Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Denmark

Why is it called lock down?

It barely is. They say Sweden is not on lock down, but if you look at the restrictions in Denmark, there is barely any difference.

Why not call it restrictions instead? Hyping much?

Compare with same article for Norway, there similar restrictions are called measures, which is more correct.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.70.94 (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The cross-border Greater Copenhagen (Zealand/Scania) conurbation

There should be a separate article for the European conurbation Greater Copenhagen, where a lot of people travel and commute to and from their jobs, shop or visit friends etc, across an arbritary state line between two neighborhoods in one local metropolitan/urban area, and its political consequences, when for example Scania historically is a part of Denmark.

https://www.oresunddirekt.se/se/nyheter/de-danska-granserna-stangs-paa-grund-av-coronavirus-covid-19

https://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/oklart-hur-oresundsregionen-paverkas-av-den-stangda-gransen/

https://www.sydsvenskan.se/2020-03-13/sa-klyvs-oresundsregionen-igen

https://www.sydsvenskan.se/2016-01-19/pendlare-borjar-koka-av-vrede — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.241.81 (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Excessive distinction between Denmark, the Faeroes Islands and Greenland

This article contains an excessive amount of distinction between Denmark, the Faeroe Islands and Greenland. The article makes it very clear how many infected there are in each territory but also continuously mentions Denmark as `(mainland) Denmark` (which is a novel term, not used elsewhere) and mentions the number of infected in that region explicitly. The very verbose distinction between the Danish hospital system and the hospital system in the Faeroe Island and Greenland also seems very out of place; especially as the article does not mention why the distinction needs to be made.

I suggest that these excessive mentions are replaced by a section that explains the differences, if they should be made explicit at all. Having the number of cases in each territories, as disconnected as they are, might be relevant, but that the hospitals aren't entirely the same, seems like useless knowledge. Anyone who's interested in the intricate details of the Danish healthcare system, can look it up elsewhere and find all the details they want. The page does not keep track of every island in Denmark, some of which are close to being as disconnected as f.ex. the Faeroe Islands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.176.25.249 (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

While I did not read the entire article, I find the distinctions between the three territories very relevant. While you don't state your nationality, you seem to be Danish and from Odense, according to the IP address you chose to publicly disclose and your spelling errors, so I'm surprised that you don't know the fact that in mainland Denmark (which is not a novel term, please make a web search for it) or 'proper Denmark' (which term is the best term according to you?), it is very normal to distinguish between Denmark proper, the Faroe Islands, and Greenland. Each are autonomous, and the primary languages spoken in these three areas are quite different, although all know how to speak Danish, and there are large geographical distances between these three areas. It makes total sense to be unambiguous and not just mention numbers from "Denmark" but specifically mention mainland Denmark. Otherwise the numbers would be unclear and wouldn't make sense. Also when it comes to the spread of a virus, it makes a lot of sense to distinguish between territories that are far from each other geographically (more than 1000 km).

It would not make much sense to keep track of every island in Denmark proper, as you suggest, as most of them are within a short distance from each other in Denmark proper; as you know, 1/3 of the area of Denmark proper consists of islands. Even the island of Bornholm is much, much closer to the rest of Denmark proper (160 km) than the Faroe Islands are (1000 km).

If you have any specific suggestions to what should be changed to actually improve the article, then be precise and say what it is you would like to change to what, and why. For instance, you didn't state what you think is the proper way to designate Denmark proper / mainland Denmark. It needs to be distinguished. --Jhertel (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I did not object to making a distinction, which you would notice if you read my comment again. My nationality and where I live is hardly relevant; I find it extremely odd that you would look my IP up and look into my spelling pattern, to figure out where I am from.

The current way the article is read makes it harder to understand, because of these details that are repeated very often. The article already makes it very clear, that there are no cases in Greenland and only two cases in FI. I have already suggested that the details are moved to a section of their own -- I have already made it clear that I do think they are worth mentioning (now three times). Distance is not the only way that a landmass can be disconnected.

If you did not read the article, why are you commenting a request to enhance the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.176.25.249 (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The numbers was just updated. Faroe islands has 9 infected. I suggest we split the bars. One for Denmark proper, and one for Faroe islands. Christian75 (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Since the infection is spreading in FI and how remote it is, that makes sense to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.176.25.249 (talk) 10:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Danish numbers not comparable with those of other countries?

Since Denmark now only tests severe cases (since March 12), I guess that means we can't compare the numbers to those of other countries? In the main article on the pandemic, there's a list of the most recent numbers of verified cases by country. But if countries test differently, those numbers are not really comparable... 77.241.137.181 (talk) 10:36, 15 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) 17:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Crystal ball

References to March 17 in the past tense are strange. Setreset (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Stats: Historic numbers of hospitalised/people in intensive care?

The strategy in Denmark is to flatten the curve, to stay within health system capacity for those that need hospitalisation etc. As a result the testing approach has changed and the number of infected is no longer very relevant. Wouldn’t it be relevant to track number of hospitalised people, and people in intensive care - as these would be more direct indicators of whether the speed of covid19 is managed sufficiently? Ohhansen (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be diffucult to get the data. Deaths are published by Sundhedsstyrelsen (Danish Health Authority). Therefore, more easy to track. Christian75 (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Data on hospitalized, intensive care and in respirator is available from official source at https://politi.dk/coronavirus-i-danmark/foelg-smittespredningen-globalt-regionalt-og-lokalt . 90.185.255.56 (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• SST Corona A4 print-V2.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Mainland Denmark

The phrase Mainland Denmark, as used in the first sentence of the article, is misleading, given that Denmark includes numerous large islands. Might it be better to leave out the Mainland element? It's clear that the article doesn't include Greenland and The Faroe Islands, but to remove any doubt this point could be clarified in the lead. Arcturus (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

You've got a point. I support the change. —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) ^{(/tɔːk/ – /ˈkɒntɹɪbs/)} 22:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I made the changes, and added a hatnote to point users to the articles for the Faroe Islands and Greenland. Arcturus (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

What the frell have you done with the statistics?

Took a look on the column diagrams (correct word?) and saw "Day 1" etc instead of the calendar dates! Revert that, please, I do not want to calculate to find a certain day! --82.82.51.64 (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Map(s)

Hi from Germany, sorry for my weak English. About two weeks ago, I asked in the talk for the map at the top of the article, to improve it, but now I see, that the map has not been changed over one month! So the creator of the map might have lost interest to actualize it, someone should continue it! My own wikipedia skills are too poor for it! The given source also gave population and incidence per capita for each community, so this would be much more interesting than absolute numbers! --82.82.51.64 (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Froztbyte, Skjoldbro, and HueMan1: as editors of the file, you might have a say in this. —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) ^{(/tɔːk/ – /ˈkɒntɹɪbs/)} 10:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Skjoldbro (talk) 09:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but I suggested to use the incidence per capita, instead of absolute numbers, these numbers are in the documents, too. --88.68.50.0 (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Timeline needs updating

The timing of measures and development of the pandemic in Denmark since November are of considerable international interest, given the contents of this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/uk-variant-covid-denmark/2021/01/22/ddfaf420-5453-11eb-acc5-92d2819a1ccb_story.html

84.211.57.125 (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Why do you use percentages???

In the country articles I have seen so far the development of COVID-19 cases and deaths are in absolute numbers, e.g. UK: "13,835,334 (+193,814)". But here percentages are used ("832,323 (+1.1%)") which is complete nonsense because the higher the numbers, the lower is the percentage increase, which is completely misleading. On 2020-03-03 there was a 150% increase of cases (6 more), on 2022-01-03 the increase was only 1.1% (9,000 more). So things get better all the time? --92.213.12.231 (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It's the typical left-wing nonsense with wikipedia. Don't ask for rational reasons! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.248.244.138 (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)