Talk:2020 dengue outbreak in Singapore

Note on statistics about increase in dengue cases attributed to COVID-19 circuit breaker

A note for future readers and editors.

The 1 Oct 2020 commentary article in CNA states: "We found almost 50 per cent more infections during the circuit breaker period than there should have been based on our modelling." However, the actual research paper instead gives "around a 37.2% increase (95% CI, 19.9%–49.8%) from expected baseline levels attributable to [the circuit breaker]". The figure of "almost 50%" looks likely to have been derived from the "49.8%" in the confidence interval, which is not an appropriate interpretation. Considering Prof. Cook who wrote the commentary is also an author on the research paper, it is more probable that the mistake was introduced by editorial staff. Compare to Asian Scientist which correctly reports "a 37 percent increase".

"37.2%" is the correct figure, do not use "50%" as cited in CNA. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a statistical analysis of Singapore's 2020 dengue outbreak found its COVID-19 lockdown restrictions responsible for a 37% increase in dengue fever infections?
  Source: link "Increased Dengue Transmissions in Singapore Attributable to SARS-CoV-2 [lockdown] measures" / "difference-in-difference identification strategy was used" / "around a 37.2% increase (95% CI, 19.9%–49.8%) from expected baseline levels attributable to [the lockdown]"
  • ALT1: ... that a statistical analysis found COVID-19 lockdown restrictions in Singapore responsible for a 37% increase in dengue fever cases, worsening its 2020 dengue outbreak? Source: ditto
  • ALT2: ... that COVID-19 lockdown restrictions in Singapore worsened its 2020 dengue outbreak, causing 37% more infections than statistical analysis shows would have otherwise occurred? Source: ditto
  • Reviewed: (exempt)

Created by 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: The article looks great, well sourced and no POV issues that I can see. It was new enough at the time of nomination and definitely meets the length requirements. qpq is not needed since the IP editor hasn't had any other DYK credits yet. The hook is cited to a very reliable medical journal and is interesting. All 3 versions seem equally accurate and are within the character limit, so I'll leave the choice up to the promoter. I'd say this one's ready to go! BuySomeApples (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @BuySomeApples for the review! Could you please explain the reasoning behind removing around half of the wikilinks from the hooks? Based on examples, I'd figured up to five was a pretty reasonable number of links to include. Was it objectionable to put difference in differences in a piped link behind "statistical analysis"? I'd wanted to include that because I felt the technique applied was itself interesting; enabling a sort of "opportunistic" experiment born out of circumstances (vs a deliberately conducted trial). Or, if that stats stuff is "too technical" for a general audience, then the hook can be streamlined significantly, e.g. below. Cheers, — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• ALT3: ... that COVID-19 lockdown restrictions caused a 37% increase in dengue fever infections in Singapore's 2020 dengue outbreak?

Hi! I mostly removed them to avoid overlinking, but after your explanation, I reinserted the piped link for statistical analysis. I'm just leaving out some of the wikilinks for things like Singapore, so that readers focus on the main bold link. I like the streamlined hook as well! Thank you for adding that. I think the promoters try to get a balance of long and short hooks on the front page, so I'll let them decide which one to use. BuySomeApples (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good! Thanks again, —2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

No problem! BuySomeApples (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)