Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 43

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

We have discussed China origin before, and this news is getting more coverage in Slate. We have discussed this before here

Already covered with a dedicated sub-section at

WP:FALSEBALANCE) option to the scientific consensus, though. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 16:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

This article in Slate doesn't really change the analysis of

WP:FRINGE alternative scientific hypothesis in which case we should rely on secondary sources (latest WHO report), or it's a conspiracy theory in which case it goes in COVID-19 misinformation. Bakkster Man (talk

) 17:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The current COVID-19_pandemic#Misinformation section provides an excessive summarization and fails to include any of the DUE conspiracy theories on this article. One or two sentences would be sufficient. Saying 'there are various false information and conspiracy theories' is excessive summarization. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

IMO, there is no such thing as a "due conspiracy theory". At least, not for the primary article versus one specifically covering conspiracy theories (see the single short paragraph in

WP:FRINGE/PS? Bakkster Man (talk

) 17:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Of course there are due conspiracy theories and we have entire pages dedicated to them, as as you pointed out.

WP:FRINGE/PS as you mention points out "Alternative theoretical formulations" in which those skilled in the art have different opinions. The former director of the CDC is obviously in that 'skilled in the art' category (borrowing an IP term). Just because the status quo doesn't accept that opinion doesn't 'deem' them scientific (of course they would deem them unscientific if they disagree). Obviously, with attribution, the opinion of the very definition of a category expert (even if the opinion differs from the mainstream) is due a sentence. Specifically, a sentence that summarizes the other sub-article, such as 'various people including xyz and abc have alleged the virus escaped from a lab in china, although these opinions are disputed by the mainstream.' (insert notable people's name, obviously, the person making the statement would need a wikilink itself, or their opinion would be undue in my opinion to begin with, but just because they have a wikilink it doesnt make it due. but expert + notable = due) Jtbobwaysf (talk

) 13:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Except the lab leak has failed to gain any significant traction amongst scientists. The odd one here and there (notice how the CDC director is also a political appointee...); but it's IMHO much closer to the "Questionable science" bit (nothing but anecdotal/circumstantial evidence) than to the "serious theory which is only supported by a minority" end of the scale. It being an "alternative theoretical formulation" would require it be reported as a serious possibility in multiple MEDRS (which would demonstrate it is a possibility actually entertained by scientists) - yet these, if they mention it at all (most don't), say things like "extremely unlikely". As to the mention in the article, that's already there, innit? "Without evidence, some people have claimed the virus is a bioweapon accidentally or purposefully leaked from a laboratory," RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@

standard model article doesn't reference string theory. Bakkster Man (talk

) 13:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@

Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Feel free to add Dr. Chan as a notable supporter over there, but you've not made the argument (beyond an interview in Slate being 'more coverage') that it's DUE here on this article. Just like with the moon landing page, no need for the details here. Bakkster Man (talk

) 13:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Per

fringe it is not necessary for us to summarize fringe viewpoints outside of the sub article (the investigations into the origins). And yes, MEDRS is a valid reason to exclude things that can only be sourced to "popular news" articles, as investigation of a pandemic's origin, index cases, etc is biomedical information - whereas statistics are not, investigation of single cases is. The theory is not fully disproven at this point but is considered so unlikely as to be fringe by mainstream science. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!

) 14:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

There are no known sources of the virus. Disproving something that is not known is silly. Are there no other sources besides slate? I am guessing there are a few. There are numerous China lab leak theories as you point out, they are in fact theories, not conspiracies as the POV pushers would try to assert. I am not taking any position at this time on subsets of the China lab leak theory, whether it is a bioweapen, accidental, bats, etc. There is no discussion of the inclusion of that there and that is an attempt to the discussion off track, it is clear above what I am proposing. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: it is clear above what I am proposing. With respect it is not. Perhaps it would be more clear if you wrote up the sentence you wanted added so we could discuss that, instead of hoping for someone else (who agrees with you) to write up the sentence under discussion. Until then, there's no point in continuing. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Our MEDRS and the WHO report

Our MEDRS and RS on origins only weigh probabilities of different hypotheses as there is no direct evidence for any of them, and should therefore be properly attributed as opinions, and not presented as facts in Wikivoice. The probability of accidental zoonosis are based on priors and is weighed higher than probability of lab origins, which Chan and other much more senior scientists are reported in reliable sources to contest, as lab origins has both priors with SARS viruses leaking from biosecure labs in China and circumstantial evidence linking SARS-CoV-2 to WIV through RaTG13, as reported just yesterday in CNET. A multilateral statement by 14 governments [1] contests the weighting of the four hypotheses made in the interim WHO report, which were quietly dropped from its final report, and the WHO DM made a follow on statement calling for further investigations of lab origins in specific [2]. ::The lab origins hypothesis is falsifiable, as both our MEDRS and RS explicitly state, but only if China cooperates with these further investigations, specifically in providing access to its early patient and donor blood samples/data for seroanalysis. CutePeach (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

MEDRS (and not just the WHO) explicitly put the lab leak on the "extremely unlikely" end of things. As for arguments to false balance and debunked arguments such as the RaTG13 "link" and political (not scientific) claims, that's already discussed in an RfC last year, and I don't see anything that has changed the situation. It's not WPs job nor purpose to advocate for "further investigations", nor to criticise the scientific consensus (there are multiple sources, not just MEDRS which explicitly say that natural zoonosis is the scientifically accepted hypothesis - you picking only the ones which report on politics is of course cherry-picking); nor to present minority opinions which are based on circumstantial evidence which in all honesty boils down to "there's a lab in Wuhan" (see the quote from a Nature article posted here or on some other talk page). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE would apply only to really ridiculous origin hypotheses like meteorites, little green men or peeps. The WHO's joint study with China and the four main hypotheses they considered [3] includes the laboratory leak hypothesis that was assessed in their interim report as extremely unlikely [4], but that appellation was dropped in their final report [5]. The WHO DG later said lab origin hypothesis indeed requires further investigation [6], which he also stated after the interim report [7]. The US led multilateral statement made in response to the long awaited final report on the WHO joint study "underscores" the need for an investigation with full and open collaboration [8] from the government of China, which is well documented to have covered up the early outbreak of this pandemic [9], and is well documented to cover up stuff in the general. We should not express academic opinions or contrived government policies as facts in Wikivoice. CutePeach (talk

) 18:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Politics should not be confused with science. You shouldn't take governments as unbiased entities (especially not the US government which was led by the most virulent of COVID misinformation spreaders). We're writing on science. Re. the WHO report; what you're giving is the annexes, not the report itself, as should be clear from the file name and the first page. What the annexes do contain is stuff like "WIV was heavily targeted by conspiracy theories. Staff talked to media and scientific journalists to dispel the myths.", "the low likelihood that RaTG13 was the precursor of SARS-CoV-2", etc...; but that's nothing new, since you've obviously read the whole thing and are providing an unbiased assessment of it, since you're talking about it, right? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Politics shouldn't be confused with science, and the WHO is science... right? We give due weight to all kinds of things at WP including green people as another editor points out above, not sure that was his objective ;-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Even if we disregarded the WHO all other serious scientific sources point in the same direction... See

WP:NOLABLEAK for a sampling. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 19:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:FRINGE). Consensus might change in the future, but that shouldn't stop us from describing current consensus. Bakkster Man (talk

) 19:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man:, thank you for correcting that significant error as the final WHO report does in fact use the extremely unlikely appellation, which I missed late last night. I am much better rested now and already on my second coffee of the day. I think my main point still stands. The WHO DG critiqued rejected the report’s findings [12] saying that the team’s assessment was not extensive enough, and that the lab leak hypothesis needs further investigation [13] [14] [15]. The WHO’s Joint Study - which was performed by an independent group of scientists and not the WHO itself [16] - is presented on the WHO website alongside the WHO DG’s statements [17], so the report should not be taken alone as the WHO’s official position on COVID-19 origins, until its findings are verified by underlying data [18].

Also, the US led multilateral response of WHO member states who would have liked to have had more of a say in the Terms of Reference of the Joint Study and for it have taken place earlier, and for further investigations to be expedited with full and open collaboration, casts doubt on the WHO Joint Study and its assessments [19], but agrees with the report’s call for a continued scientific and collaborative approach, as you pointed out. China's response to the WHO DG and the US led multilateral statement is not reassuring [20] [21][22] [23] [24][25]. Without blood samples/data, the lab leak hypothesis cannot be falsified, and if they are confident of the report’s findings, the Chinese government would have every reason to share the relevant data with the WHO like they did after the SARS-COV-1 epidemic of 2003 [26]. WHO team member

Public Health Emergency of International Concern [27]

.

As to your point on Wikivoice, the current scientific consensus on COVID-19 origins as presented in our MEDRS and RS - including the WHO report - is based entirely on weighing/assessing probabilities of different hypotheses based on

phylogenetic evidence. There are senior scientists and officials - including the WHO DG - expressing widely varying viewpoints supporting different hypotheses, but all of them call for further investigation of all hypotheses - including lab origins - which China has yet to acquiesce. All these views should be properly attributed as opinions and not stated as fact in Wikivoice, until direct evidence is presented in a peer reviewed journal, or the Chinese government releases the blood data/samples requested by the WHO. Since you want to discuss the application of this policy on other articles, it should be no different to how we treat China’s claims in the Spratly Islands and the Air Defense Identification Zone. They are just claims, which we attribute to the Government of China, and it's as simple as that. In this article, we should not present PRC claims as facts on matters pertaining to what looks like a matter of non compliance with International Health Regulations that are legally binding on all members of the World Health Organization. Those regulations were reformed after the Chinese government’s disastrous coverup of SARS-COV-1 and will have to be reformed again after SARS-COV-2 and what looks like another coverup on its origins and emergence [28]. CutePeach (talk

) 10:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't bode well for your argument when it triggers "use of deprecated (unreliable) source"... As to your

WP:IDHT comments. Either cite MEDRS which treat the lab leak as something serious (if they exist); or be content with the existing section on misinformation. That or we'll be going to AE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 14:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach: I strongly disagree with this characterization: The WHO DG critiqued rejected the report’s findings. I interpret the Director General's comments (direct link to avoid potential editorializing by news agencies) as entirely consistent with the report's conclusion: the team called for a continued scientific and collaborative approach to be taken towards tracing the origins of COVID-19. I welcome your report, which advances our understanding in important ways. It also raises further questions that will need to be addressed by further studies, as the team itself notes in the report... Finding the origin of a virus takes time and we owe it to the world to find the source so we can collectively take steps to reduce the risk of this happening again. No single research trip can provide all the answers. It is clear that we need more research across a range of areas, which will entail further field visits.

I also don't think we "present PRC claims as facts". We are presenting WHO-published research as the scientific consensus. Whether or not Chinese cooperation or obstruction has limited our current understanding, this report is the current state of public understanding. As before, any criticisms would be more appropriately addressed on the

WP:FRINGE theories left for articles dedicated to that discussion. Bakkster Man (talk

) 17:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

That comment you make about CP's dimissal of science as "PRC facts" also remind me of stuff of eerie ressemblance to POV pushing at other subjects. Painting the dominant position as only the POV of "one side" is exactly what some editors were doing at Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus (where the global position that this was an invasion is deemed by POV pushers to be the position of the "Greeks" and is therefore dismissed as being biased)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: the WHO DG’s statements were characteristized by at least one RS as having rejected the findings of the report, while most RS use the term critique, so I would agree to the latter term.

The claim that WHO-published research is the scientific consensus when we have the WHO DG, multiple WHO member states, and numerous independent scientists who do not agree with Terms of Reference of the Joint Study with China and the findings of the their report, due to the lack of underlying data for verification, is unsupported.

The WHO DG’s remarks in reference to the Joint Study team’s assessment of a potential laboratory incident as not being extensive enough are not in line with the team’s own proposal, which is why RS characterises them the way they do.

CutePeach (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach: I disagree, a plain reading of the WHO DG's comments simply states that their work is not over until they have a definitive source. Not that their latest study is flawed or inaccurate or otherwise to be dismissed, just that the intention is to increase the level of certainty to the point they no longer need to apply probabilities to four different hypotheses. Until that happens, I see no reason to include the "extremely unlikely" scenario on this page. There are other pages where due weight and attention can be (and are) given, improve those if you find them lacking. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Bakkster Man, a plain reading of the WHO DG’s remarks states that the team's assessment was not extensive enough in relation to one of the hypotheses, which is not something they admitted to in their report, and is good reason for us not to present the report as scientific consensus and present its findings as facts, in Wikivoice. The WHO DG would not have made these remarks if there weren't concerns with one team member’s COI [29] [30] [31] and even more significant concerns with their assessments [32], especially with the cold chain transmission hypothesis, which is unsupported by science [33][34] . Please note that we are not discussing whether we should include the "extremely unlikely" scenario on this page, but how to present the WHO's report in light of the WHO DG's remarks, the concerns of independent scientists with assessments made in the WHO report [35], and the US led multilateral response, all of whom unanimously called for China to release underlying data. CutePeach (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Calls for further investigations and criticism that further data needs to be made available to complete a more thorough assessment are not "good reason" to treat the report as bollocks. As to the rest (where I fail to see a single MEDRS), per the below, we should indeed "present the report as scientific consensus", criticism aside (academic publications of all kinds get criticised by academics themselves - that doesn't make them invalid; it only highlights what needs to be further researched). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, from the WHO report itself (you've clearly read it, since you're criticising it so much, so this shouldn't be news to you): (p. 9) The team assessed the relative likelihood of these pathways and prioritized further studies that would potentially increase knowledge and understanding globally. So your comment that it is "not something they admitted to in their report" is wrong. Clearly we should not use popular press misrepresentations for this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

CutePeach While the words "not... extensive enough" were only used for one hypothesis, all four hypotheses and the lack of raw data access were referenced by the WHO DG in his statement. That's the plain reading I'm referring to, the team and the DG are in agreement, everything needs further study.

Please note that we are not discussing whether we should include the "extremely unlikely" scenario on this page, but how to present the WHO's report in light of... Which specific section are you referring to. The report is only cited twice on the page. Once near the top in Background, alongside multiple other strong sources about the early cluster of cases at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. And again about halfway down in the History 2019 section discussing the findings relative to the earlier hypothesis that the market was the original source of the outbreak. IMO, critiques of the WHO report don't particularly fit in either of these sections, where due to the brevity of the sections they'd risk being

Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 article does not have). Bakkster Man (talk

) 17:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@

SARS-COV-2 page, and presumably also this page. I would not say that the WHO’s remarks put forward any position as to how and where SARS-COV-2 entered the human population, but I would say that the WHO report and DG’s remarks are MEDRS, and that they should give us pause when we state expert opinions as facts in Wikivoice. I do not ask for more than that. CutePeach (talk

) 16:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:AGF

) when pointing out your errors above (which, IMO, would be appropriate for you to strikeout if you concur they're in error). I appreciate if you can extend the same courtesy rather than accusing me of not reading the remarks.

Taking the full WHO DG comments on the topic: The team also visited several laboratories in Wuhan and considered the possibility that the virus entered the human population as a result of a laboratory incident. However, I do not believe that this assessment was extensive enough. Further data and studies will be needed to reach more robust conclusions. Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this requires further investigation, potentially with additional missions involving specialist experts, which I am ready to deploy. Taking it all in context, he's calling for more robust conclusions. This should not be taken to imply the current conclusion is not at all robust, rather that the goal is to move from a less robust estimate to a more robust definitive conclusion. It's inappropriate to selectively quote to change the context, especially when the calls for further studies on the other 3 hypothesis are not referenced.

As I said before, I've given my perspective on this topic being

WP:UNDUE in this article. Unless you have a specific proposal on what content to add to which section of this article that meets the criteria of depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery then I stand by my statement above. Bakkster Man (talk

) 17:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: I do have faith in you, which is why I repeatedly explained my point of view based on my reading of the primary source and provided affirmatory reports from secondary sources. I sincerely apologise for my remarks on your comprehension abilities and I will again explain my point of view, with one additional caveat for your benefit.

Explaining away the WHO DG's very pointed remarks on the team’s report that were characterized in numerous RS as fault and criticism, like in [38] - as well as overlooking the US multilateral responses to the report as reported in numerous RS, like in [39] - and casting aside the open letters from independent scientists that were published in the Wall Street Journal [40], New York Times [41] and Le Monde [42], to present in Wikivoice that there is scientific consensus on COVID-19 origins, would be a gross violation of

WP:MEDRS

, since the WHO team report along with the WHO DG’s remarks are our highest quality MEDRS and should not be misquoted, misinterpreted, or misrepresented in any way. If you have secondary RS supporting your reading of this primary MEDRS, please put it in your feedback to my suggestions below.

For the caveat: the WHO DG could have made his statements clearer, but the ambiguity can be understood in the context of the "

WP:DUE for coverage in this article as the WHO DG’s remarks we are discussing here were made in reaction to the alleged politicization of the science by the Government of China [50]. The WHO does not exist in a political vacuum, and this report was based on a "Joint Study" with China, which could have been subject to political meddling, or worse, censoring [51]

.

What is known and unknown about the origins of the virus that caused this pandemic are

SARS-COV-2 page, like they would be for any other page on other pandemic and viruses, which Drbogdan, Jtbobwaysf and Ozzie10aaaa seem to agree with me on. CutePeach (talk

) 15:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

That the WHO director made his statement as a "diplomatic balancing act" means it clearly isn't really a scientific remark. As for "the origins of the virus" see the post immediately below which includes "Recent MEDRS"... Reports in the

WP:MEDPOP sources are ok for politics, but not for science. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 15:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

JPxG can you see what we’re dealing with here? Please can you unarchive that ANI? Time for a Boomerang. CutePeach (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I dont see anything here, other than two editors who seem to have opposed views. CutePeach seems to want to add an excessive amount of content and RandomCanadian's arguments that WHO DGs comments don't meet MEDRS are farcical and the repetition of it is bludgeoning. That said I dont think I have seen this ANI being referred to. I think anyone can see an archived ANI (they are mostly archived), why does someone have to unarchive it, or was that comment a veiled threat to raise another? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Just as an observation, a WHO DG's "comments" do not, in fact, meet MEDRS. A position statement from the WHO would, though.

talk

) 16:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Wowie zowie, it's hard to think of an argument I want to participate in less, but I guess I will give my opinion here. "Politics should not be confused with science", indeed. What is even going on with this article? @RandomCanadian: I am puzzled by your rhetorical tack here -- while I don't think the lab leak hypothesis is particularly likely, it is a little odd to insist on mentioning it only once, in a weirdly constructed sentence that seems designed to deliberately conflate it with "NWO illuminati bioweapon" and "CORONA 5G TRUE" nonsense. I'm sure that this insistence makes perfect sense in the context of some very long argument on this talk page involving a multitude of people, but to an uninvolved editor it seems quite bizarre. jp×g 19:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: I have long given up on replying to RC because of the reasons you mention. Here is the ANI they filed on the new user they successfully baited into making "thinly veiled accusations" and "overall trolling": [52]. It would be better understood in the context of this ANI [53], which was all over Twitter. CutePeach (talk)

@CutePeach: appreciate that, and my apologies if I came off as brusque. I have also replied to your proposal below.

Would it be fair to phrase things a bit differently to where we might find reasonable points of consensus to build from? Coming back to wikivoice, perhaps my concern is more a

WP:BLP concern of putting words into Tedros' mouth. I'm not opposed to reliable sources which describe his statement as critical, only to saying he said so in wikivoice in a way that suggests he intended it to be significantly more critical of that hypothesis than others. If he has made clarifying statements to that extent since, I'd love to see us use them instead. Otherwise, if included, I'd be more comfortable with something like "Tedros' statements were seen by many to be critical" with a few citations. Bakkster Man (talk

) 18:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:MEDASSESS [60]. I will respond to your comment there tomorrow. CutePeach (talk

) 16:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach: I'm going to attempt to stay out of the ANI kerfuffle. I've got my own thoughts on things and think there's a fair amount of bad behavior around here, but I'd much rather model good behavior until we reach a good decision than rant and rave.

As for MEDRS, I think I lean first on FRINGE to ensure notability, then think we should use MEDRS wherever possible, and always for anything that's clearly biomedical (mostly because without it we'd be thrashing back and forth without saying anything concrete). See my below rewrite for an example. There is no MEDRS for the critiques of the WHO report, but IMO the critiques are well sourced, not UNDUE, and most importantly not biomedical themselves. You'll notice I usually point to other policies first when I disagree with content/wording, and when I think MEDRS applies I ask to see if there's a MEDRS source which supports whatever claim there is. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE policy, I must confess that I didn't completely comprehend it because I took it in the colloquial context. CutePeach (talk

) 16:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach: No worries, I generally assume a week minimum before I should be expecting certain responses. And yeah, FRINGE is pretty broad. From pseudoscience to bad science to solid science which is accepted by a minority. I'm sure that this is a big reason why there's so much consternation on the topic, different people misinterpreting the policy different ways. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:BATTLE. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk

) 20:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:MEDRS (i.e. a secondary review in an adequate academic journal) which supports the lab leak and the best you can come up with is Tedros saying "it needs further investigation" and somehow interpreting that as being explicit support (it isn't); then I don't think I'm POV pushing; and your accusations are grossly out of place. This has been argued since May last year. If you can't come up with a MEDRS which supports the hypothesis, then you're better not starting an RfC about the science section, as it will not give the result you expect. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 23:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) So let's disregard the WHO for a moment. What of all the other MEDRS (and popular press too, despite their false balance) which quite explicitly say that the hypothesis most favoured by scientists is indeed natural spillover. Recent MEDRS:
  • Mishra, Sanjay Kumar; Tripathi, Timir (2021). "One year update on the COVID-19 pandemic: Where are we now?".
    ISSN 0001-706X
    .

  All human CoVs have zoonotic origin and are capable of transmission among mammalian hosts; however, most CoVs originate in bats and are transmitted to humans through domestic animals and SARS-CoV-2 is thought to have originated in bats via genetic recombination of existing bat CoV strains and to have been transmitted from bats to humans either directly or through unknown intermediate hosts, similarly to the roles of civets and camels in SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, respectively. (no mention of a lab, anywhere)

  • Adil, Md Tanveer; Rahman, Rumana; Whitelaw, Douglas; Jain, Vigyan; Al-Taan, Omer; Rashid, Farhan; Munasinghe, Aruna; Jambulingam, Periyathambi (1 February 2021). "SARS-CoV-2 and the pandemic of COVID-19". Postgraduate Medical Journal. 97 (1144): 110–116.
    ISSN 0032-5473
    .

  Another unconfirmed hypothesis that has received mixed response is the possibility of the virus originating in Wuhan’s Centre of Disease Control and Prevention, located just 300 yards away from Wuhan’s animal market or the Wuhan Institute of Virology located eight miles away from the animal market.13 Conspiracy theories about a possible accidental leak from either of these laboratories known to be experimenting with bats and bat CoVs that has shown some structural similarity to human SARS-CoV-2 has been suggested, but largely dismissed by most authorities. - so an "unconfirmed hypothesis", "mixed response", "conspiracy theory" and "largely dismissed by most authorities" (if you haven't got the memo, that's solidly

  WP:FRINGE

  .

  • Hu, Ben; Guo, Hua; Zhou, Peng; Shi, Zheng-Li (6 October 2020). "Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19". Nature Reviews. Microbiology: 1–14.
    ISSN 1740-1526
    .

  Has much too many interesting things to quote all of it. However, I note that there are repeated calls for further investigations (like the WHO report and the apparent critique from the DG et al.) and that there is clear discussion of the preponderance of evidence regarding spillover and hypotheses about the specifics of that.

• So back to the WHO report. It maybe doesn't tell anything new or significant, but it certainly gives more weight to the existing scientific consensus, which is that the virus spilled over from bats (via an intermediary host); and that further research is required. Little, if any, mention of lab leaks or other "extremely unlikely" hypotheses. Given this is the main topic article and that it is already overly long, we should summarise the main consensus (already done), which is that the virus spilled over naturally. Alternative theories (like alternative facts) can be relegated to sub-articles about political investigations and misinformation; despite the efforts of a dedicated twitter group that claims the contrary. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with RandomCanadian, alternative theories should be sub-articles and the main article should be focused on relevant scientific consensus, otherwise we would have an article full of speculation and unfounded theories that would simply waste space and deter from the purpose of providing relevant information. Jurisdicta (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Tedros Adhanom, and others have asserted that COVID-19 could have escaped from Wuhan Institute of Virology
. This claim is not accepted by the mainstream.

Since its outbreak in Wuhan in late 2019, the exact origins of COVID-19 remain unknown. In a November 2019 editorial, Microbiologist David Relman wrote "efforts to investigate the origins of the virus became mired in politics, poorly supported assumptions and assertions, and incomplete information".[1] White House officials, US Senator Tom Cotton and President Donald Trump floated claims that the virus may have originated in a lab in Wuhan rather than a seafood market, as first reported[2][3][4]. A WHO convened study found that the most likely hypothesis was a zoonotic transmission from a reservoir host to humans through an intermediary host at a local market in Wuhan, and that the least likely hypothesis was the lab leak, but the WHO Director General said that the assessment of the lab leak hypothesis was not extensive enough, calling upon China to cooperative on further investigations and provide access to supporting data[5][6]. China responded to the WHO Director General’s criticism of the report saying the lab leak theory was ruled out, alleging that the WHO DG was yielding to political pressure. [7][8][9]. In a series of open letters published in the Wall Street Journal, Le Monde, and New York Times, a group of independent scientists calling themselves the "The Paris Group" called upon the WHO to conduct an forensic investigation.[10][11][12] In a multilateral statement, US Government with 13 other WHO member states joined the WHO DG in criticizing the WHO report, and with the European Union, called upon China to be more timely and transparent in further investigations with the WHO and provide access to raw data. [13] [14][15] 

Since its outbreak in Wuhan in late 2019, the exact origins of COVID-19 remain unknown. In a November 2019 editorial, Microbiologist David Relman wrote "efforts to investigate the origins of the virus became mired in politics, poorly supported assumptions and assertions, and incomplete information".[1]
Initial reports in China indicated that the virus may have originated in the 
Pangolins as intermediate species, but have no supporting data has been provided by the authors.[2][3][4] Mainstream media in early 2019 reported the origins of the virus as a likely zoonosis between exotic species and humans at the market. Some scientists say the zoonosis may have occurred outside the market.[5]
 
In a February 10 email exchange between infectious disease doctors and medical experts in the US federal government dubbed as the Red Dawn Emails, then White House advisor Mark Keim stated "The novel virus could be anthropogenic rather than zoonotic".[6][7] In February 16 Foxnews interview with Maria Bartiromo, Democrat Senator Tom Cotton floated the theory that the virus may have originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology near the Seafood Market, saying that "because of China’s duplicity and dishonesty from the beginning, we need to at least ask the question to see what the evidence says."[8] On 30 April 2020 US Republican President Donald Trump claimed he had seen evidence pointing to the Wuhan Institute of Virology as the origin of the virus saying “the World Health Organization should be ashamed of themselves because they're like the public relations agency for China."[9] 
SARS-COV-2] like with most prior outbreaks from zoonotic diseases is far more likely, condemning the lab origins theory as a conspiracy theory.[10][11] Trump who was publicly criticising the WHO at the time for being "China centric" over its response of the virus’s early emergence in Wuhan, was criticized for politicising the virus.[12] Trump was criticized for blaming China to distract from his administration’s bungled response to pandemic in the USA, and even scientists for investigating the possibility of the lab origins of the virus became scared of the politically toxic notion.[13]
 
In mid 2020, the WHO negotiated with the government of China on conducting an investigation into the origins of COVID-19. By November 2020, the WHO had agreed on a "Terms of Reference" for what China called a "Joint Study", the first phase of which would be undertaken by a Chinese team and the second phase to be completed by international teams of scientists.
Richard Ebright[16][17][18]. The Trump administration called the study a "Potemkin exercise", citing that even the Chinese CDC Director George Gao aand other Chinese government officials had ruled out the Seafood Market as the source of the virus.[19][20] The Biden administration said the US would not accept the WHO report without independently verifying its findings.[21][22]
 
On March 30, the WHO published a report entitled "WHO-convened Global Study of the Origins, presenting four scenarios as how the virus was first introduced to humans, including direct zoonotic transmission from a reservoir host, through an intermediate host, the (cold) food chain, or a laboratory incident.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the 
Richard Ebright and David Relman, both of whom had called for an unimpeded forensic investigation into the origins of the virus, saying the inclusion of Peter Daszak on the team was a conflict of interest.[25] In a series of open letters published in the Wall Street Journal, Le Monde, and New York Times, a group of independent scientists calling themselves the "The Paris Group" called upon the WHO to conduct an forensic investigation.[26][27][28] In a multilateral statement, US Government with 13 other WHO member states joined the WHO DG in criticizing the WHO report, and with the European Union, decried the lack of access to supporting data and called upon China to be more timely and transparent in further investigations with the WHO and provide access to raw data. [29] [30][31]
  

References

1. ^
   PMID 32359479
   .
2. ^ "WHO Points To Wildlife Farms In Southern China As Likely Source Of Pandemic". NPR. 15 March 2021.
3. ^
   S2CID 232429241
   .
4. ^ ^{a b} Adhanom, Tedros. "WHO Director-General's remarks at the media briefing on 2019-nCoV on 11 February 2020". World Health Organization (WHO). Retrieved 24 October 2020.
5. ^ ^{a b} Lovelace Jr, Berkeley (11 February 2020). "World Health Organization names the new coronavirus: COVID-19". CNBC. Retrieved 23 October 2020.
6. ^ ^{a b} Cite error: The named reference LancetNowcasting was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
7. ^ ^{a b} Cite error: The named reference ia56U was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
8. ^
   PMID 32197085
   .
9. ^ ^{a b} Cite error: The named reference ECDC risk assessment was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
10. ^
    EurekAlert!
    . Scripps Research Institute. 17 March 2020. Retrieved 15 April 2020.
11. ^
    PMID 32284615
    .
12. PMID 32843626
    .
13. PMID 33024307
    .
14. PMID 33586302
    .
15. ^
    PMID 32392464
    .
16. ^ ^{a b} Cite error: The named reference AutoDW-67 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
17. ^ ^{a b} Cite error: The named reference Wang24Jan2020 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
18. ^ Ma J (13 March 2020). "Coronavirus: China's first confirmed Covid-19 case traced back to November 17". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 13 March 2020. Retrieved 16 March 2020.
19. ^ ^{a b} Cite error: The named reference Huang24Jan2020 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
20. ^ ^{a b} Cite error: The named reference Joseph24Jan2020 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
21. ^ ^{a b} Cite error: The named reference han24Jan2020 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
22. ^ Cite error: The named reference patientZero was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
23. ^ "WHO Points To Wildlife Farms In Southern China As Likely Source Of Pandemic". NPR. 15 March 2021.
24. PMID 32843626
    .
25. ISSN 0140-6736
    .
26. PMID 33024307
    .
27. doi:10.1073/pnas.2021133117
    .
28. PMID 33586302
    .
29. ^ https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/who-convened-global-study-of-origins-of-sars-cov-2-china-part
30. ^ https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-remarks-at-the-member-state-briefing-on-the-report-of-the-international-team-studying-the-origins-of-sars-cov-2. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
31. ^ Cite error: The named reference WHOChinaJoint was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
32. ^ Cite error: The named reference LancetBinding was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
33. ^ Cite error: The named reference nature feb2020 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Suggestion #6

Proposed Rewritten "Background" Section

Although the exact origin of the virus is still unknown, the first SARS-CoV.[8] A group of US and Candadian universities as well and the Chinese Government have stated that COVID-19 is a zoonotic virus that arose from bats in a natural setting,[9][10] Despite this, other scientists have called for additional investigation into the possibility that the virus leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.[11]

Note I have made the following changes. First I removed the Chinese government sources, obviously they are not RS on a subject like if originated from a Chinese lab. If we do use them, they are simply primary sources and must be attributed, aka 'The Chinese govt said they didn't do it'. Second I added a more neutral formuation to the cause. If there truly is a scientific consensus we need more than one US university and a COI lab (Chinese lab). Consensus will have a lot of secondardy MEDRS sources. To paraphrase all we have here is the Chinese say they didnt do it, a US university says the Chinese didnt do it, and some other scientists saying they are not convinced (this theory is far far from disproven) and more research is needed. It seems logic gets thrown to the wind on this article and talk page. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you suggesting it's most accurate to say "only the Chinese gov't and Scripps say this", or are you suggesting we need better/more sources than the two suggested above? Bakkster Man (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I am willing to look at either option. But if we mostly only have China saying, then it isn't Kosher. The PRC sources are clearly PRIMARY & COI sources, and we have existing policies in place to deal with them, this article doesn't get any special treatment. If we have Oxford, Harvard, Scipps, Berkeley, etc saying it, then it is a different matter. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Back to the original question, which citation is being referred to as 'the Chinese government'? That's the root

WP:NPOV issue with your suggestion, and this rewrite doesn't address it. The two citations following your claim are a publication from Scripps Research Institute, and a publication from Nature Medicine (with authors from Scripps, University of Edinburgh, Columbia University, University of Sydney, and Tulane University). Neither are Chinese sources. You can't claim 'the Chinese say so' and cite someone other than the Chinese. Even if your argument is that those other authors are too dependent on Chinese sources, you can't simply make this substitution without a more reliable source than the article in Nature which gives us a good reason to refute it. If you find a reliable source, most likely that would be added as context, but doesn't override that others agreed with the claim. Bakkster Man (talk

) 13:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

We dont need to override anything. The Nature source you are referring to cites half a dozen employees of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, starting with the second name, Ben Hu. You can also look at the Zhang source as well, same organization, its all very obvious when you mouseover of the name at the source. Are you are suggesting the Wuhan Institute of Virology can co-write a paper to respond to a leak/coverup allegation and we at wikipedia accept that as an RS? And then we write it is the scientific consensus? Not only is the source resulting in an NPOV issue, but the source is also the very definition of COI. Am I missing something here? This is by very definition a primary source, no different from publishing an opinion piece in a newspaper. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Either you're not referring to the same cited source that I am, or you've conflated this paper's authors with this paper's citations' authors. Please clarify. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, I was confused by the sources I think. I must have been looking at another source. How many total sources (excluding the Wuhan labs own sources) are there for this proposed Scientific Consenus? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

A read of the text of Suggestion #5 should make clear the sources, I'll leave that analysis (and perhaps modifying your above suggestion to match) as an exercise for you so you can self-check for any other potential confusion.

I'll also add, that the whole point of

WP:MEDRS taking secondary sources is that it avoids the issue of primary source bias. The secondary source has already evaluated the quality of those primary sources when including them, and we needn't second guess them (especially when there are multiple secondary sources in agreement). Bakkster Man (talk

) 12:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, as a final nail in the coffin for the

WP:FALSEBALANCE, we should not be putting the positions of mainstream science and of misinformation echo chambers (see this, sourced to NYT and MIT) as supposedly equivalent. Hence why I prefer not mentioning the lab leak directly here: we can put a statement about all conspiracy and fringe theories (IMHO DUE, due to the excessive amount of coverage it generates) without putting UNDUE weight on one of them in particular (no matter how popular it might be). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 13:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. Forich (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

References

1. PMID 32359479
   .
2. ^ "WHO Points To Wildlife Farms In Southern China As Likely Source Of Pandemic". NPR. 15 March 2021.
3. S2CID 232429241
   .
4. ^ Adhanom, Tedros. "WHO Director-General's remarks at the media briefing on 2019-nCoV on 11 February 2020". World Health Organization (WHO). Retrieved 24 October 2020.
5. ^ Lovelace Jr, Berkeley (11 February 2020). "World Health Organization names the new coronavirus: COVID-19". CNBC. Retrieved 23 October 2020.
6. ^ Cite error: The named reference LancetNowcasting was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
7. ^ Cite error: The named reference ia56U was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
8. ^ Cite error: The named reference ECDC risk assessment was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
9. EurekAlert!
   . Scripps Research Institute. 17 March 2020. Retrieved 15 April 2020.
10. PMID 32284615
    .
11. ^ Adhanom, Tedros. "Theory That COVID Came From A Chinese Lab Takes On New Life In Wake Of WHO Report". NPR. Retrieved 5 May 2021.

Revisiting infobox collage

CLOSED

Images were separated from the infobox and moved into the article's body.

WP:CLOSE as unopposed. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑

16:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

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.

---

Meeting of the Italian government task force to face the coronavirus outbreak, 23 February 2020

Clockwise from top:

• Nurse treating a COVID-19 patient in an
  USNS Comfort, a U.S. hospital ship
• People queuing for masks in Hong Kong
• Donated medical supplies received in the Philippines
• Burial in Iran
• Italian government
  task force

I think it's about time we revisit our selection of images for the collage. Most of these images are from very early in the pandemic, and I don't think they really represent the full scope of it or are as good as they could be. Ideally, the collage should incorporate various different elements of the pandemic, and I think the current one does that alright: left to right top to bottom, there's the medical aspect, the political aspect, the social aspect, the tragedy aspect, and the logistics/economic aspect. I like the top photo and bottom two photos, which are all relevant, quality, and visually engaging. The Italian task force photo is almost good, but it includes neither masks nor social distancing (it's from Feb. 2020). The Hong Kong crowd photo doesn't have social distancing either (it's from Jan. 2020), and is visually cluttered/not that engaging. The photo that used to be in that spot, File:蔡總統視導33化學兵群 02.jpg, may have been hygiene theatre but at least it was a good photo.

Could we have some additional suggestions for images that would be good to include in the collage to represent the broad scope of the pandemic, and then decide on some swaps to make? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Good idea to look into updating this. I also agree that the three images you pointed to are strong candidates to keep. I have two thoughts on categories to include: a teleconference of an event that is generally not teleconferenced (court proceedings would be a strong example), and socially distanced COVID vaccine distribution. For the latter, here's a few wikimedia candidates. The drive through one in particular is novel enough to be somewhat unique to COVID. [87] [88] [89] [90] Preferably we would find similar photos from outside the US. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Bakkster Man, I like those Maryland photos a lot, although I agree ideally we'd want as much global representation as possible. Looking through them, I found five good ones of people receiving their vaccine shot. Any thoughts on which of these are best? 12345? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

And File:2020 12 27 primera vacunacion 3.jpg is the image used on Commons for commons:Category:COVID-19 vaccination; it's from Spain. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so after looking a bit more, here are my top three suggestions for people getting vaccines photos: File:2020 12 27 mas vacunados en la residencia mixta 1.jpg (Spain; senior citizen rather than politician), File:Alberto Fernández recibió la primera dosis de la vacuna Sputnik V.jpg (president of Argentina; smile and simple background), and File:COVID-19ワクチン（ファイザー製）の接種を行う菅義偉首相４.jpg (prime minister of Japan, also nice composition). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

First and second show the health care providers not wearing gloves. Third is a nice clear image, and everyone is using standard precautions. We need one where all are wearing masks and gloves imho. MartinezMD (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I also feel like the mass-vaccination images perhaps tell a better part of the story than an individual politician. I'm not sure if those are a predominantly US item, though. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Based on the discussion here so far, I've gone ahead and swapped out the Hong Kong photo for the Spain old people's home photo (if anyone knows Spanish, it'd be good to confirm whether "Residencia Mixta de Gijón]] is a nursing home or retirement home). It causes some misalignment because it's 4x3 whereas the Italian task force photo is not. But hopefully we'll be replacing the Italy photo next—anyone have suggestions on a government/politics COVID photo to use instead? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I found File:Pres Duterte IATF-IED May 19 meeting.jpg, but we already have a Philippines photo, it's not super great quality, and giving Duterte photo op publicity doesn't seem ideal. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Should drop image/map spam....infobox is a scrolling nightmare in mobile view. Should follow our best examples that dont spam the infobox with junk.. Spanish flu (GA) 2009 swine flu pandemic (GA) Smallpox (GA) HIV/AIDS (GA).--Moxy- 11:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree with Moxy that image spam isn't helpful. As an interim, the HK picture could be dropped to only keep the four images which highlight the main factors. Otherwise, if we want to keep one picture and not a map I'd say go for the nurse in the ICU, which is already more prominent than the others. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I think we should likely be able to decide on one picture that is most representative - suggest a photo that represents the vast amount of medical struggles during the pandemic such as the first picture here, or a better one maybe that shows masks/etc. The other pictures can all be moved to the body of the article near what they are most associated with if we want to keep them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

agree w/ bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of a single photo for the reasons above. Perhaps rather than the hospital setting, an image of social/physical distancing with masks would be a more uniquely representative photo. While the hospitalizations are a major factor, social distance seems like it was the most visible to the majority of people. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I could get on board with going to a single photo, as it is true that the infobox is rather long. If we do that, I'd suggest we keep the top photo; Bakkster Man, I agree that the social distancing is perhaps the most novel/signature element of the pandemic, but File:2020-03-Detalls i conseqüències del COVID-19 al País Valencià 14.jpg is our best picture AFAIK of social distancing currently, and it's just not super compelling. (There's also File:Memorial Day 2020 - San Francisco Under Quarantine (49935629483).jpg, which is featured, but which won't display well at small scale.) Moving the other photos to the body may require some rearrangement, but it should be doable with the removal of some of the less compelling photos currently there, e.g. File:How wear surgical mask ISO 7010 M016 bis (How wear surgical mask 1) up nose strip 2) down folds 3) cover chin)).jpg. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I can agree with that, the HCP in PPE remains legible as a thumbnail, and there aren't a lot of high quality social distance pictures (I found some of distanced circles painted in a park, but again hard to see small). Bakkster Man (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Once you know what photos are best, could you merge them into a single image, so it's not a scrolling nightmare in mobile view? 74.98.192.38 (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

That's not the way to go; files should be separate so that clicking on them goes to full view, among many other reasons. It seems we're moving away from a collage anyways. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

•  Done. I went ahead and removed the collage, moving the pictures into the article body. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

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.

Map image

The small map with the percentage of infected population on the Infobox does not correspond to the image of the bigger map from 10 May 2021 when we click on the small one. 213.141.15.42 (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It works for me. This may be to do with your browser showing you cached versions of the images. Perform a force-refresh (Windows and Linux browsers: CTRL + F5. Chrome and Firefox for Mac: CMD + SHIFT + R.) |→ Spaully ^~talk~  13:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe. Thank you. 213.141.15.42 (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2021

This edit request to COVID-19 pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to update the info regularly and link more reliable sources. I will also maintain the grammar and spellings checks. GreatAviator (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to

talk • contribs

14:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

European map

In the Europe section of the article a comparative geographic map is shown of the European cases per 100,000 citizens. In the subtitle of the image it says The numbers are not comparable, as the testing strategy differs among countries and time periods. It seems wrong to show a map that shows non-compatible data since that is the goal of this type of map.

• It would make sense to update the map to more comparable data,
• delete the map or
• delete the comment (if the data is actually comparable). --Lemio (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done - I agree that map was out of date and not that useful. I have substituted a map of deaths per million, which is up to date to March and is more comparable and less dependent on testing regimes. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  13:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2021

This edit request to COVID-19 pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It is currently being suggested that the virus did not come from bats and that it actually came from the lab in Wuhan, China. Maybe change the listing from likely from bats to currently under debate. 2600:1003:B46C:D0E4:0:29:C53C:3501 (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ― Qwerfjkl  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 10:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

IHME Estimated Total Deaths

Since this page includes suspected global infections using information from the World Health Organization, should it also include suspected deaths from the findings of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, which shows that the true global number of deaths is closer to 6.9 million, or is this not backed up enough by other institutions to be featured on this page. The link for the data is https://covid19.healthdata.org/global and the link for the report is http://www.healthdata.org/special-analysis/estimation-excess-mortality-due-covid-19-and-scalars-reported-covid-19-deaths.

" not backed up enough by other institutions to be featured"--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Add renewable energy growth during pandemic

Add to the article’s Oil and other energy markets secion that renewables experienced rceord growth despite the pandemic [91]. I would add it myself, but I’m editing on mobile and the editor is being too laggy. X-Editor (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Is it just a correlation or is there actually some causal link? We don't include everything simply because it happened, it needs to be related to the subject. The Grauniad article doesn't mention any significant causal link AFAICS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: I’m not sure if there is a direct link. X-Editor (talk) 05:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2021

This edit request to COVID-19 pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Edit request: General copy-editing and addition of sources for updates. On the subsection for National responses → Asia:

• Inclusion of Singapore: Singapore^[1][2] in the sentence "Despite being the first area of the world hit by the outbreak, the early wide-scale response of some Asian states, particularly Bhutan, Taiwan and Vietnam has allowed them to fare comparatively well." Best in alphabetical order, therefore: Bhutan, Singapore, Taiwan and Vietnam.
• Copy-editing for the sentence regarding the situation in Japan:
  • Current: "The pandemic has had direct side effects, per a report on 28 November, in Japan. According to the report the National Police Agency indicated suicides increased to 2,153 in October. Experts state the pandemic has worsened mental health issues due to lockdowns and isolation from family members (among other issues)."
  • Copy-edit: In Japan, the pandemic has been believed to have caused direct side effects in regards to mental health. According to the report by the country's National Police Agency, suicides had increased to 2,153 in October. Experts also state that the pandemic has worsened mental health issues due to lockdowns and isolation from family members, among other issues." Thanks, 220.240.36.89 (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

References

1. ^ "Why is Singapore's COVID-19 death rate the world's lowest". Reuters. Archived from the original on 3 October 2020. Retrieved 21 May 2021.
2. ^ "Singapore Is Now the World's Best Place to Be During Covid". Bloomberg. Retrieved 21 May 2021.

 Done — TGHL ↗ 00:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

WHO death toll

The WHO has recently estimated that 6 to 8 million people have actually died of COVID-19. Should we add this estimated death count to the infobox?[92]. X-Editor (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I think, given the caveats, this wouldn't be the right number to add to the infobox. We'll need to wait for a more refined estimate. WHO data analyst William Msemburi said the raised estimates included both unreported COVID-19 deaths as well as indirect deaths such as patients not seeking healthcare for other conditions due to the lack of hospital capacity and restrictions on movements, among other factors.[93] Bakkster Man (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: Good point, but maybe the info could be added elsewhere in the article? X-Editor (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Probably space in COVID-19 pandemic#Deaths, around the discussion of excess deaths. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

yes agree probably best...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Better image/collage for infobox

I created this collage of photos including worldwide situations, I think is better than just to have the american nurse in there, but I need a consensus. Hearing you people. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended content
From left to right and top to bottom: people in USNS Comfort, a U.S. hospital ship

• What is the benefit of a collage? Collages are only useful when there's multiple images that convey extremely important information about the event and they cannot be decided between. I don't think a collage is necessary for this article - the other images can certainly be included in the body if/where appropriate. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• I am weakly against a collage (though definitely not in favor of one as big as the one here, maybe max 3 images). I think if we are going to use a single image, it should be similar to the top-left one presented here. If there is one lasting and representative image of this pandemic, it will be those blue surgical masks being worn by the public. I don't really like the nurse image because I think it's generic and fails to highlight the unique sights of this time in history (medical equipment and masking in a hospital is nothing special or striking). The image is too "personal"/"small scale" for this event, which affected the lives of people far, far beyond those who caught the disease and treated it. I am not opposed to having no image, either. — Goszei (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Comment. This was the "3 image" version of the collage that was briefly in the article, for the record: [94]. Any thoughts? — Goszei (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended content
USNS Comfort, a U.S. hospital ship

• I agree the current image is generic. There was a previous discussion on this that decided to remove a collage. Probably decisions such as this should be added to the page consensus so that we don't continue revisiting past discussions forever. I think we should probably stick to that decision but maybe use another single image which is more representative. It needs to include masks and give a sense of scale I think. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not a fan of most of the images in this collage. The bottom (existing) and top-right images are fine, but the upper left one is cluttered, the middle left one is low-quality and uncompelling, and the middle right one is a really powerful portrait but not a good fit for the collage. Given the length of the infobox already, I'd be more willing to consider a three-image collage than this, but I'm not 100% convinced we need a collage at all. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• What about something like this --Almaty (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended content

The preference seemed to be to avoid a collage entirely, to improve mobile readability. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Humor during the COVID-19 pandemic

Greetings,

Requesting article expansion support @ Draft:Humor during the COVID-19 pandemic

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 Excess Deaths

The Economist has a new article out estimating much higher excess deaths during the pandemic (7m-13m) than currently reported. Seems like something that could be included EagleBoss (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

'the Economist' as a source for global deaths??--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly wrong with the source. Can we] get the full article? They appear to be a secondary [95] --Almaty (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

That is not a

WP:MEDRS source. It cannot be used to support that claim. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk

15:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes but this is actually a secondary source - The Economist citing the John Hopkins school of public health. It can be argued also that this is an economic claim rather than a medical claim, it is possible to put it in.

WP:MEDRS is more complex than most people think. --Almaty (talk

) 12:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Disclaimer I haven't read the full article because of paywall. --Almaty (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

If we're going to provide an estimate, we should at least use the best estimate available. And that means citing something other than the Economist: either cite Johns Hopkins' calculations directly, or the Economist is

WP:SYNTH

and we should be careful to use a more reliable source.

The WHO has an estimate. As does the CDC for the US. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

This sums up just about everything to date. https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/ Charles Juvon (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Already discussed multiple times at sub-pages. Wade (a "science" writer known for a book on race and intelligence) getting his controversial statements published by a non-medical journal doesn't sum up or change anything. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with

WP:RSPSOURCES also does not include this source. Given these factors, I do not agree with including this source in the article. Jurisdicta (talk

) 02:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:RSP doesn't make a source unreliable (obviously reliable sources, such as Nature or Science, are not included, and obvious troll sites are not either, since they go directly to the blacklist). Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists might actually be reliable for some things in its area of expertise (although even there it is not cited much [per Bulletin_of_the_Atomic_Scientists#Indexing], so not particularly inspiring), but obviously not here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 02:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

力 also makes a strong point which is more focused on the germanane issue and I appreciate their contribution. Jurisdicta (talk

) 14:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with everyone above. The Bulletin is a well-known publication with a good reputation, and suggestions it should be dismissed as "unreliable" for all subjects are flailing to keep anything they feel is "pro-lab-leak" out of Wikipedia. That said, it does fail

WP:MEDRS spectacularly. In assessing coverage of genomic analysis of the COVID virus, it is remarkable how non-scientific persons make bold claims that there is genomic "proof" there was a lab leak, people with some scientific training make tentative claims suggesting it might suggest evolution in a lab, and virology experts almost universally agree that there is no good genomic evidence for a lab-based origin. This is why we have MEDRS - popular coverage of scientific topics (especially medical ones) is often very low-quality, even in otherwise-reliable sources. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν

) 03:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

力, I wanted to write this comment basically but you did it better than I ever could have. I agree - it's not unreliable in general, but the mere fact that this was published doesn't change the scientific consensus. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it is now obvious the lab leak theory is now clearly

WP:DUE, and not due as a 'conspiracy theory'. NYMag "COVID-19 MAY 14, 2021, The COVID Lab-Leak Hypothesis Just Got a Big Credibility Boost, By Chas Danner. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk

) 13:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

You're essentially using a MEDPOP source which argues that an open letter (i.e.

ignoring and start listening. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 15:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Include This source is reliable in my opinion and I think the scientific consensus is shifting somewhat. Also: I don't think
  WP:RS should suffice and this is one of them. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk
  08:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  No it isn't "general information", it's information which is important in preventing a future outbreak. See the extremely thorough refutation of using poor sources

  WP:BESTSOURCES brings us to the same point: use the actual papers by the scientists, not exaggerated reports of science by press conference. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

  ) 12:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  It is not considered biomedical information according to the policy above. Papers are fine of course if we have them (single papers are not WP:MEDRS compliant, only reviews etc.) however I'm not sure this is something you will find in a paper, but rather in an investigative report (and probably published in the press or by the WHO/Governments). For example: the fact this virus passed directly from a bat to a human, or came from a bat virus stored in a lab and infected an employee there cannot be determined through "scientific" means. The virus would be identical. The way it managed to spillover changes and that is something only an investigation would discover. It's not something that necessarily ends up in a paper. This source is a

  WP:RS and should be used. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk

  15:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  There is a previous discussion that reached the consensus that a potential lab leak should not be mentioned [96]. I don't think the fact this information should not require

  WP:MEDRS sources has been discussed however. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk

  16:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Whether there is a de-facto or not requirement for MEDRS (there is: this is still a matter of science, it's not something "historical", so we still should stick to the scientific sources),

  WP:UNDUE. The lab leak is a "possibility", which so far has no direct evidence and very little in the way of circumstantial evidence, according to the best (MEDRS) sources. We don't mention it here, since this is a big-picture overview and since the topic can be better covered at other sub-pages. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

  ) 16:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  WP:RS is sufficient. In this case some are disputing this is a RS. But MEDRS has nothing to do with this general (not medical) claim. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk

  16:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  What claim? The article is full of biomedical ones (as you'd expect from a piece which boasts "By the end of this article, you may have learned a lot about the molecular biology of viruses"). This is a really weak source but may be okay for some veyr weak/mundane claim. So what claim are is being proposed for inclusion?

  talk

  ) 16:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  I was mostly commenting on the source which I think is reputable. The claim is that a lab-leak is a realistic possibility. Probably should be used here:

  WP:MEDRS from my understanding. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk

  08:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• This source appears to be a journalistic opinion piece (is it peer-reviewed?) in a bottom-of-the-barrel journal. Probably not reliable for anything scientific, let along something controversial in the realm of bioscience when we a handful of top-tier sources. Proponents aren't even saying when they think it's reliable for.
  talk
  ) 16:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly what it is, republished from the self-pub on Medium, with an author who is problematic

WP:MEDPOP. Bakkster Man (talk

) 17:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about the Bulletin. But I do take issue with Nicholas Wade being described as "a 'science' writer" with scare-quotes around "science" and as broadly "problematic"—these seem to be smears, blatant WP:BLP violations, and totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. Not until Wade waded into the fevered swamp of race did he become "controversial", and this was clearly for political more than scientific reasons, beginning with Before the Dawn (book). Wade was the staff writer for the NYT Science Times for 30 years, former editor of both Nature and Science, and has impeccable credentials—and is one of the preeminent science writers. Enough with the smears, please—they're politically puerile and fall far below encyclopedic standards. Elle Kpyros (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

A journalist (not a scientist) writing uncritically about a FRINGE position (republishing an originally self-published piece) in a non-topic related journal is not a credible reliable source for our concerns. So, yes, he is "controversial" and "problematic", and we're perfectly allowed (in fact, we need to, per

WP:SPS) to evaluate the credibility of authors, especially when it concerns self-published sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 04:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I updated my wording above to be more specific, but stand by my analysis of the unreliability of the article. Whether written by Wade or someone else, it remains a former

WP:REDFLAG to a source that arguably already isn't reliable enough to include. Bakkster Man (talk

) 14:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

If it is possible, I would like to modestly put several points in perspective:(1) The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is dealing with biosecurity issues for years. If one recognizes that, that is a first point;(2) Wade's publication is published under this category, so a priori with the same rigor if one recognizes the previous point; (3) The reprinting of Wade's article, originally in Medium, can therefore be considered as recognition of Wade's article in this field, by the biosecurity experts of the Bulletin; (4) In addition to the Bulletin's expertise, Wade's expertise as a science reporter for the New York Times is also recognized. So, to say that the source is not "unreliable" or "peer-reviewed" seems to have to be weighed, at least in the sense that (a) the Bulletin has recognized expertise on biosecurity, (b) the editorial board has agreed to republish Wade's text, so the editorial board has accepted it in its original form (c) bulletin, with its editorial choices, remains a journal hosted by Taylor & Francis CyberDiderot (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC).

To clarify again, my concerns of credibility are not the root issue. No matter how credible the author, the source wouldn't be strong enough to cite for the reasons it's being suggested we cite it. I'm merely adding that he's not so dependable/reliable/credible as to have an argument that we make an exception to

WP:PAGs

in order to include it.

If you can confirm that the article was peer reviewed before republishing, then we can have the discussion that it meets our guidelines for being a strong source. If not, then we're left with the article being one of the weaker sources available describing this minority viewpoint. And a plethora of weak sources doesn't increase WPDUE weight. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WikiProject COVID-19

Please join this broad discussion on how we discuss and explain COVID origins. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Wuhan lab staff sought hospital care before COVID-19 outbreak disclosed

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/wuhan-lab-staff-sought-hospital-care-before-covid-19-outbreak-disclosed-wsj-2021-05-23/

205.175.106.86 (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC) |}

• current discussion Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information give opinion please--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Food shortages

The statement in the lede: "It has led to widespread supply shortages exacerbated by panic buying, agricultural disruption, and food shortages. " seems grossly overstated. It has been a remarkable feature of this pandemic that the food supply chain has continued to work very well. I don't recognise the reference to "agricultural disruption" at all. Panic buying has not been a major issue. There have been localised shortages of medical equipment and supplies (ventilators, PPE, oxygen). But the sentence as written gives entirely the wrong impression. Mhkay (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

thank you for posting and bringing this issue up--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree that this could use an update. I suspect this text remains mostly unchanged since the initial wave of restrictions. Probably need to better distinguish between localized short-term shortages in food diversity (grocery stores selling out of beans/rice/cereal/milk/bread prior to government restrictions going into effect) and long-term increases in global food insecurity where the problem is access to basic nutrition (compare reports from 2021 to warnings from early 2020). We should be clear about the impacts to wealthy and impoverished communities to avoid being to focused on the perspective of editors (more likely food diversity than food insecurity). Bakkster Man (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)