Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United States/Archive 17

True number of COVID-19 cases in the United States was probably at least 10 times higher than the number of confirmed cases
added this to the lead and moved it down into the body of the article. Wow, there is so much wrong with this statement. First off without looking at the citation, the title of the citation "Actual Covid-19 case count could be 6 to 24 times higher than official estimates, CDC study shows" implies that it is at least 6 time, not 10 time the current count. Now the current confirmed cases is almost 30 million and the population of the US is 328 million. So 10 times would be over 90 percent of the population. Do either of you think that seems unlikely? So now I am going to spend a little time looking at the citation (which is obviously sensationalized) and the supposed CDC study and see if I can figure out what the actual statement should be. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The actual CDC study is "Seroprevalence of Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in 10 Sites in the United States, March 23-May 12, 2020". quotes from the study:

So it is a CDC study, but the conclusion states conservatively just says the the number of infections is much greater than the number of reported cases, not "probably at least 10 times higher". Looking at the sites surveyed they seem to concentrate on densely populated areas, not rural. I think we should just go with the conservative statement followed with 6 to 24 times in some locations. I wish we could say densely populated areas, but that would be my original research. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh and I just notice we need to qualify that this was in March to May 2020 and has nothing to do with current estimates. I am an idiot. I just going to change it to "much greater" and "as much as 6 to 24 in some locations." Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The most recent CDC study published on this topic goes through September, but they no longer calculated the ratio of confirmed cases to detected antibodies. Additional details on their survey results can be found here and here, with the former including estimates of the undercount by survey site and date (though this survey seemed to end in July). Bakkster Man (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Vaccination Pie Chart (edit request - completed)
Can someone please correct the legend on that pie chart to remove "at least" from the description of the second (cyan?) category? That number is only people that received exactly one dose - obviously, since if they received 2 doses they'd be in the third (dark blue) category and not double-counted in both. 67.11.86.2 (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 67.11.86.2 (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

[|Anthrax vaccines] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshjosh (talk • contribs) 18:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Vaccination Pie Chart (another edit request - completed)
Not sure how to properly request this since this isn't just a one-time correction, but... for the last 2 days, for some reason the "people who received one dose" category has also counted the people who received 2 doses (i.e., it's been directly using the "Number of People Receiving 1 or More Doses" value from the source without subtracting the number of people who received two doses as had been done before). Should be corrected both for today and when updates are made to this chart moving forward. 67.11.86.2 (talk) 06:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean, but when I cross reference it with https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-global-distribution/ the numbers add up such that it is people who received 1 dose (or maybe 2) and people who definitely received 2. The cumulative total of people per 100 people per country for the USA correlates that they aren't double counting people at the CDC. Edwyth (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think the CDC is double-counting people (at least I assume they aren't); I think we are double-counting based on the CDC data. Our graph presents the vaccinated population (vs. the unvaccinated population), rather than the total number of doses administered (which is a higher number since some people received more than 1 dose), so the sum of our two categories for vaccinated people should equal to the "Number of People Receiving 1 or More Doses" value from the CDC (with the rest of the population receiving 0 doses and therefore going into the "unvaccinated" category). But right now the "1 dose" category by itself is equal to that number, with the "2 dose" category being presented as being in addition to it.
 * As a way to verify it, taking the number of people who received exactly 1 dose plus twice the number of people who received exactly 2 doses should equal the total doses administered (assuming no one got more than 2 doses). But if we try that with our article's current data, we get 40 million, more than 6 million above the CDC's value.


 * I'm not completely sure which chart you're referring to on the Bloomberg site (there are a lot on there), but I don't see a total of vaccinated people/100 other than the "1+ dose" category itself; otherwise they count doses. 67.11.86.2 (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I am referring to the figure Doses per 100 people in the country section on this page https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-global-distribution/ currently the USA is at 11.17 per 100 people which is in line with combining both numbers Edwyth (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * But doses per 100 people isn't the same as percentage of people vaccinated. If every person ultimately receives 2 doses of the vaccine, that number will end up at 200.0. It (by design) double-counts everyone who has got 2 doses, but our chart shows number of people rather than doses so we need to subtract that number for the chart to make sense. 67.11.86.2 (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * You may be right, I'll adjust the numbers down. Apologies, I just didn't know how to read the CDC chart and I wish it was a little bit more clear. Edwyth (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Yeah, seems odd that this pretty basic info isn't explicitly stated on the CDC page. 67.11.86.2 (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd like to suggest we reword the chart, in anticipation of potential approval of vaccines which do not require two doses. I think it makes more sense to refer to 'partial schedule' and 'full schedule' vaccinations, or 'partial vaccination' and 'full vaccination'. This will avoid any ambiguity with those who have been vaccinated and don't require a second dose. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * My plan for that was to add an additional category for people who received 1 dose of a 1 dose vaccination, and the other two categories 1 dose of a 2 dose vaccination and 2 doses of a 2 dose vaccination. Edwyth (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That makes sense as well. From a data presentation point of view, we'll want its wedge of the pie to be adjacent to the second dose wedge, so it's easy to combine visually into a 'fully vaccinated' wedge. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * That makes complete sense thank you for the suggestion! Edwyth (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

"Responses" section
User:JsfasdF252 removed the entire “responses” section from this article and pasted it verbatim into a new article, COVID-19 pandemic in the United States/Responses, which remains an unpolished, unfinished orphan without even a lead section. Since this was done without any discussion or input from other users, both User:SusanLesch and I restored the material pending discussion here. Things that need to be decided: whether to do this at all (actually not a bad idea IMO) and how much information about responses should remain in this article (IMO we do need to have a small, summary section). We need to develop a consensus; my suggestion would be that we agree on a massive trim without removing the whole section. Also, the new article needs much work. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The slash in the title makes it a subpage of the main article, which is not something we typically do in mainspace. It needs a new title if it's kept.— Diannaa (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Would the new title be something like "Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States"? I'll change it to that, so that at least it's a properly titled article. BTW the editor who created this page appears to have walked away from it and has not responded to comments. I could support the idea of splitting most of this material into a separate article, but I don't want to have to be responsible for cleaning it up. We need more input here, about whether to keep it or not. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Suggested fork on vaccination
Howdy, not a regular editor of this page, however I was researching the page and had a thought. I recently worked on creating the page on COVID-19 vaccination in Canada forked off from COVID-19 pandemic in Canada based on similar pages (such as COVID-19 vaccination in the United Kingdom and COVID-19 vaccination in India) that have been cropping up. We waited until the section started to bloat, but it was time. I think it would be advantageous to create such a separate page for the United States. Take care. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * There's now an article on such a topic in the works: COVID-19 vaccination in the United States. Love of Corey (talk) 06:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice to see - I've borrowed a few ideas like the pie charts for the Canadian article so I appreciate the correspondence! CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) Love of Corey (talk) 06:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine research, development, and deployment
The above section has a graph with two colors, which apparently represent something. I'd like to know what the blue and green stand for, as well as why the colors turn red when hovered over. Without this being explained, the graph has little meaning, and I'd like to amend it for the benefit of readers. Thanks.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Map
I removed the current 2nd map as it seems faulty. I'm not sure how the second (blue) map was created exactly, but in particular a look at Missouri suggests that something is completely off. Maybe some data corruption or misassignment in the creation process. See also File talk:COVID-19 rolling 14day Prevalence in the United States by county.svg) --Kmhkmh (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe the Missouri data is due to them adding antigen tests to their official count. It seems as though they applied the test data to the correct dates, but the bot seems to not update data for previous dates, and added it all the antigen tests to the day they were added to the offical count. Elmutanto (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * the new map seems ok now--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

It appears that the map hasn't changed since it was reintroduced back on March 30, 2021.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2021
This sentence is very long.

On January 6, U.S. Health and Human Services offered to send China a team of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) health experts to help contain the outbreak, but China ignored the offer,[37] which the CDC said contributed to the U.S. and other countries getting a late start in identifying the danger and taking early action.[38][39]

Please change it to

On January 6, U.S. Health and Human Services offered to send China a team of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) health experts to help contain the outbreak, but China ignored the offer.[37] The CDC said this refusal contributed to the U.S. and other countries getting a late start in identifying the danger and taking early action.[38][39]

Thank you. 64.203.186.85 (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Do we have a page related to litigation/court actions to various COVID-19 actions
I'm not finding such a page but there's clearly enough cases that have reached high level US courts (including SCOTUS) to talk about how the court system has responded to the various challenges to COVID restrictions. This would be atop the related election-based lawsuits related to COVID changes -- I'm talking more about challenging the limited church services in NY and California, among other cases. Of course this can include the impact of COVID on the courts (use of teleconferencing at nearly all levels), but I'm more looking to the litigations and decisions that were made.

I wanted to check before starting such a page. I know some of the individual states have discussion but there ought to be a comprehensive page and I just can't seem to find one that may exist. --M asem (t) 17:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest mentioning court cases within this article, not as another split-off one. We already have an abundance of other highly divisive U.S.-focused topics, such as the massive COVID-19 anti-lockdown protests in the United States, started last May. While it's true that the U.S. has one of the few remaining open and uncensored free presses on the planet, that should not IMO continually make it a punching bag for politicizing contentious issues or courtroom topics, which further divide opinions over here. As early as March 2020, for instance, with only a few news mentions about the subject, one experienced editor wanted to create a separate article to draw attention to Xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in the United States, although it was still put in the lead nonetheless. With only 4% of the world's population, it is only the 13th worst in per capita deaths, so there's no obvious rational for such undue attention. --Light show (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest mentioning the relevant cases here, and potentially writing articles for the referenced cases. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

List of early cases
Hi all. I've been refining the page Draft:List of early cases of COVID-19 in the United States recently. From what I can tell this was originally split from COVID-19 pandemic in the United States- which back in March 2020 had a list of all confirmed cases. That was of course abandoned after the number of cases began to grow at a fast pace. I've since refined that original list to just cover January and February 2020, including those confirmed via later analysis (ie postmortem)- which is a total of 27 cases. There's plenty of sources on these early cases as they represent the origin of the US outbreak. The article is up for review at the moment, if anyone could support the page that would be great. --ERAGON (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Significant figures
At the moment, if you look at the cases-per-day box, the "last 15 days" option gives the following data for 18 April through 2 May: Is there any way to configure this template's appearance on this page so that it reports significant figures properly? If we're routinely reporting numbers to the hundredth of a percent, it's incorrect to round certain dates to tenths of a percent when the calculations are based on equally precise data; I assume that someone's merely deleted a trailing zero, but 0.2% and 0.1% are distinctly not the same as 0.20% and 0.10%. Nyttend (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 18 — 29,380,283 (+0.14%)
 * 19 — 29,437,657 (+0.2%)
 * 20 — 29,487,546 (+0.17%)
 * 21 — 29,543,436 (+0.19%)
 * 22 — 29,602,233 (+0.2%)
 * 23 — 29,658,847 (+0.19%)
 * 24 — 29,706,611 (+0.16%)
 * 25 — 29,736,939 (+0.1%)
 * 26 — 29,776,748 (+0.13%)
 * 27 — 29,819,830 (+0.14%)
 * 28 — 29,868,067 (+0.16%)
 * 29 — 29,919,023 (+0.17%)
 * 30 — 29,970,052 (+0.17%)
 * 01 — 30,009,367 (+0.13%)
 * 02 — 30,040,851 (+0.1%)

Proposed split 30 April 2021
This article is too long and is difficult to load. I propose that the longest section, COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, be split to a new article. (It will still need to be summarized here.) –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 11:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly Agree The page is far too long at this stage, and creating a standalone article for the response makes sense. Copper1993 (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've WP:BOLDly moved much of the content to United States responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Improve it whenever you can. Love of Corey (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks! Please consider using Template:Split article on both Talk pages. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for letting me know. Love of Corey (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2021
Please change

On March 16, the White House advised against any gatherings of more than ten people.[63] Since March 19, the United States Department of State has advised U.S. citizens to avoid all international travel.[64]

to

On March 16, the White House advised against any gatherings of more than ten people,[63] and three days later, the United States Department of State advised U.S. citizens to avoid all international travel.[64]{ { dead link } }

(Please remove the spaces so the template works, of course.) Source #64 is dead, so maybe they're not warning this anymore. The important fact is that they issued the warning on March 19. 64.203.186.98 (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Alduin2000 (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2021 (2)
Please remove

 published before peer review 

to

 published before it could be peer reviewed 

Thank you. 64.203.186.98 (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I think both wordings make clear that the paper was not peer-reviewed. I've changed the link, though. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

NPR Deaths
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/05/06/994287048/new-study-estimates-more-than-900-000-people-have-died-of-covid-19-in-u-s

New RS reports 900k dead. Should this be included as another estimate in the infobox? 2601:85:C101:C9D0:B4AD:B3A5:3F74:41FD (talk) 05:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a single journal article, and the news report notes that it's disputed. It shouldn't be used there.  64.203.186.85 (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's best to stick with the official CDC numbers for now. They've already released the estimates for the actual number of infections and hospitalizations, but a refined estimate of total deaths will probably be a while (I've heard 2022 for the full morbidity report on 2020). Bakkster Man (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The statement: "More Americans have died from COVID-19 than died during both World Wars and the Vietnam War combined"
This statement is not correct. Covid has killed more Americans than military deaths in WWI, WWII, and Vietnam and it definitely was not true at the time the article was written on February 22, 2021. Pretty lazy reporting on the part of CBS. Anyhow I am going to remove the statement. It also seems a little disingenuous to add up three wars that approach the death toll (why skip over the Korean War?)
 * WWI 116,708 military / 117,416 military and civilian
 * WWII 407,300 military / 419,400 military and civilian
 * Vietnam 58,318 total deaths
 * 582,326 military deaths / 595,134 total deaths Patapsco913 (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 582,326 military deaths / 595,134 total deaths Patapsco913 (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The statement has no encyclopedic value anyway. MarioGom (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * That's really the more relevant point here: Patapsco's tallies are pretty blatant WP:Original research, and under this project's most basic guidelines, we will credit CBS' reporting as a statement from a WP:reliable source, and view a Wikipedia editor's WP:SYNTHESIS of sources as utterly irrelevant to a content determination, no matter how confident that editor is (or indeed, no matter how confident we all are in their original research being factually more accurate)--that's simply how WP:verification on this project works, and I really do advise Patapsco to familiarize themselves with the policies linked in this message, or they are likely to run into resistance to their arguments and significant problems on articles and talk pages.


 * However, all of that said, there's still WP:ONUS: just because information is verifiable does not mean it is beneficial or the best way to frame important encyclopedic context for a given topic. This latter point is the one which argues for probably leaving this factoid/tidbit out of the article: it's a bit of an idiosyncratic way of framing the figures involved here, and we'd want to see a firm consensus that this is a useful way of presenting the scale of death and the impact of the pandemic before we add it. Which in turn is unlikely to happen unless a lot of sources begin to analyze the situation through that particularly narrow lens. Snow let's rap 02:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Fauci E-Mails
Just want to gather a consensus... do you think the Fauci emails should be included in this article or should they have their own article? See https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2021/tony-fauci-emails/ Michael-Moates (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Is there any previous discussion? MarioGom (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have this same concern, this seems premature and should be discussed normally on the talkpage first. Sennecaster   ( What now? ) 11:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:RFCBEFORE? &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 13:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We need to back up and answer two questions first: Is the reporting reliable? What addition to the topic would they provide? Only after answering those questions in such a way that says they should be included, can we have the discussion of where to place them (though I struggle to think of a case where a separate article wouldn't be a WP:POVFORK). Bakkster Man (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reason to doubt The Washington Post reporting? Michael-Moates (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not particularly, it should be. But we still need to answer both questions in the affirmative before adding it to this page. You wanted to jump straight to creating a new page just for this source, without explaining what you think it should say. Why? Bakkster Man (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * - Actually, that is not what I stated. I asked a question to get opinions not because I had an agenda. I was gathering information from different people to see what the best option would be. Michael-Moates (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me try again. What about "the Fauci emails should be included in this article"? Copy all of them verbatim to Wikipedia? Just some of them, and if so related to what? Bakkster Man (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we all know the big email is the one regarding the origin of COVID 19. At the bare minimum I think it is worth including as disputed. Michael-Moates (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not know that, as your mention above was the first I had heard of these emails. Which is why being clear in your suggestions (as well as not attempting to shortcut the process via an RfC before beginning a regulat discussion) is important. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You continue to assume my actions and put words in my mouth. For example, "attempting to shortcut the process via an RfC" that was not my intent at all. I am relatively new here and am still learning so please don't assume my actions. That being said if you don't have any knowledge of the emails, I'm not sure how you can benefit the conversation here. I think that doing some research to understand before giving in opinion is important, respectfully. Michael-Moates (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I accurately described your actions, but if you feel I've implied your intent wrongly I apologize. As you're new, my advice above still stands. Without making clear what you're referring to beyond a link to a source and "the emails", it's hard for anyone to understnad your request (and thus it won't get implemented).
 * And to be clear, I'm really trying to understand where in the link you've shared is an email about COVID origins. I've searched for "origin", "wuhan", "institute", "bat", "lab", and "leak" and came up with nothing. Help me help you, I'm coming up blank despite my best efforts.
 * Perhaps you gave the wrong link, and intended to link to something with another email, like this one which may have been "misconstrued"? Bakkster Man (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Close This RfC is without a clear premise. Just because there's an email dump doesn't mean we have anything to do here. Creating an article for Fauci's emails? When we don't even have any particular reason to? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Per everyone, I have gone ahead and removed the RfC tag. --JBL (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Number of deaths
The first paragraph in the lead states that the total number of deaths in the US is 595,000. The cited source is Johns Hopkins University. In the info box the total number of deaths is shown as 577,402 and Johns Hopkins University is again the cited source. These totals should be consistent, or one should be removed. <i style="color: green;">Dolphin</i> ( t ) 13:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Almost a fortnight has passed since my comment above. There has been no response. is doing a great job of updating the first paragraph in the lead to show the reported number of deaths in the US. In contrast, the death toll shown in the infobox has not been updated for a month or more so it is incorrect. I have erased the total number of deaths from the infobox - see my diff. <i style="color: green;">Dolphin</i> ( t ) 07:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Thank you for keeping an eye on the big picture. Right now I only have time for concentrating on the first lead paragraph. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Contradictory information
Where does the information for the "COVID-19 cases in the United States" box come from? It says that there had been 568,351 deaths as of yesterday, while the introduction notes that there have been over 601,000 deaths. 108.39.223.134 (talk) 12:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The correct figure is 601,000. See the discussion topic directly above this one. <i style="color: green;">Dolphin</i> ( t ) 13:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Cases in U.S.in December 2019
This is the source, although at this point they're saying "not definitive".— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  19:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2021
Please add the following at the end of the May to June 2021 section:

Case numbers rose again in late June, especially in Arkansas, Nevada, Missouri and Wyoming. It was believed to be due to the Delta variant.

2001:BB6:4713:4858:D980:4B9C:6A64:6DAB (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Coolperson177 (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Map update
Hi everyone- I am just wondering when the map that is the central image on this page is going to be updated? I understand that previous update guidelines were probably established in an earlier discussion; however, it was last updated May 22. As of this writing it is currently July 7. I’m sure the map has changed in the last month and a half. Anyone know when the map can be altered again? Thematrix92498 (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I have absolutely no clue as to how one changes the graphic. Maybe ping, who's made the last changes and is, apparently, still active (as of 5 July). &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 01:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks @JohnFromPinckney. I will send out an inquiry. Thematrix92498 (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2021
Please change

though the All of Us study showed five states already had cases weeks earlier.

to

though the All of Us study, released in 2021, showed five states already had cases weeks earlier.

The first part of this sentence mentions the first public report of a COVID case. In its current form, the sentence could sound like the report was done wrongly, but putting a date on the study helps the reader realize that this is much later information. 64.203.186.74 (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 (<b style=";color: #0101C0;font-size:110%"> talk </b>) 18:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Informaiton on hospitalization and death rate in the vacinated vs the unvaccinated.
Just about everyone in the hospital right now with covid are not vaccinated. This is important information which i think should be added to the page.

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-941fcf43d9731c76c16e7354f5d5e187 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.95.85 (talk • contribs)


 * Wouldn't be a bad thing to include that's for sure. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 (<b style=";color: #0101C0;font-size:110%"> talk </b>) 18:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States POV concerns
Please join discussion on WP:NPOV concerns at the Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States article. Prcc27 (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2021
In the May to June 2021 section, please change "The rising numbers were believed to be attributed to the Delta variant" to either "The rising numbers were attributed to the Delta variant" or "The rising numbers were believed to be attributable to the Delta variant." As it stands, it is grammatically incorrect. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:5886:5A75:73F8:B0F2 (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Tintinkien (talk) 09:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2021
The sentence structure here isn't very good:

There have been increasing amounts of anti-vaccine rhetoric credited to the continuing culture war between the supporters and opponents of Donald Trump, while vaccination rates have been higher among self-identified Democrats and in counties that voted for Biden in 2020.

"while" should be used between contrasting things, like "it's been lower among Trump supporters, while Biden supporters have gotten more vaccinations." Also, the start of the sentence is a little wordy. Therefore, please change that sentence to:

''Increasing amounts of anti-vaccine rhetoric have been credited to the continuing culture war between the supporters and opponents of Donald Trump. Vaccination rates have been higher among self-identified Democrats and in counties that voted for Biden in 2020.''

Thank you. 64.203.186.91 (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. The text you wish to alter is being transcluded from the article COVID-19 vaccination in the United States via the  template. Said page is unprotected and so you may edit it freely. Happy editing! –– Sirdog9002 (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've made the change.  I'm surprised a page like that is unprotected!  64.203.186.91 (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2021
This sentence has a comma splice:

High levels of vaccine hesitancy in parts of the country have hampered vaccination efforts amidst the rise of the Delta variant,[30] this led to a fifth rise in infections, leading to daily cases surpassing 120,000 by August; the vast majority of new cases were among unvaccinated people.[27][31]

Just before [30], please replace the comma with a period, and capitalize the "this" that follows it. 64.203.186.98 (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 cases in the United States
We should use absolute numbers. Percentage numbers with so many zeros make no sense.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 00:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2021
Please change

However, the number of available test kits remained limited, which meant the true number of people infected had to be estimated.

to

However, the number of available test kits remained limited.

The source for this sentence,, doesn't mention estimation. I've read the article and am not just relying on a no-results Control F search. 64.203.186.98 (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2021
Please remove

However, Trump continued to promote the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 by late July.[155]

and add

However, Trump continued to promote the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 through late July.[155]

"by late July" makes it sound like he'd started doing something "by" that time, but the point of the sentence is that he was still doing it then. "through" shows that he was continuing to do it without saying whether or not he kept going after late July. 64.203.186.84 (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Header Change
In the header: "and there were reported incidents of xenophobia and racism against Asian Americans" While this statement may have a citation, it's importance and magnitude is insignificant next to other highlights given in the header. COVID-19 has caused innumerable impacts on a wide variety of races and countries, why should this be particularly included in the header? Disproportionate death rates among minorities is a noteworthy highlight, but a viral headline from early on in the pandemic should not make the header. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaiserKapital (talk • contribs)
 * Hello, first of all, don't forget to sign your comments. Regarding the request, the proposal was discussed some time ago. See here a weak concenssus was reached 15 v 12 to include.Mr.User200 (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Notice about a discussion on a related article
Articles for deletion/Celebrities who have received the COVID-19 vaccine --Light show (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Effort by editor to exclude vaccine relevant section
The article includes a section called Vaccination campaign, which has several sub-sections. Among them are Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, Timeline graph of doses administered, Background to various vaccines, and Vaccine mandates. Within those sections and elsewhere, such as within the lead, there is commentary about vaccine hesitancy. There is also commentary, such as, "In comparison with fully vaccinated people, the CDC found that those who were not vaccinated were from 5 to nearly 30 times more likely to become either infected or hospitalized."

However, an editor seems adamant about deleting and keeping out a section of Endorsements by celebrities. Yet most, if not all of those endorsements, each cited, included commentary and quotes directly related to helping explain the lack of basis for vaccine hesitancy along with often noting the effectiveness of the vaccines in avoiding hospitalization. In essence, the entire section helps to overrule skeptics about the vaccine.

In their initial effort to delete the endorsements, the editor first opened a formal request to delete an entire article about that: Celebrities who have received the COVID-19 vaccine. The deletion would also remove the 28 valid citations supporting the notability and importance of the topic.

Later, when an entirely new section of straight commentary, without a list of celebrities, was added to this article, the editor has again continued to delete it. The last time they did it I reverted the edits and kindly requested that they explain their rationale as a discussion. They ignored that request and again deleted the entire section. They appear unwilling to discuss here.

As can be seen, the article already has commentary by people like Joe Biden and Dr. Anthony Fauci, for instance. Yet the deleted material in the new section similarly included commentary about or by them. There seems to be a desperate attempt by the editor to exclude anything related to these notable endorsements. They include political and entertainment celebrities who have published their photos and statements relevant to vaccine hesitancy. It's especially unusual, considering the same editor— who states they are a "newbie,"— has been very active on countless lists of endorsements of politicians.

I therefore again request that the other editor restore the deleted section until they can fully justify its removal. --Light show (talk) 07:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Light show. I really don't want to read a list of people that somebody else thinks is a celebrity. They have nothing to do with the topic of this article. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of the following sentence To help those who were hesitant, political leaders and celebrities have actively promoted getting vaccinated through magazine articles, televised specials and live concerts. There are reports that unvaccinated COVID-19 patients have strained the capacity of hospitals and caused a crisis in hospital care. As a result, many are turned away from hospitals despite having life-threatening diseases. I think that a long list of quotes of celebrity endorsements is WP:UNDUE for the article. If you have a stronger argument on why it's notable and due weight to have a long list (rather than a brief mention with several citations), I'd be interested in hearing it. Otherwise, I think it falls under the same rationale of the AfD. If you disagree with that consensus, you'll need to convince people with policy to change their minds. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Update, user who made the original request was banned from editing for a year, so it's unlikely we'll have an update. User talk:Light show. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
User:Chuachenchie, there is a problem with your editing. I have asked you more than once to stop rounding up cases and deaths, and to limit our totals to those given by our source, Johns Hopkins. Rounding numbers up makes our article false. ("More than NN.N million confirmed cases have been reported since January 2020, with more than NNN,000 deaths" assumes no rounding.) When polite suggestions and subtle reminders fail, I am going to have to resort to the measures outlined in WP:DISRUPT. Why do you continue to do this? -SusanLesch (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

1918 or Spanish flu
When deaths in the U.S. surpass 675,000, I plan to add the Spanish flu to the lead, per the AP today, who cite that number from the CDC. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't believe we need to say this twice. User:MelanieN added it to the timeline. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry! I didn't mean to step on your intent! I also added (to the August timeline) the date U.S. deaths exceeded the fatalities in America's deadliest war, the Civil War. It got a fair amount of coverage at the time, but Love of Corey reverted it without explanation. I wonder why? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand talking about the Spanish flu, but the Civil War? Come on now, this is not a wartime effort in the literal sense. Love of Corey (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * On second thought, Susan, if you were going to add it to the lead, go ahead. It has to be in the text if it's going to be in the lead, so my edit is not a duplication. In fact it's a requirement. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem, Melanie. That first paragraph was already busting at the seams, now that I look at it. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

"Current on vaccination" vs. "Fully vaccinated"
I've heard each of these phrases used. Going foreword it might make more sense to use the former because it is uncertain at this point how many doses will be required to be "fully vaccinated", i.e., to achieve lifetime immunity (if that is even achievable).  Sparkie82 ( t • c ) 20:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

New changes without comment
Two people changed things and I'm not sure if they are from a WikiProject or are operating independently. Thank you both for your interest. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * First, User:Tol changed our source from Johns Hopkins to Our World in Data which appears to be British. They have different totals. Tol, I would expect some comment here. Why did you change our source?
 * Then User:BJackJS edited the lead with the edit summary, "+move of us centric statistic to the relevant page." Except you put your sentence at the front. Why did you put it first? Now the reader has to contend with three numbers over a hundred thousand in close proximity. I don't believe that what you added is the single most significant thing we have to say about this virus.


 * @SusanLesch: Hello! I used Template:COVID-19 data/Text, which provides automatically updated data from Our World in Data (OWID), another reliable source. OWID sources most of its data (including cases and deaths) from JHU, so the numbers shouldn't be very different (other than an increase from updating them to more recent numbers). OWID is British, but I don't see how that's relevant. I changed it because the template automatically updates numbers daily. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 22:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Tol, JHU says Totals: 42,837,389 | 686,895, and now our article says 42,672,241 | 684,349. British is only meaningful in that OWID is slower than a direct feed from JHU (which might not exist). I watch these pretty carefully so am likely to notice the difference. I am in favor of automation so will overlook the time lag. Thank you very much for the improvement. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @SusanLesch: No problem! OWID updates regularly, and the bot gets updates within a few hours of their update. In all, the time lag should be a day at most. As for a direct feed from JHU, the reason the data is from OWID is because they format the JHU data (and some other data) in a machine-readable format. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 23:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Tol, Template:COVID-19 data is behind OWID which make our figures late. Is there any way to 1) extract your data from JHU? or 2) send your bot to OWID more frequently? I'm happy to not have to do this manually but do notice a lag even overnight. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @SusanLesch: It was updated just as you posted! I'll ask OWID when they update and tweak the scheduling appropriately. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 14:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Far as I can see, the problem isn't your bot. It appears OWID is just late. As of 11PM Eastern US, JHU says 43,116,407 | 690,426. OWID says 42.93 million | 688,032. Maybe I can solve this by not listening to the media every time we pass a milestone. 😃 -SusanLesch (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah; well, there's no way to fix that. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 18:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyway, thank you Tol, for the idea and bot. It's wonderful to be able to think about other things. Best wishes, -SusanLesch (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome; thank you! Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 23:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As for the edit by @BJackJS, I think it should be moved to the Timeline section because it isn't important enough to be the second sentence. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 22:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree the placement was bad. After thinking about it more, I don't think that that statistic needs to be there due to the fact that on the timeline for September it already mentions death count. BJackJS  talk 00:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * BJackJS, thanks. As you probably saw above, we went over placement recently. Glad you agree. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Second sentence
Normally it's not good to begin a sentence with numerals. Is there a way to change the second sentence so it doesn't start with a numeral, but without changing the meaning or making changes to the "noincludeonly" code? 2600:1003:B858:E7D9:CDD5:924E:1FD4:CD55 (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a very reasonable observation. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, maybe there are better ways to do it but it's done for now. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2021
In the text added with this edit, please change "impacts" to "effects" because "impacts" sounds a bit informal and not as helpful. 64.203.186.91 (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Sirdog (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Statistical Suppression
"This chart only includes lab-confirmed cases and deaths. Not all states report recoveries. Data for the current day may be incomplete."

Your foot note to the impeculiarities of data gathering does not include reference to intentionally optimistic statistical suppression versus earlier and therefore normal statistical modeling which took place in the founding year 2020, wherein testing was widespread and obligatory in all cases, and now is suppressed by definition of infection through the redefinition of symptomatic infection, irregular in scheduling my own home town went from three full time testing sites to one scheduled every wet Wednesday if there was a full moon three Saturdays ago. Testing numbers indicate all is well and getting better, this has been the narrative of the fiducial-optimist from the beginning, because there is only one patient in the ICU, the world's largest debt-wielding facade, and its 29 trillion reasons for getting back to work.

When you misrepresent information as status quo-legitimate without proper foot noting, you are misinformation incarnate, as evidenced by positivity and under-reporting which indicates that the virus is exactly as the CDC director's tears indicated 9 months ago, 'a nightmare unfolding'. Don't be a pawn in the positive-propaganda game. Footnote all doubts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.231.122 (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If there are WP:MEDRS-compliant sources that you're able to provide, please do so. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Remove one sentence from lede?
This sentence is currently in the lede: "Meanwhile, Trump remained optimistic and was accused by his critics of underestimating the severity of the virus." I have three observations/concerns. (1) Regarding the word "optimistic," is difficult to know anyone else's true attitude, and my personal bias is that it is especially difficult to know Trump's true attitude, as per Wiki articles Trump administration communication during the COVID-19 pandemic and Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. The difficulty here is knowing the difference between genuine optimism and a deliberate political downplay or cover-up. (2) Regarding the phrase "was accused by his critics," yes, that's surely true, but there is no citation. (3) This is just kind of old and N/A from the perspective of late 2021. Nearly 700,000 Americans have died, so the very next breath shouldn't discuss what anyone (even the President) believed or said on camera for five minutes in early 2020. It could be moved lower down in the article, but it doesn't belong in the lede for a general article on COVID in the US, in my opinion. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If I may add to my complaint: (4) If people criticize him, they are "his critics" by definition. (5) These critics are not named. Why are they personally important? (6) Trump not only was accused of underestimating the pandemic; he literally did underestimate it. And so did the CDC, at that very early stage, when the first deaths were recorded. Everyone underestimated what the pandemic would ultimately become. Here, I am not making a statement for or against Trump's leadership. I am saying that this one sentence does not add value to the lede, as it does not help readers attain a broad overview of COVID in the US. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As there has been no answer, I went ahead and deleted the sentence from the lede just now. If anyone disagrees and wants to reinstate the sentence, I would be curious to hear the reasoning of why it is valuable. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Ordinal Number Suffixes on Dates
In the second paragraph, "January 31" should be "January 31st", as is customary in American English writing. Likewise, many other dates listed here should be so, though the "January 31" is most prominent, as it ends the sentence, and I read it in my head as "January thirty-one", rather than "January thirty-first". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.193.202 (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not going to be done, as that contravenes Wikipedia's manual of style in regards to dates. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Nursing home omission
According to The New York Times, 31% of all US COVID deaths were linked to nursing homes. Yet, there is currently no mention of this in the article. Those death have been linked to a long history of documented quality and safety shortcomings in US nursing homes (see GAO and AARP reports). --Mox La Push (talk) 06:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Biden Administration COVID-19 action plan‎
I have started an article specifically on the Biden Administration COVID-19 action plan‎, encompassing several executive orders and well-reported federal agency policy promulgations. BD2412 T 19:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2021
Please remove

since Pew began collecting this data nearly twenty years ago.

and add

since Pew began collecting this data nearly twenty years earlier.

"Ago" only sounds right when we're talking about an event in relation to the present. This sentence is talking in relation to a date more than a year ago. 122.150.71.249 (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC) 122.150.71.249 (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. BD2412  T 22:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)!

Death numbers discrepancy
The infobox gives a reported death toll of 827,748. The box reporting daily cases and deaths gives a death toll of 782,997. How can we have such a discrepancy? 122.150.71.249 (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Update the main graphs
Historical cases and cases per capita need updating, currently only through Nov 2021. – SJ + 21:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2022
The phrase "not vaccinated" appears once in the introduction, and the word "unvaccinated" appears nine times in various places. It would seem better if the same term were used in all places (otherwise someone could infer that they have different nuances), so please change "not vaccinated" to "unvaccinated". 122.150.71.249 (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The wording depends on the sentence. It was more appropriate in the first part to use 'not vaccinated' than 'unvaccinated'. Thank You. <span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#FF8C00; text-shadow:skyblue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em; font-weight:bold">Kpddg  (talk)  13:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Kpddg Why? Where has this been discussed on this talk page?  "kpddg" didn't show up anywhere in the talk page archives.  122.150.71.249 (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I never said that I have discussed this in the talk page. I just mentioned the reason for not making your change. Please discuss, and if most people feel otherwise, the change will be made. Thank You. <span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#FF8C00; text-shadow:skyblue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em; font-weight:bold">Kpddg   (talk)  02:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey there - I have made the edit to change the wording from "not vaccinated" to "unvaccinated". I think that it kind of makes sense. WP:HUMAN applies here too.

Kobentori (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abarr256. Peer reviewers: LawrenceH2020, Marianneostos.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lsipling.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Fatality Rate vs IFR or CFR
Could "Fatality Rate" either be updated to either reflect the current estimated Infection Fatality Rate or changed to say "Case Fatality Rate" instead of "Fatality Rate".

Fatality Rate in the dictionary is: "The number of deaths from a specific cause."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fatality%20rate

CFR is not an accurate representation of Fatality Rate, as it only includes the reported cases, not the estimated unreported cases.

CDC's current estimate is that only 1 in 4 cases are reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.127.183 (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Part of the issue lies with Template:Infobox outbreak only including a section for "fatality rate", with no distinction between CFR and IFR. I agree that this is probably an issue without more context, especially with the numbers there being calculations from cases and fatalities, without sources or a note describing what CFR is (as is described in more detail in Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States). I think it's worth removing this until we can present it better. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2022
Please remove this sentence:

Contracting the virus from a ski trip, Garfield is back on the slopes, although with fingers and toes amputated.

and add this:

Contracting the virus from a ski trip, Garfield was able to return to the slopes, although with fingers and toes amputated.

Who knows if he's still able to ski; he could have had something else happen to him (e.g. car crash) in the nearly-a-year since the source was published. 122.150.71.249 (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅, Thanks. ZaidhaanH (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

One million
You can say that the death toll is probably already one million. There is a link here : " https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-nears-one-million-covid-19-deaths-11650838998" 180.150.112.8 (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Some missing information
A few important points appear to be missing from the article. What about a new section focussed on the affect of Covid on older residents?

- A breakdown of cases by age.

- People over 65 account for 16% of the U.S. population but 75% of deaths from COVID-19, according to the CDC.

- 200,000 or 20 percent of Covid deaths have occurred in nursing homes. Eight percent of long-term care residents have died of Covid; ten percent of nursing home residents have died from Covid.

Burrobert (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Another missing aspect is the way in which the pandemic affected different classes within society. "Working-class Americans died of COVID-19 at five times the rate of those in higher socioeconomic positions during the first year of the pandemic". Burrobert (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * After half-hearted search for a couple of months found Statistics_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic in the United States. I regularly talk with someone who has some paranoia about vaccines and I would really appreciate if there was similar comparison of infections BY AGE. Thanks. --EarthFurst (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

PEIS exceeded, June 2022
Post-expand include size has been exceeded for the article, causing navboxes to break. One possible strategy offered below, but more measures may be required if that is insufficient. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Suggested template tweaks
I was able to substantially reduce PEIS in a similar case with these edits:. It eliminates the need to wrap pandemic data cases chart in center block, saving two clear also. I've already made the necessary adjustments to the cases chart template, but someone else will need to tackle the second part due to the article protection. (Your mileage may vary.) — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * In case the exact change absolutely needs to be specified verbatim rather than be given by reference to a diff.




 * needs to be changed to




 * — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Added  to preserve size since I noticed that the US cases template is set up with subtly different defaults than the Singapore one I did before.
 * Testing this edit in the sandbox shows that it does successfully reduce PEIS below limits: approx 1,941,089/2,097,152 bytes (actual figure will probably differ by a small amount). — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Done. --mfb (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU22 - Sect 202 - Tue
— Assignment last updated by ParamfD (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit suggestion: July 2022 to September 2022
Under "July 2022 to September 2022", the first sentence is "The number of cases for the months of January through June 2022 was about 2.4 times the number for the same period in 2021, and the number of COVID-attributed deaths likewise averaged 0.74 times the number in 2021." The "likewise" should be removed because the number of deaths is actually smaller than 2021. (Multiplying a number by 0.74 means that your new number is slightly less than 3/4 of the original number). The "Nonetheless" that begins the next sentence could also be removed be it seems to be non-objective phrasing. 2607:F220:415:244:0:0:0:18D (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

where is October to December 2022?
https://www.google.com/search?q=covid+us&rlz=1CASEEH_enUS1033&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:10/1/2022&source=lnms&tbm=nws&safe=active&ssui=on

Looks like some things actually are happening related to COVID. It's not like it's over. Just curious if and when someone or some people are planning to do that 2603:6011:9600:52C0:F471:688F:5BB5:AF34 (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: SSC199 TY4
— Assignment last updated by Arianna Szn (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Addressing PEIS concerns
Once again, Post-expand include size has been exceeded for the article. This was last discussed in Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United States/Archive 17. I just edited Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United States medical cases by state, Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, and COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. I don't know if I pushed it over the limit or if it was already the limit. In Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, I reverted a part of my edit so that one use of cite web is "invoked" as it was before my first edit, hoping that that would fix the PEIS issue, but it did not. I don't know what that invoke is doing, and someone who knows more about this than I do can decide if there's a reason for that invoke. The larger issue is we need to get under the PEIS limit. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Change picturw
The map is very out dated. Can we change it? I found a good image idea Here PokiBeni898 (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Post Emergency Deaths
The editors who were updating the data that goes into the main graph are no longer doing so due to the massive changes in reporting with the end of the official emergency, and for the same reason I think it's reasonable to have a separate graph entirely that also describes the current level of reporting. Since so many reports have been removed from public access, there is a small discrepancy in total deaths between the two graphs that can't be investigated, but since the point is to have a resource going forward I don't think this is a problem. I'm also not doing cases at all because when there are states that report cases but not deaths that can only further muddy an already profoundly muddied picture. Kinerd518 (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

94% of Americans exposed by 9 November 2022
Would it make sense to include this info? https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.19.22282525v3

-- 108.190.228.126 (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ambiguity in the wording of the text to the Topic.
 * Please clarify.
 * 94% of reported COVID 19 cases?

Or.
 * 94% of the entire US population?

Also interested. (As a collateral discussion.) Comments. Koigo either from the US Government. Anyone or anything? Pronounces ? In addition to doctors, medical workers.12345Arianna (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Again
I've complained before, and I'll repeat: the graph/chart is nearly completely USELESS. It depicts, in red, constant-function and delivers zero useful information. I've objected in the past to its use, which from its earliest use was a poor way to show what it claims to show: total & current infections, and cumulative deaths. I have no problem with the list of deaths per day - except that it's limited to the last 15 days (why, I don't know). It was and is poorly conceived and executed. I vote for removal and replacement with separate graphs one showing cumulative (est.) deaths from March 2020, and another showing daily or better weekly averaged daily death rates. There is no information presented in the current chart about active infections and that's fine as far as I'm concerned. Incidentally, it is well-known that "current infections" can't be known and is poorly understood. Current hospitalizations would be a far better metric. When it's estimated that over 90% of the population has had exposure to the virus (with most exposed able to *avoid* an initial run-away infection (for certain values of 'initial'), it makes little (I think zero) sense to mention "active" infections!)98.17.44.45 (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)