or consensus with each, one by one. - What compromises have made? Did you refine the maps? No. Did you contact the map makers and discuss? No. Did you add information on Northern Ireland? No. Did you clarify the ambiguities within the article? No. No compromise on your part.
 * you say that I should discuss without attacking other editors! Give me one example where I have attacked an editor, and I'll give you three where you have done the same. Making this accusation is one of them.
 * you say, X is specific to Ireland/NI and has no place in this article and the road map doc should be on the NI page not here'. Whow! Substitue Northern Ireland with England! And therein lies your bias! Lastly, The border with the Irish Republic is of extreme importance to this article, as is any other borders and any other deals with France etc. What you have just said goes against WP:N big time.
 * Please take a good look at a distance at this article, step back from attempting to censor contributions regarding the 3 Celtic Nations, and work with me in trying to create a better, more balanced and non-biased article. Let's start with the maps: why don't both of you encourage a good map based on cases of COVID-19 in Northern Ireland. That would be a really worthwhile thing to do. John Jones (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * when you are replying to more than one post, as here, it would make it easier to follow if you threaded your replies (per WP:THREAD), making a separate post for each reply (structured like chapters and paragraphs in a report). -- DeFacto (talk). 11:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * replying to your first point to me. The nutshell summary of WP:BRD is "Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article, or stimulating discussion. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus.". More or less what I said. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

ONS data
Shouldn't ONS data on deaths (which also count people who died of covid according to the death certificate, although tests were not carried out) be included as well in the table? In the USA article, for instance, different tolls from different sources are provided. --2.36.89.207 (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Headline map is currently wrong
The per capita map is cited as cases per 1m, it is (I think) cases per 10k. 79.64.157.123 (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)