Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in India

Topic code	Area of conflict	Decision linked to
{{COVID-19 pandemic in India|topic=aa}}	politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan
{{COVID-19 pandemic in India|topic=crypto}}	blockchain and cryptocurrencies	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
{{COVID-19 pandemic in India|topic=kurd}}	Kurds and Kurdistan	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan
{{COVID-19 pandemic in India|topic=mj}}	Michael Jackson	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson
{{COVID-19 pandemic in India|topic=pw}}	professional wrestling	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling
{{COVID-19 pandemic in India|topic=rusukr}}	the Russo-Ukrainian War	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War
{{COVID-19 pandemic in India|topic=sasg}}	South Asian social groups	Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
{{COVID-19 pandemic in India|topic=syria}}	the Syrian Civil War and ISIL	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
{{COVID-19 pandemic in India|topic=uku}}	measurement units in the United Kingdom	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
{{COVID-19 pandemic in India|topic=uyghur}}	Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghurs

Impact on movie theaters

In Telangana movie theaters opened with 50% occupancy.

Later, Center government of India, allow 100% occupancy to theaters from Feb 1 2021. Please mention it. Rizosome (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

No timeline for 2021?

There were subpages for 2020, but nothing for the last 4 months? I've been wondering what's causing this recent spike but apparently there was no initiative. I would help but I can't create articles, nor do I know enough from India's data and coverage to know what's going on. - 60.52.104.111 (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, even I was thinking the same thing. There are very few volunteers for the 2021 coverage. I'm trying to do my best. It's not even an India-only problem, but an issue around the world. Sitaphul (talk) 06:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

superspreader event kumbh mela needs seperate sub head and more information Suggestion

very less is written about super-spreader event kumbh-mela. Nenetarun (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no dog in this fight, but your assertion that the removal was "unexplained" is patently untrue. The section was removed on grounds of undue by another editor. If you believe that that's not the case, you need to demonstrate that the information is due to the extent of warranting a separate section of its own. Regards, MBlaze Lightning (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - yes it does need its own section [1]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• I see it as WP:UNDUE given there have been no independent report whether Kumbh Mela is directly contributing into spread (that is little compared to Tablighi Jamaat) or infections are overall cases of Haridwar the 2nd most populated city of Uttarakhand. We should not rely on speculations. Furthermore I believe that we should get rid of the "Situation" section entirely because it reads like a collection of indiscriminate information. Srijanx22 (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Kautilya3.. Abhishek0831996 has left me a baseless edit warring warning on my talkpage..pure case of WP:bullying
  

Request Kautilya3 to re-add kumbh mela event back. Nenetarun (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

See the messages above. You haven't explained why you are removing info about Tablighi Jamaat event which contributed 1/3 of the cases that time, more than any other minor events you are talking about. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support - I think it needs its own section/sub-section - there are several Kumbh related Covid positives that have been reported in the media, some of these are quite significant. [2][3][4][5] I think apart from mentioning the spread of Covid at the mela we should also provide some background on the special arrangements that were made, the rules that were initially proposed and then partially reverted [6][7], requirement for returning devotees to self-isolate in several states [8], etc. - Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

See WP:NOTNEWS. As for the Kumbh Mela, I must note that no scientific study or evidence has come out yet to prove that Kumbh Mela and rallies were superspreader events. Dubious and raunchy headlines or news reports are not enough especially when dealing with this subject which is a victim of poor reports. You need to familiarize with WP:MEDRS when you are making claims related to medical science-related events. Otherwise you can find reports about Farmer protests, weddings, etc. to have been bigger superspreaders but that would again look dubious without actual confirmation. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

In my understanding WP:MEDRS does not apply to this section at least as long as claims aren't made tagging it as a super-spreader. Those rules are specific for Wikipedia:Biomedical information and a section on Kumbh mela activities (including arrangements, rules, etc as I proposed) would not qualify for that definition. As far as WP:NOTNEWS goes I believe that large enough events surrounding the 2nd wave should all get a mention here as and when they get covered within context in other sources - be they articles, news, books or more. That would mean that as and when we get more coverage on say the election campaigning in Bengal specifically related to Covid-19 it would merit at least a mention. - Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 09:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The "mention" already exists at "Timeline" section. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

!vote - clarifying that the Support refers to the overall direction of the answer and focus should be on the reasoning. - Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support: According to my opinion, there should be a seperate article on this topic similiar to 2020 Tablighi Jamaat COVID-19 hotspot in Delhi. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 02:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• See WP:FALSEBALANCE. Tablighi Jamaat involved 30% of the total cases but Kumbh Mela (which lacks enough conclusion) has not contributed to even 000.1% cases of entire country. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Aman.kumar.goel, how does this even make logic? Tablighi Jamaat happened during a time where the virus had just started spreading and daily cases were very few. It only involved less than ten thousand people. Procedures like tracing the route map of infected people and making the list of primary and secondary contacts were quite easier back then and was stricly followed. But things has changed now. Its like three lakhs people are getting infected daily. Nobody is going to make the route-map and they dont have the time to do it. People are dying. Also Kumb Mela is participated by millions. So will the government go make a route map of these much people.? So its unclear that how many people from Kumb Mela might have spreaded the infection. I think there is no logic in applying WP:FALSEBALANCE here. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 05:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

You are creating a false balance between the two events. Tablhigi Jamaat contributed to more than 30% cases of that time and resulted in 22,000 people to be quarantined. Being participated by millions is irrelevant. Information about 1700 - 2000 infections in Haridwar over a week or more, cannot be attributed to Kumbh Mela alone because Haridwar is a big city as already explained above. Officials and scientists have all the necessary details and they haven't provided a thing as of yet to indicate that Kumbh Mela was anywhere near Tabhlgi Jamaat event but in fact looks too tiny in comparison. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support: Better accommodate both events under "religious congregation" section or alike. I see Kumbh mela as a more severe violation of social distancing guidelines that were developed after one year of covid related learning. AdithyaKL (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support: There should be separate section for Kumbh Mela because of following reasons:

1. Many news article have mentioned it as a super spreader event [9][10] including some doctors [11]

2. Visuals of Kumbh Mela make it very clear that Covid rules were being flouted in it [12][13]

3. Numbers are also high (atleast 1700) [14]. Some news articles have mentioned it till 5000 too [15][16]

4. Many state governments have come up with guidelines regarding isolation and quarantine for Kumbh returnees. It clearly means their health departments found some basis to reach to such a decision.[17][18]

5. Last but not the least. India's Right Wing Media bias is clearly visible regarding how they covered both the Tablighi Jamaat and Kumbh events. While Jamaat members were called "Covid Jihadis", people participating in Kumbh were being called "devotees". But, wikipedia is not a place where such biases should hold their ground. So, in all fairness, there should be a separate section (and even page) on Wikipedia for Kumbh Mela super spreader event. A very good analysis of this bias on The Print.[19] Jasksingh (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• What is with all these bold marking Support for inclusion of grossly problematic content? Are you even aware of WP:NOTAVOTE? Anyway, there are 100s of superspreader events by now but none of them other than the most significant one has got a section. Your news links (see WP:NOTNEWS) are weeks old and don't reflect scientific view but only speculates. Your own analysis which is WP:OR does not help in making it look anymore authentic. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Then are you suggesting that the Tablighi Jamat event also be reduced to a single statement of mention linking to the main article? Because that also works for me and I do agree that it would be quite practical given that we should be seeing more coverage of all these events in the near future. Said coverage should at the very least result in a sub-section of the article of the event and should be linked here. For instance the impact of Covid-19 on the WB election warrants a section on the article, which it already does here 2021 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election#COVID-19 outbreak. As far as I understand WP:NOTNEWS asks us to consider the enduring notability of events before inclusion. The continued measures by various states in quarantining Kumbh returnees does seem to meet that criteria. - Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please do the needful and create a page on "Kumbh Mela super spreader event". Nenetarun (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2021

Please remove

resulted in the recovery of three patients in March.

and add

resulted in the recovery of three patients in March 2020.

March 2021 is now in the past, so this reference is ambiguous. The source dates from last year, so it's clearly not talking about last month. 2603:7080:E807:C300:806D:90B3:9B6D:1E04 (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done ViperSnake151 In the future, please close edit requests once you have acted upon them. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I did not even see that this was specifically requested, it's just something I wound up doing via my own boldness :) ViperSnake151  Talk  15:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Highest daily new cases in lead

I sense that this might turn into an unnecessary edit war when clear data is available out there. Putting some links here for other editors (especially those already involved with these edits in particular) to review and put the correct info in lead (that India now has the highest new infections detected per day).

• CDC chart for US - [20]
• NY Times (basically a mirror of the CDC chart) - [21]
• WHO data for India (select daily on the graph) - [22]
• GoI data for India (showing me an increase of 3,52,991 for today) - [23]
• Independent media sources noting the global record in daily new cases - [24][25]

- Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

See WP:CITESHOT. In this case it is not relevant because you can find many sources for either claims. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 00:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with your tagging this as a WP:CITESHOT - since there have already been multiple edits of back and forth on this specific piece of information. Moreover these are highly regarded official sources (in line with WP:MEDRS as this comes under population data ) and not just random citations. - Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: This news article you cited is incorrect, and is from ANI/Sputnik, not known for the reliability of their stats. You can see the full historical data from the CDDC on their own site. – SJ + 01:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Enough reliable sources reported that US reported 403,359 cases on a single day in December. It includes Hindustan Times, Xinhua, Live Mint, US News which added that "The CDC figures do not necessarily reflect cases reported by individual states." You can't solely rely on website of CDC website, which itself notes that: "On December 18, 2020, Texas started reporting probable cases, which included 171,505 new probable cases, in addition to 13,253 confirmed cases, for a total of 184,758 new cases reported. This raised the total number of new cases in the US on December 18 to 403,359; without the influx of reporting from Texas, the daily new case count for the US would have been 231,854."[26]

We are allowed to second guess media reports once we have reason to and that reason exist in this case. Your best bet is to find report which dispute 403,359 cases of the US from a single day in December 2020 instead of repeating same sources that have obviously miscalculated the scenario. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 00:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Similar claims can be made wrt to India. So either we compare official figures with official figures or speculative figures with speculative figures. And as you've noted with the last citation from CDC that number (of ~400k) includes probable cases and not just confirmed cases - 171,505 new probable cases. The secondary news sources you have linked to do not make this distinction even though they use the same source data. This is mostly an issue of semantics -> do we represent confirmed v confirmed or probable v probable? In confirmed v confirmed India has surpassed the US count. In probable v probable we don't even have reliable data as far as I know. - Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Data from Texas can be seen here [27]. If you switch to the trends tab you will notice that the new confirmed cases on 20 December 2020 was ~6k and new probable cases on the same day was 1372. Adding them up brings us to a value of much less than the 170k count - implying that was probably added up over the previous few weeks. I would not be surprised that these numbers have been rationalised in the CDC data with the numbers being backdated and added to the day those results were detected. Again back to the semantics question - which set of data do we represent? Plus now that this data from Texas can be taken into consideration how do we deal with data that represents cases detected over a long time but added on a single day (and then rationalised later). - Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 04:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Right. That may explain the anomaly - it is a challenge of mixing apples and oranges -- probable cases are always much higher than confirmed, and not reported in any standard way (depends on the model you use for inference, &c). Dec. 20 wasn't the highest day in US history; it was just the day that data of different types was mixed together. – SJ + 10:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Criticism of Modi holding campaign rallies

Per WP:BRD I am taking this to the talk page. There have been disputes with multiple editors removing material that states that there has been criticism of Prime Minister Modi holding crowded campaign rallies, with arguments that it is a violation of WP:BLP, "dubious information", and "mudslinging". One user who reverted me most recently used a one-sided editorial, suggesting that the criticisms were invalid because there was no data actually supporting arguments that the rallies had caused cases.

The most recent version of the text was as follows:

Alongside the Mela, Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party have also faced criticism for hosting campaign rallies for the West Bengal Legislative Assembly election despite the severe state of the pandemic in India, which have similarly featured large crowds flouting guidance such as social distancing and wearing face masks. On 24 April, Chief Minister of Maharashtra Uddhav Thackeray stated that he was unable to get in contact with Modi to address shortages of oxygen and Remdesivir because he was busy campaigning.

This article, in my opinion, is too positive. There needs to be more critical reception to India's response to the pandemic, especially during the second wave. I had got rid of the person accusing him of being a "superspreader", and instead put in reference to a state chief minister who had criticized Modi for focusing more on campaigning than managing the response. The disputed section is cited to multiple reliable sources, including two multinational news agencies (Bloomberg, Reuters), and is written neutrally. It is clear that this is a notable aspect of the situation. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Hello ViperSnake151, be bold and go ahead. If the content are added are supported by reliable sources, it should be definetely added in a neutral point of view. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

ViperSnake151 You are supposed to link the message made by the "person" which can be found [28]. You haven't addressed the issues raised there i.e. how these baseless speculations that election rallies spread covid-19 are any valid. Modi or any prominent politician gets criticized for everything he has done thus you need to read WP:UNDUE and avoid distracting the article's focus from the main subject. Wareon (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

So you're saying per undue weight we cannot include any negative coverage because it is considered a "distraction from the main subject"? Even if covered by the worldwide press? In fact, the mere fact that these aspects of the pandemic have mainstream coverage means that it is not undue weight to include because it is no longer a minority viewpoint. In fact, the version you reverted no longer includes the now-disputed claim that the rallies spread COVID-19, and instead placed a larger emphasis on Modi campaigning at all. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

It is not merely 'negative' but grossly misleading because contrary to what you are adding, facts say that election rallies aren't superspreader. Since you also consider it "disputed" then you must avoid spewing the half baked assessments. Wareon (talk) 05:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Note on revamp

I have revamped the article in Special:Diff/1020305654, primarily in terms of sectioning. Since it is a big change, I'm leaving this note on the talk page. Before the change, the article had sections called Government response, Relief and Situation. The first section contained a listing of sub-sections on the impact on various sectors, I have moved most of them to a new section called Impact. I've moved the second section and the starting paragraphs under the first section under a new section called Response. The third section was an arbitrary and ambiguous listing of sub-sections which I have either moved to one of the two sections, where-ever appropriate or removed them. In terms of removal I've removed the sub-section called Tablighi Jamaat event and Breaking quarantine; the first sub-section is a repetition of a paragraph under the Timeline of the article and the second sub-section consisted of two lines which highlight specific instances of breaking quarantine which are too minor in the greater scheme of things to be due in an article at this level, this could be re-added if and when this article is well developed.

An additional note, the article as it stands consists mostly of listing of events, occurrences or actions by various ententes and lacks broader overviews, which needs to be amended in a high level article like this one. The article also needs an update, most of the occurences are in reference to events of early to mid 2020. I've added an update template in this regard. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

In case you're wondering, I was trying to adjust things based on work I had done for COVID-19 pandemic in Saskatchewan. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Oxygen shortage created by Modi Sarkar?

According to INOX, this is happening because its supplies for Delhi have been cut down by the Centre and the majority of its production has been allocated to Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. From 105 metric tonnes, its allocation to Delhi has further been reduced to 80 metric tonnes, INOX said.... “The Delhi government has issued an order to supply 125 MT to hospitals yesterday while the Centre has also issued an order yesterday, revising our allocation to only 80 MT to Delhi. What should we do?” Siddarth Jain, chief of INOX, told the court.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Oxygen crisis in India due to Covid-19 pandemic

See Draft:Oxygen Crisis in India. While I think the draft should be accepted with the title Oxygen crisis in India due to Covid-19 pandemic, some others are with the opinion that this article should be expanded instead of creating a new article. So if anyone is interested to expand this article with the new heading as Oxygen crisis, please refer the draft and do the honours. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 13:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure thing, someone can surely do it. 103.44.0.232 (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no need of a specific article. If has been already covered on this article. Wareon (talk) 05:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)