Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in New York (state)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Confirmed Cases in Brooklyn & Queens not shown on Map

FYI: There are confirmed cases in the boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/brooklyn-sees-1st-coronavirus-cases-as-tri-state-total-surges-136-in-3-days-some-schools-close/2317966/

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/tri-state-covid-19-cases-nearly-double-over-weekend-ny-under-state-of-emergency/2316857/

50.198.133.197 (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

New Rochelle

---Another Believer (Talk) 00:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Economic impact

---Another Believer (Talk) 00:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Monroe County

https://www.rochesterfirst.com/news/local-news/1st-confirmed-case-of-covid-19-coronavirus-in-monroe-county/ There is now a case in Monroe County (Rochester), can someone edit the map?

Erie County

Erie county also should be added now because there are now 3 cases. RobertCars824 (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject COVID-19

I've created WikiProject COVID-19 as a temporary or permanent WikiProject and invite editors to use this space for discussing ways to improve coverage of the ongoing 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Please bring your ideas to the project/talk page. Stay safe, ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Wyoming and Allegheny County have at least a case

Add to map? RobertCars824 (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Deaths over time illegible

The tiny sliver of the graph that shows deaths over time is basically invisible. Can we also have this information in text form? It would be more useful, for example, than the percentage increase column, since we can easily ascertain the percentage increase from the previous column giving absolute numbers.

"Origin" parameter in infobox

I've noticed that the origin parameter in the inbox has been edited a lot over the last couple days -- going from "Wuhan via Iran" to "Wuhan" to "Iran" &c. Given that it is not clear that the cases in the city had a single source, I don't think this parameter is useful at all. The first diagnosed case in the state was likely acquired in Iran, but it looks like there were a lot of cases unrelated to this initial case & acquired in unknown locations. I also don't think that putting the origin as "Wuhan" is particularly informative as the virus isn't known to have come directly from China to New York State. So in my opinion, since the infections in New York State likely arrived from multiple places, we should just omit this parameter. Philepitta (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Niagara County

I added it in but it only shows if logged in. Is there a reason it wasn't included? It definitely is a NY county. Lycurgus (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

OK was caching or something. Lycurgus (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
https://buffalonews.com/2020/03/21/niagara-countys-five-new-covid-19-cases-include-two-young-adults-one-in-intensive-care/ confirms nine cases, somebody bulk updated the table and dropped it back to 6. Lycurgus (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Infobox recoveries count for checking

See User talk:2601:647:C802:CDE0:B48C:A77A:F3D0:2280 and double-check the edit. The user's edit at the Poland page was based on a rumour that's circulating. Boud (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

As of [date] there were [this many] deaths

We don't need the year, right? I fixed the template and it works, so as long as the month and day are kept updated, things should be fine.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Collapse table?

I propose we collapse the "New York Counties under a state of emergency" table here by default. I doubt too many readers are specifically interested in these dates, and the table just adds a lot of white space. Can we just let editors uncollapse if they want to learn more? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Was thinking same thing, go ahead. Also the new daily percent change table and county stats (which is a hodgepodge of current and out of date) could be side by side, the whole statistics § maybe moved up, as they're the main active content of interest. Lycurgus (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Is there a way to see the total number of cases increase in New York City?

I looked at the number of cases for the increase each day for the state, but that's a very large area. In a city this size, the increase in the number of cases is a big concern.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes I think this would be very beneficial for the article as NYC-specific cases are worth mentioning. If there is a data somewhere I could create the template for it. There is a page dedicated for NY metropolitan area cases but there is not much information there at this moment.SunDawn (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I created a table tracking confirmed cases over time for three values: Rest of State (Other than NYC), New York City, and Statewide, along with the day-to-day percentage change, based on an Excel spreadsheet I was maintaining based on Governor Cuomo's daily briefings. A few dates are still missing citations, and the table could use some formatting enhancements, but I figured it would be a good starting point at least. Cg-realms (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Arrival date: March 1 or February 25?

The case, "a 39-year-old woman health care worker who lived in Manhattan", was someone who "returned from Iran on February 25 and had no symptoms at the time." Since we can assume she became infected either on the plane or in Iran, and since we know "The incubation period for COVID-19 is thought to be within 14 days following exposure, with most cases occurring approximately four to five days after exposure" (Feb 25 to March 1 is 5 days), should we list the arrival date as the date of first diagnosis, or the date the first infection actually arrived in the state? I'm leaning towards the latter, as "arrival" would imply that there need not be knowledge it was there. Including both dates in the infobox would highlight the time difference between having infections and knowing there are infections, which is one of the keys to why this virus has spread so quickly without being stopped. What do other editors think? Is the date of diagnosis what is typically used in epidemiology? TheNavigatrr (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Here you definitely want to distinguish confirmed by testing vs actual transmission. I think I may have had it the second week of Feb by community transmission at a gym and I'm in far upstate. Huffpost and others are acknowledging that there likely were such cases. It's a matter of plain reasoning rather than epidemiology although even the latter assigns community transmission when there is no other explanation. Also I think in my case incubation was about 2 days which is the low end of the range, it's 2-8 iirc. Since this country has been famously slow to test, even to this moment, this distinction is important.
Also since the first cases began to be diagnosed at the beginning of March and besides the mentioned case and similar most of the NYS cases are community or at least in country transmission, common sense says that the actual arrival must have been somewhat before mid February. NY isn't SD or WY, it's well connected with the rest of the planet from NYC. Lycurgus (talk) 09:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
However the actual arrival won't even be inferrable until there's an antibody test and some sort of retrospective study is done, so for now reporting the first confirmed and noting that community was likely already present (at an uncertain date) seems the right course. Lycurgus (talk) 09:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
The summary box should not say arrival date "March 1, 2020". This is misleading (perhaps dangerously so). Clearly it arrived by February -- which is indisputably established by the publicly released case timelines. Further, anecdotally, anyone living in Midtown Manhattan who was paying attention began to first observe widespread coughing (and even gasps for air) around March 4th to March 6th. Obviously it was here in February. It is likely that widespread infections began in Manhattan in the last few days of February (perhaps sooner). Dr. Deborah Birx admitted a few days ago that we had widespread NYC inflections for WEEKS before the City shutdown in mid March 2020. 209.10.186.5 (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
The problem is with "Arrival Date" which is erroneously being applied to "First Confirmed". Just saw that Iceland has tested like 3.5% of their population and half of the positives are completely asymptomatic. So live with the misnomer and continue to apply the First Confirmed facts to it or change the template. Lycurgus (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
We should change the label "Arrival Date" or change the date that states "March 1, 2020". Stating that the Arrival Date is March 1, 2020 is clearly inaccurate. The reality is that we'll never know the exact arrival date. 209.10.186.5 (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Australia has "First Outbreak" with value "Unknown" which is probably the case here as well but it clashes semantically with "Arrival" so you can't have both. Lycurgus (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I see that although there are some differences in opinion, everyone here is open to the date being changed to some date in February (which would be the earliest known date someone who turned out to be infected traveled to the state). Therefore I am making a Wikipedia:Bold edit and changing the date to Feb. 22, which is the earliest date I can find. This New York Times article clearly says "The man became ill on Feb. 22 and was admitted to a hospital in Westchester on Feb. 27., according to Dr. Demetre C. Daskalakis, the deputy commissioner for disease control at New York City’s Department of Health." This refers to the lawyer who spread the virus to 28 other people. Feb. 22 is even conservative, since it's the first date he showed symptoms, so it should be seen as a fair compromise between some earlier date and March 1. TheNavigatrr (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Central Park turned into a hospital?

I was listening to the radio and on the news I heard Central Park was being turned into a hospital. Nothing in this article about it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

See 2020 coronavirus pandemic in New York City#Public health Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add one case for Yates County

Hi, all, On March 29th, Yates County announced its first positive test. I tried to add it to the county table but messed up the formatting. Here's the source: https://www.whec.com/coronavirus/yates-county-confirms-first-covid-19-case/5687181/. Would someone please add it? DBlomgren (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Daniel Case (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Article title

This article should be retitled. I have two concerns: one is the unneeded use of the parenthetical, which is generally used to disambiguate two article titles for things of the same proper name. However, "2020 coronavirus pandemic in New York" is not a proper name, and we can say "the State of New York" rather than go for the parenthetical. The other concern is that, as phrased, it makes it sound like there's a pandemic within the state (and this is aggravated by the usage in the opening sentence.) However, you cannot have a pandemic that is within one state, as pandemic is defined as "prevalent over a whole country or the world." So "The State of New York in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic" would be more correct, but I'm certainly open to other suggestions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The current title seems consistent with similar articles about the state. Just peek around Category:New York (state)-related lists. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@NatGertler: The use of the parenthetical disambiguator for references to the state at least in article and category names both here and on Commons is, I seem to recall, the result of consensus from a discussion a couple of years ago that I can't find a link to at the moment (The same consensus distinguishes article and category titles referring to the city alone by requiring the use of "New York City"). So we can't change it.

I grant that those of us who live here don't feel this is necessary but ... we're not the only ones whose opinion matters, and this takes into consideration that there's a lot of people from outside the US who aren't aware that there are two distinct entities, or that the city is part of the much larger state (in a lot of foreign countries, larger cities (and their metropolitan areas) are usually a single top-level subdivision à la Greater London, Greater Manchester and Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai and Chongqing).

We are not the only residents of a top-level subdivision in the world with this problem ... how would you like to live in a state with the same name as both your country and its capital city? Daniel Case (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Addendum:@NatGertler: The key discussion seems to be this one. Daniel Case (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The added columns in the statistics §

These were added back by the relatively new editor. Because mediawiki doesn't have either arithmetic or cell referencing capabilities (sfaik without an extension not present in public wikis), these columns introduced both a haphazard appearance due to the gaps, an onerous updating task to manually update each column as editors other than the one that introduced them are likely to ignore them, and thus these columns are likely to be full of nothing but fake news. If they are to be kept the most efficient way to maintain them is to have a matching spreadsheet which is posted on the back matter here and which can be used as indicated in the wiki table documentation. Lycurgus (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Daily new cases chart

To complement the graph of total cases, I think it would be very helpful in understanding the progress of the epidemic to have a chart of the number of new cases per day. I have been searching for those numbers but haven't had any luck. If someone with more powerful Google-fu than I can come up with them, it would be a very nice contribution.

Also overlay the number of tests performed per day. I believe we might have reached a bottleneck of testing capacity, or might very soon and that is an important insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josecansecoder (talk • contribs) 02:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking of something similar to the chart given at

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Fcases-in-us.html

under the heading "COVID-19 cases in the United States by date of illness onset", about half-way down the page - below the map.

I'm crossing my fingers and continuing to search.

Poihths (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

In my view there are 3 numbers which are vital:
  • Amount of deaths per day
  • Amount of hospital admissions per day
  • Amount of ICU admissions per day
Other data, while interesting, is going to be a lot less informative. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Possible errors

What are the real numbers for NYC for March 31? NYC Health says 40,900 cases not 43,000+ cases written in the article https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/imm/covid-19-daily-data-summary.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justats (talk • contribs) 17:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks like there is a missing digit in the stats for March 12 and March 15. Avt tor (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Statistics for NYC boroughs

The statistics table currently aggregates the five city boroughs (each being a county) into a single row, for all of NYC. The source data (from https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en) seems to be the cause. Would it make sense to switch to a new source, namely of official NY Government page? It's here: https://covid19tracker.health.ny.gov/views/NYS-COVID19-Tracker/NYSDOHCOVID-19Tracker-TableView?%3Aembed=yes&%3Atoolbar=no&%3Atabs=n (with death cases listed here: https://covid19tracker.health.ny.gov/views/NYS-COVID19-Tracker/NYSDOHCOVID-19Tracker-Fatalities?%3Aembed=yes&%3Atoolbar=no&%3Atabs=n). This seems to be more official, more up-to-date, and include the much-needed borough breakdown. Tal Cohen (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The city article does have that breakdown, albeit as a pie graph ... perhaps we should refer people there. Daniel Case (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Daily changes

To get daily changes: 

curl --silent 'https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nytimes/covid-19-data/master/us-states.csv' | gawk -F, 'BEGIN{cases=0;deaths=0} (NR==1) {print} ($2=="New York") { ccases=$4; cdeaths=$5; printf("%s,%s,%s,%s,%s\n", $1, $2, $3, ccases-cases, cdeaths-deaths); cases=ccases; deaths=cdeaths; }'

Output: 

2020-03-01,New York,36,1,0
2020-03-02,New York,36,0,0
2020-03-03,New York,36,1,0
2020-03-04,New York,36,9,0
2020-03-05,New York,36,11,0
2020-03-06,New York,36,22,0
2020-03-07,New York,36,45,0
2020-03-08,New York,36,17,0
2020-03-09,New York,36,36,0
2020-03-10,New York,36,31,0
2020-03-11,New York,36,44,0
2020-03-12,New York,36,109,0
2020-03-13,New York,36,95,0
2020-03-14,New York,36,189,2
2020-03-15,New York,36,122,4
2020-03-16,New York,36,218,4
2020-03-17,New York,36,424,7
2020-03-18,New York,36,1008,10
2020-03-19,New York,36,1770,3
2020-03-20,New York,36,2950,27
2020-03-21,New York,36,3254,23
2020-03-22,New York,36,4812,42
2020-03-23,New York,36,5707,37
2020-03-24,New York,36,4790,59
2020-03-25,New York,36,7401,107
2020-03-26,New York,36,5921,107
2020-03-27,New York,36,5648,103
2020-03-28,New York,36,8728,247
2020-03-29,New York,36,6205,183
2020-03-30,New York,36,7606,259
2020-03-31,New York,36,8658,326
2020-04-01,New York,36,8057,391
2020-04-02,New York,36,8881,712
2020-04-03,New York,36,10100,282
2020-04-04,New York,36,12126,633
2020-04-05,New York,36,7915,593
2020-04-06,New York,36,7792,597
2020-04-07,New York,36,9378,805
2020-04-08,New York,36,9320,705
2020-04-09,New York,36,10536,799
2020-04-10,New York,36,10575,777
2020-04-11,New York,36,9946,783
2020-04-12,New York,36,8236,758
2020-04-13,New York,36,6337,671
2020-04-14,New York,36,7177,778
2020-04-15,New York,36,11571,752
2020-04-16,New York,36,8505,606
2020-04-17,New York,36,7358,630
2020-04-18,New York,36,7121,540
2020-04-19,New York,36,6054,507
2020-04-20,New York,36,4726,478

This uses this dataset from the new york times: https://github.com/nytimes/covid-19-data

Which has two csvs:

Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Charts

## DATE SEQEUNCE
curl --silent 'https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nytimes/covid-19-data/master/us-states.csv' | gawk -F, 'BEGIN{cases=0;deaths=0} (NR==1) {print} ($2=="New York") { ccases=$4; cdeaths=$5; printf("%s,%s,%s,%s,%s\n", $1, $2, $3, ccases-cases, cdeaths-deaths); cases=ccases; deaths=cdeaths; }' | gawk -F, '(NR>2){ printf":" }(NR>1){ printf("%s", (NR == 2 ? $1 : "")) } END{ print $1 }'
## CASE SEQUENCE
curl --silent 'https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nytimes/covid-19-data/master/us-states.csv' | gawk -F, 'BEGIN{cases=0;deaths=0} (NR==1) {print} ($2=="New York") { ccases=$4; cdeaths=$5; printf("%s,%s,%s,%s,%s\n", $1, $2, $3, ccases-cases, cdeaths-deaths); cases=ccases; deaths=cdeaths; }' | gawk -F, '(NR>2){ printf":" }(NR>1){ printf("%s", $4) } END{ print "" }'
## DEATH SEQUENCE
curl --silent 'https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nytimes/covid-19-data/master/us-states.csv' | gawk -F, 'BEGIN{cases=0;deaths=0} (NR==1) {print} ($2=="New York") { ccases=$4; cdeaths=$5; printf("%s,%s,%s,%s,%s\n", $1, $2, $3, ccases-cases, cdeaths-deaths); cases=ccases; deaths=cdeaths; }' | gawk -F, '(NR>2){ printf":" }(NR>1){ printf("%s", $5) } END{ print "" }'


New cases per day

2,500
5,000
7,500
10,000
12,500
15,000
2020-03-01
2020-04-22

New deaths per day

100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2020-03-01
2020-04-22

Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Number of cases in NY State here are lower than Cases in NY City page!

For example, on March 14, this article lists 613 cases in NY state, meanwhile the NY city page lists 1931 cases for same day. Something is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennethma (talk • contribs) 18:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

How many deaths? Most articles say 13,000 not 17,000

I wonder if our article is incorrect. Numerous news agencies have posted the same article, from The Associated Press.


BY JENNIFER PELTZ AND ANTHONY IZAGUIRRE THE ASSOCIATED PRESS (TIME Magazine) 

  Nearly 13,000 New Yorkers in all have died since the state’s first coronavirus case was reported March 1, the governor said. The state total doesn’t include more than 4,000 New York City deaths that were blamed on the virus on death certificates but weren’t confirmed by a lab test. https://time.com/5823764/new-york-coronavirus-deaths/

Peter K Burian (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's a good article explaining the issue[1]. Basically, on April 14th the CDC updated the recommended criteria for inclusion of reported deaths to include some patients who were, for example, known to be symptomatic, examined by a doctor, and who's death certificate listed COVID-19 as a cause but were not tested. Most stated complied with the new guidelines, but the NY Health Dept decided to instead list them separately as 'probable covid related deaths'. For consistency, any statistics based on 'official' or CDC recommended guidelines should include the additional deaths. This issue has since grown in significance as NY's 'probable' number continues to grow. This is likely related to reports that new admissions are increasingly further along in the disease's progression (people are waiting longer before admitting themselves) and the increase in deceased who were found at home (people not admitting themselves). Presumably this is due to the overflow of both non-critical and ICU patients.[2] Thummper (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

by age group

can we have cases by age group and death by age group? Jackzhp (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you suggest a source with timeline data of infections / deaths by age groups? I haven't seen any. Thummper (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Police and crime

Does anyone have suggestions on how to improve this section while keeping it relatively short? Also, static data source sought. The issue is that the section describes all crime in NY as being dropped, however, within NYC, Murder, Robbery and Grand Theft Auto are all through the roof. Murder, for instance, is up 100% this last week over 2019, more than 50% over the last 28 days. That's NYC, not the state, but I haven't found any reference-worthy stats for the state on this. Here's what I'm looking at: Some crime up, some down (NYC)[3][4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thummper (talk • contribs) 06:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/us-data/
  2. ^ https://nypost.com/2020/04/16/icus-under-strain-as-nycs-coronavirus-patients-are-sicker-than-ever/
  3. ^ https://compstat.nypdonline.org/2e5c3f4b-85c1-4635-83c6-22b27fe7c75c/view/89
  4. ^ https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/coronavirus-hit-new-york-slammed-by-crime-wave

Statistics Table

I have taken a bold approach and removed the statistics table and replaced it with a template that contains the same data, if not more. This includes the references that backup the data specified in the article table. This trims over 14k characters from the article and allows the data to be moved around in the article if a statistics section is no longer needed. I understand that people like to "own" tables as they dedicate so much time in maintaining them, however this template functions the same as a table but it is just in another location. It can be easily modified by clicking on the V-T-E button in the template table. — Mr Xaero ☎️ 03:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

TheNavigatrr, as per your comment on my talk page (which should have instead been here), I have taken the data directly (as of 2020-05-04 14:53 UTC)from the table on this page and placed it into the template. While doing so, I made a change to the population numbers as I was unable to locate where those 2018 population numbers originated from as they are clearly not in any of the cited references in that table. These population numbers have been updated using New York State's Annual Population Estimates for 2019, which I have also included a reference to. As to the density information, that should included in another table which I will be adding later. — Mr Xaero ☎️ 13:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
On a side note, the values that you have for the recovery data for NYC actually the five county/boroughs was not found within any of the references that were listed in the article. I have changed those values to "–" until proper citable references can be made. — Mr Xaero ☎️ 14:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Merge discussions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was: merge all to this article. Capewearer (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

2020 coronavirus pandemic in Erie County, New York

2020 coronavirus pandemic in Monroe County, New York

2020 coronavirus pandemic in Dutchess County, New York

2020 coronavirus pandemic in Ulster County, New York

I also note that the Merge from request by @Csgir: was for the 4 articles above, but the same should also apply to the following:
* 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Nassau County, New York
* 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Orange County, New York
* 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Rockland County, New York
* 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Suffolk County, New York
* 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Westchester County, New York
* 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Albany County, New York
* 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Columbia County, New York
* 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Genesee County, New York
* 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Madison County, New York
* 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Niagara County, New York
* 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Oneida County, New York
* 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Onondaga County, New York
* 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Putnam County, New York
* 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Rensselaer County, New York
* 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Saratoga County, New York
* 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Schenectady County, New York
* 2020 coronavirus pandemic in St. Lawrence County, New York
* 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Steuben County, New York
* 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Sullivan County, New York
* 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Warren County, New York
  • Support: this can easily be accommodated within the State article, and do not need specifically to drop down to a county by county level. Information exists at this level, but that doesn't mean a separate article is warranted. I recommend that these additional country-level articles get merged into this overall one for New York State. Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
This now includes a new article for 15 additional counties for which new stand-alone articles have very recently been created. Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
@Matilda Maniac: I went ahead and removed the merge request after seeing the list of county-wise articles on the main New York page. I support the merge personally but since so many articles existed already for the counties, I assumed there was a consensus and removed the merge notice from the pages I added. Csgir (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I will say, though, there's a difference between the counties with just a few confirmed cases and those with tens of thousands. ---Another Believer (Talk) 12:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Counties outside New York City may range from the five-digit thousands in Westchester (here in Orange. I'm in the middle of 8,000+ cases, more than a few states) to the three in Hamilton (a nice little bubble that Cuomo should strongly consider being the first to reopen since access to it can be easily controlled). But unless someone demonstrates that the conditions in a particular county are such that discussing them here would take up enough space to justify a separate article, I don't see the need for separate articles. Daniel Case (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: the information can be both on the state and county level Wikipedia pages, it's important to remember that some people might only want to read the information for that specific county and the county pages could grow from around 5 sentences and 4 sources to the double in the future and as time goes on the number of cases in these counties will grow and therefore more restrictions and news might come on. I suggest keeping those articles as they are while adding additional information on the state wide page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontier Place (talk • contribs)
I can't tell who wrote this (if it's Frontier Place, this needs to be reformatted so it does not look like a separate !vote) but "as time goes on the number of cases in these counties will grow and therefore more restrictions and news might come on" sounds very much like crystal-ball gazing. Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Addendum: Yes, it is by Frontier Place. Duly noting. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: As User:Another Believer pointed out, there are counties with tens of thousands of cases which is more than a majority of US states also there are articles about territories in the world with only a few cases. Those articles should not be merged since it's not necessary to remove those articles. (talk) 09:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontier Place (talk • contribs)
I don't think the volume of cases alone should be the determinant of whether a separate article is necessary (unless, maybe, you have a large top-level subdivision unique for having no cases when every one other one in its country does). The question is, is there something distinct and different about the pandemic or subdivision that warrants a separate article? In New York we have the city, which has special governmental powers unique to it within the state that allow it to take actions different from those the state has. But I fail to see what is, at this point, unique about each and every county in the state that would necessitate a separate article. Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: For now, populate, maintain, and interlink all of them in the main article and the individual ones simultaneously. People look for their own specific info, and as others have pointed out, there is extreme variance geographically. Information comprehension can be difficult when it is surrounded by things only tangentially related to yourself. Merge them later if necessary, redundancy is beneficial right now. ProjectsEditArticles (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC) — ProjectsEditArticles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The only variance I see is in the numbers. The rest of your comments suggest that Wikipedia is somehow part of some sort of officially coordinated response and that should take precedence over our article-creation policies. We're not. Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Given how many people are sick in those counties (Erie County, for example, has more sick people than fourteen states), they should keep their own pages. It doesn't help that the support voters are so desperate they're selfishly trying to get Oppose voters disqualified.69.123.99.227 (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
It's not a vote, we're not voters, and WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. It also doesn't help when editors who oppose a merge resort to tactics like attempting to remove comments posted by other editors. Capewearer (talk) 06:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I would just like to add that Nassau County has more confirmed cases than 43 US states and 5 territories. Also, Nassau County has more cases than 211 countries in the world, which all have a Wikipedia page that are not up for deletion. Could we please leave those articles alone and add all the information from them into the main New York page? Frontier Place (talk) 06:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Adding that information about Nassau County, properly referenced, to this article is an excellent idea. Capewearer (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Each hospital ! Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Even better! by street! Starzoner (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The content in these articles is minimal and news reporting does not appear to require breaking it out by county. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support There's nothing currently in these county articles (either the first 4 or the subsequent 5) which justify their stand-alone existence. I would support a stand-alone article for any county with a significant narrative differing from that covered in the State and City articles. @Csgir: I added merge notices on the first 4 articles before realizing you had earlier removed them. Sorry. I don't understand why all county articles under merge consideration shouldn't be so marked, but have no problem if my edits there are undone. -- ToE 08:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral Could we please let those articles be but not create new ones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontier Place (talk • contribs) 17:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Please clarify: are you changing your position on the merge proposal from "oppose" to "neutral"? Capewearer (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support a merger of all, unless someone can show that there is a genuinely notable, distinctive and county-only aspect to thus pandemic that may warrant a level of detail that can’t be accommodated in the State article. Mccapra (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support (let's close fast or get rid of that ridiculous list of merge notifications on the main page somehow.) -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 13:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that was looking pretty silly, so I merged those 23 merge boxes into two. (Template maxes out at 20.) -- ToE 14:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC) And we decided that one big pile was better than two little piles, and rather than bring that one up, we decided to throw ours down.
  • Strong support the merger of all articles. When the trivial mentions and random facts are removed from all of these individual county articles, there is really little left, and these useful info are best covered in one place. Capewearer's observation that the list has grown rather long: see Category:2020 coronavirus pandemic in New York (state) by county. Most of these have no lead section, some are unreferenced. The Warren County article is literally a single, unreferenced sentence. is very relevant. These are just trivia articles for the sake of creating articles. epicgenius (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support except for the numbers, which can (and are) be easily accommodated in the main article, there is nothing particularly unique in the content for most counties. --regentspark (comment) 17:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support, there is no need for these individual counties to have separate articles. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support There is no reason that most of these articles can't be merged into COVID-19 pandemic in New York (state). Most of these articles don't have enough references to even exist on their own. Easiest support I have ever typed. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 01:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I would also like to add the fact that when you look at all of the oppose votes they are either from a new account or an IP. Something is definitely fishy here and I am saddened that a simple merge discussion has resorted to this. I think a checkuser should get involved. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 01:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment What's the procedure here to get rid of that monstrous mess on top of the article? It's been a week already. The county articles were all created by the same editor and consensus seems clear that they're not needed. -kyykaarme (talk) 09:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Closing the discussion now, as there's a clear consensus to merge. Capewearer (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The accounts behind the oppose !votes

The histories of Frontier Place and ProjectsEditArticles both have some oddities that I think are relevant to this discussion, or rather their participation in it.

FP has been editing only since April 14, the day it was created. Most of those edits have concerned Sweden and the pandemic in various jurisdictions; on their talk page they've ruffled some feathers with their apparent insistence that the Åland Islands be included in coverage of the pandemic in Sweden rather than Finland, within whose borders they are, because of the history and local culture, the sort of nationalistic revanchist editing dispute we've seen entirely too much of. There are also warnings for what seems like clear POINT-y behavior related to this; this edit, which also blatantly ignores a comment instructing against making exactly that change, does not give one encouraging ideas about FP's future here at Wikipedia.

And why then this sudden interest in New York state's response to the pandemic? I wonder if the !votes above were cast with full awareness of how our policies on merges and splits really work, or more to make a point to someone somewhere else.

PEA's !vote is the account's first projectspace edit and third overall, after what seem like pro forma creations of a blank userpage and user talk page, 21 days after the account was created. As we all know, the first thing new users do when they open their accounts is to go participate in merge discussions. (And also, don't the prose styles of both PEA and FP seem similar?)

At the very least their !votes should be discounted. Daniel Case (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Please don't antagonise and belittle new editors. Their opinions and contributions are just as valid. It is fine to disagree. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 13:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure they are new editors. Besides, FP has done some things that aren't newbie mistakes (erasing part of other editor's comments that were prejudicial to their position) that so far we have let slide. Daniel Case (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Origin

The origin is Wuhan, China. Stop posting disinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.135.81.85 (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

"Recoveries" numbers in Section Timeline, Graph "COVID-19 cases in New York State, United States", are implausibly low

The issue surfaced indirectly already in the Mortality Rate discussion, where it was noted that the number of deaths / outcomes (= deaths + recoveries) was enormous.

I suspect the issue lies in how recoveries are counted. To help clarify this, could you add footnotes to the graph defining what counts as an outcome, and where the outcome numbers come from?

To illustrate the issue, on April 1, New York State had 83,712 total cases. Today, 9 May, the table says that Outcomes (deaths + Recoveries) are 57,322, meaning at least 26,390 of the April 1 cases have neither passed away nor recovered, a full 6 weeks after April 1. I struggle to believe that this is possible.

So it becomes important to understand if and how recoveries are tracked by who once a person has tested positive for COVID-19.

For comparison, see the Wiki page for the COVID-19 page of Germany which has plausible recovery statistics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Germany

AH on wiki (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Mortality Rate graph

What is up with the Mortality Rate graph at the bottom of §Graphs showing # Dead / # Outcomes approaching 40%? Is that an artifact of poor reporting of successful outcomes? If so, is that graph worth keeping? -- ToE 15:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The graph is, I think, showing deaths/cured, not a particularly useful graph at this point. --regentspark (comment) 16:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Actually deaths/outcomes, i.e., deaths/(deaths+recovered)--regentspark (comment) 20:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The mortality rate graph was added on 20 April by 172.74.123.141(talk). I agree that until more complete outcome statistics are available, the graph is not useful and it even misleading. I have removed it. -- ToE 12:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
172.74.123.141(talk) has restored the graph. I've removed it, asking them again in my edit summary to engage in discussion here, as well as adding a note to that effect on their talk page.
The graph base on preliminary outcome statistics is worse than useless; it is misleading. Moreover, even if the data were complete, a mortality rate graph keyed to outcome date serves no purpose. Consider the following simplistic example:
Suppose a hypothetical outbreak occurred where 100 people were infected near simultaneously, and one died prior to the first recovery. An equivalent graph would show a mortality rate of 100% initially, decreasing over time to the ultimate rate as the last victim recovers. A reader would assume that the graph reflected either improvements in care over time or perhaps a decrease in the infection's virulence, but neither would be true as the curve of the graph would be only an artifact of its poor construction.
Were outcome data available keyed to infection date or date of onset of symptoms, then, once the data is complete, it would be possible to construct a graph which displays changes in the mortality rate as additional cohorts are added. But that it not the data we have, so this graph should not be in our article. -- ToE 20:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


The 'mortality rate' graph shows the current best-estimate of the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) of known cases, as defined in the CDC recommendations [1][2]. While the mortality rate of a past epidemic is determined by Deaths / Infections, during an epidemic this figure is inaccurate and misleading as death count must be compared to the infection count at the time that the deceased were infected in order to control for morbidity time, or
CFR = deaths at day.x / cases at day.x-{T}
(where T = average time period from case confirmation to death)
As the morbitity time for fatal outcomes is similar to that for recoveries (2-8 weeks and 2-6 weeks)[3] we can remove this morbidity time factor by simply using Deaths / Outcomes. In observation, the # of outcomes is roughly corresponding to the number of infected from 3 weeks prior, implying that the average delay from confirmation to outcome is roughly 3 weeks. For further details on mortality estimations see Methods for Estimating the Case Fatality Ratio for a Novel, Emerging Infectious Disease -American Journal of Epidemiology[4] and Coronavirus (COVID-19) Mortality Rate -worldometers.com[5]
Scope:
While there are estimates that unknown, recovered cases may be as large as 10x-80x the size of known cases, at this time it is not appropriate to include these unknown case estimates for three reasons:
  1. The estimates vary by an order of magnitude, until we can get some reasonable level of confidence as to what that number might be we cannot include it in statistical summaries
  2. No previous assessment of a disease's mortality rate has included an wide-spread antibody test to determine number of cases so mild the infected themselves were unaware. This presents new issues to address such as what constitutes infection vs low level exposure, and degree of exposure / antibody levels required to qualify as a confirmed case. Further, including such a broad definition of cases makes the statistics for COVID-19 inconsistent with those of any other disease, so no relative comparisons can be made. As compairisons between COVID-19 and 'the flu' are commonplace, these inconsistencies would become extremely misleading.
  3. Statistical evidence also exists for significant unknown fatalities for COVID-19[6] for which there is no clear standard for how to confirm or include/exclude them from totals. Including estimates for estimated recoveries but not estimated deaths would completely invalidate any conclusions.
  • When opinions on selection criteria vary, the most appropriate and clear action is to select an existing standard and communicate the limitation. For this reason the study is limited to official, CDC recommended guidelines, and the limitation that this is relevant to 'confirmed cases' is noted.
Significance:
This CFR graph is relevant as it communicates the rate at which the number of confirmed infected, which is the most widely communicated and understood number, results in death. It also may show the impact alternative treatments have on the outcomes as they are implemented. While trends in the daily CFR estimate may be biased by changes in definitions, testing and treatment innovations, and data management, these considerations effect all of the statistics presented equally. Compairing CFR estimates of other regions also gives indications to differences in treatment, testing and or data veracity such as below:
Thummper (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Thummper. I've requested some help from the project page. -- ToE 08:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to remove this graph as way too confusing. For example, the text says "implies the most likely outcome for the remaining known cases", which seems to indicate that another 88,000 ((Cases - Deaths - Recoveries) * 0.40) people are going to die of coronavirus in NY even if there are 0 new cases. Rather unlikely. I assume I've misunderstood the meaning of the statement but, regardless, I can't see any value in a graph that shows a "Case Fatality Rate" of 40%. Most readers will start measuring out their coffins on seeing this graph!--regentspark (comment) 18:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think you've misunderstood, that is exactly the trend we are seeing. For every 10 of the 'confirmed infection' cases who either recover or die, 4 of them die. That's the rate we are at right now. Perhaps we will improve our treatments, or some other event will change the rates, but right now that is the rate of fatality among the selection set of 'confirmed infections'. "Unlikely" isn't exactly a statistical argument or valid justification for taking a section down. In fact, I argue that it is the exact reaction that demonstrates the need for this graph as it highlights a significant disparity between what the numbers are telling us and the expectation people have. If you have a substantive argument to the data we welcome your input so it can be improved. If you take issue with the description please suggest an edit. I used the word 'implies' because frankly no statistical summary on Wikipedia can be robust enough to make predictions off of, it would conflict with the goal of clarity to the average user, but that is the current trend. Thummper (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC).
The fact that a graph is misleading, confusing, and very likely to be misinterpreted seems like a fairly substantive argument to me. Content should be clear and easily understood and your graph is quite the opposite of that. If a graph needs a wall of text to be contextualized (and the current text doesn't even do that), we probably shouldn't keep it. --regentspark (comment) 14:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Again, your suggested edits are welcome, but the text is there due to the prevalence of misinformation, as demonstrated in your previous comment. When you said it was unclear and misleading earlier you cited what you thought it would mislead people into believing... which was exactly what it shows. So you have demonstrated that it is clear and easy to read. Since you read the graph as intended, and even were able to correctly extrapolate the trend, then it can only be misleading if it is wrong. Again, I invite you to criticize the data if this is the case. It seems like it is clear and understandable, you just dont believe the conclusions (per your previous comment), in which case I urge you to argue for a different methodology. I haven't heard you argue that it is not important. I think that's been established earlier in the discussion, but you are also welcome to argue that. In short, please present some argument, not simply your opinion or feelings of disbelief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thummper (talk • contribs) 17:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any point in a graph that needs a lot of explanation. Charts and graphs should be easy to read and a lot of what you write above smells of original research. That's not exactly an opinion or feeling of disbelief but rather fairly straightforward first priniciples of writing. Since, apparently, I'm the only one who seems to find this strange, I'm not going to harp on it any further but do at least format the graph a little better. --regentspark (comment) 18:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate your opinion, I'm just trying to encourage you to post actionable suggestions so we can improve it. "format it better" is not actionable. I think this is one of the most important graphs to show because the CFR, as it is commonly being reported, is WAY off. The two most common things I hear right now are the deaths / infections rate, which is not a proper measure of anything, and that the inclusion of results from antibody testing will 'fix' the rate by dragging it down. The problem is that we have never done wide spread, general population antibody testing for any disease in history, so that nullifies any comparisons to previous epidemics. According to the standard we use for other diseases, this CFR in the graph is THE mortality rate for the disease, and its a full 1-2 orders higher than is being reported in most places. I'm eager for your input on how to make that more consumable, or how to combat the misinformation without including a description, but removing the graph all together, IMO, is akin to allowing a severely wrong narrative to stand because it's easier. This is vital because, as you have experienced, there is a profound difference in the number of expected deaths from the data (regardless if you include antibody results or not) and the expectation that the average reader has.Thummper (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Apologies. I should have been clearer. By "format it better", I meant move it to the middle of the screen from its current right justified position. --regentspark (comment) 18:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure. I tried to justify it right / scale it down so it lined up chronologically with the other charts, but I guess that didn't come across very well. The problem is, prior to 4/1 each area has a huge spike because the numbers were so low (and reporting so bad) that they were at 100% or 0% mortality for a while, so I just cropped it at 4/1 where it leveled off. Let me see what I can do. Thummper (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
What I don't understand is where the 40% number is even coming from. The page currently says there are 18909 deaths and 77633 recoveries, so wouldn't that be 18909 / (18909 + 77633) = 19.586% CFR? 67.242.85.178 (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Pinging @Thummper. -- ToE 05:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
@Thummper: Re the question immediately above, what are the specific sources for the numbers you are using? -- ToE 06:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
@ToE:The numbers at the top of the page are not correct according to the standards of this project, and are not consistent with the criteria used in other states. They are showing the deaths released by the New York Health Dept, which are not in accordance with CDC recommendations (which are followed by other states). The recoveries shown at the top are taken from the Covid Tracking Project. I would submit that it is at least improper to be selecting different stats from different sources whenever possible. The numbers used in the mortality graph come from 1point3acres.com. This source was selected in accordance with the larger discussion on the COVID-19 project page[7], and because they include a field for 'recovered'. As of May 1st, deaths in NY = 24039, recoveries = 34458. 24039 / (24049+34458) = 41.09%. That is to say, of all the people known to either recover or die from COVID-19 in NY, 41% of them have died. Data prior to 4/1 for NY was taken from Worldometers.com. There is some debate on whether they should be a source, however their numbers tend to line up with 1point3acres' data, and 1point3acres does not have data for NY prior to 4/1. This was a judgement call, as I thought it added needed context, but feel free to disagree. I think the main take away is that, while the hospitalizations-per-day, deaths-per-day, and infections-per-day are dropping, the death rate is consistantly rising for NY, contrary to that of the US, and the world at large. I think that is an important piece of information as it runs counter to the 'all things are improving' takeaway of most reports.Thummper (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 18:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
@Thummper: My primary objection continues to be with the Recovered number. It is inaccurate, and more importantly it is not from the same population as your Deaths, rendering your quotient meaningless. You are comparing an undercounted number of hospital discharges (a proxy for recoveries among the hospitalized) to overall deaths, including the NYC probable deaths, to compute what you represent as the CFR among all Confirmed Cases. But you need recovery data on the non-hospitalized confirmed cases (by far the majority of confirmed cases) to do so, and that data is entirely absent. You could attempt to compute the HFR (Hospitalized Fatality Rate -- reported in studies to be about 20%) and label the graph as such, but you would need to know the number of deaths from among the hospitalized. Where is that data?
Details:
Your source is https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en
Currently showing for New York: 24,708 deaths & 34,771 recoveries, for your calculation of 24,708 / (24,708 + 34,771) = 41.5%, right?
But recovery numbers aren't released directly by the state, are they? Aren't they computed by the various data sites using changes in hospitalization numbers in an attempt to determine discharges? I don't see any explanation of how 1point3acres comes up with their figures, other than the remark in "New York Notes": Due to delay of NY's discharge number, we might have less recoveries than the real.
The COVID Track Project currently shows 18,909 deaths and 57,540 recoveries. (The death count differs from 1point3acres due to the inclusion or exclusion of NYC probable deaths.) The CTP explicitly states "Recovered = discharged", they currently show 10,350 Currently Hospitalized and 67,890 Cumulative Hospitalized, and they compute recoveries by taking the difference. 67,890 - 10,350 = 57,540 -- exact match! So their recoveries bizarrely including those who died in hospital!
1point3acres appears to attempt to correct that by subtracting deaths from that figure. 57,540 - 18,909 = 38,631, getting in the ballpark of 1point3acres' 34,771, and the difference just might be an issue of timeliness of the data they are using. But not all of those 18,909 death were among the hospitalized, so even the 38,631 Discharged is too low.
Computing 18,909 / (18,909 + 38,631) = 32.9% would set an upper bound on the HFR, but since the 18,909 deaths include fatalities among non-hospitalized confirmed cases, the true HFR must be lower.
By using the NYC probable deaths, you are driving that already high number higher, and then you apply it to an entirely different population -- that of all Confirmed Cases -- without counting a single non-hospitalized recovery.
There is no way to create a meaningful CFR graph (or HFR graph) without access to data we don't currently have. -- ToE 22:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
User:Thummper has not edited in the week since their 3 May post above. Hopefully they are at least reassured that their alarming CFR calculation was an order of magnitude too high. -- ToE 19:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I've pulled the graph pending resolution of the above concerns. -- ToE 15:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Mortality Rage graph snapshot -- 2020-05-03
-- !!!!

Note: The following chart shows the cumulative Case Fatality Rate (CFR). Case fatality is defined as deaths / outcomes for "confirmed infections", or the portion of known outcomes which were fatal.

References

  1. ^ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/us-data/
  2. ^ https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html
  3. ^ https://patient.info/news-and-features/coronavirus-how-quickly-do-covid-19-symptoms-develop-and-how-long-do-they-last
  4. ^ https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/162/5/479/82647
  5. ^ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/#correct
  6. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html
  7. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#Request_for_help_re_NY_state_mortality_rate_graph

Jump of 952 deaths on 2020-05-06

I am trying to figure out why the "COVID-19 cases in New York State" table and graph jumped up by 952 deaths on 2020-05-06. What is the source of these extra deaths? Furthermore, the table indicates this is 1.1% increase but 19645 -> 20597 is more like a 4.8% increase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.47.47.186 (talk) 05:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

See the edit summary from this 16:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC) edit to Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United States/New York State medical cases chart by User:TheNavigatrr: Correcting to the May 6 death toll reported by the NYS DoH. The added deaths are previously unreported nursing home deaths. ... The choice not to include a one-day correction like that in the daily increase percentages makes sense, but perhaps such artifacts should be marked and noted. -- ToE 22:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Merge 'Timeline' with 'Government Response'?

The Timeline section has not been updated since March aside from the daily cases chart. The Government Response section is updated all the way to May 15. It may make sense to merge Government Response into Timeline. Abobeck11 (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking that also. I wasn't sure if it would be better to move Government Response into the more general Timeline or the other way 'round. Meresquared (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Manhattan is New York County

Perhaps it might seem pedantic to list it as such and/or misleading to those not in the know. I suggest listing it as "New York (Manhattan)," though this might seem a trifle cumbersome. Kostaki mou (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. Either that, or replace Kings by Brooklyn.--regentspark (comment) 16:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Estimated 2.5 million New Yorkers have COVID-19 antibodies

Should we mention a serological antibody survey found 10% of 1,000 people in New York City and surrounding Westchester County have antibodies to indicate exposure and immunity to SARS-CoV-2? This means a lot more people were infected and were asymptomatic in the first 2 months of 2020. Somehow, the virus was present in NY state, NJ and CT as early as Nov-Dec. 2019, it explains the possibility of COVID-19 in 2.5 million New Yorkers instead of 356,000 confirmed cases which the local, state and US health authorities prefer to go by. 2605:E000:100D:C571:6DCE:ABEA:BC50:DF93 (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Number of deaths?

Why is there such a large difference in the number of deaths reported by this page (24,000) and those reported both by the John Hopkins University and Worldometers, which both report over 30,000? --Pesqara (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

CDC Estimate of Suspected Cases in NY State

A serological sampling of 1,000 residents each in New York City and nearby Westchester County, NY found up to 20% of the city (1.5-2 million out of 8-11 million) and an estimated 11% of the state population (1.8-2.7 million out of 18-22 million) have antibodies to indicate exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Similar serological sampling in nearby Boston, MA (25%) and throughout the state of CA in places like Los Angeles and Santa Clara counties (5% each) proved there were more undiagnosed infections or cases of COVID-19 in the country (20-23 -25 million Americans, about 8% of the US population). In April, a hospital maternity ward in COVID-19 hotspot New Rochelle, NY also serving pregnant patients from the Bronx found 15% of 500 of them tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 - 95% of them were asymptomatic and 5% were mildly infected. 2605:E000:100D:C571:A8BB:CE5:5FFF:7B6A (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Active Cases vs. Recovered Cases - Is the count accurate?

It's June 30, and the active case numbers are FAR higher than the recovered cases - by about 10x. Shouldn't there be a LOT more people considered recovered by now, considering that NY is into their epidemic a solid three months? - Zeke

It's sort of dependent on what the counties report. My own county, Orange, has reported nearly 11,000 cases total but you won't find any "recovered" field on the county's ArcGIS page. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
NY State has over 400,000 confirmed cases, still the most in the country. I believe the vast majority of COVID-19 survivors recovered, but the state Health record does not have the data. 2605:E000:100D:C571:A8BB:CE5:5FFF:7B6A (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Graphs, tables, etc.

Would it make sense to move all the tables and charts at the bottom to a new article COVID-19 pandemic in New York (state) Statistics? All the stuff at the bottom is making the page unwieldy. --regentspark (comment) 18:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a good point, but it would break consistency with other COVID-19 state articles. Abobeck11 (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

"Timeline" section still needs to be updated

The cases/deaths chart has been being updated daily, but the actual timeline of events has not been updated since March 26. Back in May, I placed an update template, and suggested merging "Timeline" with "Government Response" because "Government Response" has been where all new information about the pandemic in New York has been going. The problem with this is that it breaks consistency between other COVID-19 state articles. Other state articles' Timeline sections, such as COVID-19 pandemic in California, are up to date with notable cases, changes in cases/deaths, etc. Abobeck11 (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Tags Added

It's dubious that NY state's later reopening is responsible for lack of a second wave. First other states like IL have had spikes and are not open. Second, the main reason is likely the high death rate, three times the number of TX, CA or FL, despite having less people and more cases means the tests were simply not given due to lack of tests because it was an early outbreak. This is Wikipedia. Please do not put your politics into this serious problem173.165.104.25 (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)BeaMyra

There’s no political affiliation or implication that it’s correlated with the state’s later reopening. It is simply factual information. NikonSoup (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

"New York’s true nursing home death toll cloaked in secrecy" (AP)

"New York’s coronavirus death toll in nursing homes, already among the highest in the nation, could actually be a significant undercount. Unlike every other state with major outbreaks, New York only counts residents who died on nursing home property and not those who were transported to hospitals and died there.".--TMCk (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Cuomo feud with Ron Kim

Andrew Cuomo has threatened to “destroy” Ron Kim (politician) over Kim’s criticism of the Cuomo administration’s handling of New York nursing home COVID-19 death numbers.[1]

Timeline

The timeline section of the article has some code showing up in the paragraph text, how do you fix that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimasterclmaster (talk • contribs) 16:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/17/nyregion/nursing-homes-cuomo-ron-kim.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic_in_New_York_(state)/Archive_1&oldid=1150652487"