Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019

Proposals for more
I have added optimistic slogans from Italy: https://twitter.com/BeppeSala/status/1233079510792384512 and equally cheerful Mr Trump's published in Feb 2020: The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. We are in contact with everyone and all relevant countries. CDC & World Health have been working hard and very smart. Stock Market starting to look very good to me!

Let us add other gems: “the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in December 2019 reproduced this pattern of disproportionate fear of importation and spread in mainland France, while the cases reported worldwide remain almost only localised in China as only 34 people died of this disease (COVID-19) outside China” Colson et al.

Algunas de esas cartulinas contenían mensajes como “El único virus peligroso es tu machismo”, “Mi corona, tu virus” o “No hay virus peor que el patriarcado”. Source: https://www.rtve.es/noticias/20200308/feminismo-resiste-coronavirus-calles-machismo-mas-peligroso-mata-mas/2006321.shtml

"Deaths per day should begin to decline sometime in the week of February 9-16. Recovery and release from care has lagged behind new confirmed cases by 12 days, so numbers have only now begun to rapidly increase. IF present trends continue, and a second epidemic wave can be avoided as people return to their normal routines with lowered restrictions, the present outbreak should be almost completely suppressed by mid to late March of 2020." or [the UK Government] 'does not class Covid-19 as a Highly Communicable Infectious Disease (HCID) and therefore does not need to take any steps to deal with the virus' GOV UK website, 2020 March the 19th.

China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi! 10:18 PM · Jan 24, 2020 Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1220818115354923009?lang=en

Zezen (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced

 * Its not going to be pretty for the next few weeks for sure.

Ottawahitech do you remember in which TV program he appeared? I trid to find where he said that but I have no luck. Rupert Loup 12:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not, I usually (nowadays at least) watch either cnn or fox (american news station) and occasionally ctv and cbc (canadian news station). I truly appreciate your willingness to help. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

IMHO not interesting or notable. Zezen (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi I am new here and don't know how wikiquotians decide what is interesting or notable.
 * btw this is the quote that I originally included. "Its not going to be pretty for the next few weeks for sure". Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WQ:Q is the guideline for determining whether a quote should be added. Rupert Loup 00:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Source
''There is increasing confidence that COVID-19 likely originated in a Wuhan laboratory not as a bioweapon, but as part of China's effort to demonstrate that its efforts to identify and combat viruses are equal to or greater than the capabilities of the United States, multiple sources who have been briefed on the details of early actions by China's government and seen relevant materials tell Fox News. This may be the "costliest government coverup of all time," one of the sources said.'' This is noteworthy, because it states that coronavirus likely originated from a Wuhan laboratory, and that there have been multiple sources who have stated this is noteworthy and related to coronavirus. --2001:8003:4085:8100:989E:A97D:F2C6:A1A7 03:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Manual of Style
The practice in wikiquote seems to be to sort quotes by alphabet and not by topic. Why are the quotes in this page sorted by topic and not just alphabetically?
 * That's an excellent question for which there really isn't a very good answer. Speaking for myself, it's because that is how the majority of the pages for wars have been set up and those pages have been ordered that way for a while to seemingly little objection, possibly because it's a lot of work to completely reorganize pages that large and placing cleanup tags on that many vital articles would make the entirety of Wikiquote look extremely disorganized and disinterested in the more unpleasant aspects of history, which may well be the case. Wikipedia has pages for X war in Y country, casualties of X war, as well as specific battles of X war: by being too specific with organizing and avoiding any overlap at all cost, we could effectively turn every war into a blank container page. Having pages like these be sections instead would thus be a compromise that organizes the quotes without burying them under obscure titles that are difficult to guess the existence of. Imagine if the page for Nazism made no mention about race whatsoever because all of those quotes were part of the page Racial policy of Nazi Germany, a random person discovering Wikiquote for the first time would assume there's something seriously wrong with all of us, and that we are profoundly ignorant and or bigoted instead of very well organized and efficient. It's a similar problem to why some pages are chronologically ordered, which makes sense for a biographical page where most of the quotes are from that one person, but not so much for themes. There's categories for Chronologically ordered theme pages to be converted to alphabetical ordering, as well as for Idiosyncratically organized theme pages to be converted to alphabetic organization, however the latter has a total of three entries, two of which are Jesus and Christianity. Even alphabetic ordering becomes a complicated debate when dealing with ancient religious texts with questionable authors and dates; if the author of every quote is anonymous than it would make sense to go by title, however people will argue the author isn't anonymous, or that every page should use title instead of author so as not to discriminate against religious figures of questionable historicity. Another reason might be that oftentimes Wikipedia will have extremely niche pages for highly contentious aspects of particularly famous figures, such as: Race and appearance of Jesus, Religious views of Adolf Hitler, Religious views of Charles Darwin, Sexuality of Adolf Hitler Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln, Racial views of Winston Churchill or Racial views of Donald Trump. In my opinion these types of ultra specific pages make it more difficult to learn about a subject and not less, but it's how Wikipedia chooses to do things and many editors feel Wikiquote has to follow their example to the letter, even though the inclusion standards for notable quotations are completely different than for an acceptable Wikipedia reference. To be perfectly honest, outside of the journal abstracts and conclusions, which can be defended using their impact factor, as well as sentences surrounding direct quotations from notable scientists, which like interview questions provide better context, there's a lot of encyclopedic explanatory text that really belongs on Wikipedia instead, if it isn't already there. Given how many pages there now are about specific aspects of the pandemic, there should be a discussion at the village pump as to whether these pages all need to be protected and have cleanup tags added to them to avoid this problem getting any worse than it is already. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Need for an update
The vast majority of quotes here about the virus and its effects dates back to January/February, and is rather outdated. There are, for instance, several quotes claiming that covid is not a much bigger problem than the flu - when it has clearly turned out to be way deadlier than the former in older people, having caused, in countries like the US (but also most of Europe and even Latin America), 6-7 as many deaths as the ones caused by the flu in one year (and this with lockdowns and face masks that limited its spread). This should be addressed. --2001:B07:646C:244E:E09F:BC02:8751:6EB5 23:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @2001:B07:646C:244E:E09F:BC02:8751:6EB5: Do you have any suggestions on how to address the issue/s you have pointed above? Ottawahitech (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added some quotations from later sources, however to be honest I'm not entirely sure whether this is even the right Covid-19 page for them given there are so many pages to choose from and that the subject matter of quotes often overlap due to the nationality of the politician speaking, or that of the population used for the scientific studies. Even if this is the right page, I am not sure if these are particularly welcome additions given their notable length and the criticism I've received regarding that just recently. I assume a paragraph titled "Summary" or "Results" is probably done specifically with quotation in mind, (the Nature articles I've added aren't set up in that fashion, although they do directly quote scientists). Before I make too much more of a mess of this page, I would appreciate some community feedback as to what this page should ideally look like and whether this is making an actual improvement, even partially. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)