Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 47

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.

According to the U.S. Energy Department. It was leaked from a lab in these sources.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/26/us/politics/china-lab-leak-coronavirus-pandemic.html https://www.cbsnews.com/news/energy-department-covid-19-report-origins-lab-leak-debate/ 89.106.127.106 (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• I suggest you go to
  Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, (this is not the article for that topic), thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk
  ) 12:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The report itself is marked as classified, but according to the articles, it says "concluded with low confidence", so the authors do not state it is a fact. 2A02:AB04:2C2:E300:37:CA64:F60E:FCBC (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I have to say I do think it belongs in this article. Eruditess (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Not

Investigations into the origin of COVID-19.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 23:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

There are several High quality

WP:DUE inclusion into the main Covid 19 article. Eruditess (talk

) 16:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

That certainly appears to be your opinion. But we barely discuss the lab leak at all in this article. Because it has its own article. You'll notice we don't mention here any of the other seven government agencies' opinions that Biden tasked with evaluating this. Why would we cover this one and not the other seven? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

As noted at COVID-19 lab leak theory, "On February 26, 2023, the US Department of Energy revised its prior assessment from "undecided" to "low confidence" that the pandemic originated with a lab leak.[139][196][197] White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan responded to the report saying there was still "no definitive answer" to the pandemic origins' question. Updating the finding to "low confidence" does NOT mean that it bears mentioning here; indeed, a "low confidence" assessment from a single agency, which is itself not an organization that is a recognized expert agency on virology, or on epidemiology, or on anything medical at all; means it doesn't bear mentioning here in any way. --Jayron32 16:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

DOE is a recognized expert agency on genomics. Many many citations support this (e.g., PMID: 9033165). After WWII, the US government tasked DOE with understanding the biological effects of radiation. Over the next many decades, as a result, much of the US genomic research effort was led by the DOE. The DOE's efforts encompassed (an still do encompass) virology, epidemiology, and many medical topics. Jaredroach (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

and their opinion is disputed by a majority of the intelligence assets asked about it. And by most virologists. I have seen no evidence that virologists were actually consulted at the DOE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

agree w/ Shibbolethink--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Disagree on inclusion, we split the two articles mentioned above for this reason. This article provides just a brief overview of the origin discussion in order to spend the bulk of the article on the pandemic itself. I'll also note, our above consensus item 14 remains that we do not mention the lab leak idea on this article, so you'd need to get new consensus to change that, which I think will need much stronger evidence to support. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The latest FBI announcement suggests that the lab leak should now be mentioned here. Pakbelang (talk) 08:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That's an NBC report on an interview on Fox News. The involvement of the latter triggers major doubts for me. Find a direct link to the FBI report, and maybe then we can discuss it. HiLo48 (talk) 09:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Get consensus for it. This comment seems less notable than their previous official report on the topic, which didn't change the above consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a tertiary comment to a secondary assessment of a primary event about this pandemic. We are now so far removed from the actual pandemic as a topic in an encyclopedic sense, that to include it here simply because "FBI" is in the title would be absurd. A source review ([1] · [2] · [3] · [4]) of all sources about "covid-19 pandemic" will clearly show this is an individual minute moment in an extremely long and drawn out event. It does not rise to the level of mention here, as we have entire articles dedicated to this idea. In a month, this will have very little prominence in the overall conversation among our sources about the pandemic. Hence,

WP:RSUW tell us not to mention it here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 16:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

We need to stop trying to play "gotcha" with news bites. This is a medical topic, about a medical condition, and is subject to

WP:MEDRS and related policies. An FBI report is not a reliable source of medical information. The FBI does not employ epidemiologists or virologists or any others to write reports about the causes of disease. So no, you're not going to play the HAHA, now THIS news report about this intelligence agency report is the one we needed." It isn't. Stop looking to the news for this. Start looking through the proper medical literature, and when we have actual scientists commenting on the likely source of the virus, then we'll have something. --Jayron32

16:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• The fact that it is not included in this article is due to Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Current_consensus #14 above. When was the last time #14 was reviewed? Was it 2020? I see Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_46#RFC_on_removal_of_alt-text_related_to_COVID-19_lab_leak_theory we changed some piped text. Seems the US govt position on origin is now in conflict with WHO and #14 should be reconsidered. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  The link pipe was the last comprehensive discussion, I believe. However, the statement the US govt position on origin is now in conflict with WHO is false. A lab origin is not the US government's official position any more than it's the WHO's official position, just because it's held by a minority of either group.

  I'll note that consensus item 14 was adopted half a year before the

  Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 article was spun off, precisely to give sufficient detail to the complex topic of the origin (including the potential for a lab origin, again with its own article giving even further detail). I think it's going to be a tough bar to clear to suggest that our 10 sentence Epidemiology Background section should go into this level of detail, instead of leaving it in the main origin article. Bakkster Man (talk

  ) 13:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. Do you agree to remove the " speculation about alternative origins" piped text and use the target text "Investigations into the origin of COVID-19" instead? Like this. I believe the term speculations is a non-neutral term in this instance. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that's reasonable. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I've edited it to an alternative target within that article, but also removed "speculation" per your NPOV concerns. It now reads:

The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of a

alternate theories about the origins of the virus.^[4][5][6]

This is not an improvement, ant continues to push a pov. Just link to the target article and get rid of the piped text. This talk page is further not a venue to move (rename) the target article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• In this article just say it's of zoonotic origin like the best RS. The lableak stuff is fringe and doesn't belong here. We don't entertain a discussion about Fort Detrick in the HIV article, even though that 'theory' that it was made there has a significant following.[5] Bon courage (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  That makes sense to me. We also already reference it several times and link to the article several times. So this sentence probably isn't necessary. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: There certainly isn't consensus to remove the wikilink as you have done here. Do we really need to run an RFC on this? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

We already wikilink it in that exact section in the "Main article" template at the top of the section. Removal of that sentence seemed to me to meet your POV text and EGG concerns while also meeting my concerns about over-emphasizing the lab leak. By keeping that sentence while also having the redundant one after it, it seems we are shoe-horning in or bending over backwards just to have a sentence that contains that link. When we already have that link...

If you disagree with that consensus-via-compromise, then I think an RFC would be fine as a next step, if neutrally worded and contained all the applicable options. I think if it were me I would instead quickly jot down below all the options informally, and then post a short neutral advertisement to

WP:NPOVN instead. Because RFCs are a pain and take a long time. But that's just me. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 22:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Removal of the text and link is not a compromise. I have run an RFC below. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we should add in the paragraph "Epidemiology, Backgrownd" after the sentence "The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of a zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal" the next sentence:

"Several social and environmental factors including climate change, natural ecosystem destruction and wildlife trade increased the likelihood for the emergences of such diseases. One study found climate change increased the likelihood of the pandemic by influencing distribution of bat species"

And in the lead section after the sentence "The novel virus was first identified in an outbreak in the Chinese city of Wuhan in December 2019." add this sentence:

"The virus probably has a zoonotic origin. Climate change probably significantly increased the likelihood of the emergence of the pandemic."

Sources:

Page 233-235 (37-39 by the internet count)from the chapter 2 of the latest IPCC report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter02.pdf

Pages 1067-1070 (27-30 by the internet count) in chapter 7 of the latest IPCC report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter07.pdf

This page on the site of the European Comission:

https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/430229-climate-change-the-culprit-in-the-covid-19-pandemic

Thank you in advance. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Support - Well-sourced, but I think some of these linked are probably

WP:PRIMARY

. Here are some better secondary sources:

• Mishra, Jitendra; Mishra, Priya; Arora, Naveen Kumar (29 March 2021). "Linkages between environmental issues and zoonotic diseases: with reference to COVID-19 pandemic". Environmental Sustainability. 4 (3): 455–467.
  PMC 8005368
  . Despite having a difference in their origin, major reasons behind the emergence and spread of zoonotic pandemics are related to activities such as habitat fragmentation, deforestation, biodiversity loss, intensive agriculture and livestock farming, uncontrolled urbanization, pollution, climate change and bushmeat hunting and trading. It is important to focus on environmental and climatic factors that are involved in the emergence of such pandemics involving novel human pathogens and viruses in particular.
• Amuasi, John H; Walzer, Christian; Heymann, David; Carabin, Hélène; Huong, Le Thi; Haines, Andrew; Winkler, Andrea S (May 2020). "Calling for a COVID-19 One Health Research Coalition". The Lancet. 395 (10236): 1543–1544.
  PMID 32386563
  .
• DE SADELEER, Nicolas; GODFROID, Jacques (27 April 2020). "The Story behind COVID-19: Animal Diseases at the Crossroads of Wildlife, Livestock and Human Health". European Journal of Risk Regulation. 11 (2): 210–227.
  PMC 7248588
  . This pluri-disciplinary article highlights that environmental changes, such as the reduction in habitats for wild fauna and the intemperate trade in fauna, are the biggest causes of the emergence of new diseases.
• Gössling, Stefan; Scott, Daniel; Hall, C. Michael (27 April 2020). "Pandemics, tourism and global change: a rapid assessment of COVID-19". Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 29 (1): 1–20.
  ISSN 0966-9582
  . Notably, climate change also exacerbates the risk of pathogen outbreaks, because climate change will lead to human migration and displacement, for example as a result of drought or flooding events

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Undecided: isn't the recent news pointing to evidence that Covid-19 came from an accident at the virus research lab at Wuhan? In that case, that linkage with the wildlife trade might be not very applicable for this particular virus. EMsmile (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

One agency (the DOE) has shifted its assessment from "undecided" to "low confidence" in favor of a lab leak. The FBI has not changed its assessment from "moderate confidence" in favor of a lab leak. Five total intelligence community elements (including the

Wuhan Huanan Seafood Market and found evidence of the virus present on animal cages and meat preparation instruments/surfaces. This is why the scientific community remains confident the zoonosis is overwhelmingly the most likely origin scenario.
TL;DR - a very small thing changed, and the news media reported it as a big change. As per usual. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 23:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I added it as i said, with several very little changes: I mentioned "environmental factors including climate change" in the lead because otherwise it will not be as per sources and putted it before the sentence about first discovery because otherwise it will cut the story line: first about discovery than about spread than about pandemic declaration. After the general description of the virus it is logically to explain how it appears however for the readers it will not change much.

Maybe it will be better to mention wildlife trade in the lead also because it is linked with Wuhan and its wet market.

About sources: I admit that in my opinion the report of the IPCC are the best secondary sources because they are based on thousands study and generally express consensus. About the study of Robert Beyer I found a declaration of the Cambridge University. It is maybe even better than EU comission as the this site can be considered as political in some extent.

However if you want you can add another sources.

It will be interesting to try to add this also in relevant Wikipedia pages in other languages - the most popular languages in Wikipedia. We should think how to do it.

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I see your edit has been reverted. I would have also reverted it, particularly your new sentence in the first para of the lead which I really think didn't belong there. In the main body maybe but even there I would have my doubts: there is a tendency to blame climate change for pretty much everything that is going wrong in this world... I think the link between climate change and Covid-19 is a bit far fetched. Wildlife trade and deforestation I can relate to as causes (if it really did originate from the Wuhan market) but climate change is another additional corner to take. And if it turns out that it originated from a lab accident then the link with climate change is even less clear. So we need to be careful about that. (the statement in question is Several social and environmental factors including climate change, natural ecosystem destruction and wildlife trade increased the likelihood for the emergences of such diseases.). EMsmile (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

If you will read the 2 IPCC sources that I has send you will see that they say explicitly that climate change do increase likelihood to zoonotic diseases emergence not less than natural habitat destruction or wildlife trade. They explain it very decisively.

According to the page itself (section backgrownd): "The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of a zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal."

So if you know that "all seas contain water" and Metirranean sea is a sea" you can conclude that " mediterranean sea contain water". It is one of the law of logics.

But even if it is too far in your opinion, the IPCC in the source that I have send explicitly put this information in link with the COVID-19 pandemic emergence saying:

"Climate change is contributing to the spread of diseases in both wildlife and humans. Increased contact between wildlife and human populations increases disease risk, and climate change is altering where pathogens that cause diseases and the animals that carry them live. Disease risk can often be reduced by improving health care and sanitation systems, training the medical community to recognise and treat potential new diseases in their region, limiting human encroachment into natural areas, limiting wildlife trade and promoting sustainable and equitable socioeconomic development.

"Diseases transmitted between humans and animals are called zoonoses. Zoonoses comprise nearly two-thirds of known human infectious diseases and the majority of newly emerging ones. COVID-19 is the most recent zoonosis and has killed millions of people globally while devastating economies. The risk posed by Emerging Infectious Diseases (EIDs) has increased because of: (1) the movement of wild animals and their parasites into new areas as a result of climate change, global trade and travel; (2) human intrusion in natural areas and the conversion of natural areas for agriculture, livestock, the extraction of industrial/raw materials and housing; (3) increased wildlife trade and consumption; (4) increased human mobility resulting from global trade, war/conflicts and migration, made faster and extending farther due to fossil fuel-powered travel; and (5) widespread antimicrobial use, which can promote antibiotic-resistant infections

it is saying further:

"Climate change further increases risk by altering pathogen and host animal (1) geographic ranges and habitats; (2) survival, growth and development; (3) reproduction and replication; (4) transmission and exposure (5) behaviour; and (6) access to immunologically naïve animals and people who lack resistance to infection. This can lead to novel disease emergence in new places, more frequent and larger outbreaks, and longer or shifted seasons of transmission."

And it continue more about it after.

Page 233-235 (37-39 by the internet count)from the chapter 2 of the latest IPCC report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter02.pdf

In the second source the IPCC creates a special box about COVID-19 and say:

"The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes COVID-19, emerged in late 2019, halfway through the preparation of the IPCC WGII Sixth Assessment Report. This Cross-Chapter Box assesses how the massive shock of the pandemic and response measures interact with climate-related impacts and risks as well as its significant implications for risk management and climate resilient development.

COVID-19 and environmental connections

Infectious diseases may emerge and spread through multiple climate-related avenues, including direct effects of climatic conditions on disease reproduction and transmission and various indirect effects, often interlinked with ecosystem degradation (high confidence). Climate change is affecting the risk of emerging infectious diseases by contributing to factors that drive the movements of species, including vectors and reservoirs of diseases, into novel human populations and vice versa (high confidence) (Sections 2.4.2.7, 5.2.2.3; Cross-Chapter Box Illness in Chapter 2; IPCC, 2019b; IPBES 2020). The spillover of some emerging infectious diseases from wildlife into humans is associated with live animal–human markets, intensified livestock production and climate-related movements of humans and wild animals into new areas that alter human–animal interactions"

Pages 1067-1070 (27-30 by the internet count) in chapter 7 of the latest IPCC report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter07.pdf

As the IPCC is a body that represent a scientific consensus (for this I preferred this sources) we can say that a scientific consensus exist about the statment that Covid-19 is most likely a zoonotic disease ans climate change icrease the likelihood for such diseases.

Also in the United Nations Environment Programme (a scientific bodey representing consensus) report "Preventing the next pandemic - Zoonotic diseases and how to break the chain of transmission" in the main findings climate change is explicitly cited as one of the 7 main reasons for increase in zoonozes:

"7. DISEASE DRIVERS Seven human-mediated factors are most likely driving the emergence of zoonotic diseases: 1) increasing human demand for animal protein; 2) unsustainable agricultural intensification; 3) increased use and exploitation of wildlife; 4) unsustainable utilization of natural resources accelerated by urbanization, land use change and extractive industries; 5) increased travel and transportation; 6) changes in food supply; and 7) climate change."

https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/32860/ZPKMEN.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

About other versions (even though they seems to me personally as more politically then scientifically motivated they emerge when there is more tensions between USA and China and decline when they are weaker), I am for including them in the main bodey and the lead any time when there is something seriouse about it.

I think this is our duty to expose all the related information avout COVID-19 and everybody who hide it intentionally bear part of the responsability for the suffering that will follow even if he is just a wikipedia editor.

Therfore if you will enter something seriouse (reliable source, seriouse evidence) about other versions to the main body or to the lead section or to both of them I will not revert it and will even support.

Certainly if we have seriouse suspicions that the disease can be created by more than 1 way we should enter the basical findings about all ways.

So, if for now scientists are thinking that the disease is most likely zoonozis and that climate change, wildlife trade and natural habitat destruction increase the risk for such diseases we should write it, otherwise we will bear part of responsability for the consequences (absence of preventive actions including climate action, more pandemics).

Are you agree with me? Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

For most countries in the world the pandemic has ended, I think it should be mentione. 2A02:3030:813:AEB8:1:0:DC0C:CDDF (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If you can find

WP:BOLD and add it in. Or just drop the link in the talk page I'm sure there's an editor that would add it in. Eruditess (talk

) 20:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Main article is still protected, but yes if there are actual reliable sources marking the end, we'll implement them into the article. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

There are a lot of sources for planned end, such as kff, nyt, etc Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Remember that "the end of the public health emergency declaration in the United States" is not equivalent to "the end of the global pandemic". You already know this, no need to complicate it doe someone who doesn't. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I've edited it to an alternative target within that article, but also removed "speculation" per your NPOV concerns. It now reads:

The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of a

alternate theories about the origins of the virus.^[4][5][6]

This is not an improvement, ant continues to push a pov. Just link to the target article and get rid of the piped text. This talk page is further not a venue to move (rename) the target article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• In this article just say it's of zoonotic origin like the best RS. The lableak stuff is fringe and doesn't belong here. We don't entertain a discussion about Fort Detrick in the HIV article, even though that 'theory' that it was made there has a significant following.[6] Bon courage (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  That makes sense to me. We also already reference it several times and link to the article several times. So this sentence probably isn't necessary. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: There certainly isn't consensus to remove the wikilink as you have done here. Do we really need to run an RFC on this? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

We already wikilink it in that exact section in the "Main article" template at the top of the section. Removal of that sentence seemed to me to meet your POV text and EGG concerns while also meeting my concerns about over-emphasizing the lab leak. By keeping that sentence while also having the redundant one after it, it seems we are shoe-horning in or bending over backwards just to have a sentence that contains that link. When we already have that link...

If you disagree with that consensus-via-compromise, then I think an RFC would be fine as a next step, if neutrally worded and contained all the applicable options. I think if it were me I would instead quickly jot down below all the options informally, and then post a short neutral advertisement to

WP:NPOVN instead. Because RFCs are a pain and take a long time. But that's just me. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 22:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Removal of the text and link is not a compromise. I have run an RFC below. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we should add in the paragraph "Epidemiology, Backgrownd" after the sentence "The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of a zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal" the next sentence:

"Several social and environmental factors including climate change, natural ecosystem destruction and wildlife trade increased the likelihood for the emergences of such diseases. One study found climate change increased the likelihood of the pandemic by influencing distribution of bat species"

And in the lead section after the sentence "The novel virus was first identified in an outbreak in the Chinese city of Wuhan in December 2019." add this sentence:

"The virus probably has a zoonotic origin. Climate change probably significantly increased the likelihood of the emergence of the pandemic."

Sources:

Page 233-235 (37-39 by the internet count)from the chapter 2 of the latest IPCC report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter02.pdf

Pages 1067-1070 (27-30 by the internet count) in chapter 7 of the latest IPCC report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter07.pdf

This page on the site of the European Comission:

https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/430229-climate-change-the-culprit-in-the-covid-19-pandemic

Thank you in advance. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Support - Well-sourced, but I think some of these linked are probably

WP:PRIMARY

. Here are some better secondary sources:

• Mishra, Jitendra; Mishra, Priya; Arora, Naveen Kumar (29 March 2021). "Linkages between environmental issues and zoonotic diseases: with reference to COVID-19 pandemic". Environmental Sustainability. 4 (3): 455–467.
  PMC 8005368
  . Despite having a difference in their origin, major reasons behind the emergence and spread of zoonotic pandemics are related to activities such as habitat fragmentation, deforestation, biodiversity loss, intensive agriculture and livestock farming, uncontrolled urbanization, pollution, climate change and bushmeat hunting and trading. It is important to focus on environmental and climatic factors that are involved in the emergence of such pandemics involving novel human pathogens and viruses in particular.
• Amuasi, John H; Walzer, Christian; Heymann, David; Carabin, Hélène; Huong, Le Thi; Haines, Andrew; Winkler, Andrea S (May 2020). "Calling for a COVID-19 One Health Research Coalition". The Lancet. 395 (10236): 1543–1544.
  PMID 32386563
  .
• DE SADELEER, Nicolas; GODFROID, Jacques (27 April 2020). "The Story behind COVID-19: Animal Diseases at the Crossroads of Wildlife, Livestock and Human Health". European Journal of Risk Regulation. 11 (2): 210–227.
  PMC 7248588
  . This pluri-disciplinary article highlights that environmental changes, such as the reduction in habitats for wild fauna and the intemperate trade in fauna, are the biggest causes of the emergence of new diseases.
• Gössling, Stefan; Scott, Daniel; Hall, C. Michael (27 April 2020). "Pandemics, tourism and global change: a rapid assessment of COVID-19". Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 29 (1): 1–20.
  ISSN 0966-9582
  . Notably, climate change also exacerbates the risk of pathogen outbreaks, because climate change will lead to human migration and displacement, for example as a result of drought or flooding events

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Undecided: isn't the recent news pointing to evidence that Covid-19 came from an accident at the virus research lab at Wuhan? In that case, that linkage with the wildlife trade might be not very applicable for this particular virus. EMsmile (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

One agency (the DOE) has shifted its assessment from "undecided" to "low confidence" in favor of a lab leak. The FBI has not changed its assessment from "moderate confidence" in favor of a lab leak. Five total intelligence community elements (including the

Wuhan Huanan Seafood Market and found evidence of the virus present on animal cages and meat preparation instruments/surfaces. This is why the scientific community remains confident the zoonosis is overwhelmingly the most likely origin scenario.
TL;DR - a very small thing changed, and the news media reported it as a big change. As per usual. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 23:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I added it as i said, with several very little changes: I mentioned "environmental factors including climate change" in the lead because otherwise it will not be as per sources and putted it before the sentence about first discovery because otherwise it will cut the story line: first about discovery than about spread than about pandemic declaration. After the general description of the virus it is logically to explain how it appears however for the readers it will not change much.

Maybe it will be better to mention wildlife trade in the lead also because it is linked with Wuhan and its wet market.

About sources: I admit that in my opinion the report of the IPCC are the best secondary sources because they are based on thousands study and generally express consensus. About the study of Robert Beyer I found a declaration of the Cambridge University. It is maybe even better than EU comission as the this site can be considered as political in some extent.

However if you want you can add another sources.

It will be interesting to try to add this also in relevant Wikipedia pages in other languages - the most popular languages in Wikipedia. We should think how to do it.

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I see your edit has been reverted. I would have also reverted it, particularly your new sentence in the first para of the lead which I really think didn't belong there. In the main body maybe but even there I would have my doubts: there is a tendency to blame climate change for pretty much everything that is going wrong in this world... I think the link between climate change and Covid-19 is a bit far fetched. Wildlife trade and deforestation I can relate to as causes (if it really did originate from the Wuhan market) but climate change is another additional corner to take. And if it turns out that it originated from a lab accident then the link with climate change is even less clear. So we need to be careful about that. (the statement in question is Several social and environmental factors including climate change, natural ecosystem destruction and wildlife trade increased the likelihood for the emergences of such diseases.). EMsmile (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

If you will read the 2 IPCC sources that I has send you will see that they say explicitly that climate change do increase likelihood to zoonotic diseases emergence not less than natural habitat destruction or wildlife trade. They explain it very decisively.

According to the page itself (section backgrownd): "The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of a zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal."

So if you know that "all seas contain water" and Metirranean sea is a sea" you can conclude that " mediterranean sea contain water". It is one of the law of logics.

But even if it is too far in your opinion, the IPCC in the source that I have send explicitly put this information in link with the COVID-19 pandemic emergence saying:

"Climate change is contributing to the spread of diseases in both wildlife and humans. Increased contact between wildlife and human populations increases disease risk, and climate change is altering where pathogens that cause diseases and the animals that carry them live. Disease risk can often be reduced by improving health care and sanitation systems, training the medical community to recognise and treat potential new diseases in their region, limiting human encroachment into natural areas, limiting wildlife trade and promoting sustainable and equitable socioeconomic development.

"Diseases transmitted between humans and animals are called zoonoses. Zoonoses comprise nearly two-thirds of known human infectious diseases and the majority of newly emerging ones. COVID-19 is the most recent zoonosis and has killed millions of people globally while devastating economies. The risk posed by Emerging Infectious Diseases (EIDs) has increased because of: (1) the movement of wild animals and their parasites into new areas as a result of climate change, global trade and travel; (2) human intrusion in natural areas and the conversion of natural areas for agriculture, livestock, the extraction of industrial/raw materials and housing; (3) increased wildlife trade and consumption; (4) increased human mobility resulting from global trade, war/conflicts and migration, made faster and extending farther due to fossil fuel-powered travel; and (5) widespread antimicrobial use, which can promote antibiotic-resistant infections

it is saying further:

"Climate change further increases risk by altering pathogen and host animal (1) geographic ranges and habitats; (2) survival, growth and development; (3) reproduction and replication; (4) transmission and exposure (5) behaviour; and (6) access to immunologically naïve animals and people who lack resistance to infection. This can lead to novel disease emergence in new places, more frequent and larger outbreaks, and longer or shifted seasons of transmission."

And it continue more about it after.

Page 233-235 (37-39 by the internet count)from the chapter 2 of the latest IPCC report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter02.pdf

In the second source the IPCC creates a special box about COVID-19 and say:

"The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes COVID-19, emerged in late 2019, halfway through the preparation of the IPCC WGII Sixth Assessment Report. This Cross-Chapter Box assesses how the massive shock of the pandemic and response measures interact with climate-related impacts and risks as well as its significant implications for risk management and climate resilient development.

COVID-19 and environmental connections

Infectious diseases may emerge and spread through multiple climate-related avenues, including direct effects of climatic conditions on disease reproduction and transmission and various indirect effects, often interlinked with ecosystem degradation (high confidence). Climate change is affecting the risk of emerging infectious diseases by contributing to factors that drive the movements of species, including vectors and reservoirs of diseases, into novel human populations and vice versa (high confidence) (Sections 2.4.2.7, 5.2.2.3; Cross-Chapter Box Illness in Chapter 2; IPCC, 2019b; IPBES 2020). The spillover of some emerging infectious diseases from wildlife into humans is associated with live animal–human markets, intensified livestock production and climate-related movements of humans and wild animals into new areas that alter human–animal interactions"

Pages 1067-1070 (27-30 by the internet count) in chapter 7 of the latest IPCC report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter07.pdf

As the IPCC is a body that represent a scientific consensus (for this I preferred this sources) we can say that a scientific consensus exist about the statment that Covid-19 is most likely a zoonotic disease ans climate change icrease the likelihood for such diseases.

Also in the United Nations Environment Programme (a scientific bodey representing consensus) report "Preventing the next pandemic - Zoonotic diseases and how to break the chain of transmission" in the main findings climate change is explicitly cited as one of the 7 main reasons for increase in zoonozes:

"7. DISEASE DRIVERS Seven human-mediated factors are most likely driving the emergence of zoonotic diseases: 1) increasing human demand for animal protein; 2) unsustainable agricultural intensification; 3) increased use and exploitation of wildlife; 4) unsustainable utilization of natural resources accelerated by urbanization, land use change and extractive industries; 5) increased travel and transportation; 6) changes in food supply; and 7) climate change."

https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/32860/ZPKMEN.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

About other versions (even though they seems to me personally as more politically then scientifically motivated they emerge when there is more tensions between USA and China and decline when they are weaker), I am for including them in the main bodey and the lead any time when there is something seriouse about it.

I think this is our duty to expose all the related information avout COVID-19 and everybody who hide it intentionally bear part of the responsability for the suffering that will follow even if he is just a wikipedia editor.

Therfore if you will enter something seriouse (reliable source, seriouse evidence) about other versions to the main body or to the lead section or to both of them I will not revert it and will even support.

Certainly if we have seriouse suspicions that the disease can be created by more than 1 way we should enter the basical findings about all ways.

So, if for now scientists are thinking that the disease is most likely zoonozis and that climate change, wildlife trade and natural habitat destruction increase the risk for such diseases we should write it, otherwise we will bear part of responsability for the consequences (absence of preventive actions including climate action, more pandemics).

Are you agree with me? Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

For most countries in the world the pandemic has ended, I think it should be mentione. 2A02:3030:813:AEB8:1:0:DC0C:CDDF (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If you can find

WP:BOLD and add it in. Or just drop the link in the talk page I'm sure there's an editor that would add it in. Eruditess (talk

) 20:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Main article is still protected, but yes if there are actual reliable sources marking the end, we'll implement them into the article. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

There are a lot of sources for planned end, such as kff, nyt, etc Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Remember that "the end of the public health emergency declaration in the United States" is not equivalent to "the end of the global pandemic". You already know this, no need to complicate it doe someone who doesn't. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I've edited it to an alternative target within that article, but also removed "speculation" per your NPOV concerns. It now reads:

The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of a

alternate theories about the origins of the virus.^[4][5][6]

This is not an improvement, ant continues to push a pov. Just link to the target article and get rid of the piped text. This talk page is further not a venue to move (rename) the target article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• In this article just say it's of zoonotic origin like the best RS. The lableak stuff is fringe and doesn't belong here. We don't entertain a discussion about Fort Detrick in the HIV article, even though that 'theory' that it was made there has a significant following.[7] Bon courage (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  That makes sense to me. We also already reference it several times and link to the article several times. So this sentence probably isn't necessary. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: There certainly isn't consensus to remove the wikilink as you have done here. Do we really need to run an RFC on this? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

We already wikilink it in that exact section in the "Main article" template at the top of the section. Removal of that sentence seemed to me to meet your POV text and EGG concerns while also meeting my concerns about over-emphasizing the lab leak. By keeping that sentence while also having the redundant one after it, it seems we are shoe-horning in or bending over backwards just to have a sentence that contains that link. When we already have that link...

If you disagree with that consensus-via-compromise, then I think an RFC would be fine as a next step, if neutrally worded and contained all the applicable options. I think if it were me I would instead quickly jot down below all the options informally, and then post a short neutral advertisement to

WP:NPOVN instead. Because RFCs are a pain and take a long time. But that's just me. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 22:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Removal of the text and link is not a compromise. I have run an RFC below. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we should add in the paragraph "Epidemiology, Backgrownd" after the sentence "The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of a zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal" the next sentence:

"Several social and environmental factors including climate change, natural ecosystem destruction and wildlife trade increased the likelihood for the emergences of such diseases. One study found climate change increased the likelihood of the pandemic by influencing distribution of bat species"

And in the lead section after the sentence "The novel virus was first identified in an outbreak in the Chinese city of Wuhan in December 2019." add this sentence:

"The virus probably has a zoonotic origin. Climate change probably significantly increased the likelihood of the emergence of the pandemic."

Sources:

Page 233-235 (37-39 by the internet count)from the chapter 2 of the latest IPCC report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter02.pdf

Pages 1067-1070 (27-30 by the internet count) in chapter 7 of the latest IPCC report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter07.pdf

This page on the site of the European Comission:

https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/430229-climate-change-the-culprit-in-the-covid-19-pandemic

Thank you in advance. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Support - Well-sourced, but I think some of these linked are probably

WP:PRIMARY

. Here are some better secondary sources:

• Mishra, Jitendra; Mishra, Priya; Arora, Naveen Kumar (29 March 2021). "Linkages between environmental issues and zoonotic diseases: with reference to COVID-19 pandemic". Environmental Sustainability. 4 (3): 455–467.
  PMC 8005368
  . Despite having a difference in their origin, major reasons behind the emergence and spread of zoonotic pandemics are related to activities such as habitat fragmentation, deforestation, biodiversity loss, intensive agriculture and livestock farming, uncontrolled urbanization, pollution, climate change and bushmeat hunting and trading. It is important to focus on environmental and climatic factors that are involved in the emergence of such pandemics involving novel human pathogens and viruses in particular.
• Amuasi, John H; Walzer, Christian; Heymann, David; Carabin, Hélène; Huong, Le Thi; Haines, Andrew; Winkler, Andrea S (May 2020). "Calling for a COVID-19 One Health Research Coalition". The Lancet. 395 (10236): 1543–1544.
  PMID 32386563
  .
• DE SADELEER, Nicolas; GODFROID, Jacques (27 April 2020). "The Story behind COVID-19: Animal Diseases at the Crossroads of Wildlife, Livestock and Human Health". European Journal of Risk Regulation. 11 (2): 210–227.
  PMC 7248588
  . This pluri-disciplinary article highlights that environmental changes, such as the reduction in habitats for wild fauna and the intemperate trade in fauna, are the biggest causes of the emergence of new diseases.
• Gössling, Stefan; Scott, Daniel; Hall, C. Michael (27 April 2020). "Pandemics, tourism and global change: a rapid assessment of COVID-19". Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 29 (1): 1–20.
  ISSN 0966-9582
  . Notably, climate change also exacerbates the risk of pathogen outbreaks, because climate change will lead to human migration and displacement, for example as a result of drought or flooding events

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Undecided: isn't the recent news pointing to evidence that Covid-19 came from an accident at the virus research lab at Wuhan? In that case, that linkage with the wildlife trade might be not very applicable for this particular virus. EMsmile (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

One agency (the DOE) has shifted its assessment from "undecided" to "low confidence" in favor of a lab leak. The FBI has not changed its assessment from "moderate confidence" in favor of a lab leak. Five total intelligence community elements (including the

Wuhan Huanan Seafood Market and found evidence of the virus present on animal cages and meat preparation instruments/surfaces. This is why the scientific community remains confident the zoonosis is overwhelmingly the most likely origin scenario.
TL;DR - a very small thing changed, and the news media reported it as a big change. As per usual. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 23:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I added it as i said, with several very little changes: I mentioned "environmental factors including climate change" in the lead because otherwise it will not be as per sources and putted it before the sentence about first discovery because otherwise it will cut the story line: first about discovery than about spread than about pandemic declaration. After the general description of the virus it is logically to explain how it appears however for the readers it will not change much.

Maybe it will be better to mention wildlife trade in the lead also because it is linked with Wuhan and its wet market.

About sources: I admit that in my opinion the report of the IPCC are the best secondary sources because they are based on thousands study and generally express consensus. About the study of Robert Beyer I found a declaration of the Cambridge University. It is maybe even better than EU comission as the this site can be considered as political in some extent.

However if you want you can add another sources.

It will be interesting to try to add this also in relevant Wikipedia pages in other languages - the most popular languages in Wikipedia. We should think how to do it.

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I see your edit has been reverted. I would have also reverted it, particularly your new sentence in the first para of the lead which I really think didn't belong there. In the main body maybe but even there I would have my doubts: there is a tendency to blame climate change for pretty much everything that is going wrong in this world... I think the link between climate change and Covid-19 is a bit far fetched. Wildlife trade and deforestation I can relate to as causes (if it really did originate from the Wuhan market) but climate change is another additional corner to take. And if it turns out that it originated from a lab accident then the link with climate change is even less clear. So we need to be careful about that. (the statement in question is Several social and environmental factors including climate change, natural ecosystem destruction and wildlife trade increased the likelihood for the emergences of such diseases.). EMsmile (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

If you will read the 2 IPCC sources that I has send you will see that they say explicitly that climate change do increase likelihood to zoonotic diseases emergence not less than natural habitat destruction or wildlife trade. They explain it very decisively.

According to the page itself (section backgrownd): "The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of a zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal."

So if you know that "all seas contain water" and Metirranean sea is a sea" you can conclude that " mediterranean sea contain water". It is one of the law of logics.

But even if it is too far in your opinion, the IPCC in the source that I have send explicitly put this information in link with the COVID-19 pandemic emergence saying:

"Climate change is contributing to the spread of diseases in both wildlife and humans. Increased contact between wildlife and human populations increases disease risk, and climate change is altering where pathogens that cause diseases and the animals that carry them live. Disease risk can often be reduced by improving health care and sanitation systems, training the medical community to recognise and treat potential new diseases in their region, limiting human encroachment into natural areas, limiting wildlife trade and promoting sustainable and equitable socioeconomic development.

"Diseases transmitted between humans and animals are called zoonoses. Zoonoses comprise nearly two-thirds of known human infectious diseases and the majority of newly emerging ones. COVID-19 is the most recent zoonosis and has killed millions of people globally while devastating economies. The risk posed by Emerging Infectious Diseases (EIDs) has increased because of: (1) the movement of wild animals and their parasites into new areas as a result of climate change, global trade and travel; (2) human intrusion in natural areas and the conversion of natural areas for agriculture, livestock, the extraction of industrial/raw materials and housing; (3) increased wildlife trade and consumption; (4) increased human mobility resulting from global trade, war/conflicts and migration, made faster and extending farther due to fossil fuel-powered travel; and (5) widespread antimicrobial use, which can promote antibiotic-resistant infections

it is saying further:

"Climate change further increases risk by altering pathogen and host animal (1) geographic ranges and habitats; (2) survival, growth and development; (3) reproduction and replication; (4) transmission and exposure (5) behaviour; and (6) access to immunologically naïve animals and people who lack resistance to infection. This can lead to novel disease emergence in new places, more frequent and larger outbreaks, and longer or shifted seasons of transmission."

And it continue more about it after.

Page 233-235 (37-39 by the internet count)from the chapter 2 of the latest IPCC report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter02.pdf

In the second source the IPCC creates a special box about COVID-19 and say:

"The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes COVID-19, emerged in late 2019, halfway through the preparation of the IPCC WGII Sixth Assessment Report. This Cross-Chapter Box assesses how the massive shock of the pandemic and response measures interact with climate-related impacts and risks as well as its significant implications for risk management and climate resilient development.

COVID-19 and environmental connections

Infectious diseases may emerge and spread through multiple climate-related avenues, including direct effects of climatic conditions on disease reproduction and transmission and various indirect effects, often interlinked with ecosystem degradation (high confidence). Climate change is affecting the risk of emerging infectious diseases by contributing to factors that drive the movements of species, including vectors and reservoirs of diseases, into novel human populations and vice versa (high confidence) (Sections 2.4.2.7, 5.2.2.3; Cross-Chapter Box Illness in Chapter 2; IPCC, 2019b; IPBES 2020). The spillover of some emerging infectious diseases from wildlife into humans is associated with live animal–human markets, intensified livestock production and climate-related movements of humans and wild animals into new areas that alter human–animal interactions"

Pages 1067-1070 (27-30 by the internet count) in chapter 7 of the latest IPCC report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter07.pdf

As the IPCC is a body that represent a scientific consensus (for this I preferred this sources) we can say that a scientific consensus exist about the statment that Covid-19 is most likely a zoonotic disease ans climate change icrease the likelihood for such diseases.

Also in the United Nations Environment Programme (a scientific bodey representing consensus) report "Preventing the next pandemic - Zoonotic diseases and how to break the chain of transmission" in the main findings climate change is explicitly cited as one of the 7 main reasons for increase in zoonozes:

"7. DISEASE DRIVERS Seven human-mediated factors are most likely driving the emergence of zoonotic diseases: 1) increasing human demand for animal protein; 2) unsustainable agricultural intensification; 3) increased use and exploitation of wildlife; 4) unsustainable utilization of natural resources accelerated by urbanization, land use change and extractive industries; 5) increased travel and transportation; 6) changes in food supply; and 7) climate change."

https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/32860/ZPKMEN.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

About other versions (even though they seems to me personally as more politically then scientifically motivated they emerge when there is more tensions between USA and China and decline when they are weaker), I am for including them in the main bodey and the lead any time when there is something seriouse about it.

I think this is our duty to expose all the related information avout COVID-19 and everybody who hide it intentionally bear part of the responsability for the suffering that will follow even if he is just a wikipedia editor.

Therfore if you will enter something seriouse (reliable source, seriouse evidence) about other versions to the main body or to the lead section or to both of them I will not revert it and will even support.

Certainly if we have seriouse suspicions that the disease can be created by more than 1 way we should enter the basical findings about all ways.

So, if for now scientists are thinking that the disease is most likely zoonozis and that climate change, wildlife trade and natural habitat destruction increase the risk for such diseases we should write it, otherwise we will bear part of responsability for the consequences (absence of preventive actions including climate action, more pandemics).

Are you agree with me? Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

For most countries in the world the pandemic has ended, I think it should be mentione. 2A02:3030:813:AEB8:1:0:DC0C:CDDF (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If you can find

WP:BOLD and add it in. Or just drop the link in the talk page I'm sure there's an editor that would add it in. Eruditess (talk

) 20:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Main article is still protected, but yes if there are actual reliable sources marking the end, we'll implement them into the article. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

There are a lot of sources for planned end, such as kff, nyt, etc Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Remember that "the end of the public health emergency declaration in the United States" is not equivalent to "the end of the global pandemic". You already know this, no need to complicate it doe someone who doesn't. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I've edited it to an alternative target within that article, but also removed "speculation" per your NPOV concerns. It now reads:

The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of a

alternate theories about the origins of the virus.^[4][5][6]

This is not an improvement, ant continues to push a pov. Just link to the target article and get rid of the piped text. This talk page is further not a venue to move (rename) the target article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• In this article just say it's of zoonotic origin like the best RS. The lableak stuff is fringe and doesn't belong here. We don't entertain a discussion about Fort Detrick in the HIV article, even though that 'theory' that it was made there has a significant following.[8] Bon courage (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  That makes sense to me. We also already reference it several times and link to the article several times. So this sentence probably isn't necessary. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: There certainly isn't consensus to remove the wikilink as you have done here. Do we really need to run an RFC on this? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

We already wikilink it in that exact section in the "Main article" template at the top of the section. Removal of that sentence seemed to me to meet your POV text and EGG concerns while also meeting my concerns about over-emphasizing the lab leak. By keeping that sentence while also having the redundant one after it, it seems we are shoe-horning in or bending over backwards just to have a sentence that contains that link. When we already have that link...

If you disagree with that consensus-via-compromise, then I think an RFC would be fine as a next step, if neutrally worded and contained all the applicable options. I think if it were me I would instead quickly jot down below all the options informally, and then post a short neutral advertisement to

WP:NPOVN instead. Because RFCs are a pain and take a long time. But that's just me. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 22:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Removal of the text and link is not a compromise. I have run an RFC below. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we should add in the paragraph "Epidemiology, Backgrownd" after the sentence "The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of a zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal" the next sentence:

"Several social and environmental factors including climate change, natural ecosystem destruction and wildlife trade increased the likelihood for the emergences of such diseases. One study found climate change increased the likelihood of the pandemic by influencing distribution of bat species"

And in the lead section after the sentence "The novel virus was first identified in an outbreak in the Chinese city of Wuhan in December 2019." add this sentence:

"The virus probably has a zoonotic origin. Climate change probably significantly increased the likelihood of the emergence of the pandemic."

Sources:

Page 233-235 (37-39 by the internet count)from the chapter 2 of the latest IPCC report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter02.pdf

Pages 1067-1070 (27-30 by the internet count) in chapter 7 of the latest IPCC report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter07.pdf

This page on the site of the European Comission:

https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/430229-climate-change-the-culprit-in-the-covid-19-pandemic

Thank you in advance. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Support - Well-sourced, but I think some of these linked are probably

WP:PRIMARY

. Here are some better secondary sources:

• Mishra, Jitendra; Mishra, Priya; Arora, Naveen Kumar (29 March 2021). "Linkages between environmental issues and zoonotic diseases: with reference to COVID-19 pandemic". Environmental Sustainability. 4 (3): 455–467.
  PMC 8005368
  . Despite having a difference in their origin, major reasons behind the emergence and spread of zoonotic pandemics are related to activities such as habitat fragmentation, deforestation, biodiversity loss, intensive agriculture and livestock farming, uncontrolled urbanization, pollution, climate change and bushmeat hunting and trading. It is important to focus on environmental and climatic factors that are involved in the emergence of such pandemics involving novel human pathogens and viruses in particular.
• Amuasi, John H; Walzer, Christian; Heymann, David; Carabin, Hélène; Huong, Le Thi; Haines, Andrew; Winkler, Andrea S (May 2020). "Calling for a COVID-19 One Health Research Coalition". The Lancet. 395 (10236): 1543–1544.
  PMID 32386563
  .
• DE SADELEER, Nicolas; GODFROID, Jacques (27 April 2020). "The Story behind COVID-19: Animal Diseases at the Crossroads of Wildlife, Livestock and Human Health". European Journal of Risk Regulation. 11 (2): 210–227.
  PMC 7248588
  . This pluri-disciplinary article highlights that environmental changes, such as the reduction in habitats for wild fauna and the intemperate trade in fauna, are the biggest causes of the emergence of new diseases.
• Gössling, Stefan; Scott, Daniel; Hall, C. Michael (27 April 2020). "Pandemics, tourism and global change: a rapid assessment of COVID-19". Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 29 (1): 1–20.
  ISSN 0966-9582
  . Notably, climate change also exacerbates the risk of pathogen outbreaks, because climate change will lead to human migration and displacement, for example as a result of drought or flooding events

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Undecided: isn't the recent news pointing to evidence that Covid-19 came from an accident at the virus research lab at Wuhan? In that case, that linkage with the wildlife trade might be not very applicable for this particular virus. EMsmile (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

One agency (the DOE) has shifted its assessment from "undecided" to "low confidence" in favor of a lab leak. The FBI has not changed its assessment from "moderate confidence" in favor of a lab leak. Five total intelligence community elements (including the

Wuhan Huanan Seafood Market and found evidence of the virus present on animal cages and meat preparation instruments/surfaces. This is why the scientific community remains confident the zoonosis is overwhelmingly the most likely origin scenario.
TL;DR - a very small thing changed, and the news media reported it as a big change. As per usual. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 23:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I added it as i said, with several very little changes: I mentioned "environmental factors including climate change" in the lead because otherwise it will not be as per sources and putted it before the sentence about first discovery because otherwise it will cut the story line: first about discovery than about spread than about pandemic declaration. After the general description of the virus it is logically to explain how it appears however for the readers it will not change much.

Maybe it will be better to mention wildlife trade in the lead also because it is linked with Wuhan and its wet market.

About sources: I admit that in my opinion the report of the IPCC are the best secondary sources because they are based on thousands study and generally express consensus. About the study of Robert Beyer I found a declaration of the Cambridge University. It is maybe even better than EU comission as the this site can be considered as political in some extent.

However if you want you can add another sources.

It will be interesting to try to add this also in relevant Wikipedia pages in other languages - the most popular languages in Wikipedia. We should think how to do it.

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I see your edit has been reverted. I would have also reverted it, particularly your new sentence in the first para of the lead which I really think didn't belong there. In the main body maybe but even there I would have my doubts: there is a tendency to blame climate change for pretty much everything that is going wrong in this world... I think the link between climate change and Covid-19 is a bit far fetched. Wildlife trade and deforestation I can relate to as causes (if it really did originate from the Wuhan market) but climate change is another additional corner to take. And if it turns out that it originated from a lab accident then the link with climate change is even less clear. So we need to be careful about that. (the statement in question is Several social and environmental factors including climate change, natural ecosystem destruction and wildlife trade increased the likelihood for the emergences of such diseases.). EMsmile (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

If you will read the 2 IPCC sources that I has send you will see that they say explicitly that climate change do increase likelihood to zoonotic diseases emergence not less than natural habitat destruction or wildlife trade. They explain it very decisively.

According to the page itself (section backgrownd): "The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of a zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal."

So if you know that "all seas contain water" and Metirranean sea is a sea" you can conclude that " mediterranean sea contain water". It is one of the law of logics.

But even if it is too far in your opinion, the IPCC in the source that I have send explicitly put this information in link with the COVID-19 pandemic emergence saying:

"Climate change is contributing to the spread of diseases in both wildlife and humans. Increased contact between wildlife and human populations increases disease risk, and climate change is altering where pathogens that cause diseases and the animals that carry them live. Disease risk can often be reduced by improving health care and sanitation systems, training the medical community to recognise and treat potential new diseases in their region, limiting human encroachment into natural areas, limiting wildlife trade and promoting sustainable and equitable socioeconomic development.

"Diseases transmitted between humans and animals are called zoonoses. Zoonoses comprise nearly two-thirds of known human infectious diseases and the majority of newly emerging ones. COVID-19 is the most recent zoonosis and has killed millions of people globally while devastating economies. The risk posed by Emerging Infectious Diseases (EIDs) has increased because of: (1) the movement of wild animals and their parasites into new areas as a result of climate change, global trade and travel; (2) human intrusion in natural areas and the conversion of natural areas for agriculture, livestock, the extraction of industrial/raw materials and housing; (3) increased wildlife trade and consumption; (4) increased human mobility resulting from global trade, war/conflicts and migration, made faster and extending farther due to fossil fuel-powered travel; and (5) widespread antimicrobial use, which can promote antibiotic-resistant infections

it is saying further:

"Climate change further increases risk by altering pathogen and host animal (1) geographic ranges and habitats; (2) survival, growth and development; (3) reproduction and replication; (4) transmission and exposure (5) behaviour; and (6) access to immunologically naïve animals and people who lack resistance to infection. This can lead to novel disease emergence in new places, more frequent and larger outbreaks, and longer or shifted seasons of transmission."

And it continue more about it after.

Page 233-235 (37-39 by the internet count)from the chapter 2 of the latest IPCC report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter02.pdf

In the second source the IPCC creates a special box about COVID-19 and say:

"The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes COVID-19, emerged in late 2019, halfway through the preparation of the IPCC WGII Sixth Assessment Report. This Cross-Chapter Box assesses how the massive shock of the pandemic and response measures interact with climate-related impacts and risks as well as its significant implications for risk management and climate resilient development.

COVID-19 and environmental connections

Infectious diseases may emerge and spread through multiple climate-related avenues, including direct effects of climatic conditions on disease reproduction and transmission and various indirect effects, often interlinked with ecosystem degradation (high confidence). Climate change is affecting the risk of emerging infectious diseases by contributing to factors that drive the movements of species, including vectors and reservoirs of diseases, into novel human populations and vice versa (high confidence) (Sections 2.4.2.7, 5.2.2.3; Cross-Chapter Box Illness in Chapter 2; IPCC, 2019b; IPBES 2020). The spillover of some emerging infectious diseases from wildlife into humans is associated with live animal–human markets, intensified livestock production and climate-related movements of humans and wild animals into new areas that alter human–animal interactions"

Pages 1067-1070 (27-30 by the internet count) in chapter 7 of the latest IPCC report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter07.pdf

As the IPCC is a body that represent a scientific consensus (for this I preferred this sources) we can say that a scientific consensus exist about the statment that Covid-19 is most likely a zoonotic disease ans climate change icrease the likelihood for such diseases.

Also in the United Nations Environment Programme (a scientific bodey representing consensus) report "Preventing the next pandemic - Zoonotic diseases and how to break the chain of transmission" in the main findings climate change is explicitly cited as one of the 7 main reasons for increase in zoonozes:

"7. DISEASE DRIVERS Seven human-mediated factors are most likely driving the emergence of zoonotic diseases: 1) increasing human demand for animal protein; 2) unsustainable agricultural intensification; 3) increased use and exploitation of wildlife; 4) unsustainable utilization of natural resources accelerated by urbanization, land use change and extractive industries; 5) increased travel and transportation; 6) changes in food supply; and 7) climate change."

https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/32860/ZPKMEN.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

About other versions (even though they seems to me personally as more politically then scientifically motivated they emerge when there is more tensions between USA and China and decline when they are weaker), I am for including them in the main bodey and the lead any time when there is something seriouse about it.

I think this is our duty to expose all the related information avout COVID-19 and everybody who hide it intentionally bear part of the responsability for the suffering that will follow even if he is just a wikipedia editor.

Therfore if you will enter something seriouse (reliable source, seriouse evidence) about other versions to the main body or to the lead section or to both of them I will not revert it and will even support.

Certainly if we have seriouse suspicions that the disease can be created by more than 1 way we should enter the basical findings about all ways.

So, if for now scientists are thinking that the disease is most likely zoonozis and that climate change, wildlife trade and natural habitat destruction increase the risk for such diseases we should write it, otherwise we will bear part of responsability for the consequences (absence of preventive actions including climate action, more pandemics).

Are you agree with me? Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

For most countries in the world the pandemic has ended, I think it should be mentione. 2A02:3030:813:AEB8:1:0:DC0C:CDDF (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If you can find

WP:BOLD and add it in. Or just drop the link in the talk page I'm sure there's an editor that would add it in. Eruditess (talk

) 20:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Main article is still protected, but yes if there are actual reliable sources marking the end, we'll implement them into the article. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

There are a lot of sources for planned end, such as kff, nyt, etc Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Remember that "the end of the public health emergency declaration in the United States" is not equivalent to "the end of the global pandemic". You already know this, no need to complicate it doe someone who doesn't. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I've edited it to an alternative target within that article, but also removed "speculation" per your NPOV concerns. It now reads:

The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of a

alternate theories about the origins of the virus.^[4][5][6]

This is not an improvement, ant continues to push a pov. Just link to the target article and get rid of the piped text. This talk page is further not a venue to move (rename) the target article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• In this article just say it's of zoonotic origin like the best RS. The lableak stuff is fringe and doesn't belong here. We don't entertain a discussion about Fort Detrick in the HIV article, even though that 'theory' that it was made there has a significant following.[9] Bon courage (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  That makes sense to me. We also already reference it several times and link to the article several times. So this sentence probably isn't necessary. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: There certainly isn't consensus to remove the wikilink as you have done here. Do we really need to run an RFC on this? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

We already wikilink it in that exact section in the "Main article" template at the top of the section. Removal of that sentence seemed to me to meet your POV text and EGG concerns while also meeting my concerns about over-emphasizing the lab leak. By keeping that sentence while also having the redundant one after it, it seems we are shoe-horning in or bending over backwards just to have a sentence that contains that link. When we already have that link...

If you disagree with that consensus-via-compromise, then I think an RFC would be fine as a next step, if neutrally worded and contained all the applicable options. I think if it were me I would instead quickly jot down below all the options informally, and then post a short neutral advertisement to

WP:NPOVN instead. Because RFCs are a pain and take a long time. But that's just me. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 22:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Removal of the text and link is not a compromise. I have run an RFC below. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we should add in the paragraph "Epidemiology, Backgrownd" after the sentence "The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of a zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal" the next sentence:

"Several social and environmental factors including climate change, natural ecosystem destruction and wildlife trade increased the likelihood for the emergences of such diseases. One study found climate change increased the likelihood of the pandemic by influencing distribution of bat species"

And in the lead section after the sentence "The novel virus was first identified in an outbreak in the Chinese city of Wuhan in December 2019." add this sentence:

"The virus probably has a zoonotic origin. Climate change probably significantly increased the likelihood of the emergence of the pandemic."

Sources:

Page 233-235 (37-39 by the internet count)from the chapter 2 of the latest IPCC report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter02.pdf

Pages 1067-1070 (27-30 by the internet count) in chapter 7 of the latest IPCC report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter07.pdf

This page on the site of the European Comission:

https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/430229-climate-change-the-culprit-in-the-covid-19-pandemic

Thank you in advance. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Support - Well-sourced, but I think some of these linked are probably

WP:PRIMARY

. Here are some better secondary sources:

• Mishra, Jitendra; Mishra, Priya; Arora, Naveen Kumar (29 March 2021). "Linkages between environmental issues and zoonotic diseases: with reference to COVID-19 pandemic". Environmental Sustainability. 4 (3): 455–467.
  PMC 8005368
  . Despite having a difference in their origin, major reasons behind the emergence and spread of zoonotic pandemics are related to activities such as habitat fragmentation, deforestation, biodiversity loss, intensive agriculture and livestock farming, uncontrolled urbanization, pollution, climate change and bushmeat hunting and trading. It is important to focus on environmental and climatic factors that are involved in the emergence of such pandemics involving novel human pathogens and viruses in particular.
• Amuasi, John H; Walzer, Christian; Heymann, David; Carabin, Hélène; Huong, Le Thi; Haines, Andrew; Winkler, Andrea S (May 2020). "Calling for a COVID-19 One Health Research Coalition". The Lancet. 395 (10236): 1543–1544.
  PMID 32386563
  .
• DE SADELEER, Nicolas; GODFROID, Jacques (27 April 2020). "The Story behind COVID-19: Animal Diseases at the Crossroads of Wildlife, Livestock and Human Health". European Journal of Risk Regulation. 11 (2): 210–227.
  PMC 7248588
  . This pluri-disciplinary article highlights that environmental changes, such as the reduction in habitats for wild fauna and the intemperate trade in fauna, are the biggest causes of the emergence of new diseases.
• Gössling, Stefan; Scott, Daniel; Hall, C. Michael (27 April 2020). "Pandemics, tourism and global change: a rapid assessment of COVID-19". Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 29 (1): 1–20.
  ISSN 0966-9582
  . Notably, climate change also exacerbates the risk of pathogen outbreaks, because climate change will lead to human migration and displacement, for example as a result of drought or flooding events

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Undecided: isn't the recent news pointing to evidence that Covid-19 came from an accident at the virus research lab at Wuhan? In that case, that linkage with the wildlife trade might be not very applicable for this particular virus. EMsmile (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

One agency (the DOE) has shifted its assessment from "undecided" to "low confidence" in favor of a lab leak. The FBI has not changed its assessment from "moderate confidence" in favor of a lab leak. Five total intelligence community elements (including the

Wuhan Huanan Seafood Market and found evidence of the virus present on animal cages and meat preparation instruments/surfaces. This is why the scientific community remains confident the zoonosis is overwhelmingly the most likely origin scenario.
TL;DR - a very small thing changed, and the news media reported it as a big change. As per usual. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 23:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I added it as i said, with several very little changes: I mentioned "environmental factors including climate change" in the lead because otherwise it will not be as per sources and putted it before the sentence about first discovery because otherwise it will cut the story line: first about discovery than about spread than about pandemic declaration. After the general description of the virus it is logically to explain how it appears however for the readers it will not change much.

Maybe it will be better to mention wildlife trade in the lead also because it is linked with Wuhan and its wet market.

About sources: I admit that in my opinion the report of the IPCC are the best secondary sources because they are based on thousands study and generally express consensus. About the study of Robert Beyer I found a declaration of the Cambridge University. It is maybe even better than EU comission as the this site can be considered as political in some extent.

However if you want you can add another sources.

It will be interesting to try to add this also in relevant Wikipedia pages in other languages - the most popular languages in Wikipedia. We should think how to do it.

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I see your edit has been reverted. I would have also reverted it, particularly your new sentence in the first para of the lead which I really think didn't belong there. In the main body maybe but even there I would have my doubts: there is a tendency to blame climate change for pretty much everything that is going wrong in this world... I think the link between climate change and Covid-19 is a bit far fetched. Wildlife trade and deforestation I can relate to as causes (if it really did originate from the Wuhan market) but climate change is another additional corner to take. And if it turns out that it originated from a lab accident then the link with climate change is even less clear. So we need to be careful about that. (the statement in question is Several social and environmental factors including climate change, natural ecosystem destruction and wildlife trade increased the likelihood for the emergences of such diseases.). EMsmile (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

If you will read the 2 IPCC sources that I has send you will see that they say explicitly that climate change do increase likelihood to zoonotic diseases emergence not less than natural habitat destruction or wildlife trade. They explain it very decisively.

According to the page itself (section backgrownd): "The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of a zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal."

So if you know that "all seas contain water" and Metirranean sea is a sea" you can conclude that " mediterranean sea contain water". It is one of the law of logics.

But even if it is too far in your opinion, the IPCC in the source that I have send explicitly put this information in link with the COVID-19 pandemic emergence saying:

"Climate change is contributing to the spread of diseases in both wildlife and humans. Increased contact between wildlife and human populations increases disease risk, and climate change is altering where pathogens that cause diseases and the animals that carry them live. Disease risk can often be reduced by improving health care and sanitation systems, training the medical community to recognise and treat potential new diseases in their region, limiting human encroachment into natural areas, limiting wildlife trade and promoting sustainable and equitable socioeconomic development.

"Diseases transmitted between humans and animals are called zoonoses. Zoonoses comprise nearly two-thirds of known human infectious diseases and the majority of newly emerging ones. COVID-19 is the most recent zoonosis and has killed millions of people globally while devastating economies. The risk posed by Emerging Infectious Diseases (EIDs) has increased because of: (1) the movement of wild animals and their parasites into new areas as a result of climate change, global trade and travel; (2) human intrusion in natural areas and the conversion of natural areas for agriculture, livestock, the extraction of industrial/raw materials and housing; (3) increased wildlife trade and consumption; (4) increased human mobility resulting from global trade, war/conflicts and migration, made faster and extending farther due to fossil fuel-powered travel; and (5) widespread antimicrobial use, which can promote antibiotic-resistant infections

it is saying further:

"Climate change further increases risk by altering pathogen and host animal (1) geographic ranges and habitats; (2) survival, growth and development; (3) reproduction and replication; (4) transmission and exposure (5) behaviour; and (6) access to immunologically naïve animals and people who lack resistance to infection. This can lead to novel disease emergence in new places, more frequent and larger outbreaks, and longer or shifted seasons of transmission."

And it continue more about it after.

Page 233-235 (37-39 by the internet count)from the chapter 2 of the latest IPCC report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter02.pdf

In the second source the IPCC creates a special box about COVID-19 and say:

"The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes COVID-19, emerged in late 2019, halfway through the preparation of the IPCC WGII Sixth Assessment Report. This Cross-Chapter Box assesses how the massive shock of the pandemic and response measures interact with climate-related impacts and risks as well as its significant implications for risk management and climate resilient development.

COVID-19 and environmental connections

Infectious diseases may emerge and spread through multiple climate-related avenues, including direct effects of climatic conditions on disease reproduction and transmission and various indirect effects, often interlinked with ecosystem degradation (high confidence). Climate change is affecting the risk of emerging infectious diseases by contributing to factors that drive the movements of species, including vectors and reservoirs of diseases, into novel human populations and vice versa (high confidence) (Sections 2.4.2.7, 5.2.2.3; Cross-Chapter Box Illness in Chapter 2; IPCC, 2019b; IPBES 2020). The spillover of some emerging infectious diseases from wildlife into humans is associated with live animal–human markets, intensified livestock production and climate-related movements of humans and wild animals into new areas that alter human–animal interactions"

Pages 1067-1070 (27-30 by the internet count) in chapter 7 of the latest IPCC report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter07.pdf

As the IPCC is a body that represent a scientific consensus (for this I preferred this sources) we can say that a scientific consensus exist about the statment that Covid-19 is most likely a zoonotic disease ans climate change icrease the likelihood for such diseases.

Also in the United Nations Environment Programme (a scientific bodey representing consensus) report "Preventing the next pandemic - Zoonotic diseases and how to break the chain of transmission" in the main findings climate change is explicitly cited as one of the 7 main reasons for increase in zoonozes:

"7. DISEASE DRIVERS Seven human-mediated factors are most likely driving the emergence of zoonotic diseases: 1) increasing human demand for animal protein; 2) unsustainable agricultural intensification; 3) increased use and exploitation of wildlife; 4) unsustainable utilization of natural resources accelerated by urbanization, land use change and extractive industries; 5) increased travel and transportation; 6) changes in food supply; and 7) climate change."

https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/32860/ZPKMEN.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

About other versions (even though they seems to me personally as more politically then scientifically motivated they emerge when there is more tensions between USA and China and decline when they are weaker), I am for including them in the main bodey and the lead any time when there is something seriouse about it.

I think this is our duty to expose all the related information avout COVID-19 and everybody who hide it intentionally bear part of the responsability for the suffering that will follow even if he is just a wikipedia editor.

Therfore if you will enter something seriouse (reliable source, seriouse evidence) about other versions to the main body or to the lead section or to both of them I will not revert it and will even support.

Certainly if we have seriouse suspicions that the disease can be created by more than 1 way we should enter the basical findings about all ways.

So, if for now scientists are thinking that the disease is most likely zoonozis and that climate change, wildlife trade and natural habitat destruction increase the risk for such diseases we should write it, otherwise we will bear part of responsability for the consequences (absence of preventive actions including climate action, more pandemics).

Are you agree with me? Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)