I got this error when trying to import from github:

The rest of the context field is already too long without that.

including deletion, update and addition of notes.

I move all the cards into another deck. Some of the cards do not mention COVID-19 or biology, and some of them become confusing because of that.

Oh wait, are they supposed to have a special background? I am using Anki 2.0.x; it probably needs different CSS then, but could that give some of the cards too much context if only COVID-19-specific cards have it...?

Per issue #16. I move the cards into a more global deck.

It's not like you are in the USA.

Eventually you might yourself become a target of a self-designed CoC's enforcer (probably irrelevant since you introducted the CoC in March: e.g., you have a "master" branch in your repo).

(Probably irrelevant since you introducted the CoC in March: ) Are you going to eventually refuse to cite sources that use the word "blacklist"?

I think I am not against what it is written in it, but what codes of conduct are misused for eventually. Also, the code may be larger than the project itself.

And whose is that @opayq.com e-mail address?

With Anthony Fauci popping up in the news, it might be a good idea to know who's who in the government in fighting or impending the pandemic, especially medical experts.

People who may be included: heads of states, NGO heads, WHO, people in charge of the CDC, etc.

Given that it's politically charged, historical determination will have to wait until historians weigh in, unless we just stick with uncontroversial tests.

First of all, let me thank you for making this deck. I had something similar in mind, but alas, I was too busy.

I've found a couple of things that I think could be improved but don't want to open a sperate issue for every item, because I don't know how many issues you consider a bug.

First: I think the "context" on the cards could be moved to a less visible location. When I came across the first card having a context field, I started reading from the top and thought the card had an error. (Because, I take it me and many others expect the first thing that appears on the card to be the question). So I think the context-field could be displayed below the question or maybe typeset in a lighter shade of grey.

The second minor nitpick I have is with the "definition" cards. I would use an extra "What is:" in front of them. I understand that this has not been done to be able to use a single note type. But I imagine, if I come across the covid-19 background in six months and see a card with the front "Incubation period", I will probably try to remember the (estimated) incubation period for covid-19 and not what the words mean. I think one should bite the bullet here and just add another note type.

Then there are a couple of cards where I think the content could me made more precise. I'll go through them one-by-one

Q: "The reason we are (currently, 2020.04) not able to test everyone, or even everyone with symptoms",
A: "Lack of sufficient testing equipment",
This seems overly broad. It is certainly true of europe, africa, australia and the americas, but (afaik) not of every country in asia. I suggest using "most countries" instead of "we" here.

Q"Information that's impossible to know",
A:"Mortality data for ongoing cases",
I just don't see the connection here. Surely there is a lot more that is impossible to know then just the mortality rate. I would either refrase the card: Can we know the mortality data for ongoing cases? - No. Delete the card (my favourite) or change it to something asking a why question: (I.e. Why can we know the mortality data for ongoing cases)

Q: Tuberculosis
A: "Bacterial infectious disease caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis",
First (even though there is another card for this, I would mention that tuberculosis is first and foremost a disease of the lungs. If you deem it important that it is a bacterial disease, make one (or two) new cards asking for the name of the bacterium (and what kind of pathogen causes the disease)

Q: "Information that we don't know due to limited resources",
A: "Who is infected and who isn't",
See above; I just don't see the connection between question and answer.

Q: "Which pre-existing condition* seems to worsen prospects the most for those infected with SARS-CoV-2?",
A: "cardiovascular disease

* <span style="font-weight:normal">class of conditions",
I don't like the asterisk. Personally, I would prefer to just move the "class of" to the front. Another thing (shared by a different card), pre-existing condition feels to much like US health care system to me. I would just use comorbitity here. As you can tell, I am not a native english speaker though, so take this with a grain of salt.

Q: "How does the size of the genetic material in coronaviruses compare to other RNA viruses?",
A: "Coronaviruses have the largest genomes of all RNA viruses",
I would add (like the original source does) that they have the largest genome of all KNOWN RNA viruses.

Q: "Classification of viruses according to their genetic material",
A; "DNA and RNA viruses",
I don't really like this because it is not precise. When I first came across this card, I was thinking of the Baltimore Classification. Maybe rephrase as "What is the simplest classification of viruses according to their genetic material?"

Q: "How many coronaviruses are known to cause disease in humans?",
A: 7
I know that a later card asks for the number of endemic coronaviruses, but I still think this might confuse some users. SARS is extinct after all. I don't have a good solution. Maybe add that not all of them exist anymore in parentheses?

Q: "For how long did viable SARS-CoV-2 remain in aerosol?",
A: "at least 3 hours"
While there is a context field linking the study, I still find this (and to a lesser degree the other cards made for this study) misleading. I think some users will come away with the conclusion that there might aerosol transmission is far more dangerous than it really is. First, (and this is not to criticize the authors of the study) this result comes from highly artificial labaratory conditions (see the supplement in the source you linked). Conditions outside (wind, UV, etc.) will disperse any infectious aerosol far quicker. The second point is that while there was still viable virus detectable it is doubtful that it was an infectious dose, even in lab conditions.
That being said, I don't really have a good idea on how to make this card better :/

Q: "Why is it hard to estimate the case fatality rate (CFR) for COVID-19?",
A: "

Q: "Median number of days after infection that the virus was still detected in patients",
A: "20"
For some reason the lancet won't let me view the original study, so I might be wrong here, but afaik, this means that viral RNA can still be found not that the virus is still infectious. So again, I think some users walk away from this and think that most people are infectious until day 20 after infection, which is for all we know not the case.

The same goes for the question with "maximum" instead of "median"

Q: "How can recovered patients help those struggling with the disease?",
A: "By donating plasma (which contains antibodies)",
I find this to be too specific for the question, surely they could also volunteer by shopping for vulnerable groups or providing at-home care for family-members or something. Also (as far as I know) it is not clear yet whether antibody therapy really works and if every recovered patient is a viable donor (but please corrext me if I'm wrong here).

Q: When to use masks?
A: - When coughing or sneezing
- When caring for someone with a suspected or confirmed infection
This card I find somewhat dangerous. A face mask is probably somewhat useful to prevent coughing and sneezing from infecting others (also breathing and talking). But it is a different mask then will protect you from becoming infected (the second part of the answer). A mask that protects you against the virus (i.e. ffp3) usually has a valve that releases all the air you exhale(!) unfiltered. In my opinion, this card conflates to very different uses of masks. Those to protect others (any old thing will probably help a bit) and those that protect oneself (a piece of cloth will probably not reduce risk of infection by much, a ffp3 mask will).

I hope this wasn't too much for a single issue.
Again let me thank you for a wonderful deck and I hope that at least some points I raised will make it even a little better.

Apparently, US intelligence reported that china numbers may be partly bogus. We could include this in the deck as "US intelligence accused China of intentional manipulation of the numbers", without stating it as absolute facts.

We know that different countries reports coronavirus cases in different way, such as Italy reporting death if a person is shown to be infected without necessarily confirming that their death is caused or contributed to by coronavirus.

Anyway, what's your all thought on this and should this be included?

https://github.com/evolverine/covid-19-anki-deck/blob/master/deck.json#L206

go through existing notes as well

Some questions have cumulative answers. They can easily be split up into the answer components. This would follow https://www.supermemo.com/en/archives1990-2015/articles/20rules

e. g.:

Why is it hard to estimate the case fatality rate (CFR) for COVID-19?

• official numbers do not reflect reality
• no mortality data available for ongoing cases

e.g. number of fields

...and link to that instead of twitter on the card with id f0dd740a-6576-11ea-923b-ac72899d63fe

Because the same note type (currently called "Front <-> Back Source Context") can be used by users for other information, in other decks, and having the bacteria background for them probably doesn't make sense.

It's a non-semantic clue.

Currently, in AnkiDroid's night mode the text becomes white and illegible.