Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:09, 15 May 2020

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 4 days

Template:COVID-19 sanctions

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disaster management Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine: Pulmonology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United Kingdom Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Viruses Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. COVID-19 Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Material from 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Europe was split to 2020 coronavirus outbreak in the United Kingdom on 26 February 2020. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:2020 coronavirus outbreak in Europe.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Section sizes Section size for COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom (23 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 11,811 11,811 History 79 35,306 Origin 3,032 3,032 First wave 8,578 8,578 Second wave 15,607 15,607 Third wave 8,010 8,010 Responses 17 195 Government 80 80 Other sectors 98 98 Impacts 1,656 15,751 Health and life expectancy 6,138 6,138 Education 1,148 1,148 Economy 1,799 1,799 Society 288 288 Spread to other countries and territories 4,722 4,722 Statistics 284 15,671 Mathematical modelling and government response 10,820 10,820 International comparisons 4,567 4,567 See also 698 698 Notes 36 36 References 33 33 Further reading 1,254 1,254 External links 2,166 2,166 Total 82,921 82,921

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 4 days

Location of the infections/deaths chart

I've now seen it moved to the bottom of the article twice, after being moved back up near the top in between. This is different to the layouts for every other country. It's a little dystopian...like trying to bury bad news at the back of the paper. Samuel Carnall (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's up and down like fiddler's elbow. Please can it be left at the top like everyone else? 2A02:C7F:CC25:D000:5C86:1E28:195A:3CCB (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The data looks more at place in the Statistics section. Adding it to the top also pushes the lead and infobox down. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

As has been pointed out by other users in their edits, most other articles (e.g. France, Italy, Spain, the US) have the timeline chart towards the top of the page. The chart is perhaps the most important single piece of information for most readers and should be found quickly. That being said, the other articles I mentioned have the chart in the 'Timeline' section, it just so happens that the this is the first section on most articles, whereas it is at the bottom of the page for this one. I suggest either moving the Timeline section above the Government Response section and having the chart as an illustration, or creating a new section above Government Response for the sole purpose of housing the chart, but keeping the rest of the timeline info at the bottom of the page. There have also been remarks to the effect that having the chart at the top of the page causes issues for mobile users, I suggest making the chart collapsed by default on mobile to address this. Vrtr47 (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess the majority of people come here just to look at the chart, so why is it now halfway down this long article? Just about every other COVID country-specific article has it near the top, so why not this one? (this comment moved from end of Talk - I didn't notice it was already being discussed). Arcturus (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Arcturus: other articles that I looked at have the big chart in the 'Timeline' section, which is in various locations within those articles. Perhaps if you moved that section further up in this article that might be acceptable? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Another point; the chart is at the bottom of the article, but the source for the data is in the InfoBox at the top. Again, this makes the whole thing cumbersome. I suggest the Timeline section is placed at the top of the article. Arcturus (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Arcturus: the source shouldn't be in the lead as the lead is meant to be a summary of sourced content in the article body! The chart should use data from the body and not from the lead. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@DeFacto:. Sorry, I didn't mean the actual top. I think putting the Timeline section, incorporating the graph, after the Background section would probably be the best place. What do you think? Please move it if you agree, or I'll do it later this evening (UK time) assuming no major objections. Arcturus (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah the chart is big and ugly but it's the only thing I actually look at if I read the article. It's frustrating to have it stuck right at the bottom. If we could have some best of both worlds where the chart is at the top but doesn't screw up formatting then that would be awesome. talk to !dave 18:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I moved the section up towards the top of the article. Only problem now is that there's a lot of white space around. Maybe someone could have a crack at sorting it out? Arcturus (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I took a stab at cleaning up the whitespace. Thanks for the move. It's the first thing I look for as I pull up each country article and was disappointed to find it dumped to the end yet again. I hope it remains near the top. -- Tom N talk/contrib 02:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

90% England centric 10% other nations

this article is becoming way way too long. Test way to deal with this is to move most of what is only relevant to each of the 4 nations to that article. 90% of this article, as it exists, is only relevant to England. This is the mistake the BBC does by referring to "NHS" where in fact there is no such thing; it does not exist. I've also added a crucial bit that health is devolved to all 4 nations, right at the intro, as this is essential information to the reader. Should this not be clarified, I think we are putting people's lives in danger as Misplaced Pages is giving info about one country which is incorrect in the other 3 countries. It verges on fake news, but certainly political bias in favour of England; I don't blame the editors, it seems that 99% get London / England / Westminster / BBC news and have no idea about the other 3 Celtic nations. John Jones (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This sort of thing is always a mess. England is more than 80% of the population of the UK so it is always going to be weighted for English bias. Then a Scotland specific article is created which often is reasonably good. A Welsh and NI article follows, which are usually ok but not as good as Scotland. Then an England article is created just for completeness but no one updates it as there is not much you have to say different from the UK article. Then a London specific article is created which causes arguments. It tough. I've been trying to update the figures, and it is so confusing, sometimes the government is talking about England and Wales (e.g. ONS), sometimes the UK, let alone the confusion around changing the things included as COVID deaths etc. I'm not sure of the solution. Jopal22 (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Westminster insists that it is an 'equal union'! 25% of this article should go to each nation. OR, remove NHS England references to the correct article (COVID-19 pandemic in England). One of the crucial opening statements should be the differences between each nation, in a clear table. We're dealing with lives here, not the usual election etc! John Jones (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@John Jones: Maybe let's get to what the core concern is here, rather than calling for articles to be created that, as Jopal has hinted, maybe we don't have the (wo)manpower for. You've referred to "lives in danger". Is the concern that deaths are downwards trending in England but not, or not as much, in the other parts of the UK? As a potential corollary, taking the lead again from what Jopal said, which pattern is true of England outside London? Samsara 12:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I find it curious that the main paragraphs you choose to delete concern the British armed forces, even when they are assisting in the Shetland Islands. They doubtless include people from all four nations.

One place where there is undoubtedly English bias is in the column of the statistics table which refers to deaths recorded via the registration services. It currently shows a total of 29,648 but if you add the figures from the National Records of Scotland and the Public Health Agency of Northern Ireland, my total is 32,111 for 24th April. Both of these are quicker off the mark than the ONS for England & Wales so there should be no delay caused by adding them. I am prepared to update these figures but I probably need to consult the editor who updates these figures first. Chris55 (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The danger to people is this: someone reading this article in Scotland is given information about the UK which could be very different to the information pertinent to Scotland etc. The 4 countries have different laws and they are being ignored in this article. There is no chapter about the 4 Governments and their local rules and laws. This article is an England based juggernaut which drives through the diversity of the UK, and the result is a mad mad mess: information pertinent only to England thrown at the other countries. The COVID-19 pandemic in England, ironically has purposely been left on the sideboard by most of you, in your claim that England = the UK. I could therefore follow suit and add everything from the COVID-19 pandemic in Scotland, COVID-19 pandemic in Northern Ireland and COVID-19 pandemic in Wales articles into this article, in order to balance this English colonial attitude. So, there are two options:

1. we copy / paste things relevant only to England from this article to COVID-19 pandemic in England, or

2. I will start copy / paste text from the other 3 countries into this article for it to be more balanced.

If there is another option, let me know; as it stands this articles is a snub to the Celtic nations and government and does not reflect the outside world. John Jones (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Making ultimatums like that is not helpful. Yes there is scope to state Scotland, Wales and NI govs passed emergency laws for the pandemic or announced this that or the other advice but not in the detail that I feel you are hinting at. But ultimately "No 10 has said Mr Johnson is in favour of a UK-wide approach, even if different parts begin to move at slightly different speeds based on the evidence for each nation." Games of the world (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm suggesting a way to make this less biased. No ultimatum in that! Your but not in the detail that I feel you are hinting at is uncalled for; the minor details of England will stay? eg 'the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge gave their support to a Public Health England campaign' - irrelevant to Wales, Ireland and Scotland; or 'a private lawn in the grounds of Kensington Palace which is used for royal helicopter landings, would be used for refueling (sic) the helicopters used by paramedics'.... If they had turned Kensington Palace into a temp hospital then it may have been notable. This is English-centric post-colonial nonsense, which is nothing more than dust in our eyes, where we really should be concentrating on all four nations. Re your last sentence: the devolved governments are able to end or extend lockdown independently of England. Boris may make declarations, but as it stands he has no authority to over-ride them, unless he brushes democracy under the table, of course. Zilch. Even the 23 March lockdown had been agreed by all four leaders prior to his announcement. Please stand aside form Boris / BBC gibberish and get down to the facts. John Jones (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I think your personal feelings are clouding your judgement here. There is clearly a role for a UK COVID-19 article which deals with the overall response. I agree this article is getting too long, and the normal thing to do then is to split off natural sub-articles and keep a summary and link in the main article, as has been done with timeline and testing. It is also appropriate to trim unnecessary detail such as the rubbish about helicopter refuelling on a royal lawn. But we don't build a useful encyclopaedia by arbitrarily putting quotas on content. |→ Spaully   19:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I certainly have strong feelings about the issues involved: keeping articles balanced and well ordered; here, it means placing stuff related to Public Health England, NHS England and activities and decisions related to England in its right place within the redundant article COVID-19 pandemic in England. To do otherwise and equate England to UK would be giving the reader incorrect information, which, in this case is very very dangerous. Yes, I have feelings on the issue and so do many other Wikipedians and readers. John Jones (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Your primary deletions in recent days have been about the British army, which is clearly relevant to a UK article and not specific to a home nation. I will remove the tag on the article unless at least one other person thinks it is indicated as I see no evidence that this is a broadly held view. Please keep up the good work in enhancing and ensuring the article includes broad UK views, I agree that there is a tendency generally for London/English information to predominate due to population and therefore editors. But please also be careful not to be overzealous in your changes or comments which can be disruptive. |→ Spaully   05:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the Systematic bias tag - you have not posted "specific issues that are actionable within the content policies", and started discussion less than 48 hours ago. Tagging this high profile article without engaging in proper discussion and raising specific issues first is not helpful or constructive. As far as I can see from your comments most of your edits are accepted and are improvements to the wording, or adding other perspectives which is good incremental progress. |→ Spaully   06:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting that the article is biased. Relevance depends on the location of the events: was the activity based in Scotland, for example, and not (as one user (see above) mentioned: whether there were Scotspersons in the British army! So if they used a helicopter to carry Covid patients in Scotland, then that information would go on the COVID-19 pandemic in Scotland article. This is usual practice on Misplaced Pages. As it stands, the bias in this article is too much for Misplaced Pages, and I will re-tag the article on Tuesday, if things have not improved. I accept your point that two days of discussion may not have been enough, so I'll wait until then. Now, it would be very easy to ask users from Scotland, NI and Wales whether they agree with this 90% English bias on such a high profile article, and yes, I think I could get "at least one other person" to agree with me. In fact, the bias is so high, I have a feeling that every single user from all 3 nations would like to say their say! So please deal with me here, change the article, or I'll accept your suggestion to ask others to neutralise this article, de-clutter ambiguous England=UK wording, de-colonise and make it acceptable and fair. John Jones (talk) 08:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Your contention that the article should pay equal weight to the four countries ignores the simple fact that over 80% of the UK population is in England and over 90% of Covid-19 infections have been in England. So your headline actually says the balance is about right whatever you may think. Chris55 (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

So it's not an 'equal union of 4 countries! As it stands, it's 92% biased in favour of England, even though there's a seperate article for England. The share should be equal, with all extra stuff placed in the other articles. Secondly, as I say in my opening paragraph, "Misplaced Pages is giving info about one country which is incorrect in the other 3 countries". I tried to address this earlier with one edit (change 'Government response' to 'UK Government response'), clarifying which of the 4 governments the heading 'Government response' referred to. To someone living in Llanbidyn Nodyn, when they hear that term on the radio, day after day, they will know that it refers to the Welsh Government. To you living by the Thames, you will think of the UK Government. Don't take people for granted. Yes, this article is about the UK, and all the diversity, people and governments within it. And as health is devolved, it strengthens the case that we should be very clear in the information we provide our readers. John Jones (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

John, this is not a discussion forum for the issue, it's about the content of the article. I agree with you about the unequal treatment of the countries by the government (having just been reading the leaked review of pandemic preparations from which the 3 non-English nations were entirely excluded) but that has very little to do with the main thrust of this article. Chris55 (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

This certainly is the place to discuss clarity, and adding 'UK' would make it clear to the reader, Chris55. Nothing political about that. The political bit is ignoring other governments and nations, thus endangering the reader with incorrect / vague information.

Here's another example of England-bias. I've just moved the montage of 7 images (File:COVID 19 in England collage 1.jpg) of places in England from the main Infobox, and placed it in the relevant article (COVID-19 pandemic in England). An editor comes along and immediately reverts the edit with a very un-Wikiesque comment "Childish!", and no explanation as to why he or she has reverted my edit. Let's turn this round: if I placed a montage of 7 images of places in Wales in the main infobox, would that be acceptable? There is nothing childish about attempting to ensure that this article is neutral, fair and balanced, and which reflects the covid situation in all countries within the UK. As it stands, this article does not present viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone WP:IMPARTIAL, and it does not fairly represent all significant viewpoints WP:UNDUE. It also contains WP:CONTENTFORKING - the creation of two separate articles all treating the same subject (UK and England). John Jones (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I've skimmed the article and in my opinion 96% is England centric, most of which should be moved to COVID-19 pandemic in England. Wici Rhuthun 1 (talk) 07:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree, for a UK centric page, this is very English orientated. England's population is the largest in the UK, and its outbreak is far worse than the other nations which will inevitably give this page a more English leaning take on current events, but a reshuffle of information to the COVID-19 pandemic in England should be carried out in my opinion. Jxseph14 (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Taking stock

I'm thankful for all those who have contributed positively in this discussion. Good changes have been made, and the country-gap has narrowed. But there still exists a bias, and a great danger to lives. We need to address this. Yesterday Nicola Sturgeon said in response to Johnson's address, ""We mustn't squander progress by easing up too soon or sending mixed messages. People will die unnecessarily." This is what I said here three or four days ago. This article contains mixed messages to our readers. It is unclear, and could cost lives. It needs to change quickly. John Jones (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the article is a mess, and it confuses and it does not adequately differentiate between what is happening in the UK as a whole, and what is happening only in one or other of each of the four home countries. I'd favour removing all content which does not apply equally to all four of the home nations (it could be migrated to the appropriate home country-specific article if it wasn't already there). The we could have just a short single paragraph summary under a header for each of the four home countries with a 'main' template directiong readers to the appropriate articels. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed! Go for it! Wici Rhuthun 1 (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Interesting read for those who still think the UK Government speaks for the UK, in the Guardian:

• In this pandemic, an important lesson: the UK is four nations.

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

Suggested table for the opening

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

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

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

Country	# of deaths	Country population (in millions)	# of deaths per 100,000 population
Northern Ireland	427	1.8	23.7
Scotland	1,811	5.4	33.5
Wales	1,099	3.2	34.3
England	28,467	5.0	62.6
United Kingdom	31,587	67.8	55.7

References

1. "'Huge contrasts' in devolved NHS". BBC News. 28 August 2008. Retrieved 27 July 2014.
2. "NHS now four different systems". BBC News. 2 January 2008. Retrieved 27 July 2014.
3. "Coronavirus (COVID-19) in the UK". GOV.UK. Retrieved 10 May 2020.
4. "Coronavirus (COVID-19) in the UK". GOV.UK Coronavirus (COVID-19) cases in the UK. UK Crown. Retrieved 28 April 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

@John Jones, AlwynapHuw, Llywelyn2000, Blogdroed, and Defacto: I've deleted the ref columns and used stats from one source: GOV.UK. This table is good to go. Wici Rhuthun 1 (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Diolch! John Jones (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Saw this has been added to the 4 country articles. The population of England is wrong. Jopal22 (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Yesterday's figure! However the Infobox number of deaths on the COVID-19 pandemic in England article is frozen as it was 3 days ago at 27,432. John Jones (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The above table illustrates the opening paragraph of the article: . England and Wales are the UK countries with the highest recorded death rate per capita, while Northern Ireland has the lowest per capita. The selection of countries are made by www.GOV.UK. All data come from one place: www.GOV.UK. The source (www.GOV.UK) is dependable and the table should be included in the article. Why is this table being censored by one editor? Readers have the right to view this! Transparancy please! This is part of the bias in this article = pro England; hiding information on the other nations. How do I take this matter further to global Wikipedians, please? @Jimbo: please read 90% England centric 10% other nations (above). I also believe that there are editors either paid or connected to the UK Government or a body such as Public Health England to suppress information on other nations. John Jones (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@John Jones: this table is controversial and gives undue weight to one comparison measure and does not balance the table with the views that it is flawed. But let's not have two discussions about it on the go at once, the one at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in England can cover it. Also, please read WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOTBATTLE and WP:AGF. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

All businesses closed

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

It would be great if this article could give clarity on what the government has said to businesses in an advisory capacity, and what enforceable measures have been put in place. I recognise it's hard to find good sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.245.46 (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It would help if you could mention under which subheading the part you are mentioning is, so it's easier for us to find. Rotation4020 (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Lifting lockdown

Games of the world, to avoid edit-warring, please, discuss your proposed changes here. I've asked you a few times in edit summaries to discuss here before repeatedly removing information from the article. The BBC reference you appear to favour gives little detail about who said what. What's your objection to attribution to the Counsel General of Wales, and the First Minister of Scotland, of the legal restrictions that exist in those two countries when travelling from England? Capewearer (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Given that it is a long page. A very long page by anyone's standards, do we really need a quote (I'm paraphrasing) if you come here you'll get fined when many people have stated that you shouldn't go to x, hence it is a better article as it gives more weight to the point. Plus as I said Sturgen said the same thing, so I don't see why we need to highlight a rather trivial point, with a quote, which the only difference I can see is saying you will get fined, which I've edited it to for the moment. In addition as I said previously the Jennick quote plus that driving quote really did look like a C&P out of the BBC article. But as I also said the Jennick quote is weird and switches subjects where it was and should not be in the article as it does not address any concerns that the Welsh or Scotts had made at the time and just reiterated what had been said all day. For same reason I find Sturgen's quote jarring and frankly I find her choice of words to be weird and again don't really see anything new or important to the article and find it weird. If I was to quote anything, I would quote Sturgon talking about the importance to state which measures are for which areas. For me quotes have to be unique and have value not just in the article for the sake of it or to push a POV that is not unique or can be adequately communicated without the quote. Games of the world (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Please WP:Assume good faith of your fellow editors before accusing them of POV pushing. A head of government bluntly warning that people may die has a quite different meaning to mentioning that unnamed officials "warned against", which could mean a legal warning rather than a warning of risk to life. I agree about the Jenrick quote, and didn't intentionally re-add it. 17:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of that in my essay above. Unnamed officials happens to be police forces, through high level members and academics, just because I choose not to name them, does not make them any less significant or less worthy than an MP. Games of the world (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:UNDUE and BALASP as to why that quote, Strugen's and certainly the mention of a care home manager that you also insist on having and a supplier quote are inappropriate, give undue weight and balance to an arguement. Games of the world (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Games of the world, you have reverted my edits twice , when I tried to correct the order of the reactions to Johnson's speech on 10 May. All of the references are from after the speech. By grouping them with the sentence about the leak, it gives the impression that the leak was reponsible for the reactions. What's wrong with putting the reactions in date order? Capewearer (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It does not give that impression what so ever. The article clearly does not state that following the speech xyz happened, so you're jumping to a conclusion that is not there to be made. To take your view point, all apart from the NI reaction were from BEFORE the speech on Sunday. Also it is not good English, (sentence and paragraph construction) to jump from one subject to another and back and frankly ended up being a jumbled mess which is really hard for any reader to understand. The way it was and is currently, is absolutely fine and does not give any dodgy impression in regards to when something happened may or may not have happened as it does not give a timestamp so to speak on the reactions. Games of the world (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's get some other editors' views on this. Capewearer (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Subheadings for "Research" section?

Hi all, is there a rationale for the lack of subheadings in the Research and innovation section? MassiveEartha (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Template:U:MassiveEartha Someone created the section with about four or five different things. Clearly were not expecting it to be expanded in a proper way. If you can think of appropriate titles, please add them. Games of the world (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

UK Covid-19 Registration stats

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

@Chris55:, I noticed the most recent set of ONS deaths are out here on the tab 'Covid-19 - E&W comparisons' column E. Do you want to add them to the data that you have and update the table? Greg321 (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, well done Greg! I looked this morning and couldn't find the complete spreadsheet at all. (I note this page says "Corrections".) I've now got all the data: the NI figures are getting harder to track down but I've finally found the PDF on the NISRA site, so I can do it. The NRS figures are published on Wednesday but last week's covered up to 3 May. Chris55 (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chris55: Brilliant. I am planning to update the whole of the cases side of the table as this has been lost since the government changed how it presented the data. So hopefully we can get the table looking sensible again. Greg321 (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it was harder than I thought since ONS had found a few new very early cases so that all the cumulative totals were wrong; and more. But I do think that table is over-complicated. Wouldn't the English regions data be better moved over to the England Covid pages (it's a nighmare on a mobile)? Perhaps I should raise this on the template page talk. Chris55 (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chris55: Yes, lets put it on there, it is a mess at the moment. I think @Jopal22: and @TedEdwards: will have opinions on it too. Greg321 (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes there are a few issues. Updating ONS always means adding the separate E&W, Scotland, and NI together and updating all the figures even the ones already populated. I find I can just paste the numbers using visual editing mode from "Numbers" (the Mac equivalent of Excel), but can't do the same using Excel! The hospitalised deaths figures is annoying as the government doesn't tweet these anymore and so there is no permanent reference (and if we don't pick up a days number it is hard to retrospectively find it), plus unaware editors populate the graph below with the hospitalised+other death figures not realising it is inconsistent. Given we have separate England/Wales/Scotland/NI articles I would have no issue moving the English region columns to the England page. TBH I don't understand the figures being shown here, and don't know what the numbers in brackets mean. I would prefer we show the ONS deaths by country (E/W/S/NI) myself, and think testing is a legacy of the articles start when testing was more indicative than deaths. Jopal22 (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

FWIW I would update and backdate the deaths bar chart with the figures "in all settings" that the government is currently publishing, but with a footnote pointing out the discrepancy between these figures and ONS figures which clearly expose the existence of untested "excess deaths" that the daily government figures are omitting. Viewfinder (talk)

Yeah I get why you say that, but I think hospital deaths are a more reliable and consistent view to understand the virus's progress (as all deaths does not rely on a positive test result). Happy to go with the consensus. Jopal22 (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully clear what I've done and I haven't messed it all up. Greg321 (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

While I have no problem with the purpose of this edit, I don't think for stats for the 4 nations which are listed by date of reporting (rather than date of occurrence) should be added together, due to different reporting times etc. in the 4 nations, and instead to determine the cumulative totals, the government website should be used. Numbers previously on the government website can be found here. --TedEdwards 17:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The English data isn't available on the old basis anymore (date of reporting Vs current data which is based on the date of test) so I don't think we can keep the table up to date using the old data. Can we get the non-english data on the same new basis? Greg321 (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chris55:, @Jopal22: and @TedEdwards: Given we can't get the cases data on a consistent basis across the UK, why don't we just remove the cases by country numbers? We can have a total cases based on the numbers published each day. Greg321 (talk) 07:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

A big improvement so far. I think the country cases can be done. Scotland (https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-trends-in-daily-data/) has been far more consistent. The data for Wales is there but only broken down seemingly to the village level. I could update that but I'm not sure about keeping it up. But Northern Ireland seems to have given in to Westminster and I can't find the daily totals.

One query at the moment: you've put N/A for the last row in the cumulative column, but isn't that the point of the dual heading for that column (which is now the wrong way round at the bottom)? i.e. just repeat the final cumulative figure. Chris55 (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Post-expand include size exceeded.

As of this revision, the post-expand include size has been exceeded. (templates at the bottom of the article are breaking and are not being displayed). I ask that all editors consider removing unnecessary templates from the article so that it remains fully functional. One way to do this is by removing excess references. thanks. Mgasparin (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, a snapshot of how things stand today would be worthwhile

Please feel free to add to this table, before I add it to the main article. Any suggestions etc, please discuss here.

I think maybe a couple of days should be enough.

As the whole of this article is about health, which is devolved to the 4 nations, this is critical so that we can start returning to a balanced, less biased article which looks at all 4 nations not just England=UK . John Jones (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This table is nonsense and should not be added. Games of the world (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Dickie, Mure (11 May 2020). "Wales to 'police' border as devolved nations remind Johnson England is not the UK". Nikkei Inc. Financial Times. Retrieved 15 May 2020.
2. "Coronavirus: 'Do not drive from England to Wales to exercise'". BBC. BBC. Retrieved 15 May 2020.
3. Long, Matilda (10 May 2020). "'Do not drive to Wales': MP tells English to stay away as UK coronavirus lockdown rules diverge". uk.finance. uk.finance. Retrieved 15 May 2020.
4. "Coronavirus: How Wales' approach differs from England". BBC. 31 March 2020. Retrieved 15 May 2020.
5. Long, Matilda (10 May 2020). "'Do not drive to Wales': MP tells English to stay away as UK coronavirus lockdown rules diverge". uk.finance. uk.finance. Retrieved 15 May 2020.

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Disaster management articles
• Mid-importance Disaster management articles
• C-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• C-Class pulmonology articles
• Unknown-importance pulmonology articles
• Pulmonology task force articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• C-Class United Kingdom articles
• Mid-importance United Kingdom articles
• WikiProject United Kingdom articles
• C-Class virus articles
• Low-importance virus articles
• WikiProject Viruses articles
• C-Class COVID-19 articles
• Mid-importance COVID-19 articles
• WikiProject COVID-19 articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English