Talk:COVID-19 pandemic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Good articleCOVID-19 pandemic has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 28, 2020Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 10, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
January 2, 2022Good article nomineeNot listed
October 27, 2022Good article nomineeNot listed
June 12, 2023Good article nomineeListed
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on January 20, 2020, January 28, 2020, January 31, 2020, February 4, 2020, March 11, 2020, March 16, 2020, and May 6, 2023.
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 30, 2024.
Current status: Good article
WikiProject iconChina: History High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese history (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject icon2010s High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Current consensus

NOTE: The following is a list of material maintained on grounds that it represents

current consensus in the article. In accordance with Wikipedia:General sanctions/COVID-19, ("prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content except when consensus for the edit exists") changes of the material listed below in this article must be discussed first, and repeated offenses against established consensus may result in administrative action. It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as [[Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Current consensus]], item [n]. To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page
.

01. Superseded by #9

The first few sentences of the second paragraph should state "The virus is typically

airborne.[1] It may also spread when one touches a contaminated surface and then their face.[1][2] It is most contagious when people are symptomatic, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear.[2]" (March 2020
)

References

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference WHO2020QA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c "Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) - Transmission". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 17 March 2020. Retrieved 23 March 2020.

02. The infobox should feature a per capita count map most prominently, and a total count by country map secondarily. (March 2020)

03. The article should not use {{Current}} at the top. (March 2020 (informal))

04. Do not include a sentence in the lead section noting comparisons to World War II. (March 2020)

05. Include subsections of the "Domestic response" section covering the domestic responses of Italy, China, Iran, the United States, and South Korea. Do not include individual subsections for France, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia and Japan. (March 2020) Include a short subsection on Sweden focusing on the policy controversy. (May 2020)

06. Obsolete
There is a 30 day moratorium on move requests until 26 April 2020. (March 2020)

07. The infobox should feature a confirmed cases count map most prominently, and a deaths count map secondarily. (May 2020 (prevailing)) Consensus is currently unclear on this issue.

08. Superseded by #16
The clause on xenophobia in the lead should read ...and there have been
incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people and against those perceived as being Chinese or as being from areas with high infection rates. (April 2020
)

The first few sentences of the second paragraph should state The virus is mainly

spread through the air over large distances.[1][5][6] People may also become infected by touching a contaminated surface and then their face.[1][2] The virus can survive on surfaces for up to 72 hours.[7] Coronavirus is most contagious during the first three days after onset of symptoms, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear and in later stages of the disease. (March 2020, April 2020 (informal)
)

Notes

  1. ^ Close contact is defined as one metre (three feet) by the WHO[1] and two metres (six feet) by the CDC.[2]
  2. ^ An uncovered cough can travel up to 8.2 metres (27 feet).[3]

References

  1. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference WHO2020QA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference CDCTrans was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Bourouiba, JAMA, 26 March was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference ECDCQA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ "Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: implications for IPC precaution recommendations". World Health Organization. 29 March 2020. Retrieved 3 April 2020. According to current evidence, COVID-19 virus is primarily transmitted between people through respiratory droplets and contact routes.
  6. ^ Organization (WHO), World Health (28 March 2020). "FACT: #COVID19 is NOT airborne. The #coronavirus is mainly transmitted through droplets generated when an infected person coughs, sneezes or speaks.To protect yourself:-keep 1m distance from others-disinfect surfaces frequently-wash/rub your -avoid touching your pic.twitter.com/fpkcpHAJx7". @WHO. Retrieved 3 April 2020. These droplets are too heavy to hang in the air. They quickly fall on floors or sufaces.
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference StableNIH was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

010. The title of the article was decided to be "COVID-19 pandemic". It was also decided that the title of related pages should follow this scheme as well. (April 2020, August 2020)

011. The lead paragraph should use Wuhan, China to describe the virus's origin, without mentioning Hubei or otherwise further describing Wuhan. (April 2020)

012. The second sentence of the lead paragraph should be phrased using the words "first identified" (not "originated") and "December 2019" (not "early December 2019"). (May 2020)

013. Superseded by #15

ultraviolet light might help treat COVID-19. There is no evidence that either could be a viable method.[1] (1:05 min) (May 2020, June 2020
)

References

  1. ISSN 0362-4331
    . Retrieved 25 April 2020.

014. Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article. (May 2020)

015. File:President Donald Trump suggests measures to treat COVID-19 during Coronavirus Task Force press briefing.webm should not be used as the visual element of the misinformation section. (RfC November 2020)

016. Incidents of xenophobia and discrimination are considered

WP:UNDUE for a full sentence in the lead. (January 2021
)

017. Only include one photograph in the infobox. The exact image in question has no clear consensus. (May 2021)

018. The first sentence is The COVID-19 pandemic, also known as the coronavirus pandemic, is a global
severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). (August 2021
) and later edits

RFC on current consensus #14

This discussion has been open more than 30 days, nothing beyond polling is occurring at this point, and a request for closure has been registered at
WP:CR
. I am here to bring you closure.

By straight head counting, six editors support striking down Consensus #14, and three opposite it. By quality head-counting, meaning

WP:VAGUEWAVEs
are discounted, six editors support striking #14 and two oppose it. In addition, several other editors expressed more ambiguous positions that, while considered, did not meaningfully impact the decision here for reasons too lengthy to get into.

First, several editors in the oppose camp note that consensus can't occur implicitly in this case (the opposite of what we usually observe in

WP:EDITCON
), since #14 established a clear consensus and the mere presence of content against consensus that may have gone unnoticed doesn't overturn it. This was not sufficiently rebutted and, indeed, I can find no policy, guideline, or precedent that permits the type of "content squatting" being suggested. Based on strength of argument, the oppose camp — though in the numerical minority — is correct on this point that the mere presence of out-of-consensus content for a relatively short period of time does not overturn a clearly enunciated consensus recently arrived at by RfC.

Some in the support camp cited what they said was the the fact that RS now reference the proscribed content as a reason #14 should be overturned. This is essentially an inelegant

WP:MEDRS
would be cause to revisit and possibly overturn #14 -- I don't consider the lack of rebuttal by the oppose camp to be fatal here.

Despite the clear numerical support for striking #14, consensus is

WP:NOTAVOTE
and I can find no consensus to overturn and, similarly, no consensus to sustain (though, in reality, this means #14 is maintained - just with a low threshold for reopening a new RfC; plus, the question wasn't whether #14 should be overturned or renewed, rather, it was just if it or is not still valid).

However, despite the fact tha #14 remains the default position, it appears to be on perilous ground. Taking notice of sources off-Wiki, it's clear the Support camp could move a sustainable argument to overturn #14. They didn't do so here, and it's
not the closer's job to remedy the discursive failures that occurred in this RfC. It's possible another RfC in the near future -- perhaps, even, the very near future -- may not be out of order. And, if given even a modest effort, it seems likely to me such an RfC may pass. Chetsford (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

The following discussion 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.


Is Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Current_consensus #14 still valid?. It says: "Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article. (May 2020)" Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Polling

Exactly, and thus the reason for this RFC and the current consensus of this article is obviously different from the time of the previous RFC. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly opposed to #14 consensus - As an outsider to this topic on Wikipedia, I'm quite surprised to see there was a strict rule established here stating "Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article." This seems like a violation of
    WP:NOTCENSORED
    - even if the lab leak theory is completely false it is undisputably due to be mentioned.
That being said, perhaps the consensus/rule should not be striken entirely but mollified to something like "Special care is to be taken not to give undue weight to the lab leak theory" or "The lab leak theory is undue for inclusion in both the lead and background section." These are only approximate suggestions but some sort of softening of the current consensus would likely be better than either keeping the strict rule or abolishing it altogether.
-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe the article should be able to mention lab-related theories when necessary. The other editors from last time should perhaps be notified. Senorangel (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not determined here. Whatever we have should follow the principle of
    WP:SYNC and mirror what is said (probably in the lede) at Origin of COVID-19. If that changes there, it changes here too. Bon courage (talk) 08:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
This is your second !vote on this RFC. How about editing your initial vote instead of just appearing to vote again? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep consensus 14, and remove anything in the article that contradicts it. Obviously a consensus established through an RFC is stronger than any implicit consensus; that much is just basic. And while
    WP:CCC, nobody has actually presented any argument why we ought to overturn it; things haven't actually changed since the last RFC. Sometimes things fall through the cracks even on high-traffic articles, that's all. Recent coverage, to my understanding, has if anything pushed the theory further towards the fringes. --Aquillion (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Does that mean it cannot be mentioned at all, even if appropriately qualified? Senorangel (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strike down #14 consensus, it's obvious that the possibility of the lab leak is not impossible anymore, and it is a heavily discussed element of the pandemic whether it's correct or not.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strike down #14 consensus: it is covered semi-regularly in articles about the topic. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 18:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep consensus 14 an RfC 5 months ago really means this RfC is out of process and shouldn't be happening. Arguing that the content has been in the article for a while is putting the cart before the horse. The content ought to have been removed per the previous RfC. There has been no argument presented her for overturning the previous RfC other than the content is in the article which it shouldn't be. So per Aquillion, remove the content also. TarnishedPathtalk 13:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep concensus 14 for now--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

PHEIC ≠ pandemic

Just a perioic reminder that a "Public health emergency of international concern" is not the same as a "pandemic". Mixing these things up is a mistake RS warns about, and not a bungle Wikipedia should be making. We have a date for the pandemic start (as assessed by the WHO), so we must use that when we want a date for ... the pandemic start. Bon courage (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding that and these edits, the PHEIC is nevertheless a major aspect of the topic and should at least be mentioned in addition. That is the time period when legal and social restrictions were in place, and consequently dominates both this article and many others about the Covid pandemic. Its distinctiveness means it is worth mentioning. For an example comparison, we don't merely refer to the Korean conflict as ongoing even though that is technically true; both the lead and the infobox distinguish important periods such as the 1950-1953 Korean war. Many of the other articles linked at List of ongoing armed conflicts are arranged the same way. Many other articles also use multiple date parameters, such as George Floyd protests, nation articles like United States, and so forth.
Also, the consensus in the discussion
WP:GA
included it in both.
As for the WHO's "assessment" on March 11, 2020, this used to be in the lead of the article, but was removed by someone a while back. I'm not terribly opposed to it being restored, but it's hard to square this supposed 'assessment' with the fact that other sources show the WHO does not formally assess a "pandemic" category. [3][4] At the very least, we shouldn't expect that they will necessarily announce another "assessment" that reverses the March 11, 2020 one, and say the pandemic is over. There is no evidence for an internal mechanism that assesses this, like there was for the PHEIC which was re-assessed every three months. Describing the pandemic as over will require looking at a broad range of sources, and it may be that at some point it becomes disputed enough in high-quality RS that it becomes necessary to be non-specific on the question and attribute POVs.
Even now, for example, there is some dispute on the issue. This 3-day-old article from Boston University asked three of their professors the direct question "is COVID-19 still a pandemic?", and by my reading, one says no, one leans toward no, and one leans toward yes. Interestingly, the three vary in how they define "pandemic" in the first place - this may be widespread among experts. One also made the very interesting point that such an assessment is "difficult to identify...in real time" and is usually made retroactively in reassessments. Crossroads -talk- 20:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about the pandemic. We have a "dates" property, and we have a well-sourced value for the pandemic start date. If you want to invent a new property for "PHEIC dates" (which are different) then make them, but don't confuse one with the other. Bon courage (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Crossroads I still agree[5] w/ you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need an end date and move to "was" for this article. We all know the pandemic is over, just as this jargon sounding PHEIC states. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop POV-pushing and this is
WP:NOTAFORUM. Bon courage (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Jtbobwaysf A friend of mine is home sick with COVID right now. This could not have happened five years ago. How can YOU say it's over? HiLo48 (talk) 07:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That people still get Covid is irrelevant. That will keep happening long after the pandemic, same as people are home sick (or sometimes, worse) with the flu or the cold or whatever and those pandemics ended a long time ago.
Jtbobwaysf, it's clear by now that just saying it's over won't convince people. What we need are sources that give expert opinion, especially academic articles from, say, Google Scholar. If whether it's over or not is somewhat widely disputed in those, then a case could be made to attribute POVs in the article and shift away from present tense. I'd be in favor of that if so. Or if most say it's over (although that's probably not likely yet) then a case could be made for past tense. I certainly haven't done a comprehensive search yet. Crossroads -talk- 18:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OBVIOUS can also be used here. In this case what is being suggested is that we need to find RS to refute what is obvious, which is a hard thing to do, since not many people (let alone RS or MEDRS) talk about the sky being red. I think what we were discussing here is of the PHEIC jargon that also has an end date, no? Apologies if I was confused. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think the interview from the university is something we'd be happy to cite in this article, but that and other sources like it can tell us something about the likely overall scientific consensus. If the scientific consensus had concluded that it was definitely not a pandemic any longer, the contents of that interview would likely sound very different.
(Sources do talk about red skies; see Red sky at morning.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HiLo48 Many people are also still sick with spanish and swine flus, althrough the main "pandemics" ended 104 and 14 years ago respectively. These two flu viruses are today parts of the yearly seasonial flu. Karamellpudding1999 (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NYT 4-Year Summary of Covid Studies Worth Adding?

QUESTION: Is the Following NYT 4-Year Summary of Covid Studies Worth Adding (here or in some other related Wiki article)?[1] - if interested, my related NYT Comments are published here[2] - Comments Welcome - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC) Drbogdan (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

needless to say it is very well written, however it would have been better had it been published in a journal or scientific-type magazine (in contrast to a newspaper) to introduce into this and other related articles--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done...have added to 'further reading' section,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sheikh, Knvul (March 9, 2024). "Four Years On, the Mysteries of Covid Are Unraveling - Are superdodgers real? Is Covid seasonal? And what's behind its strangest symptoms? Here's what we've learned". The New York Times. Archived from the original on March 18, 2024. Retrieved March 18, 2024.
  2. ^ Bogdan, Dennis (March 9, 2024). "Comment - Four Years On, the Mysteries of Covid Are Unraveling - Are superdodgers real? Is Covid seasonal? And what's behind its strangest symptoms? Here's what we've learned. - Knvul Sheikh". The New York Times. Archived from the original on March 18, 2024. Retrieved March 18, 2024.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic&oldid=1217294598"