Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Archive 15

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 absolutely need to centralise the discussion on COVID-19's Origin here in the Project page.

We need to start a unified discussion and every time a discussion on this topic is opened on a project article talk page we need to close it immediately (using the appropriate tools [1]) and link to the discussion here. Otherwise we currently have 10s of discussions arguing the same thing with a huge time loss and no conclusion in sight.

• We currently have a crucial RFC being conducted on whether the virus origin is
  WP:MEDRS would apply or not here: [2]
  . This determination will be crucial and determine the way forward significantly.

Thoughts? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

It's subtly different for that RfC. It's not whether "

talk

) 13:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn I agree. The RfC will take some time to close but I think it has been clearly rejected. So it seems the origins are not BMI and we won't need MEDRS sourcing. As soon as it is closed I would place that in the project consensus and then centralise discussions on the virus's origin here (by closing and moving here/consolidating) so that we avoid this mess of discussions all around and the time waste. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk

08:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I have proposed splitting COVID-19 pandemic in Australia into separate articles for each state and territory. We can discuss this at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Australia#Proposed splitting. Steelkamp (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Several Wikimedia groups are teaming up with the World Health Organization for the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Vaccine Safety Wikipedia Edit-a-thon June 12, 2021. If we're lucky, we'll see some improvements to articles about COVID-19 vaccines, too. Please be on the lookout for new editors who might need help with formatting or have questions about how to edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the place to ask, but article COVAX seems to need months of updating... AnonMoos (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Wuhan virus is a disambiguation page (because of the existence of an unrelated bacteriophage with the same name). However, there has been disagreement about the exact wording of the entry for SARS‑CoV‑2. One version was this:

Wuhan virus, an informal name for the

SARS‑CoV‑2 virus, associated with the xenophobia related to the pandemic

This links both to the SARS‑CoV‑2 article (because "Wuhan virus" is a synonym for it), and to Xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic (because that's the only Wikipedia article that actually mentions the term and provides some sort of context for its history of use).

An editor has objected to the second link, insisting that the entry should read:

Wuhan virus, an informal name for the

SARS‑CoV‑2 virus

Their argument is that because of the evidence for the lab leak theory, the term "Wuhan virus" is now actually neutral. If that's the case, then this neutral term will need to be mentioned in the article about the virus. Otherwise, I believe we'd continue to need a link to an article where the term is mentioned and its connotations made explicit ("neutral", "racist", "correct", "derogatory", etc.). A similar situation obtains about the dab page Chinese virus.

What do others think? – Uanfala (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The lab leak idea is completely irrelevant to the question of what the disambiguation page should link to. I think it's useful to include both links: the link to

SARS‑CoV‑2 is for readers who want to read about the virus, and the link to Xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic is for readers who want to read about the term. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs

) 15:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

It is undeniably supported by WP:RSes that the term "Wuhan virus" is linked to xenophobia in the pandemic. So that part of the redirect should stay.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I reverted the change, see that redirect's talk page: Talk:Wuhan virus#Xenophobia link for the WHO advice against geographic locations in names being 'neutral'. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I have seen that some pages have a note at the talk page about discretionary sanctions for the Covid-19 articles. Others, like COVID-19 pandemic in Argentina, do not. Question 1: Are those sanctions for all articles, regardless of having a note at the talk or not? If so, should I add the note when a Covid-19 page lacks it, or only in case of user disputes? And question 2: what is it all about? Sanctions against "editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process" sound like normal stuff for me, someone doing that would likely be blocked anyway, regardless of topic. Is there some specific thing that users did in those articles that must not be done and that caused this whole situation? Cambalachero (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll add a question, as it doesn't seem apparent. Where do we report what we suspect is a violation of the discretionary sanctions? Bakkster Man (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

1. I believe it is mostly the medical articles, to prevent disinformation. 2. Discretionary sanctions means that an admin can immediately block or limit an account for violating "normal stuff", rather than waiting, reporting, etc. - the DS notice acts as a first warning. Kingsif (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:AC/DS (or in this case, GS) usually require awareness (but arbcom is in the process of reworking that broken system), but basically yes the point is avoiding protracted messing about from disruptive editors by encouraging admins to act on it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 12:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Could one please explain for exopedians like me, what's the difference between former (current at the time of the discussion above) "general sanctions" and current "discretionary sanctions"? Sadly, I couldn't make any sense from the primary sources =( Thank you in advance Ain92 (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ain92: My understanding is they're a bit more formalized with more process. Idea is that action is more likely to be taken by the arbitration committee than individual editors (due to the risk of harassment and such acting individually, among other things). Requests go through Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, and I believe the first topic ban went through today. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Cambalachero. I think that the COVID-19 DS banner can be added to any article relating to COVID-19. Personally if I ran across a talk page without it and I noticed it, I'd probably add it. The idea behind GS and DS is to give admins more power in contentious topic areas to place page editing restrictions, issue topic bans, and issue blocks. For whatever reason, COVID-19 is sometimes a contentious topic area. In particular, it seems to suffer from some conspiracy theories (bioweapon origin, ivermectin as a miracle drug, etc.), and it requires a lot of skill to edit correctly (MEDRS is complicated). Hope that helps.–Novem Linguae (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

(cross posted from

• Ryan, Jackson (24 June 2021). "Inside Wikipedia's endless war over the coronavirus lab leak theory". CNET.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if there is an existing page on the increase in interest and production in pandemic-related fiction caused by COVID-19. Maybe it's too early for such a page? I found a Washington post article on the subject of "post-pandemic fiction". Maybe it would be more appropriate as a section on Disease in fiction? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

To me it seems too early for an article. Maybe even too early for a section. A paragraph, yes. Yes, start with a paragraph in Disease in fiction. Later, probably, expand. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Definitely too early. I would compare "post-pandemic fiction" to post-9/11 fiction: a lot of works agreed to be in that category were actually originally developed/began production pre-9/11 and were about Y2K fears of a changing world but, published post-9/11, were received as relevant to those anxieties. Any post-pandemic fiction already published - and which is "post-pandemic" in theme (i.e. not just fiction set in lockdown and the like) - was probably really Trump-era fiction as it was conceived. Development, writing, publication, take time. Kingsif (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies! I'll come back in a few years, haha. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I've been doing some talk page clean-up, and came across this template from this project. The content of the template is obviously fine as a consensus template; the problem is it is absolutely huge and there is no option to collapse it, so it ends up taking a huge amount of space in the talk page header. I'm suggesting that collapse option be implemented, but I wanted to run it by y'all since it came from this project originally. Curbon7 (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Definitely agree, I think making it collapsible is absolutely in the interest of the project. That way we can still direct people to it, but it won't be massive and make scrolling these talk pages even more of a chore.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Also wanted to put this on everybody's radar. ProcrastinatingReader made it because we keep fielding over and over again the same arguments on the most controversial talk pages. At least if we have something like this collapsed at the top, we can direct newcomers to it before they re-assert the same 5 arguments for the 3rd time.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The collapsible issue above seems to be about the talk page banner. Collapsibility for the first section (this being a different template) seems problematic; firstly because collapsing doesn't work properly on mobile devices, and because I think this template works best if it's visible. This is similar to how it works at

WT:MOS. ProcrastinatingReader (talk

) 00:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I, for one, think that it would be super annoying to scroll through it every time. I get the reasoning that it would be all but invisible to new users if collapsed, but I think the pros of collapse outweigh the cons. We can still point to it like an FAQ. I just hate with a visceral passion, the extremely long and convoluted talk page banners of those pages. Can we make it collapsible, but default to open? I think there's a way to do that with the ctop template, for example. Not 100% sure. And then if that is a thing, I think you can also set your own js preferences to open or close on viewing. Not sure how that works with mobile, but I will say that I have never had a problem with ctop templates on Android or Chrome mobile.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I dunno personally, for example just one of the sections at

Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19 rehashing the Segreto paper is several times as long as this current consensus section. I don't know whether ctop default uncollapsed would work; I do personally think the current form provides more emphasis to the discussions though (under a separate section header and with an emphasised background colour), and thus serves its purpose better, and this format is tried and tested. But if consensus disagrees then that's fine with me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk

) 00:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Dear members please help to identify which one can be included in "Postmarketing study (participants)" i.e. Phase-IV column in the table COVID-19_vaccine#List_of_authorized_and_approved_vaccines for Covaxin.

• (1) A prospective, longitudinal, observational, post licensure vaccine evaluation study to assess the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine among the Healthcare workers of Max group of hospitals; (1000 participants, India)^[1]
• (2) COVID-19 Vaccines Safety Tracking (CoVaST); (It comprises of 10 vaccines including Covaxin) (30000 participants, worldwide)^[2]

Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @

Alexbrn, and Shibbolethink: for help. Run n Fly (talk

) 14:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added (1) supported by

WP:BOLD. Run n Fly (talk

) 19:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

"So far it looks as if the legacy of covid-19 will follow the pattern set by past pandemics. Nicholas Christakis of Yale University identifies three shifts: the collective threat prompts a growth in state power; the overturning of everyday life leads to a search for meaning; and the closeness of death which brings caution while the disease rages, spurs audacity when it has passed. Each will mark society in its own way."[1]

If we can find more content along these lines (e.g., analytical and focused on long-term effects), it might be easier to improve some of the articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@

LSGH: I'm working on implementing an automatic system that stores data in a central location (Template:COVID-19 data/data, a JSON page) and uses a module (Module:COVID-19 data) to generate tables (and later, plain-text numbers). Unfortunately, my data source doesn't store recoveries information, so I would have to add that in manually from government websites. Tol | talk | contribs

17:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• DiResta, Renée (21 July 2021). "Institutional Authority Has Vanished. Wikipedia Points to the Answer". The Atlantic.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

There is a relevant discussion at

Talk:Wikipedia coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 19:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I can't edit either myself, I wanted to see if there is consensus for removing this image before making an edit request (or if someone here could do so?) I think this image should be removed from both articles. On the basis of

1. Verifiability - The reference included doesn't seem to work, it doesn't take the user to the original data and a search on the linked database doesn't obviously return the data in question. I think I have found the original source, which is data from February 2020, clearly no longer representative. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105510/china-wuhan-coronavirus-covid-19-patients-distribution-by-severity-of-symptoms/
2. Policy - It is displaying textual information as an image as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Avoid_entering_textual_information_as_images
3. Personal preference - the image doesn't actually relay the information particularly well any more than just including the text in the article would. It's not clear if the percentage on the pyramid is represented by height or volume, The caption doesn't sufficiently describe where the data comes from (i.e. was this in the first week or all time, prior to mitigation or not, with or without vaccination etc.) there are 4 groupings on the key but only 3 colours, the text is tiny and it's not really in proportion to the section it presides in in both cases. finally, 'Cases' don't die, people die, cases may 'lead to death.'

JeffUK (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing these problems out. I've

boldly removed the image. If someone wants to create a new image based on more up-to-date data, displayed a clearer way, that would be fine, but the current image is misleading. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs

) 16:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Part 1.

6) The leading theories are an accidental lab leak or zoonotic spillover from a bat or other intermediary species. From Wall Street Journal. MEDRS sources do not give this weight to the lab leak. Forich (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

And what does that tell you?

talk

) 17:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I just saw that discussion for the first time.

Someone pointed out that WP:MEDRS is "not an absolute truth", and nobody asked "how does that count in favor of any alternative, unless the alternative is an absolute truth?"

Does nobody know how to call a bluff anymore? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, WikiProject,

I'm hoping that someone who is more familiar with the development of COVID-19 in the U.S. than I am could look over this brief article and decide whether the claims that this doctor gave an early warning about COVID-19 is supported by the sources. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Howdy. I took a look at the three sources. I personally think they're acceptable and support the statement. I did a copyedit to hopefully summarize the sources a little better. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Tetizeraz, hey there. I added the template {{Improve categories}}. A category expert should be along shortly to improve the categories. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk

) 04:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Evening. Can someone with a better understanding of wikipedias Covid 19 policies, particularly with regards to individuals take a look at the R W Malone article. His notability is strongly related to his historic work, but in the last year he has become prominent among various fringe groups. Any content about him is highly polarised, either being self promotion or criticism - and striking a BLP balance is difficult due to the quality of the sourcing being so generally poor. Koncorde (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:FTN. That board is quite active, and they are specialists at dealing with fringe biographies. –Novem Linguae (talk

) 01:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheers Novem. Koncorde (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Just two days after I posted Two useful early chronologies which apparently qualify as reliable secondary sources here, Elsevier published online a third one: The First 50 days of COVID-19: A Detailed Chronological Timeline and Extensive Review of Literature Documenting the Pandemic

Hi all. I recently created a consensus template on COVID-19 treatments, because I (and many others) have become frustrated at the endlessly repetitive discussions on relevant talk pages. See, for example: Talk:Bret Weinstein, Talk:Ivermectin, Talk:Didier Raoult, Talk:Pierre Kory, Talk:Hydroxychloroquine. My hope is that writing all of this down in a template could be helpful as a place to direct new and inexperienced users who have repeatedly come to these talk pages to push a POV. Much like it has worked for Template:Origins of COVID-19 (current consensus), Talk:Donald Trump, Talk:Joe Biden#Current consensus, Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput. (credit to ProcrastinatingReader on those prior templates).

However, I would appreciate your feedback. Overall, of course, but also on the following specific issues:

1. Too long? I'm an academic and I'm verbose as hell. They teach us to be this way in graduate and medical school. :) Help me trim the fat.
2. Represents actual consensus? I want it to be rock solid so please steel-man my claims. These templates only work if they are pretty indefensible. Of course nothing is 100%, and bad faith editors will disagree no matter what... but I appreciate criticism on this nonetheless.
3. What else should be included here? I'm sure there are other topics I'm missing, like maybe Vitamin D? ...Forsythia? (kidding, kidding)
4. Which articles would this be good to include on? So far, I'm thinking Talk:Ivermectin, Talk:Hydroxychloroquine, Talk:Bret Weinstein, Talk:Didier Raoult, Talk:Pierre Kory. Any other suggestions?

Thank you for any help you can provide.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Great job on this. Maybe replace the bullets in #3 with one succinct sentence, which should shorten the template a lot. Maybe also get

Alexbrn's opinion since he knows a lot about ivermectin. –Novem Linguae (talk

) 01:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

This all looks great and with luck, should save some time.

talk

) 06:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, Novem Linguae thanks to both of you for the insightful comments and edit. I sure hope it does! But I fear that if our IPs and meat puppets aren't convinced by the high quality refs, they likely will not be convinced by this. lol. Only time will tell...--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 01:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

It's always nice to be able to go "Please see FAQ #3 above" rather than relitigating from scratch though :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add this peer-review publication of phase-II results^[1] at last paragraph of "Phase I and II trials".

42.106.203.255 (talk) 10:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at

Talk:BBIBP-CorV#Requested move 12 August 2021

Talk:BBIBP-CorV#Requested move 12 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 02:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit request at DNA vaccine

Can someone perform the necessary update at DNA vaccine as per Talk:DNA_vaccine § Semi-protected_edit_request_on_20_August_2021. 2409:4061:700:93AF:418E:4466:2FDB:DC48 (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

ping last active registered editor @Shibbolethink: here for help. 2409:4061:700:93AF:418E:4466:2FDB:DC48 (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Tong Zeng

WP:TNT for it but the guy appears to be noteworthy.) Is there someone here who knows the lab leak theory-to-conspiracy-theory well who could look over what's in the article for medical conspiracy theories? - David Gerard (talk

) 11:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 in pregnancy : Outdated

Most sources of this article date back from the initial writing : July 2020. This is inadequate. If someone know :

• how to initiate review and rewriting, where to raise this issue
• which warning / medical caution templates to add

It would be really welcome. Yug (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Error at COVID-19 vaccine page

Please fix the errors in sections "See also", "References", "External links" etc. as all are showing links to default template. 2402:3A80:1A4E:9F7E:690B:788B:37A:E014 (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

This is currently being discussed at the article's talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation by China#Requested move 30 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation by China#Requested move 30 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation by the United States#Requested move 30 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation by the United States#Requested move 30 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ––FormalDude talk 08:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

B.1.621

WHO has added "Mu" (Pango lineage B.1.621) as a Variant of Interest. Would anyone like to add this to the wiki article?

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/variants-concern

https://www.who.int/en/activities/tracking-SARS-CoV-2-variants/ Hongsy (talk) 06:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Hongsy. Hey there. Consider posting this message on the page Talk:Variants of SARS-CoV-2. I believe that article is where our paragraph on this variant currently is. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I have haha. And it looks like someone has updated the page to include Mu as a heading. Hongsy (talk) 08:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Deletion discussion concerning all monthly data pages for deaths and cases

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 pandemic deaths in July 2021. The discussion there has expanded beyond that monthly data page to all the monthly data pages linked from here:

• COVID-19 pandemic deaths
• COVID-19 pandemic cases

My comment there:

Keep. Notability is obvious since it is

Template:Monthly cumulative COVID-19 death totals by country 2021. It is found on this page: COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory. That page gets around 13,000 views per day lately. People come for the tables and maps. The creator of the monthly pages is User:Anguswalker

. He has been thanked by some Wikimedia Foundation staff for his great and tireless work. People and news media from around the world come to all these Covid data pages. As I said, notability is obvious.

People at the deletion discussion may not understand these issues as well as the people here at Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19. So please get involved. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

All the monthly death data pages were deleted. The closing admin gave his reasons here:

User talk:Sandstein#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 pandemic deaths in July 2021

That discussion will probably be archived soon. Check the talk archives then.

Further discussion may happen here:

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic deaths#Monthly cumulative death pages with daily data have been deleted. Need external links. Section name may be changed, so look around for a similar section heading. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at

WP:RSN

concerning a paper about COVID origins and bioengineering

There is a discussion at

WP:RSN concerning this paper by Yuri Deigin and Rosana Segretto in Bioessays which may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. See discussion here

.

Segreto, R., & Deigin, Y. (2021). The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin. BioEssays, 43, e2000240. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202000240.

Thanks.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic

See discussion

Wikipedia coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk

) 15:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

New article 'COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy'

Would it be a good idea to have a new article focusing on misinformation related specifically to COVID-19 vaccines and the resulting hesitancy among populations of various countries. There is enough information out there for it to be a stand alone article. This section could start as a base and then expanded upon. This would also help that parent article as it is getting length and over-detailed and will continue to do so.

Thoughts/Opinions, User:BD2412, User:FormalDude, User:Abrilando232, User:Tenryuu and User:Ftrebien? •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 17:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Just noticed now that

Misinformation related to vaccination and Vaccine hesitancy should probably be replaced with a {{Main}} template leading to the new article, and those two links should be present somewhere in that article's lead. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝

 ) 19:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support the proposed breakout. BD2412 T 19:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support I think this is absolutely a notable topic on its own and deserves its own article. It is a perplexing phenomenon that appears very related to, but distinct from, general anti-vaxx sentiments. I would be happy to help edit it when/if its created. — Shibbolethink ^(♔♕) 21:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Support' Anti-vaccination has been a far-right plank for decades -look at the
  PHEIC with devastating public health consequences; a tightly focused article is called for. kencf0618 (talk
  ) 14:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support because I think it is notable and it will continue to grow. It might make sense to split
  WP:SIZESPLIT
  .

Section sizes in COVID-19 misinformation Section size for COVID-19 misinformation (96 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 6,126 6,126 Overview 18,062 18,062 Virus origin 18,366 138,823 Wuhan lab origin 390 27,666 Bio-weapon 10,033 10,033 Gain-of-function research 5,224 5,224 Accidental release of collected sample 12,019 12,019 Stolen from Canadian lab 5,350 5,350 Accusations by China 17,375 17,375 Accusations by Russia 8,468 8,468 Accusations by other countries 16,833 16,833 Jewish origin 53 9,201 In the Muslim world 5,758 5,758 In the United States 847 847 In Germany 1,249 1,249 In Britain 1,294 1,294 Muslims spreading virus 3,604 3,604 Population-control scheme 2,313 2,313 5G mobile networks 24,868 24,868 American scientist selling virus to China 1,803 1,803 Meteor origin 1,218 1,218 NCMI intelligence report 1,758 1,758 PCR testing 5,245 5,245 Symptoms and severity 2,996 2,996 Incidence and mortality 825 32,657 In China 15 9,819 Chinese under-reporting during early 2020 1,866 1,866 Nurse whistleblower 2,753 2,753 Alleged leak of death toll by Tencent 1,810 1,810 Mass cremation in Wuhan 2,480 2,480 Decline in cellphone subscriptions 895 895 In the US 2,393 10,857 Allegations of inflated death counts 3,660 3,660 Misleading Johns Hopkins News-Letter article 4,804 4,804 Misinformation targeting Taiwan 6,772 6,772 Misrepresented World Population Project map 1,061 1,061 "Casedemic" 3,323 3,323 Disease spread 1,315 43,836 California herd immunity in 2019 3,752 3,752 Patient Zero 1,700 1,700 Airborne 4,440 4,440 Surfaces 1,703 1,703 Susceptibility based on ethnicity 6,501 12,844 Xenophobic blaming by ethnicity and religion 6,343 6,343 Bat soup 5,461 5,461 Large gatherings 799 799 Lifetime of the virus 713 713 Mosquitoes 139 139 Contaminated objects 2,489 2,489 Cruise ships as safe havens 6,204 6,204 Breastfeeding 699 699 Sexual transmission and infertility 1,578 1,578 Prevention 1,149 42,084 Hand sanitizer, antibacterial soaps 3,471 3,471 Public use of face masks 12,538 12,538 Alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs 6,809 6,809 Warm or hot drinks 986 986 Religious protection 9,574 9,574 Helicopter spraying 1,449 1,449 Food 2,391 2,391 Vitamin D 3,717 3,717 Vaccines 273 273 Hospital conditions 1,562 1,562 Treatment 553 30,939 Herbal treatments 2,984 2,984 Vitamin C 1,846 1,846 Common cold and flu treatments 2,430 2,430 Cow dung and urine 3,714 3,714 2-Deoxy-D-glucose 2,333 2,333 Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) prescriptions 2,917 2,917 Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine 1,625 1,625 Ivermectin 86 86 Dangerous treatments 2,642 2,642 Silver 4,105 4,105 Mustard oil 832 832 Untested treatments 2,817 2,817 Spiritual healing 1,469 1,469 Organ trafficking 586 586 Other 10 12,296 Name of the disease 1,560 1,560 Simpsons prediction 1,043 1,043 Return of wildlife 4,374 4,374 Virus remains in body permanently 305 305 COVID-19 denialism 2,750 2,750 Antisemitism 2,254 2,254 Efforts to combat misinformation 2,821 29,169 Social media 7,476 7,476 Wikipedia 2,541 2,541 Newspapers and scholarly journals 2,183 2,183 Podcasts 1,320 1,320 Government censorship 12,828 12,828 Scams 6,053 6,053 See also 266 266 Notes 24 24 References 28 28 External links 2,856 2,856 Total 373,295 373,295

--Fernando Trebien (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I will wait a day or two before creating the article, in case other editors have an issue or opinions. @

Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and asking for opinions. Ping me there when you do so.•Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭

12:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Big Support - Nicely done User:Shawnqual on starting the new article. I look forward to seeing how it develops. It is already full of very solid information, great job to all the editors who worked on that. I've linked to it in the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the United States article. Once the new article is fleshed out, I think it would be a great candidate to translate into the wikipedias of other language. I can potentially help with that. --Wil540 art (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

•  Done, User:BD2412, User:Tenryuu, User:Ftrebien, User:Kencf0618, User:Shibbolethink, please help when you can and patrol the page accordingly. Thanks. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 15:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for doing the split, Shawnqual. Adding it to my watchlist. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Concerns about User:S201050066

Hi everyone, I just wanted to bring your attention some problems with User:S201050066. Recently this user pasted a lot of raw urls on the Ontario entries of the various Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic articles even though those entries already have proper references. I and other Wikipedians have reached out on this user's talk page in an effort to educate them about Wikipedia policies and norms. Frankly, I don't think this user is wiling to listen to constructive feedback. I sadly recommend taking disciplinary action. What do you think? What is the best way to handle S20105066's unwillingness to follow the rules? I have told them that I will reverse all of their recent unnecessary edits. Andykatib 04:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Don't worry everyone, S201050066 has reached out to me and apologised. They have also made amends as well. I consider the matter close and resolved. I accept that I overreacted yesterday due to my
  Asperger's Syndrome. We will try and work things out. Andykatib
  21:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Could you please review these articles: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the United States & High-risk people ?

Hello WikiProject COVID-19, Thank you for the amazing work you do to slow the spread of COVID-19. I'm working on expanding the COVID-19 coverage on wikipedia. I have published a couple related articles recently: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the United States and High-risk people. If you could take a look and possibly make an edit, I would appreciate it. Open to any feedback.

Thank you again. --Wil540 art (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Wil540 art:, Noted, made some minor changes to the vaccine hesitancy article today and will be editing it further in the coming days. It could use better structure. The High-risk people article does have scope, you should perhaps notify some editors of medicine articles so they can contribute to it and help with expansion.•Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 20:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Shawnqual: I appreciate you working on the article. You are obviously a highly skilled editor. I also hear what you are saying about the High-risk people article. What is the best way to notify editors of medicine articles to get them involved? -Wil540 art (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Gubernatorial Timeline Needed?

The "COVID-19 pandemic in State" articles are wildly uneven, with lacunae of months (as with Idaho) and major developments apparently coming out of the blue (as with Alaska exceeding its ICU capacity -there's not an ECMO in the state https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/24/alaska-covid-coronavirus-rations-care-hospitals).

Overwhelm is a very real thing; there's not an aspect of this pandemic which doesn't present a fire hose of information, after all. A consistent format is needed.

I began

PHEIC

; mandates differ, or are not instituted at all; styles and philosophies of governance differ. Etc.

The main benefit of this parsed information would be that each of the 50 timelines would grow organically, just as the global, omnibus COVID-19 timeline has. We start with chief executive press releases and actions...

Sound like a plan?

kencf0618 (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic needs a lot of work

As the headline implies - the page for Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic was originally split off from Immunity passport and is rife with issues, additionally the page COVID-19 vaccine card also exists and there's probably a lot of confusion there. Would appreciate some more eyes on these. Thanks. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 vaccine efficacy

I've heard lately that vaccines are losing efficacy against the delta variant and in general, so I went to look it up. The article I landed at is

WP:MEDRS sources. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk

) 15:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 vaccination in Japan

The article itself needs some updating. Only tried to update the infobox. Ominae (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Should we use "the unvaccinated" to refer to patients not fully vaccinated for COVID-19?

I feel that the term "the unvaccinated" (especially with definite article) has become politically-loaded; in my opinion, I think that maybe we should use people-first language such as "patients not fully vaccinated for COVID-19". But do you think this would be a good idea to adopt as consensus? ViperSnake151  Talk  07:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

They are not the same. People in between the first dose and two weeks after the second dose are part of "patients not fully vaccinated for COVID-19" but not part of "the unvaccinated". You can drop the "fully" to only describe people who did not receive any vaccination dose. Why do we refer to them as patients in general? --mfb (talk) 08:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I prefer "vaccine hesitant" but that wouldn't apply to people who are just between doses. For them I would say "patients between doses" or "not fully vaccinated" — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Like Mfb said, "the unvaccinated" does not equal "people not fully vaccinated for COVID-19". I'd rather not go people-first, as it unnecessarily bloats articles that are rather already large as they are. I don't see anything wrong with saying something like unvaccinated individuals. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at

Talk:COVID-19 lockdown in Italy#Requested move 7 October 2021

Talk:COVID-19 lockdown in Italy#Requested move 7 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. VR _talk

03:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Mistake at Template:COVID-19 pandemic sidebar

Please undo mistake at Template:COVID-19 pandemic sidebar. The coronavirus image is replaced by a map ! See the change here. 2402:3A80:1C44:43:4504:598A:C12B:9BA (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Resolved

2402:3A80:1C44:43:4504:598A:C12B:9BA (talk) 09:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Current Events Long COVID-19 Article List

As part of a restructuring of the

talk

) 17:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Seven days incidence

Seven days incidence is now available as changetype "w" in medical cases chart module. I'd prefer it to absolute or precentage type as depicting the current epidemic situation much better and making for comparabilty between countries charts. Please consider changetype "w" for all national uses of the medical cases chart module. -- Kohraa Mondel (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Vin Gupta/NBC & MSNBC Medical Analyst AfC

Dear Members of the WikiProject COVID-19 section,

Im hopeful you'd be willing to provide an additional review for a new AfC for Dr. Vin Gupta, NBC News's prominent COVID-19 medical analyst, who's been on national media platforms speaking about this virus hundreds of times at this point. I created an AfC to address a key gap on wikipedia, since "Dr. Vin Gupta wikipedia" is a frequent search engine query when you type his name and viewers should be aware of his background, given his reach.

Thank you in advance. Link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vin_Gupta

Caroline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caroline grossman23 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:GNG passing sources need to have several paragraphs speaking about Gupta biographically and in detail, and need to be reliable sources such as newspapers or books. Passing mentions, or being primary about a topic rather than primary about Gupta will probably not be sufficient. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk

) 21:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae. Absolutely. Thank you.

Top three sources: 1. Seattle Times Profile in 2020: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/350-tv-spots-and-counting-uws-dr-vin-gupta-delivers-coronavirus-expertise-to-the-nation/ 2. Stat News Profile in 2021: https://www.statnews.com/2021/06/14/vin-gupta-amazon-chief-medical-officer-profile/ 3. CNBC profile: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/08/amazon-hires-vin-gupta-pulmonary-doctor-and-public-health-expert.html

Several other top ones highlighting him on NPR, Washington Post, NBC, MSNBC, etc but too many to include -- cited many of them in the piece itself. Thanks again! Should note that I also included briefer mentions of Gupta in Politico and other sources as being shortlisted for Biden's Surgeon General on the back of his covid-related commentary -- which only adds to his notability.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Caroline grossman23 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• From a quick check the guy seems notable and refreshingly free of COVID controversies. For me the only question is whether
  talk
  ) 06:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:SIGCOV threshold because it talks so much about Amazon and not about Gupta specifically, and I also have concerns about it not going in depth enough about him, just stating some easily googled facts about him. –Novem Linguae (talk

) 06:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

"COVID-19 pandemic" "exposure notification" OR "contact tracing"

Taxonomy? :

• "COVID-19 pandemic" "exposure notification" OR "contact tracing"
• COVID Alert
• NHS COVID-19
• Covid Watch
• COVIDSafe
• Immuni
• Decentralized Privacy-Preserving Proximity Tracing
• TCN Protocol
• Exposure Notification
• COVID-19 apps
• SwissCovid
• Category:Software associated with the COVID-19 pandemic

0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic

Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic is a controversial subject and it would be always good to have other eyes on it. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Include list of Vaccine passport apps by country or province? ... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Omicron variant

The article SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant has just been created. Any help in improving it would be greatly appreciated. -- The Anome (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Request for updating COVID-19 related article

The article Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, which is within the scope of this project, hasn't been updated with new absolute figures for the USA since early July, 2020, nor are there any updates on the "suspected" cases outside of the USA much more up to date or, as regards the article, were ever followed up on whether those "suspected" cases outside of the USA could be confirmed. Close to 350 confirmed cases were *RANDOMLY* (as opposed to the systematic mass-screenings done for acute infection with COVID-19) found in the USA within the course of only two months in spring, 2020, and then the article just pretty much stopped counting in early July, 2020.

Also, all those figures are buried way deep in the article, where nobody would even suspect them, and the only figure named prominently in the article is the low risk of dying from MIS-C immediately, although the condition itself causes more than enough suffering and intensive care even if they don't immediately die from it. --2003:EF:1704:7257:A562:1B77:6B93:20CE (talk) 08:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

New identifiers for virus clades

I have found some new identifiers for

SARS-CoV-2 variants here: https://www.who.int/en/activities/tracking-SARS-CoV-2-variants/ The GISAID clade identifier for Omicron is GR/484A, and the Nextstrain

clade identifier is 21K.

I have now created the property proposals Wikidata:Property proposal/GISAID identifier and Wikidata:Property proposal/Nextstrain identifier on Wikidata, to contain this information on the Wikidata entities for this and other relevant articles. If anyone would like to join the conversation there, that would be very helpful. -- The Anome (talk) 10:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Strains template

Can we have a template for COVID-19 strains? Or is it already covered in an existing template? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

Editors are invited to participate in this RfC:
RfC about how we should use the Frutos source Adoring nanny (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in December 2021#Requested move 12 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in December 2021#Requested move 12 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at

Talk:China COVID-19 cover-up#Requested move 8 December 2021

Talk:China COVID-19 cover-up#Requested move 8 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 00:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19_lockdowns

Greece is not out of lockdown, but it's not true. There is a total lockdown since 07.11.2020, movement only with a permit only, curfew, closed restaurants and etc. Take a look please: https://greekreporter.com/2021/03/19/greece-to-loosen-covid-19-restrictions-make-rapid-tests-available-to-all/?fbclid=IwAR10xtt-aJWFsrl_aIyMQrqwNI-bZFfJisQvdiQ8grdFDk35v62ZQrPBHTY and: https://www.varnavas.gr/en/newsroom/lockdown-movement-permit/

Signpost end of year interview with COVID-19 project contributors

Hi everyone. I am involved in WikiProject interviews on the Signpost, which I think are a great way to help us build a community, understand how and where and why we are editing, listen to our fellow humans, and always interesting to read!

I would like to end out this crazy year by interviewing the members of this WikiProject. This isn't the first and I'm sure won't be the last of COVID-19 related coverage, but I thought it would be a great way to end the year with some reflections on how this WikiProject has changed and how COVID-19 has changed Wikipedia. I invite anyone (from regular to passing by editors) to contribute to the interview here: User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/WikiProject COVID19 interview draft.

Hoping to hear from you soon! Tom (LT) (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)