Template talk:COVID-19 testing by country/Archive 1

IP question
Hello, Where is the source for this table? Why isn't Germany in it? Thank you! --141.99.245.27 (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No Germany without a source for Germany. Sun Creator(talk) 08:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Per capita numbers
Hi, would it be possible to add per capita numbers for the countries, using, for example, population from the countries wiki articles or one reliable source for all populations? It would be much more informative. Tahnks for response/opinion etc. WikiHannibal (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

China
I only found the 320,000 tests in a two weeks span done in Guangdong province. Any other recent stats for China (official Chinese Gov websites). Same goes for Germany. --Kiwi (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Why two as of columns?
There are two as of columns in the table - it's not clear why, I'm tempted to delete one but I wondered if there was some hidden significance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgt101 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Tests per day
It looks like we only have daily numbers for South Korea, India, and Armenia. Could/should we delete or hide this column? Not sure how much value it adds. Even where there is data available, I'm not sure what to make of it... India has performed 4,058 as of March 6 but tested only 25 people on March 8? At that rate, the math doesn't check out. - Wikmoz (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, delete. Done, here. Sun Creator(talk) 03:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fast fix! It's much easier to read now. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Reference for the populations?
A reference for the population is needed, e.g. Tests per million  people. This is one reference whose values will not significantly change over 2-3 months, since carrying out a new census is the last thing that any sane government would do right now. (Though in the orwellian epoch in which we live, a request to the appropriate database should give a reasonable approximation to the population in many countries, taking a fraction of a second to calculate for someone with appropriate authentication.) Boud (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Provinces
Should we exclude provinces like Guangdong, Alberta and British Columbia from this list? Mixing them with countries is a bit confusing and eventually the list will get way too long. Zarex (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I added Canada, which is the sum of the federal government's lab testing, plus the provinces alberta, british columbia, ontario, and quebec. The only provinces with reported cases. I didn't look up the testing for provinces without cases. 09:55 11 March 2020 (EDT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.98.192.94 (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)   I'm the same person. I notice that someone added Ontario province & Lombardy as separate items too. I think it's okay to include Guangdong because in the absence of mainland China numbers it is a useful comparison. However in the case of Canada & Italy, I think we should remove the provinces since we have one for the country. 20:12, 12 March 2020 (EDT)

Subheadings not displayed in articles when expanded
Now that the table is collapsible, when the table is expanded subheadings are not displayed in the articles COVID-19 testing or 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak? comrade waddie96 (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, see discussion Template_talk:COVID-19_testing. Sun Creator(talk) 15:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Autocollapsing
Adding the  parameter after   doesn't work by itself, you have to add   to the template's wikitable class source code (such as ) for the template's collapsibility to be set on a per-page basis, after which it will cause an element to collapse automatically if it detects two or more collapsible elements on the page; you don't need to add   for it to work but you can add for example   to force it always expanded. You can also add to the class but then you lose that per-page configurability.

I tested the autocollapse function with this template, but it breaks the template when "wikitable sortable" is used with its two-row headers; it hides the second header row (Country, Total tests, etc.) when it auto-defaults to collapsed state, as happened in 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak when the autocollapse parameter was in effect. So I removed the autocollapse class from this template. There is probably a bug in MediaWiki because this happens only with two-row and sortable headers, such as this template. If you remove the top header (Volume of COVID-19 testing), or if you disable sorting then the second header row appears correctly in autocollapsed state. Zarex (talk) 06:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I realised state=autocollapse wouldn't work but thought it would get you to fix the template's wikitable class source code, as you know far more about how to do that then me. ;) Sun Creator(talk) 06:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I will look into it, but for now I think it's either sortable or autocollapsible, not both. The combination of sortable, collapsible and defaulting to collapsed or autocollapsed state, with two-row headers seems to be the culprit. Zarex (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Issue with this is that no headings are available. Sun Creator(talk) 07:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * But with |state=collapse the headings are shown! Sun Creator(talk) 07:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, with that the headers are shown but for me it is also expanded, and not collapsed. Also, the correct collapsing parameter is, which also shows as expanded for me. Because it autocollapses without any parameters by itself and on a page with two or more collapsible elements, you can probably put any parameter to force it to expand. Zarex (talk) 07:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , comments please. Sun Creator(talk) 16:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I read Help:Tables and played around with previews, nothing more than that. I didn't notice the apparent bug discussed above. Mediawiki mailing lists and git repositories should not be hard to find - first search to see if the info is somewhere obvious, then ask after making a reasonable effort and not finding the answer. Boud (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In case it's not obvious: Zarex seems to understand this issue a lot better than I do. Boud (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The only way for autocollapse and sortable to work together for now is to move the top header outside the template box. Which I just did. Zarex (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Meaning of "number of tests" -- "number of people tested" or "number of trials"
There is some confusion between "number of people tested" and "number of tests performed."
 * There's other confusion as well:
 * "Daily test capacity" vs "Number of people tested" can vary wildly. It's impossible to know if a nation is meeting the (evidence-based) demand for testing, without knowing the test capacity. (Of course, panic testing should not be included in such analysis.)
 * "Number tested" vs "number of results" is muddy. At one point, almost half of all S. Korea tests were still pending results. They've now pretty well caught up. Mr Pete (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

To see the scale of PCR tests performed in that country, "number of people tested" is the accurate criteria. For example, PCR tests are performed for the people who are recovered from COVID-19 disease. If we count number of tests performed instead of the number of people tested, meaning become different and hard to compare with confirmed cases and to compare with population.

It seems UK reports number of people tested, and Japan reports both number of people tested and number of tests performed separately. It's better to define preferred criteria to describe here.

In my opinion, "number of people tested" is preferred criteria to see the testing status for measurement, and to compare with population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigetch (talk • contribs) 18:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Some regions like for instance BC Canada include duplicates in their test figures, they refer to this as "samples tested". And those test figures, among others, are accepted for this template. From this it is clear that this template has not agreed on a specific standard for testing figures. In any case, Our World in Data have also accepted the total Japanese figures for cross-country comparisons. Sockerkorn (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Editors of Our World in Data explains that they just use Google Translate to understand the document published by MHLW. It seems they are also confused because they refer the number of people tested in UK and refers the number of tests performed in Japan. They probably does't understand the accurate meaning of "non-English" data source. Fact written in MHLW document is that "As of Mar. 11, 9,195 people (or 10,024 people including returnee from China in Feb.) are tested for diagnoses of infection, and as of Mar. 10, tests are performed against 22,272 samples in total (including health status check for recovered patients.)" Anyway meaning of "number of tests performed" are not appropriate for comparison with confirmed cases nor population in country, so MHLW listed number of people tested with confirmed cases in the table within their announcement. That's the reason I suggested the preferred criteria here. If no information is available, noting any information is good. But if both metrics are available, it is better to choose preferred one. Please consider accurate meaning of the statistics, and meaning of every column. Sigetch (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, there is no practise of attempting standardization of testing data in the template, since the data of some other countries and regions (Canada and possibly US, which counts "number of specimens" in their reports etc.) also include duplicates and are accepted as such in the template. It is unclear then why such an attempt should suddenly be made regarding reports only from Japan. As for dates, the 9,195 figure refers to March 10, and the 22,272 refers to March 9. If it is insisted that the date is to be reported incorrectly in the template, against what is actually stated in the source, then it is simply better to just remove the Japan entry than to have an entry that is not based on any source. Sockerkorn (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

number of 22,272 has no proper reason to list here as the comparison with other countries, and pointed the confusions of non-Japanese source. What is the reason to choose 22,272 as the baseline of this table? No logical reasons are explained so far. Sigetch (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And why the 9k figures as opposed to that? What determines what standard should be used? The UK may have one standard, but the US, Canada, India, Russia etc. use another (total samples tested). Why try to align only Japan to the UK standard instead of the US/Canada/Russia/India one? Sockerkorn (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You just say, "Other people do" and without any proper reason. *We* Japanese will follow and use same metrics and criteria cited in "2020 coronavirus pandemic in Japan", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Japan . The reason is clear that this criteria is more accurate to compare with confirmed cases and population. (ratio of people-to-people is more valid and meaningful in statistics.) Sigetch (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The table where figures for all countries are provided says "total tests". It does not say "total number of people tested". The table has therefore set the "criteria" to list the total number of tests conducted by country, if such numbers are available. It is hard to interpret it otherwise. Deviating from this practise even when such figures exist will make cross-country comparisons considerably harder. Sockerkorn (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Some editors of "2020 coronavirus pandemic in Japan" also listed "Tested total", and using same metric with me. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Japan) Please consider right meaning, don't stick with opinion with no scientific reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigetch (talk • contribs) 23:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Tested total" in English could refer to the total number of people tested. But the phrase "total tests" unequivocally refers to the total number of tests. Semantics aside, this template exists for cross-country comparative purposes. Harmonizing reporting standards across countries is in the interest of this template, and it seems a plurality of countries report by the "total tests" standard. In any case, Wikipedia usually cautions against citing other Wikipedia articles to prove a point. Sockerkorn (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

"Volume of testing"
The table is now collapsed by default in the main outbreak topic. Is there another title that would be more descriptive? Maybe "Scale of testing by country" or "Number of tests administered by country" or "Testing volume by country"? - Wikmoz (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The header of the table disappeared, it is difficult to understand now what do the figures represent. May be number of tests done, as of which date and how many tests per million inhabitants of a country.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.226.230.161 (talk) 08:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the subheadings under the title of the collapsible function are not displaying in the article but in the template view? I am experiencing the same issue. comrade waddie96 (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I see this has been changed to "Volume of COVID-19 testing". This looks much better. - Wikmoz (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is going on articles about COVID19 of course this is about testing for the disease. It is not about volumn of testing for skin cancer. We do not need to repeat COVID19 in every line. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Germany
The source for Germany notes that 35000 tests have been conducted in the past week, not 35000 in total. Haven't found any total numbers, and the article mentions capacity for 12000 tests a day. --Johannes Rössel (talk) 09:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, removed Germany as I couldn't find a source for the total. Sun Creator(talk) 00:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

What should be the default sort-order?
I don't know the official Wiki guidelines, but usually the sort orders for these sort of things default to raw volume over per-capita numbers. 2A00:23C2:1980:D500:C5FF:36A7:8410:71F4 (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We do not use wiki guidelines here, since wikis have all sorts of different guidelines depending on their purpose. We use Wikipedia guidelines. Boud (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * makes sense to have raw numbers as default sort. Volume of testing is first and foremost then you can sort if you want more info. ShakyIsles (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize there was already a sort order, because the order looked random to me. I grouped provinces together, so that they're not all over the place. Do I have to revert those changes? It looks much cleaner this way. Humanoid (talk) 06:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and reverted my re-ordering changes. Though I still prefer an alphabetical default sort order.  Humanoid (talk) 06:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Add data
As at 11 March, Australia has tested ~20,000 source. and Qatar has tested 6,000 source. Sorry, couldn't figure out how to do it myself. Charbono (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I apologize but I dont know how to update myself and hope I am doing nothing wrong here. I found new numbers for total testing in Switzerland for 18. March. Over 32000 negativ tests plus 2650 positiv. So a total of minimum 34650 tests. Found it here: https://www.ag.ch/de/themen_1/coronavirus_2/lagebulletins/lagebulletins_1.jsp. See Bulletin 14, from 18. March. It is the official site from a canton in Switzerland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1715:4E21:1A30:8985:FC00:FB90:45AA (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's sort alphabetically until the numbers stop changing.
The per capita sort order is not working. Lots of people who are updating the numbers are not sorting per capita, and it's just a mess. If you want to see per capita sort order, you can just click on the little arrow at the top for now. The default sort is not automated. Until the numbers stop changing, let's sort alphabetically so that it doesn't keep becoming a mess. Humanoid (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorted it by raw number of tests, I've made a little python script that does it automatically here. This can be adapted to sort alphabetically too, if we see that as the consensus. 2A00:23C2:1980:D500:49EE:BE98:A0A5:1D9F (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Looked good at first, but now it's already starting to get messed up again. Might as well sort alphabetically.  It's the only order that doesn't need to be repeatedly fixed. Humanoid (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just sorted out all the data alphabetically, so the update should be a little easier and the users can simply update the figures regardless of which country has made more tests. 91.125.193.248 (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

What date to use? What Regions?
Up until today (18-March), most entries were one day behind because official state sources are invariably from the previous day (for example, the CDC in the United States releases at 4pm each day). However, I've noticed today more entries marked with today's date, some using live-tracker #s and non-state sources. My thinking is we should stay consistent and stick with official numbers....?

I'm also not sure where to draw the line with regions. Are we going to add all US states and provinces of Canada, for example, or should we just stick to country-level? Most places in the world will be hit, so I think those regional #s should go on their individual pages, for instance: US Response or NY Response. But maybe the presence of such a page warrants inclusion in this table? What do you all think? --Tiredmeliorist (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we should first stick to where good data is available, which is often on the Province/State level in North America and secondly to information that is most relevant to people reading the article (which is probably comparison to other countries and between State / Province comparisons). --hroest 17:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I presume by "good data" you mean official #s (except in cases where there is sufficient reason to doubt official #s). For the US, we have private websites reporting much higher #s of tests and cases than the official CDC page -- sometimes 3-4x! As everyone knows, the US had problems with testing that we are still working out. It's dangerously misleading to record unrealistically high testing #s and low cases, especially given the lag between test and result (at present 5-9 days). --Tiredmeliorist (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * With the US, we should be going with the official numbers from the individual States as they are far more representative of actual humans tested thus far. However, there is one State (Maryland) that is not reporting negative tests.  --Werekief (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

"Total tests" is being used inconsistently
Sometimes the number includes pending tests (without results yet) and sometimes it doesn't. Eg Ontario, Canada includes pending tests, whereas for the Phillipines pending tests are excluded. This results in distorted results in the Positive/1000 tests column. Should there be a clear standard definition? Option I've thought of include adding a column for "Resulted Tests" or adding a clear definition in the column header. CaseInPoint (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that is a problem, and many official #s don't list both. Is Philippines an outlier or is that more common? I know the official #s in the US are recorded when the test is received. If there are a few outlier countries, then putting a footnote might be enough. If there are a large amount of countries doing one or the other, then adding a column may be the only way to accurately include everyone. --Tiredmeliorist (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Also there is might missunderstanding on my contributions for malaysia stats, someone updated the total test to also include pending test, so i excluded pending test from total test, not i added itDorakuthelekor (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

We should default to not include pending tests, but if that is not possible, include the pending tests. There should just be a footnote referenced from the top of the column that since different countries don't report the numbers in the same way, that the numbers may have slightly different meanings, depending on the country. Humanoid (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

China and Taiwan
The two countries are called China and Taiwan. It has been the standard in the English speaking world for decades. It has been the standard on Wikipedia from the beginning. Stop changing the name China to "Mainland China". Humanoid (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The consensus is to use at least "China (mainland)" if not "Mainland China", per 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China, Template:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_data, and and Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_185. WP:COMMONNAME applies to article title only my friend and even so I don't see why "mainland China" is uncommon: the term appears repeatedly (11 times in total) in 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. What I can see is that the term is far more precise and rises less neutrality concerns. -- Akira 😼 CA  07:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:NC-CN says to only use "mainland" when a contrast is needed. Nobody thinks that Guangdong is a province of Taiwan. Humanoid (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

And as the rest of the table, we use the short name of a country, not some unnecessarily long name. This is a table, not a government document. Humanoid (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

If you want to include an entry for the whole of China, excluding Macau and Hong Kong, then you can use "China (mainland)". For the individual provinces, China is the correct term to use. Humanoid (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Percentage for positive test rate and current positive test rate
Suggestions: 1. List the positive test rate in percentage rather than per 1000 tests. 2. Add a column for the current positive test rate, which is more interesting than the total rate and reflects what's going on now. Current positive test rate = (positives - positives in previous update)/(tests - tests in previous update) = (change in positives)/(change in tests) --Ori not ori (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I also think percentages would be easier to understand, but a quick search seems to indicate that "per thousand tests" is the standard measure used in healthcare. Can somebody who is a healthcare professional clarify this, please? — UnladenSwallow (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Russia official covid-19 stats and map
Russia official websites with full and latest info: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.67.131.56 (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Official stats and map with cases, daily increase, recovered and deaths (updates every day): https://стопкоронавирус.рф/
 * Official stats with cases, recovered, updated time and total testing (updates every day): https://www.rosminzdrav.ru/ministry/covid19


 * Another official test stats with daily updates: https://rospotrebnadzor.ru/about/info/news_time/news_details.php?ELEMENT_ID=13566 --88.200.214.120 (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Belarus data
You keep changing the data for Belarus to 23,000 tests and 86 confirmed cases without providing a new reference. The current reference links to a webpage from March 20 that still shows 19,000 tests and 69 confirmed cases. If you want to update the data, you must provide a reference for it. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we automate the values in "positive per 1000" column?
We have both numbers that are needed, and it would save time of editors and improve accuracy of data. If this is not possible sorry for the noise, I am new to wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martensonus (talk • contribs) 09:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed! I've no idea how to do that either, though. --Tiredmeliorist (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Somebody has done that, thank you! Martensonus (talk) 08:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ — UnladenSwallow (talk) 07:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Canada provinces and other subdivisions
Hi, this has been mentioned some time ago above: the list is now too long/detailed. 12 Canadian provinces are listed separately, as well as some Italian provinces and US states. I understand some editors may think important to distinguish between the sub-entities; I suggest only those with tests-per-million-people numbers higher than the coutnry's average are presented separately. (Or something like that.) Alternatively, we can remove (almost?) all subdivision, as other countries are also composed of smaller regions etc, and I see no reason why Canada and others should be treated differently than those other countries. My concern is that when I sort the table by positive per million, I get a number of US, Canadian and Italian subregions in the first idk 20 rows, and that is really confusing and hard to make a picture of. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * In places like Canada and USA, we don't have reliable numbers for the total of the country. Each province or state has their own website that publishes numbers independently, because they have a certain degree of autonomy, just like states within the European Union.  Adding the numbers are often in disagreement with summaries for the whole country.  Keeping each state of the United States, is not much different than keeping each state of the European Union.  If you want to exclude individual states of USA, you might as well exclude individual states of EU, and only give a single number for all of EU.  So we should keep individual provinces and states of Canada and USA.  Humanoid (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the breakup is redundant, clutters the data and makes it harder to parse. The related wikilinks to specific articles should suffice. For Italy, for example, there are no specific province-level articles at all, just generic names Emilia-Romagna etc. Brandmeistertalk  10:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It's not redundant. For example the number of tests per million people in New York is 4024, but country wide it is only 727, and for California it is 317.  If you only keep the country-wide number, you'd have no idea how drastically different the situation is in New York vs California vs USA.  These are huge countries.  Canada itself is much larger than the European Union.  What happens on one side of the continent is drastically different from what happens on the other side.  Would you like a single number for all of the European Union, and delete the individual entries for the member states?  As long as people are actively updating these numbers, it shows that these numbers are very valuable to people.  They might not be valuable to you, but they're valuable to a large number of Wikipedia readers.  I'm against deleting any valuable information!  Humanoid (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, Canada/US are quite different entities than EU, cf. closing borders in relation to the pandemic, for example. ( = Did Canada od US closed their borders between the provinces/states? For other examples, read the specific articles.) As for your argument regarding number of tests in NY and Cal., or area/population in general, such differences are in all countries, you just do not see them, bcs their sub-regions are not in the template (for example Moscow and the rest of Russia, more Chinese provinces, India, Brazil, etc.). But thank you for your opinion, anyway. WikiHannibal (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You are free to add those other provinces. I never said anything against adding more information.  The lack of information from other places is not a good reason to delete valuable information that we already have.  Humanoid (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * In Canada at least, measures are being taken at at least some provincial borders, for example: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/checkpoints-covid-19-borders-public-health-nova-scotia-1.5506621. However, this information seems too granular to be relevant on a page giving a worldwide overview. I don't think subdivisions within countries are really comparable to political and economic unions of countries in the general sense. However, when it comes to epicentres like China, Italy, and the USA, subdivisions can provide useful context. Allthegoodnamesaretaken2 (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think the list is too long (yet). Many countries still do not report tests, and most countries that do do not report tests for regions. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Total test number of all country vs total case
can you add the total number of test ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.193.68.50 (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Wikipedia tables do not have an automatic totals feature. Adding the totals manually would be extremely laborious and not worth it. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

India
The figure was previously over 25000 (same website) These new figures seem to be daily reports and not cumulative ones — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.26 (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know what was there, but it should be fixed now. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Luxembourg
Luxembourg is not listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.113.60.219 (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Data is about tested people or total tests?
It is an important difference. For example, some people can be tested several times. If we are talking about total tests, it makes "tests/million people" little bit incorrect. At least, we should state what type of data is used and agree upon it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiLover (talk • contribs) 07:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that "tested people" is more correct, as the "Positive" column clearly refers to confirmed cases, i.e. people. Many countries report tested people (at least that's how I interpret their statements), but not all: for example, Russia's Rospotrebnadzor reports lab tests (лабораторные исследования). Ideally, each editor should contact their country's health/epidemiological authority and clarify whether they are really reporting tested people. If not, ask that they do for ease of comparison between countries. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Then to get to the point of "ideally" a bit closer, editors should know which data to report here. When I checked sources for Kazakhstan, someone reported here total tests instead of the number of lab-tested people (It might be a case for other countries as well). So I corrected it because of the mentioned common sense to assume that it is about people. Yet I did not know how to support my decision. Therefore this question arose. I am not good at Wikipedia. Thus I am asking someone who is capable to clarify this where everyone can see and understand.WiLover (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Problem is, if we change the column headers from "Tests" to, say, "Tested", we will be conveying false information for countries that are reporting lab tests, whereas currently we're hiding behind an ambiguous term that has both meanings, so technically we're not conveying something that is untrue. Maybe we should add an asterisk (*) to names of countries and regions that are reporting lab tests. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure. It can be a solution for both readers and editors to see which type of data is used. Rreaders can consider it if making comparisons, while editors can see which countries lack official data about tested people where some of them can ask authorities to supplement their resources or try to find new sources of information.WiLover (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Bangladesh
Please note the testing tally given by this website 'https://www.iedcr.gov.bd/' is only for tests conducted at the IEDCR institution, so far they do not display the tally of tests conducted across all the testing facilities in the country. That figure is only updated in the Government's daily press releases, which they document over here 'http://corona.gov.bd/' (but it's in Bengali).27.147.206.85 (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Where does it say on the http://corona.gov.bd/ home page that 2,914 tests have been conducted? I only see the following figures at the top of the page:
 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"


 * - style="font-size: 180%;"
 * 18 || 88 || 33 || 9 || 66,071 || 53,412 || 420 || 336
 * - style="font-size: 85%;"
 * New infected || Total infected || Total recovered || Deaths || Total quarantined || Completed quarantine || Total isolated || Completed isolation
 * }
 * Can't find ২,৯১৪ or ২৯১৪ anywhere on the page. Is it on another page? — UnladenSwallow (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. If you scroll halfway down on the page and towards the left, there will be a link called 'প্রেস রিলিজ ( ০৫-০৪-২০২০)', which opens to a document summarizing the press release info (as of 05-04-2020). Clicking on that link will open the document (might take a while to load, try refreshing if so), then scrolling down to the table on the first page, there is a column called পরীক্ষাকৃত (total tested), and the left sub-column is titled ৫ এপ্রিল পর্যন্ত (up to 5th April). That's where the ২,৯১৪ (2,914) count comes from.27.147.206.85 (talk) 06:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your detailed answer! I've found a way to make a proper reference to this document. When you open it in a popup, there's a button in the top right corner to open it in a new window with a Google Docs URL https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://corona.gov.bd/storage/press-releases/April2020/FGFfdR5iayUr3KzyciyQ.pdf, from which you can extract the original PDF URL https://corona.gov.bd/storage/press-releases/April2020/FGFfdR5iayUr3KzyciyQ.pdf for a proper reference: "" The first reference (IEDCR) is no longer needed, because the PDF has data on both "tested" (পরীক্ষাকৃত) and "detected" (সনাক্ত). — UnladenSwallow (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thank you for the edit and fixing the issue with the reference link. It turns out that the IEDCR website is now reporting the total number of tests conducted (the ones in their lab plus in the other labs across the country), and they're displaying it in English too. The info being reported in the Corona.gov.bd website is updated through daily press releases, and so the document containing the latest info would change daily too (the reference link here would have to be updated daily). That's why I'm changing the reference back to the IEDCR website as the info they're reporting is now complete and being displayed dynamically. Very much appreciative of your efforts of checking info from a document in Bengali and your help in general! Giving the IEDCR link here for reference: https://www.iedcr.gov.bd/.27.147.206.85 (talk) 10:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Great news! Dynamically updated page means we don't need to update the URL daily, and a page in English makes source verification easier for international editors. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep indeed! Makes things much more easier to manage and edit :) 27.147.206.85 (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Change per million & per thousand into percent
Any possibility to change tests per million and positive per thousand into percentiles? That would make comparison easier, wouldn't it? Or what is the rationale behind using per million / per thousand cases, respectively? Kashasu1 (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * 1. Changing "Tests / million people" to "Tests as % of population" will result in small numbers for most countries. For example, Bangladesh has performed 22 tests per million people so far, i.e. it has tested 0.0022% of its population. "Twenty-two ten-thousandths of a percent of the population" does not roll off the tongue quite as easily as "twenty-two tests per million people". After most countries will have ramped up their testing, it will make more sense to switch to percentages. 2. As for changing "Positive / thousand tests" to "Positive as % of tests", I support that. If other editors agree to the change, I can make it. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I have changed "Positive / thousand tests" to "Positive as % of tests". — UnladenSwallow (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Positive per 1,000 people
Hi, why not add a column with Positive (tests) per 1,000 people? All the data are already in the table, and it provides a more straightforward picture, given the differences in population totals. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Positive tests per million people (population) and positive tests per thousand tests (total tests) are both already in the table. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Mdaniels5757, thanks for the response but I do not get it. What column shows "Positive (tests) per 1,000 (million etc.) people" I asked for? I read the columms as: 1. Absolute number of tests in the country (regardless of population); 2. Absolute number of positive tests in the country (regardless of population); 3. Tests per million people (regardless whether positive or negative tests); 4. Positive tests per thousand tests (regardless of population). Please clarify, thanks. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The table only shows "Tests / million people" and "Positive / thousand tests" columns. There's no "Positive / million people" column (= confirmed cases per capita). I think we shouldn't add it because the table will become too wide and hard to read. A better place for a "Confirmed cases per capita" column would be Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, unfortunately, the template Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data 1) has a more or less valid consensus "No more columns"; and 2), reports only raw numbers, no calculations (both due to the opinion that it would be "hard to maintain"). On the other hand, editors involved in editing COVID-19 testing seem quite able to edit the calculations. I think "Positive / million people" would show the extent of the disease in each country better that totals. WikiHannibal (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added a "Positive / million people" column. We no longer attempt to float the table to the right, so there's no need to be so stingy about its width. The confirmed cases per capita statistic is certainly very useful. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! WikiHannibal (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Add column, Test ratio: positive tests / all tests %
This might indicate if a country is approaching it's test capacity a low number would indicate that tests are performed on asymptomatic people — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophkroell (talk • contribs) 14:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , This is already there in the form of positive tests per thousand tests (multiply by 10 if you want %). Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , my bad. I don't remember seeing this column before. Thanks. Christophkroell (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The current name of the column "Positive %" is not very descriptive; in any case, the column should be moved between "potitive" and "As of", as it refers to the tests. Thanks. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ — UnladenSwallow (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much better! WikiHannibal (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Sub-state divisions
I would like to plead for the removal of (most of) the sub-state divisions. In the top 20 entries, sorted by "positive", you have 6 US countries, 2 Italian regions; sorted by "test per million", you have 2 Australian, 3 Canadian, 3 Italian, 2 US "regions"; by "Positive per million people" you have 6 US, 7 Italian, by "Positive %" you have 4 US, 5 Italian "regions". Generally speaking, half of the top 20 entries are "sub-state", making the table hard to navigate and blurring the overall picture. At other places, similar clusters emerge (cf. Australia Positive per million people). If data for all of the regions are important, they should be present, first of all, in the respective countries articles. I am not saying all of them should go, bu many Candian, Australian, and Italian should. Or is there perhaps a way how to toggle the table showing with/without the sub-states? WikiHannibal (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I had the same idea. Unfortunately, there's no built-in way to expand/collapse table rows in Wikipedia. I think we should rename this template to "Template:COVID-19 testing by country" and move all regions to a new template called "Template:COVID-19 testing by region" (as well as add the rest of U.S. states and Italian regions to it). — UnladenSwallow (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Good idea. Seems the regions are updated regularly, so there should be no problem in keeping both templates updated. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ — UnladenSwallow (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness
I count 86 countries in the table. I note that China is among those countries not included. Should there be a note explaining criteria for inclusion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * If a country is publishing testing data (or has published it at an earlier date), it should be in the table. Unfortunately, as far as I am aware, China has not published testing data, except for Guangdong (20 Feb) and Hong Kong (14 Apr), which are listed in the Template:COVID-19 testing by country subdivision table. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Disputed - Inaccuracies constantly appear concerning sources/types of units/types of test
I noticed that 3 types of inaccuracies and therefore biased statistical parameters are showing up in this table.

1. No clear definition of type of test considered in these statistics. For example, in case of Venezuela, the type of tests described in the source used for the statistic is not the one commonly used in other countries and considered reliable. The number provided is of less reliable RDT (rapid diagnostic tests) rather than more reliable conventional laboratory RT-PCR tests otherwise considered in these statistics (and this table). I attempted to solve this by adding a comment to the source code and a footnote next to the statistic.

2. I'd like to raise a warning about some of these statistics with potential to be used for propaganda. Again, for instance in case of Venezuela and Maduro's regime. There's a possibility of source data not being reliable, unless cross-referenced with more independent sources.

3. No clear definition of units considered in these statistics. We can see the issue clearly in the example of the UK which makes a clear diction between the number of people tested and the number of tests performed in total in their statistics. Most of the statistics (in this table) are of unit 'test performed', but until recently, in case of the UK, the statistic being copied was 'person tested'. Since these numbers can be substantially different, as some people (healthcare workers) get tested multiple times, this makes the statistics (in the table) possibly skewed. There are unclear units in sources of data for many countries in the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith558 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Many countries uses express-tests (antibody search). Even USA and Spain uses it. Why you add it only for Venezuela? That's the propaganda.--95.67.230.236 (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the Venezuela note as unsourced. It can be added again, with sources regarding the type of the test but esp. the "tests otherwise considered in these statistics" claim needs sources about other countries as well. (Perhaps summarize in a general note what type of test is used in the majority of the countries listed, and a specific note added to those using a diferent type.) WikiHannibal (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I do not have such knowledge about the US. I myself do not edit the stats for these countries. It's everyone's responsibility to ensure the sources he/she is using support the claim. The countries I regularly update statistics for declare purely RT-PCR tests in their statistics (even if they use rapid tests elsewhere, they are not included in the sources normally released by their corresponding health authorities). However, I have checked Spain, in the official stats released by the 'Ministerio de Sanidad, Consumo y Bienestar Social'(used in this table), ONLY RT-PCR tests are declared. Please check your sources. Therefore, I still stand by the argument that well over 80% of countries in this table routinely declare only RT-PCR tests, from what I've been looking at the sources so far. Please refrain yourself from accusing me of propaganda, I have simply pointed out potential points of dispute. Smith558 (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I did not speak about the US or propaganda of any kind. I hope that your bold statement "Please refrain yourself from accusing me of propaganda" is just a misunderstanding. Please read more carefully before writing. The note about Venezuela was unsourced, as was your claim about what is "considered in these statistics"; as for me checking the sources, please see WP:BURDEN. (BTW If you have checked (or feel like checking) the sources used in the template regarding the type of tests for some countries, and do not want your work to be wasted, you could write the type of test as hidden text into the template, so that the note about the type used that I proposed in my previous comment can be implemented later. Alternatively, info about the type of test the countries are using in their statistics can be used in COVID-19 testing.) WikiHannibal (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, I understood that you had written "Why you add it only for Venezuela? That's the propaganda." but now I see it was written by another user. If it is so, my sincere apologies. In this case the entirety of my previous reply should be understood as a response to the points this user had brought up. Smith558 (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * No problem. But you still need to check the sources if you want to claim anything about the other countries "considered in these statistics". WikiHannibal (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Cases vs Samples
I think a footnote about case and sample definitions should be added. As I understand, sample can be taken multiple times from the same person, but counts separately. Case, on the other hand, is equal to a person, regardless of the number of tests taken. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darko A7 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's right.--109.169.194.10 (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

PUI (patients under investigation) reported by Thailand
Currently for Thailand the official number of People Under Investigation (PUI), i.e. Patients with Suspected Symptoms of COVID-19 has been used as "cases" in our template. For example  2020-05-07 situation (pdf) has been used as reference, and 2020-05-09 situation (pdf) is also available. Thus, if we accept this PUI as "cases", one could find a bit up-to-date value via this web page by Department of Disease Control (DDC Thailand) of the Royal Thai Ministry of Public Health (MOPH). --Paju~enwiki (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

For the record: Africa CDC dashboard data quality problems. Country with more cases than tests; countries with increasing number of cases without any new tests reported
FYI: Africa CDC dashboard (popup for Somalia) shows on 2020-04-30 the following data for Somalia: Just wanted to share this as an extreme example. Expecting this error to be corrected via newer updates. Although they collect valuable data, values listed by Africa CDC, collected via its regional offices and national authorities and updated daily on Africa CDC dashboard, cannot always be used as reliable source for an article. Typically I try to verify at least the case number from local sources (authorities, news media). --Paju~enwiki (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Country	Somalia
 * Region	Eastern
 * Cases	582
 * Deaths	28
 * Recoveries	20
 * Tests	390
 * CFR	4.81
 * Epidemic Phase	2
 * Cases_100k	3.66
 * Deaths_100k	0.18
 * 2020_Population	15,893,222
 * Date	30 Apr 2020


 * Another limitation with Africa CDC dashboard figures seems to be that the number of tests (samples) reported is not always updated when new (higher) number of cases is given for a country. Just noted e.g. that ACDC reported 1362 COVID-19 cases for Ivory Coast (2020-05-02; and 1398 on 2020-05-03, both available via tweets reported on http://www.gouv.ci/Main.php), but the reported number of tests by the Africa CDC dashboard (2020-05-02) had not changed since 2020-04-26. Thus the testing numbers for Ivory Coast cannot be yet updated based on ACDC dashboard. The quality control of Africa CDC dashboard values needs a fix.--Paju~enwiki (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * E.g. Tanzania data, i.e. popup of on Africa CDC dashboard, has been faulty during recent days, as the number of tests has not been updated. One should not report new, higher case number (here) based on Africa CDC dashboard without new, higher number of tests (samples). Due to this (unchanged number of tests but higher number of cases on ACDC dashboard), I have reverted the May 9 value for Tanzania. --Paju~enwiki (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

There are five countries that currently report their testing numbers through Africa CDC only: Cameroon, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Sudan and Tanzania.

The Africa CDC dashboard has the following problems:


 * 1) "Date" values in country pop-ups are incremented every day, even if no updates to the data have been made, which renders these values completely useless.
 * 2) "Cases" and "Tests" values are updated with a delay of one to several days.
 * 3) "Cases" values are updated more often than "Tests" values.

To work around these problems, the following algorithm can be used:


 * 1) Check the Africa CDC data for the five countries every day.
 * 2) If the "Tests" value reported for a country increases, copy it and the "Cases" value to the table.
 * 3) Search other sources (government websites, government social media accounts, local news outlets) to find a date on which the authorities reported the number of cases equal to the "Cases" value—that's the date you should input into the Date column.

I have added comments explaining this procedure to the relevant countries. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It is possible to confirm cases without testing. For example, in Canada/Quebec the number of confirmed cases is 39,931 but the number of people who have tested positive is only 34,959. The difference between the two are cases confirmed by 'epidemiological link'. Perhaps something similar is happening here. –Wikkiwonkk (talk) 06:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please check your facts, and give supporting sources. Avoid forwarding false claims. Official coronavirus web page of Quebec clearly does not support your claims. In French: "Situation au Québec en date du 13 mai 2020, 13 h 15. Total de cas confirmés = 39 931. Total de cas négatifs = 261 569". That is, Quebec reported on 2020-05-13 number of 39 931 positive cases out of 301 492 cases (total tested = 39 931 positive + 261 561 negative cases). Source: https://www.quebec.ca/sante/problemes-de-sante/a-z/coronavirus-2019/. Cheers, --Paju~enwiki (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Section 4 of this page https://www.inspq.qc.ca/covid-19/donnees explains it in more detail, and hovering over a point on the chart will show the number of persons that have tested negative, positive, and the total. As explained in the little blurb above the chart, the number of persons who have tested positive is less than the number of confirmed cases (which is at the very top of the page and in section 1). –Wikkiwonkk (talk) 06:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Current active cases per capita and total deaths per capita
Current active cases per capita and total deaths per capita would indicate how "effective" the countries are regarding the pandemics. I understand this has "nothing" to do with testing but still... Or perhaps another template can be made? It could be used in other articles as well. For example, 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic deaths shows sortable absolute numbers but not very useful (cf. Belgium and Germany). Something like: Positive; positive per million; deaths; deaths per million; Active cases; Active cases per million. It could even do without the absolute numbers. What do you think? Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agree and I think the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data could be the place to go. It makes sense contextually as it would provide more information regarding the pandemic overall in various ways, rather than being specific to deaths or testing only. The testing template is becoming cluttered already anyway. Smith558 (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the template you suggest has a long-standing consensus which can be summarised as "No more columns."; see Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data. That is why I commented here. BTW There is a related but outdated template, Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Case fatality rate, but it is written in such a way that it would be hard to update and maintain. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I like "No more columns." - current template already out of space. Even two "units" columns are useless for user (all that units can be replaced by one remark at the end of table).--109.169.194.10 (talk) 06:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How would you phrase that "remark" when there are two or three possibilities for the specific countries in each column (cases/samples/not reported)? At present, each country would need a footnote regarding the number of tests. Reagrding the number of positive cases, countries that do not report cases/samples would need a footnote. (I suppose that most of them do report but no editor has checked those countries sources so far.) WikiHannibal (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Look at old UK's comment about cases and samples different. Thats can be used for all countires as one. I'm surprised that the US still doesn't have a unit here - these are samples, I'm 100 percent sure.--88.200.214.84 (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "old UK's comment about cases and samples different". I found only "In the UK testing statistics there is a distinction between the number of people tested and the number of tests performed.", which means the UK reports both the number of "samples" and "people" tested. How would that help for the other countries who do not report like that? If you want the article to improve, please quote the comment you mean here. Thanks. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's it. Same comment can be added under all countries and test stats. Like: "Testing methods differ between countries. Somewhere tests are performed once per person, somewhere several times."--88.200.214.84 (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * At present, the table indicates which countries report what, so that reader can make more valid comparisons; your comment would undermine that; by obscuring info it would not improve the article. Your "somewhere" would warrant the tag. So, no. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The table now show positive cases for all countries (hopefully accoring to the source cited) except Belarus, which says persons (and that seems the same). The appropriate "Units" column can be removed, and an explaantory note added to the "Positive" column. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ — UnladenSwallow (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have spent two weeks filling in these units, and I assure you that all values in the "Confirmed (cases)" column correspond to the numbers of confirmed cases reported by the countries. Some countries do report confirmed (positive) samples, but only in addition to confirmed cases. I have added what I'm calling "source labels" to each value (which look like this: ) to give a hint to other editors which number in the source they should use.
 * Regarding the "Units" column which lists units for the "Tested" column, I'm not 100% sure that I've got everything right (although I've put great effort into it, reading multiple pages for each country via Google Translate to understand the context), so I will be grateful if other editors double-check my work. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Some people might wonder why it makes sense to report confirmed cases as a percentage of tested samples. Is there a difference between the number of "confirmed cases" and the number of "confirmed samples"? If not, why is it useful to label that column "Confirmed (cases)"? — Swood100 (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes there is a difference. +Also the table enables the reader to compare/interpret the percentage in relation to whether the countries report testes samples or tested cases. +My thanks to UnladenSwallow. WikiHannibal (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * What is the difference between confirmed cases and confirmed samples? Is it that confirmed samples can be greater if a confirmed case is tested again?  Does that happen enough to make the numbers significantly different? — Swood100 (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, and yes. WikiHannibal (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

US uses samples as unit, not cases. Why you don't add it?
CDC source quote: "Number of specimens tested"... "sample collection"... etc--88.200.214.84 (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ — UnladenSwallow (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, USA still doesn't have "samples" as unit in the table--109.169.204.244 (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Positive cases: just from PRC tests or positive serological (antibody) tests as well?
For example Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII)  produces statistical COVID-19 data of Spain which includes both PCR (polymerase chain reaction) tested and positive serological (antibody) tested cases. Number of antibody tests has increased in Spain during last month and currently (in May 2020) seems to be equal or larger than the daily number of PCR (polymerase chain reaction) tests. On 2020-05-07, the cumulative number of PCR tested positive cases was 222,857 and the number of COVID-19 positive with antibody tests (37,260) included was 260,117 (pages 1, 4 & 5 of ref1). On 2020-05-11 the similar values were 227,436 (positive PCR tested), 40,707 (positive antibody tests) and 268,143 (sum value; ref 2). It is suggested that we should not report just PCR positive COVID-19 cases (as seems to be the case for Spain, stating date 2020-05-07), but also those persons with positive antibody tests. Any comments? --Paju~enwiki (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, regarding Spain, info explaining the different testing methods should be first dealt with in COVID-19 pandemic in Spain; cf. Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Spain medical cases chart, where from 16 to 28 April, "Active cases", Serology-confirmed cases, and Active PCR-confirmed cases are reported without explanation what "Active cases" mean. Regarding other coutries, it would be best first to check what type of tests they report in the statistics/sources, and if some countries count both types, tag them with a note and add Spain in that group. WikiHannibal (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi! , thank you for starting this discussion! Are the serological test the same as the rapid tests? The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) appears to use only the PRC tests in its reports. I think having a centralized source or format could help with the template, but a possible solution is to add another column to differentiate PCR tests from rapid tests. Many thanks! --Jamez42 (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)