Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Edit proposal: remove sentence on xenophobia from lead

I propose that we remove the following sentence from the lead:

There have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people and against those perceived as being Chinese or as being from areas with high infection rates.

This sentence was last discussed here, but only about its wording, not whether it should be in the lead. That was in April. While the incidents of xenophobia and discrimination 100% happened and are well-documented in the body of the article, I think at this point they are no longer a major feature of the pandemic.

Although some xenophobia persists, the bulk of it occurred early on when the pandemic was largely centered in China. Now the pandemic is truly global and has been for the majority of time it has existed. Everyone knows anyone can get it anywhere in the world. Instead of this sentence, the prior sentence on misinformation should be expanded, as that is a more salient feature of the globe's experience of this pandemic. What do others think? Ganesha811 (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Ganesha811, I do agree that that sentence has been given too much space at the lead and deserves trimming. This was discussed at several archived threads, but they got archived before a consensus was reached, and I sorta gave up on it, knowing that it won't reach a consensus for now. If you make an RFC on this, I'll support ya. GeraldWL 13:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed from the lede. As regrettable as it was, it seems a minor aspect of the Covid-19 crisis overall and so entirely WP:UNDUE for the lede. Jeppiz (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  Great, thank you all for your thoughts. I'm going to give this 24 hours for more comments, and if that point there still seems to be majority sentiment that the sentence should go, I'll start an RfC. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hard to say, I tend to think if it has it's own dedicated article a brief mention in the lead might be warrented. It is also something still discussed in sources, for example RS are reporting on Biden signing an executive order to help with the racism against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.[1][2][3] There are also fairly recent article on it happening still being put out.[4] Finally I am just not comfortable down playing the racist reactions to the pandemic. PackMecEng (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be in the lead anymore. I'm seeing less and less reference to Wuhan and generally just COVID in the media. It should remain in the article from a historical perspective imo. We should consider the 10-year perspective. MartinezMD (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 Daily Dispatch & HUB

• "COVID-19 Daily Dispatch". tctMD.com. Cardiovascular Research Foundation, 1700 Broadway, 9th Floor, New York, crf.org organizes "tct(Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics)MD". tctMD reporter Todd Neale is keeping up on breaking news and peer-reviewed research related to COVID-19 and will update daily.
• "COVID-19 news HUB". tctMD.com. Cardiovascular Research Foundation, 1700 Broadway, 9th Floor, New York, crf.org organizes "tct(Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics)MD".

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Deaths by additional population characteristics

Hello, I would like to propose including the impact on different types of populations, such as those with different educational levels, races, disabilities and number of people per household. Has this been already considered? Jackieneumann (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Received some coverage here: Coronavirus_disease_2019#Mortality and Gendered impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. You can look there to start. MartinezMD (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be December 2018 as the date the Wuhan virus was first discovered?

COVID-19 pandemic Public Health Emergency CDC: Latest Updates•Prevention & Treatment•Symptoms•FAQs Center for Disease Control: Coronavirus The COVID-19 pandemic, also known as the coronavirus pandemic, is an ongoing pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It was first identified in December 2019 in Wuhan,... wikipedia.org Disease: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Virus strain: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Date: December 2019 - present Index case: Wuhan, Hubei, China — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.73.166 (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

No. It was first identified from an infection in 2019. Not sure why you're thinking 2018. From the article - "On 24 December 2019, Wuhan Central Hospital sent a bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BAL) sample from an unresolved clinical case to sequencing company Vision Medicals. On 27 and 28 December, Vision Medicals informed the Wuhan Central Hospital and the Chinese CDC of the results of the test, showing a new coronavirus.[230]" MartinezMD (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Check entry of Singapore

Wikipedia article writes: "As of 9 December 2020, Singapore has the lowest case fatality rate in the world, at 0.51 deaths per 100,000". Please double check these numbers. I think it is 0.51 death per 100000 inhabitants or 51 death per 100000 cases. There were over 50000 cases in Singapore and the total number of death is 29 (at the last time I checked), so it is more likely to be 51 in 100000 cases than 0.51 in 100000 cases. Perhaps the original number was 0.51 in 1000 cases.116.14.205.177 (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Frank Stephan

It's per 100,000 population, as referenced in the citation. This is a common metric for mortality. I updated that section to make this clear. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Scratch that, I see what you meant. The first half of the sentence refers to CFR, but the second half was mortality. I replaced the mortality with CFR. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Variants

Hey all I have a question about the variants. I'm talking about the UK variant, South Africa, Brazil, etc. Are they included in the death count on this page, and on COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory? On the COVID-19 Dashboard by the CSSE at Johns Hopkins University (JHU) I can't find whether they count them in or not. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, all the variants to date get detected the same way via PCR tests, so the overall case and fatality counts include all the variants. The only way to tell the difference between the variants is with full genetic sequencing, generally performed on only a small proportion of samples. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for answering Bakkster Man. Shouldn't this be noted on the numbers? With a small note like "including variants"? Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest variants need to be noted, unless they start being measures differently. All the variants are still COVID-19. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

incubation period, latency period, when to test after exposure

The two crucial topics of incubation period and latency period aren't even mentioned. Neither is the most important tooic: how many days after an infection it can be detected by tests. Without this info, people get tested too early or unnecessarily late after a suspected exposure. We also need an illustration like this:

--Espoo (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the pandemic overall. For more specific detail like testing timelines, you should look at COVID-19 testing. MartinezMD (talk) 03:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Humor during the COVID-19 pandemic

Greetings,

Those who find interested in the topic please do proactively support in expansion of the Draft:Humor during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Thanks and warm regards,

Bookku (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

General template (Health Issues - Vaccines)

I noticed that the Wikipedia articles on individual countries' vaccination programs are listed under "vaccine development" as part of the template, but wouldn't it be better if they are actually under the neighboring category of "vaccine deployment"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.143.101 (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for making the change! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.143.101 (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Lawsuits against China notable?

https://www.lawfareblog.com/update-coronavirus-related-lawsuits-against-china-0 etc. Oathed (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:GNG, WP:NOTE, and WP:RS. They need satisfying for inclusion. If you have something there, it could be included. MartinezMD (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Add Year to Interactive Timeline Map

You guys should add the year to the interactive timeline map under the history section now that it spans 2 years from January 2020 to February 2021. Right now, it only says the month. Chameleon790 (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

thanks for suggestion--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

New draft article started about a new variant

I started Draft:501.V2 variant outbreak for the new variant that has now entered the US. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

[5]lets wait until its 'moved' to place in article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, you've been editing for more than a year, and you've made more than 3,000 edits so far. Why are you starting articles in the draft space and then waiting around for someone else to approve them? WP:Be bold and WP:MOVE that page to the mainspace yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I actually don’t wait for others to approve any drafts I make, but unless it is a major thing that will probably be under the WikiProject Current Events jurisdiction, then I keep it in draft state to let other people work on it. Also small articles without much formatting are acceptable but highly hated in main space, which is why the WikiProject Current Events isn’t that popular, but is a necessity to Wikipedia. (Lead Coordinator of WikiProject Current Events), Elijahandskip (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that most editors don't hate new articles. It may be that the AFC and NPP processes attract editors with unrepresentative, m:immediatist views, who think that they're protecting Wikipedia by reducing the information available to readers, but I think most editors who have started an article from scratch are supportive of editors who write about notable topics. Draftspace is where articles go to die, and I discourage you from using it. Even the WMF staff members who originally proposed the creation of the draftspace think it's an ineffective way to get articles improved (and they had the numbers to prove it). If you want an article cleaned up and expanded, the most effective thing you can do is to stick it straight in the mainspace. Sure, there may be someone who comes along and tags it for being imperfect, but you will get more edits by more editors.

(Also, WikiProjects don't have any sort of "jurisdiction". This article is probably "in scope" for several WikiProjects, but no self-selected group of editors is in charge of any article.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Why is the fact that religious groups believe that their faith will protect them under the "misinformation" section??

How exactly is this misinformation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18E:C400:6070:ECC8:DB78:E46F:9EBF (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

read here.--Moxy 🍁 00:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

That isn't from this article. It's an import section from the Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic article. You need to ask them there. However, if I were to guess, it's because the virus's infectiousness ignores people's faith. MartinezMD (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

MP Banner removed

Hello, so we removed the banner from the main page and added just this article to the "Ongoing" section. Thoughts on using the banner as a special hat note here? The prior banner was as follows:

COVID-19 pandemic

Disease

Virus

By location

Impact

Vaccines

Portal

From Template:In the news/special-header. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Possibly expanding the wording a little since it will be for a wider area? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

If by "expanding the wording a little" you mean putting the banner above and out of the In the news area to be at the very top (just like with the "Wikipedia is turning 20" message) and keeping it on the Main Page, that could be great, because people shouldn't need two clicks (first to this article in Ongoing: and then any links you place above here) after entering Wikipedia to access articles about the pandemic. I propose that if people want specific information fast, then a list saying "Part of the series on the COVID-19 pandemic" should appear below this article's infobox containing more articles of interest borrowed from Template:COVID-19 pandemic or P:COVID-19. Honestly if I were a Main Page editor I would have not removed the banner until this crisis had lowered to a more-controlled status, but I don't mind you removing it for further improvements. I was Alejandro Herrera Barboza (talk) 07:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

That makes it feel like we're favoring the pandemic more than other events. I favor the current consensus to place it in Ongoing, to give it balanced weight with other events. There's also no need to place the banner here; each of these links has been linked throughout the article, and banners are just annoying in general. GeraldWL 07:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I really like this idea! - Wikmoz (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Worth adding to the article and seeing if there are any objections? There would just need to be some code edits to hide or handle mobile web. Right now, it shows up in the app as a vertical bulleted list. - Wikmoz (talk) 07:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Pandemic determined to last seven years? - Worth adding - or Not?

Seems Bloomberg News has determined that the "COVID-19 pandemic" will last *Seven Years* before there's a return to normal - Is this news worth adding to the main article - or Not? - in any case - Say Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

References

They're just extrapolating how long it would take to vaccinate 75% of the world's population at today's vaccination rate. It's not a real world projection. The number will drop dramatically as the rate increases. They're also not factoring in natural imminity from those previously infected. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Citations needed

The Transmission-section is very undercited, the beginning of the Mitigation-section has an undercited second sentence, the WHO response measures has some uncited sentences. I have also seen some other tags such as "citation needed" and "speculation?" which are very ugly on a heavily visited article. These issues have to be adressed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wretchskull (talk • contribs) 11:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I originally tagged it and have now removed the speculative sentence. While it may be reliable that the person said it, it is not reliably correct. Per WP:Interviews "Interviews are generally reliable for the fact that the interviewee said something, but not necessarily for the accuracy of what was said." If the mortality does unexpectedly increase by 30-40%, we can put it back in.

Also, the issue of the Taiwanese President has been covered already, with the consensus being "The discussion has been open for quite some time, it seems keep is the common answer in terms of the image,thank you", so I reverted your edit. see the discussion in the archive Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_41#Removal_of_close-up,_civilian_face_mask_image_from_this_page MartinezMD (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Should the Infographics be updated?

At the moment some of the infographics and information are months-outdated.--Bakerloo 1972 (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

This is something Fluffy89502 and Gajmar should be notified on, as map creators. GeraldWL 05:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't spend much time on this page but if any of you know of many maps that need updating just reply to me here with their file names and I'll try to update them. ~ Fluffy89502 (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2021

Under "External Links" -> "Research Foundations," add "Outbreak.info by Scripps Research"

This source is an NIH and NIAID funded, open-source database. EH815 (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. What do the regulars on this page think? Is this something worth adding? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2021

Confirmed deaths per 1,000,000 population as of 9 February 2021 (update on Commons) 101.78.190.130 (talk) 07:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 54nd60x (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

54nd60x, he's referring to the map caption: update from "25 January" to "9 February". Sadly though, it's a Wikidata property, and it must be edited at Wikidata. GeraldWL 15:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Background section: Does it need updating?

Since the WHO has completed an investigation in Wuhan into the origin of the outbreak, should the Background section be updated to reflect or at least include the results of that? I'm only curious. PunkAndromeda (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

it should but only when WHO releases its official final FULL investigation results into Wuhan, and that will take a while--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Some information has been released, but not the full results. I'd say that if we think, based on what's been released so far, that anything in the article is wrong, then these probable errors should be removed as soon as possible. We can add new content later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Should the sentence on xenophobia in the lead be removed?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to remove the sentence from the lead; most editors see it as WP:UNDUE. This close does not preclude issues of discrimination from being discussed more succinctly as suggested below, if there is consensus for it. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 16:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Currently, the lead of this article includes the following sentence:

There have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people and against those perceived as being Chinese or as being from areas with high infection rates.

Request for Comment: Should this sentence be removed from the lead?

Note: see the talk page discussion of this topic a couple of sections up. This RfC applies only to the lead, not to the body of the article. Ganesha811 (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support as nominator: As per the talk page discussion a couple sections up, I believe it should. While the material about xenophobia and discrimination should remain in the body of the article, it is no longer a prominent enough feature of the pandemic as a whole to be given a full sentence in the lead. The lead should reflect the globe's experience succinctly and without giving undue weight to parts of the pandemic that were important and prominent in February and March, but have faded from view over time. Ganesha811 (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The xenophobia thing is WP:RECENTISM and does not deserve a significant portion of space in the lead. The lead as a whole needs some rewrite, which I plan to after this discussion reaches a consensus of remove, or at least trim. If we're talking about "but they have an article!"-- well, there are alot of articles about COVID, and it's impossible to put it all in the lead. And I view that as a weak rebuttal to keep the xeno stance, especially for the fact that the discrimination is just an overnight thing; it has now died out. GeraldWL 04:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support either removal altogether, or at a minimum rewording to something like "the pandemic led to instances of discrimination against people perceived to be from harder hit areas, or those travelling for non essential reasons". The discrimination isn't limited to Chinese people, and the "being from areas with high infection rates" is the important part here, but it should be added that discrimination occurs against people travelling for non-essential reasons. The Chinese/asian aspect is recentism at its finest, and while it was appropriate to have in the early days of the pandemic, I think it should be removed now. I'll note that the "people travelling for non-essential reasons" discrimination isn't explicitly covered in the body of this article, but I think it should be, as the "cancel culture" around people not following guidelines is a big part of this pandemic around the world - but I can see if it can't be included in the lead just now because of that. Thus, TLDR, remove the explicit example of xenophobia/anti-Chinese racism, but leave the sentiment of discrimination/cancelling of people in general from "areas with high infection rates" and attempt to add "those violating rules/regulations/guidelines" if possible. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - although I don't know why you needed an RFC. That's usually reserved for disputed edits. Your topic was getting responses from the editors already in the section preceding this on the talk page. MartinezMD (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  MartinezMD, it has previously being disputed, if you followed by editing history in this article. So I think it make sense. GeraldWL 04:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Might have been a little bit relevant when added (even if WP:RECENTISM) but certainly not any more. In the scale of the current crisis, this is a minor aspect that can well be mentioned in the article but is entirely undue in the lede. Jeppiz (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• support per Jeppiz--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Mostly because it is and was a key social aspect of the pandemic as a whole. It is something that still makes the news with some unfortunate regularity.[6] I also whole heartily disagree with the recentism argument, given that it has has sustained coverage though the whole pandemic. For instance Biden just signed an executive order specifically targeting xenophobia against Asians and others due in part to the pandemic.[7][8][9] Finally I am not seeing a benefit to the article to remove it. The lead is not to long and again it is a key social aspect of the pandemic. While uncomfortable we should not try to minimize racism. PackMecEng (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  We wouldn't be removing it from the article, only the lead. MartinezMD (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, I know. I believe it should remain in the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  Ok, wasn't sure if it had been made clear that it would still be part of the article. Thanks. MartinezMD (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  I think trimming is the best idea. We could mix the stance with other discriminations so that it becomes "discriminations arose" or stuff like that. It is a part of my COVID-19 lead rehaul to-do list. Nobody is trying to minimize racism, but it's a minimal aspect of the pandemic and doesn't deserve a full sentence. GeraldWL 16:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  See I have to disagree. I think it was a key aspect of the social impact of the pandemic. PackMecEng (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  Two comments regarding the arguments you've brought up. One is that I agree, recentism probably isn't the issue at hand, and seems more a question of prevalence overall (about which there's disagreement). The other is that this paragraph of the lede currently summarizes section 7, Impacts. However, the paragraph also doesn't reference the 'other health issues' subsection. I'd suggest that both subsections (and possibly others) should be somewhat linked by a common rationale. If xenophobia is kept in the lede, other health issues should also be included for the same reason of completeness in summarizing the section. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose removal because it's reasonable to mention it. There's a whole subsection about this in the article, so it's not unreasonable to mention the word in the lead. I have no objection to making the sentence focus more on areas with higher infection rates or otherwise at risk of spreading the virus (mask refusers and people who are recovering from infection, maybe?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support xenophobia thing was WP:RECENTISM. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

  It is still happening with regularity.[10] PackMecEng (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support It was something that might have been worth mentioning at the start of the pandemic, but now it is not. Looking from the perspective a year later, mentioning it distort the significance of the issue in the pandemic, particularly when far more people suffered worse around the world. There is no reason to specifically mention Chinese people when other people who suffered worse aren't mentioned. It's an issue of balance. Hzh (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Hzh, can you give some examples of people who have suffered from more "xenophobia and discrimination" than the three groups of people currently named in that sentence? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Suffered worse effects, "xenophobia and discrimination" are minor compared to those. For example the millions of already poor people who lost their jobs, a large number of them pushed into extreme poverty, starvation and possibly death, such as in India? - [11][12][13][14][15]. Hzh (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Consensus?

• After a week of discussion, there have been no new comments in 5 days. I would say that there has been consensus that the sentence should be removed. PackMecEng has presented a contrary opinion in good faith, but all other editors who have commented see the matter differently so far. Unless there is strong objection and we need to wait a while longer or request a formal RFC close, I'm going to make the change to the lead tomorrow. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • As a non-participant, I agree it's fair to say consensus has been reached. It's not unanimous, but it is consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

    Why not let the RFC finish? There seems to be almost no input from anyone outside the article. PackMecEng (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

PackMecEng, there's no formal timeline required to 'finish' an RfC. An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration. That said, after rereading your comments I think it's fair that your policy comments haven't been responded to directly, and can agree that additional time for further comment would be appropriate. I'm not sure it would make sense to wait the full 30 days for the bot if there's no other votes, but I would also like to see further discussion around the policy arguments you make. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed new wording

Given the discussion, what do people think of this proposed new wording to broaden what the sentence covers?

The pandemic has raised issues of racial and geographic discrimination, xenophobia, health equity, and the balance between public health imperatives and individual rights.

This improves the lead by adding mention of two important topics that were not previously included, while continuing to include the issue of racial discrimination and xenophobia. Very open to other suggestions for rewording. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

This could work. The prominence of the content in question is diminished by being included in a list about social consequences, which I think will shed enough undue weight to make it due. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I've updated the last sentence of the lead given the further discussion here. Of course, further changes and improvements are always welcome, especially as I think the wording I proposed and implemented is a bit clunky. Thank you all for the good discussion. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ganesha811, thanks for recommending this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Restriction on adding unauthorized African and South American countries

Who added the note "Please get a consensus at the talk before adding a section for any new country here." to the article? There are 21 paragraphs in total about COVID-19 in Europe, 5 paragraphs about devastated South America and only one paragraph about Africa. Why is there a restriction on editors to get consensus before making edits to even this out? Gammapearls (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea who added it, @Gammapearls. What do you think would be the best approach? Biggest countries? A certain number from each continent (although the number of continents is disputed)? The ones with the highest infection or death rates? Something else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Gammapearls, I added that (for all countries, not only those on any continent) way back. It was an attempt to enforce current consensus item 5, which itself arose from the fact that people were adding e.g. a section about Ireland as long as the one about the United States, and we absolutely didn't have room for it when the article was already running up against technical length limits.

At this point, current consensus item 5 is not just outdated but severely outdated, and the cleanup to-do item I added has been sitting unaddressed for months. I agree with you that Europe has too much weight, but I think the reform should be done globally via a discussion here at the talk page, rather than by allowing anyone who wants to to add a new country section, as that would trend toward the excessive detail again. As part of the discussion, we might want to discuss shifting to a narrative that's primarily continent- or region-based rather than country-based. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

A complete rewrite of the entire National response is necessary. Someone stripped the China sub-section, which may actually the most important section, down to almost nothing, making the entire subsection on China useless, especially when for unexplained reason it mentions trivial aspect of vaccination and vaccine company and ignore important points about its national responses. Most countries can have at least a paragraph removed (e.g. Iran, South Korea, Spain, Italy, UK, France), and countries like Russia, South Africa, Peru and Mexico can have their own sub-sections. I don't think using a primarily continent-based approach is useful given the varying responses to the pandemic in different countries within a single continent. Iran for example is very different from China or South Korea, UK and Sweden very different from France or Germany. Hzh (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I like the suggestions made by Hzh. China sub-section needs expansion and I've already expanded the section for Africa. This article would presumably be limited to matters of lasting significance like emerging variants, vaccination campaigns, and major failures or successes in the national response as documented by reliable sources. We can update/remove some of the detials like reopening shopping malls and now outdated travel quarantines from April 2020.Gammapearls (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Variants section discussion

I wanted to bring some discussion up on this new sub-section added by Ozzie10aaaa (and, to an extent, the Variants of SARS-CoV-2 main article as well) to avoid too much going back and forth and make the new info the best it can be.

My first thought is how much of this information belongs on this page or not. While there's potentially some value as it relates to the epidemiology of the variants themselves, I have two primary concerns. 1) The details of viral variants probably belong more on the SARS-CoV-2 page itself, unless they affect symptoms, transmission, vaccines, etc. 2) That we may lack strong WP:MEDRS sources currently for claims of increased transmissibility and/or mortality makes me hesitant to speak too much yet on these variants, at least on this article.

Related to #2 above, I made a quick look at Variants of SARS-CoV-2 to see if there were any good sources we could pull into this article, and am a bit concerned there may be a lot of poor sourcing going on. If we can clean up that article, perhaps a quick excerpt to here would be beneficial.

Finally, regarding the section ordering per WP:MEDORDER, my case for Variants appearing near the bottom is as follows:

• From WP:MEDORDER: Establishing the forms of the disease (Classification) can be an important first section. However, if such classification depends heavily on understanding the cause, pathogenesis or symptoms, then that section may be better moved to later in the article. Emphasis added. I'd suggest discussing variants, especially in such passing detail, makes no sense when we haven't even discussed SARS-CoV-2 yet.

• From Nosology, the page linked to as the Classification, this seems to be referring to the classification of the disease COVID-19, not the specific virus or strain of virus which causes it. From that article: Nosography is a description whose primary purpose is enabling a diagnostic label to be put on the situation. As such, a nosographical entity need not have a single cause. For example, inability to speak due to advanced dementia and an inability to speak due to a stroke could be nosologically different but nosographically the same. This seems to suggest that if we were to have a Classification section here, it should be referring to ICD codes U07.1 and U07.2[16] or perhaps the related-condition ICD codes[17], not viral variants.

Hope that helps clarify my thoughts here, and we can use this to hash out any disagreements. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

yes your right about the order...in terms of the inclusion of the variants (while the source is very important) we definitely should have a section small/medium because the UK variant may soon be the dominant virus in the US by March per [18]and Dr. Fauci [19][20]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I think there are two tricks here. One is finding WP:MEDRS sources for this, and presenting them appropriately (global relevance, not merely US). The second is asking how much belongs in this page versus the variants page, etc. Particularly related to the latter, what did we do for the G strains that were dominant in the fall of 2020, and should we have reported differently on them? And, as it relates to the disease and spread, how much should we discuss the strains versus the specific mutations and their (WP:MEDRS source supported) effects. That's kind of the bigger picture I'm thinking we need to be discussing. An important topic for sure, but we need to handle it apropriately. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

no not the US 'only' at all, however a possible domestic travel ban for Florida[21] due to the UK variant, says something about how important any variant spread is, irrespective of geographic location--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree this is likely the case, but whatever we cite here on this article should be referring to the global impact. National impacts should be on each national page. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I've suggested in other discussions that we can use the influenza article as a model for the COVID article. Due to mutations causing antigenic drift, we typically get different influenza outbreaks each year. I'm not certain if at this moment we need a separate article for each of the COVID variants, but it may be worthwhile having one article covering all of them for now. If a particular strain becomes prominent enough to cause a notable outbreak not covered by the existing vaccines, that one would merit its own article imho just like some strains of influenza. MartinezMD (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Bear in mind, the direct comparison is that this is an article about the disease pandemic (like how Influenza caused the 2009 swine flu pandemic), while Influenza A virus and Influenza B virus are more similar to Severe acute respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus. I'd suggest that even if we see serotype variations (the kind of thing that changes immunity), we'd be potentially talking about splitting the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 page similar to how Influenza A virus subtype H1N1 and Pandemic H1N1/09 virus are split, not this article. At least, not until the WHO either splits the COVID-19 diagnosis to distinguish the illness caused by a separate strain, or they define a second pandemic for said strain. All of this depends on us having enough good WP:MEDRS-sourced information to need to split the existing pages. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it should be a spinoff of the virus or illness article. However the weight of their inclusion in this article will depend on their impact - a mention with article link if no major effect, a paragraph or more if they resist the vaccines and cause the pandemic to be prolonged. MartinezMD (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

seems like a sound idea...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

"Xenomisia"?

"Xenomisia" in the lead and a section header, really? It's so rare it's not even in the oxford dictionary or Weber...

The use of such a word—whether it be xenomisia, xenophobia etc.—is extremely vague; it offers the reader no helpful information. The vast majority of cases of violence are against Asians, but now the reader is meant to think that everyone is being discriminated. I'm blown away by that the 11 comments of an improperly advertised RFC formed a consensus above... Aza24 (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like it was recently changed by LocalPunk here. PackMecEng (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

“Xenomisia”

This term appears several times on the page, but it doesn’t seem to be attested anywhere else on Wikipedia. Is this a subcategory of xenophobia, a rare synonym, or just an instance of vandalism? 187.245.67.218 (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems like it has now been erased, thanks to the thread above. GeraldWL 02:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I've not changed it since I know a lot of editors keep watch on this page so I assumed there was a reason for it; since the edit seem recent, I'll change it now... Aza24 (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah hi it's an alternative since phobias are a disability and/or neurodivergence https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/xenomisia it's actually not a rare term at all, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-misia#English however the wikitionary entry for misia doesn't mention that it's also used to avoid connecting phobias with hatred. It would actually be a more accurate term than using the phobia suffix. It is much more advisable to use. It's not vandalism or anything like that merely just a different term. LocalPunk (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted it, again. Sources currently present in the article use the word "xenophobia" to describe the abuse, so we should use it too. See for instance 1, 2, 3. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

sources use xenophobia, xenomisia is not even in a dictionary, we should follow sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

it's actually not a rare term at all—both wikitionary pages you linked to literally say "(rare)"! Aza24 (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, while I agree the distinguishing of the word with the suffix is probably a good idea, it's not nearly mainstream enough to consider using it in the article. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

As much as it is literally more accurate, it doesn't appear to be commonly used even in reliable sources, and shouldn't be used here (don't get me started on words like necromancy...) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Should we have a stand-alone page on the Emergence of COVID-19 Outbreak?

I wrote a draft entry about the topic of the Emergence of COVID-19 Outbreak, which has enough notability. In my opinion, having the independent entry would gather in one convenient place many pieces of information currently dispersed at the COVID-19 pandemic (i.e. epidemiological background, 2019 History), SARS-CoV-2 (i.e. Virology section's reservoir and zoonotic origin, and pyhogenetics and taxonomy), and Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 pages. It has also been stressed that the current entry on the Covid-19 pandemic should not be larger, and there is no room for inclusion of the many nuances of the emergence situation (reservoir, intermediate host, zoonotic event, etc). Should I move the draft into article space, thus creating it? Forich (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. Thanks for taking the initiative! Rklawton (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

If done then it should merge the content of Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 in entirety probably, to prevent redundant forks. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Such a merge is welcome, but as a section, the "Ongoing investigations" should have 5-6 paragraphs max, so the trimming could pose a risk of leaving stuff out. The obvious advantage is that as soon as results are produced by the investigators they can be moved as phrases into the other sections (reservoir, intermediate hostss, index case, etc). Forich (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. We need to be consolidating our COVID-19 articles, not creating more of them. We already have Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 (I've just redirected the target there), and Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019. Those are plenty sufficient, and trying to duplicate them in another article with a slightly different scope would be a classic WP:CONTENTFORK. Let's please close this quickly so we can get the banner off the top of the article. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I share the same concerns as yours especially with the recent efforts to push uncertainty and promote conspiracy theories, —PaleoNeonate – 05:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Dr Salvus (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose due to concerns of conspiracy theory pushing on lower profile SARS-COV-2 origin articles. Neutral on generalising the scope of Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, so long as we can get more TPWs from this article over there. Still, concerned about content forks. Hard to maintain info about this on 3-4 articles & counting. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:N. It is clearly an important topic that is gaining increased coverage in the sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Apart from anything else, the notion of the "the Emergence of an outbreak" is semi-literate/nonsensical and not a notion to be found in RS. The plain old origin of the virus is a different matter, and covered elsewhere (with what little is known). Alexbrn (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  Alexbrn, I think the concept is more important than the title at the moment, and it is clear that that is increasingly becoming the topic of many articles in the sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• oppose per Alexbrn--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• oppose I agree with Alexbrn. There is too high a speculation:knowledge ratio at present for this to be encyclopaedic beyond a few sentences that can be adequately covered by existing the article/timeline. Expanding on this gives more WP:WEIGHT to the speculation, to the primary research literature, and not enough to the current facts documented in secondary literature, which are: we don't know. -- Colin°^Talk 17:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• comment see Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 for some context about why this might be "organizationally" difficult. Editors and sources can slide between journalism, science, conjecture, editorial and repeating conspiracy theory; WP:MEDRS can be applied to censor things that aren't "sciencey". There may be value in keeping current affairs cleanly separated from medicine for this reason. Talpedia (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: looking at the draft article, it seems little more than a retitling of "Origin of COVID-19". The sections discuss Sars-COVID-1, natural reservoirs – using a Frontiers source to support the contention that no natural reservoir has been found for either virus – , animal host, intermediate host and other topics far more pertinent to an 'origins' essay than to a description of the emergence of the outbreak. There is frankly far too much reliance on weak or primary sources, and there are nine statements attributed to anonymous "scientists" in the text. Either the statements are supported by uncontested good quality reliable sources – and therefore should be in Wikipedia's voice – or they shouldn't be in the draft at all. Wikipedia is not the place to report speculations and novel hypotheses. --RexxS (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sdkb. Wretchskull (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sdkb and RexxS Bakkster Man (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. All that info can be covered in this article. 2001:1970:48AA:8100:3102:CC1E:95AC:5DC2 (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment It's snowing clearly enough that I've removed the banner. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support This is a once in a lifetime crisis for which the knowledge will expand over the coming years. This split is a sensible way of managing this Kev (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• comment we need someone to close/hat this--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion and closing

Per voting counts, 10 opppose wins over 3 supports. As the original proponent, I followed this guideline:

The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article.

. Opposing editors argued mainly these rebutting points:

• There is little information about the subject of the daugther article (Emergence of SARS-CoV-2 and Covid-19)
• That creating it implied high risks of POV fork, specifically a point of view favoring speculative ideas on the emergence of the virus and disease. Cited reasons for this risk were logistic (i.e. too much work for editors to watch out across many pages on similar subjects) or subjective (i.e. existing pages are sufficient to hold the main points of the daughter page).

Editors specifically named these pages to be the appropiate holders of the subject:

• Investigations into the origin of COVID-19
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019
• COVID-19 pandemic

I guess this point is an invitation to resolve disagreement by consensus in the existing pages instead of creating a new one. I have tried many times to do so before, and opposing editors many times invoke scarcity of space as the reason to exclude nuances. If editors formulate disagreement that require expanding the sections of the aforementioned pages, I ask all involved editors to let them grow a little a bit to include explanatory or auxiliary facts.

Finally, if supporting editors or anyone else wish to respond to any of the two arguments of the opossition please do it quickly or else the proposal fails per majority of votes against it. Forich (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Education map

Learners affected by school closures caused by COVID-19 as of February 2021

  Full school closures

  Partial school closures

  Academic break

  Online learning

  No school closures

  No data

If I recall correctly, we removed the education map a while back due to quality or datedness concerns. The one currently at Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education is at right. Does it look okay to add here? If not, we should at least find a different visual for the education section, of which we have a bunch of options. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

seems like a good idea, this map in particular is informative--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

There is some oversimplification though, i.e. partial school closures and online learning (youth schools open + higher education mostly online in Canada and surely elsewhere), —PaleoNeonate – 17:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The categories aren't too clear, either. What's the difference between "full closure", "partial closure", and "online"? Seems like two orthogonal concepts (if schools are closed for in person learning, they may or may not be replacing time outside the building with online learning). That's before accounting for variance across countries, differences between elementary and secondary education, and just general accuracy (is Germany really in "full closure" or are they also online?). Add that it's necessarily recentism, and a lot of work to maintain, and I'm not a big fan of this chart. Noble effort, not clearly presenting enough information. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

New Article relating to scams

Should a article be created about scams related to COVID-19 pandemic or is there an article that covers it? Cwater1 (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19_misinformation#Scams--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Date clarification

In the "Epidemiology" | "Infection fatality ratio (IFR)" section changing "In March, " to "In March 2020, " to avoid confusion with upcoming March 2021. This is consistent with the other dates in that section and supported by the cited reference ([79] ). Unfortunately, I don't have permission to make this change myself. Truistic (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. MartinezMD (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Wrong data about deaths in Iceland

In the first map of the article about COVID deaths per 1 million inhabitants, Iceland has the value 6. This is incorrect. As stated in the source, there have been 29 deaths in Iceland – a country of around 370,000 people. This suggest a death rate per 1 million inhabitants of around 78. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reikiavicensis (talk • contribs) 20:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Probably need to bring this up at the map discussion page or with Dan Polansky. The data source being used seems to be inaccurate. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Controversy about maximal duration of the COVID-19 incubation period

Recently me and Gtoffoletto started a discussion at his talk page about a minor editing of the Wikipedia Symptoms of COVID-19 article I performed and the reference to the scientific journal supporting this editing. Gtoffoletto undid my minor editing, while I propose substantial arguments about its appropriateness. Over several rounds of the discussion it become clear we have very opposite points of view on this topic. I think we need the independent judgement to define whether my minor editing should be returned back, and make the current section at this talk page to know the opinion of other Wikipedia editors. Because the initial part of the Symptoms of COVID-19 article includes in the COVID-19 pandemic page, I would like to ask also the editors of this page to resolve our discussion.

I proposed this editing based on several reasons:

• the importance of the fact that in 5-10% of SARS-CoV2 infected persons the onset of symptoms (i.e. duration of the incubation period) could occur after the 14 days. This has important implications to the public health and individual decision making;
• the manuscript indicating this has been published in the respectable scientific journal "Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease" with the impact factor 4.6;
• the manuscript has been peer-reviewed that guarantee its quality and independent evaluation by other scientists;
• the manuscript represents the findings from six different studies;
• in the emerging field of information about COVID is not always possible to wait many years until more evidence will be summarized in a meta-analysis or a guideline. And sometimes important and reliable information about such emerging topics could be inserted in the Wikipedia based on other publication types listed in the WP:MEDASSESS hierarchy of medical data sources.

The subsequent arguments of Gtoffoletto and other details could be found at the talk page Borisbikbov (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Bikbov, Boris; Bikbov, Alexander (2021). "Maximum incubation period for COVID-19 infection: Do we need to rethink the 14-day quarantine policy?". Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease. 40: 101976. doi:10.1016/j.tmaid.2021.101976. ISSN 1477-8939. Retrieved 24 February 2021....based on this I would agree w/ Gtoffoletto--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Borisbikbov as I said on my talk page I agree the "delay" between Wiki and the "cutting edge" of research can be frustrating. However representing the established scientific consensus is more important than "speed" to ensure we minimise mistakes. As the source you provided states: the current consensus is that the maximum symptom onset is 14 days. If (maybe following this new publication) the consensus swings in a different direction this will surely be reflected in new WHO or EUCDC guidelines. Those will be WP:MEDRS sources and can be used in the articles. Thanks for the work you are doing! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• continued at talk page Symptoms of COVID-19--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Standardizing on format for per-capita rates?

Prompted by this edit by Sdkb, I noticed we don't have a very standardized format for how we present per-capita data. Currently the prevalent format is "per 100,000 population", which is a standard for mortality rate, which generally allows access and comparison with other sources of mortality. Then there's "per million population" in the very top level map and interactive map in the 2020 section, percentage infected in the infobox (not mortality, so potentially reasonable to differ from mortality data), and then a few charts which should probably be per capita but aren't. I'm wondering if it makes sense to present similar data in so many different ways. Given I think a lot of this is kinda being decided ad-hoc, I thought a discussion to come up with something a bit more deliberate would be good.

Personally, I'd like to see all mortality data be per 100,000 population, to allow easy standardized comparisons. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I support to compare per 100 000. That's what my charts are based on. The maps now show percentage instead. I don't know whether that helps. --Traut (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2021

The names of COVID-19 like 2019-nCoV and the official name SARS-CoV-2 IcyDragon519 (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@IcyDragon519: That information is already on the page under COVID-19 pandemic#Background. Was there another place on the page you wanted that information to be included? Zupotachyon (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2021

please include the efforts ISRAEL made and the achievements for Covid 19 100.38.104.106 (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Please include the text you'd like added, removed or changed as well as sources. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Daily new cases map

The map

The daily new cases map, File:Daily new cases COVID-19 map.svg (which appears collapsed in the infobox), hasn't been updated since December 7, 2020. It has WP:Recentism concerns, anyways; should we get rid of it? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

(While we're discussing it, I really wish we could get a better death map than File:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map Total Deaths per Capita.svg. I still think all the tiny numbers and scale in the image itself look terrible.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

to answer your first post yes perhaps we should get rid of it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Removed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

well done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Old infobox photos

I'm sure this has been brought up repeatedly before, but I've noticed that none of the infobox photos are under 10.5 months old. Personally, I think it's a great selection, but it doesn't reflect e.g. more comprehensive COVID test availability; which was rare until several months after April 2020. Lockdowns are also not represented (though admittedly pretty tricky to show in a single image), and nor are vaccinations. Of course we need to avoid WP:RECENTISM but at the moment I believe the infobox photos are only giving a narrow view of the pandemic. Thoughts? Wodgester (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

How about your propose some revised photos? When I just looked at the photos right now they seemed pretty good to me. I dont think we need current events in the infobox (e.g. test availability). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 Vaccine Kills Cat

Link removed A Cat has died after getting injected with COVID-19. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.0.61 (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Opened link (against my better judgement), looked at link for about 24 seconds, concluded that that website is less than a reliable source, and this is likely linkspam/blackhat-SEO, and edited this accordingly. Nothing useful to see here folks. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

at least its a break from the usual--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

So the spanish flu also states its the deadliest pandemic

"The death toll is typically estimated to have been somewhere between 20 million and 50 million, although estimates range from a conservative 17 million to a possible high of 100 million, making it one of the deadliest pandemics in human history.[3][4][5]". Then covid19 states 3million deaths and that its the worst pandemic in history. wouldnt that make this the second worst? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.172.148.90 (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean. Neither the Spanish flu article nor this one at least since you've been editing say either is the deadliest. They both say "one of the deadliest" which clearly does not state or imply either one is the absolute worst or deadliest. The phrasing "one of the deadliest" leaves plenty of room for there to be deadlier pandemics and it's generally believed there is. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Dates

I'm requesting that the following edit be made. There is a photograph of a guy checking peoples temperatures at Bologna airport. Now the caption says February 5. This needs to be February 5, 2021. We are in 2021 now ( Yes I know time flies ).175.103.25.138 (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

should you check commons its actually 2020, I've so indicated[22]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

"most deadliest" -> "deadliest"

Grammatical error in the first paragraph; "one of the most deadliest pandemics in history" should become "one of the deadliest pandemics in history" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.173.37 (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I just noticed too.  Fixed Art LaPella (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

transclusion problem

The "Prognosis" section of this article tries to transclude content from the Prognosis section of the COVID-19 article. Thing is, that section is completely blocked in <noinclude> tags. Should the section completely be removed from this article? Why is the section so marked in the COVID-19 article? -- Mikeblas (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. It looks like the </noinclude> tag after the section hatnote was dropped at some point.  Fixed - Wikmoz (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Grammar error in last paragraph of the lead

The last paragraph of the lead was at some point changed from The pandemic has resulted in significant global social and economic disruption, including the largest global recession since the Great Depression. It has led to the postponement or cancellation of events,... to the current The responses to the pandemic have resulted in significant global social and economic disruption, including the largest global recession since the Great Depression. It has led to the postponement or cancellation of events,... This has introduced a grammatical error: "the responses to the pandemic" is plural, whereas "it" is singular. Also, it's not the responses that have led to the postponents, but the pandemic itself. I understand the point trying to be made with the change, but I'm not sure I agree with it: it seems fine to me to say that the pandemic has caused economic disruption, as "pandemic" refers to the full situation, not just the literal course of the disease. So we have two questions here: (1) Do folks agree with me that the former wording was better? (2) If not, how should we change the phrasing to resolve the grammatical error? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

the former wording was better ...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Previous discussion on the change here, and pinging Corriebertus and Wikmoz. I don't disagree that the wording could and should be improved, but I still lean towards agreeing that current sources suggest it was social distancing and containment measures which caused the disruptions, not the disease itself. This can be seen, for instance, in nations with a successful national response who have not suffered a recession[23], or continued mostly with life as normal either despite[24] or after addressing[25] the pandemic. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the countries that implemented aggressive early response measures and prevented the pandemic from gaining a foothold in the local population are not ideal examples. To a degree, they demonstrate that strong response measures benefit society and the economy. Ideally, we'd have an example country that was ravaged by the pandemic and had no government response. Sweden, Brazil, and the UK all initially implemented lighter response measures and might be better case studies. The virus without government intervention, caused a lot of social and economic pain. - Wikmoz (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The countries that largely halted the pandemic obviously haven't been as impacted by the pandemic. It's still the pandemic (≠ the disease) doing the impacting, though. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping! The current wording is wrong. "The pandemic has resulted in..." is better based on your reasoning. Alternatively, "The pandemic and response measures have..." seems like a good compromise. The logic test I mentioned previously... Would a pandemic hospitalizing and killing millions of people unabated contribute to social and economic disruption without government response measures? When a ton of people start dying, the economy and social activity are impacted. - Wikmoz (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Backing up a bit, I guess we need to make sure to avoid WP:SYNTHESIS. What's a reliable source for such a claim, and how do they phrase it? Can we find (or more likely, do we already have) reliable sources indicating one, the other, or both items caused 'significant global social and economic disruption'? Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has the broadest view on this, and interestingly splits the difference in its lede: The pandemic caused the largest global recession in history, with more than a third of the global population at the time being placed on lockdown. In other words, "the pandemic caused... due to lockdowns". Bakkster Man (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Certainly would be good to highlight sources but I don't think we're in sythesis territory. The pandemic (whether or not that includes response measures) contributed to the outcome. The sentence you quoted sounds right but I read it as "the pandemic caused... due in part to lockdowns". Pinning 100% of the blame on the response doesn't seem logical. It would be like saying airline travel dipped in the weeks following 9/11 due to increased airport security measures. - Wikmoz (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I seem to remember a discussion regarding the "responses to" being added.. but can't find it right now. Regardless, in the meantime and obviously not negating any further discussion here, I've made a minor change to wording (not meaning) that eliminates the immediate grammatical flaw. This resulted in the "responses leading to cancellations" being moved to the end of the sentence because I couldn't think of any grammatically correct way to leave the sentence as is and still have it flow well - but anyone who can find a grammatical way to have that at the beginning is welcome to do so without me considering it a revert of my edit. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• I went ahead and tried rephrasing the paragraph; I guess we'll see if it sticks. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2021

"Source Likely via bats and pangolins"

Change the word "likely" to "possibly"? HelpfulPi (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

HelpfulPi. Thanks for your edit request. I checked the scientific literature, and recent articles have been saying that the intermediate host is "unknown", so I removed pangolin entirely. [26] –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Improvements to Prevention section.

There are a great deal of government sources, that suggest that some chemicals, or other, can help prevent this virus, or reduce the severity of the virus.

Vitamin D?, Vitamin C?, Zinc, and even Garlic.

Keep up the great work in presenting the many different truths that exist in this world !!! Your work is very important, and remember 'NOTHING' is perfect, there is always room for improvements, and clarifications, for some of us have different understandings of truths.

Hope to include these non=pharmaceutical options.

Covered at COVID-19 misinformation. Alexbrn (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Vitamin D is covered, with the proper secondary sources and accurate guidance (Vit. D deficiency increases risk, but Vit. D itself is not a treatment or prevention) in COVID-19#Healthy diet and lifestyle. You'll need to provide reliable sources which meet the WP:MEDRS guidelines before these other options can be considered for inclusion. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment: Corrupted Blood Incident

At the start of the pandemic I had included a link to the corrupted blood incident in the see also section, which was removed about 2 hours after I added it and at the time I decided that rather than arguing for its inclusion i'd simply let it lie. Now, however, a growing body of proof indicates that the virtual pandemic experienced in the MMORPG world of warcraft is being put to use during the Covid-19 outbreak ([27][28][29][30][31][32] etc). My question then is given that the is increasingly being seen as part of the COVID-19 response should some mention of this appear in the article? In lew of the above links, and in the absence of any consensus point to that effect, I'm looking to get a feel on the community's position on this matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello friend. My first impression is that the COVID-19 pandemic article is big and has hundreds of child articles, so my inclination would be to only put the most important and relevant things here. Would this be a good fit for one of the child articles? Just my opinion though. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The first step will be, as always, to attempt to gather reliable sources that support all major points of view here (ex: in this case reliable sources that make such comparisons). Even then, barring an extremely high number of RS making the comparison, it's likely to be better fit in a child article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Origin of virus

Following edit (see copy below) was recently added - but then reverted - is the edit (or equivalent) worth adding - or not? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
"On 26 March 2021, former CDC Chief Robert Redfield claimed that the Covid-19 virus "more likely than any alternative" leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan, China in September 2019. WHO had earlier claimed that this possibility was "unlikely"."

NOTE (03/30/2021): Latest WSJ News re Lab Leak origin of Covid => "Yet enough already is known about the WIV suggest this [ie, that the recent WHO lab leak explanation as "extremely unlikely"] lacks credibility." - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not news, it is an editorial (aka, opinion). Bakkster Man (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

References

My opinion is that this is giving WP:UNDUE weight to a theory by one person, which hasn't as far as I know been corroborated or backed up by any other sources. This article does not go into great detail about the investigations into the origin, and to include just one theory alongside the claim that the WHO had "previously said it was unlikely" could make readers think this is already the mainstream view. CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The first summary item on the Bloomberg article is key: this is not a widely held view. At a minimum the article text needs to point this out explicitly. See: WP:FRINGE. The added text gave the impression only that this authoritative figure has changed their mind, which while perhaps notable still needs proper context to indicate that it remains a minority opinion. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, WP:MEDRS is needed for anything lab leak related. The armchair speculations of a former CDC director are not peer-reviewed, and in my opinion and are not MEDRS. As a reminder, MEDRS is review articles in medical journals, medical textbooks, or official statements from national and international medical bodies. The lab leak idea has been discussed ad nauseum on some other pages, especially on Talk:COVID-19 misinformation, where there is an RFC in progress. A summary of my views can be found at User:Novem Linguae/Essays/There was no lab leak. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

This is absolutely not appropriate for this article, and is the definition of WP:FRINGE, not to mention that given how long this article is any one person's opinion is almost always WP:UNDUE weight. From a person who held political positions, and whose authority in the actual medical/virology field is best described as "less than nonexistent", this is useless. Furthermore, while it may be conceivable to believe that while in his position at the CDC he may have had access to information to make such a determination, there is absolutely no reason to believe that 2 months after he left that position he is in any place to comment on that. I'm quite surprised that this was even considered for addition by someone. Note that I don't think all information about "lab leak theory" requires MEDRS - epidemiology (i.e. population statistics) is not "biomedical information" - it is statistical information. That being said, I do think it requires good sourcing as it's a red flag claim, and any information about how specific people were infected early on would require MEDRS. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: - Thank you for your comments - yes - *entirely* agree with you - perhaps former CDC Director Robert R. Redfield may have been privy to some undisclosed, not (yet) peer-reviewed, but nonetheless significant informations, as a result of his time as CDC Director (and was presenting his thinking more for scientific reasons than otherwise) - this notion greatly influenced my reasoning for adding the edit to the article in the first place - and later - to initiate this talk-page discussion with others - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Drbogdan, yes, but note that I also said he may have had - past tense. After he left that post, any authoritativeness he had with it left and he reverted to being a "normal person" - and his claims here should be treated just as had any other normal person made them - as fringe views that do not merit mention in this article. I disagree with User:RandomCanadian below that this is the "same discussion between multiple pages" - it makes sense that it would be more appropriate for one of the two other pages listed (in order, most appropriate in "misinformation", possibly slightly appropriate in the "investigations" article, and wholly inappropriate here) as they are subpages of this one thus can cover more details that are inappropriate for the main article - see summary style. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Drbogdan, perhaps former CDC Director Robert R. Redfield may have been privy to some undisclosed, not (yet) peer-reviewed, but nonetheless significant informations, as a result of his time as CDC Director is not an acceptable rationale for including the quote. It's pure speculation. Please reread WP:FRINGE to also understand why the sentence you wrote above would be inappropriate regardless. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

*([33]unfortunately even though it is the CDC former director) I would have to agree with the editors above...until there is something official, NO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• God! Why, oh why must we always have the same discussion between multiple pages? See Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#Origin_of_virus and Talk:COVID-19_misinformation#Former_Trump_official_promoting_lab_leak_misinformation (I tried to add it to the later article, since that is where misinformation goes, but then got reverted so...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  And to opine clearly, I think that if this goes anywhere, it is on the misinformation article. Anywhere else and it is inappropriate use of a non-MEDRS and undue (and even on that article, it might be hard fitting both the statements and the rebuttals - from the much more respectable Fauci - without taking too much space). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• INCLUDE This content is appropriate for the article, doesn't require MEDRS, and we dont have to say in wikivoice where teh origin is (obviously unknown). Using the quote with attribution is WP:DUE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. Without any evidence it is opinion and WP:FRINGE and therefore WP:UNDUE MartinezMD (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Jtbobwaysf From WP:DUE Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. Redfield's statement doesn't change that this remains a tiny minority opinion. WP:DUE specifically says that just because an opinion can be sourced and meets other sourcing criteria, it needn't be included in articles where it would be given an inappropriate level of attention and credibility, as this would. The page already links to COVID-19 misinformation, that is sufficient unless something drastic changes. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Scientists are in near universal agreement that the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is natural, and that the outbreak did not begin in the WIV. Redfield's statement is at odds with that scientific consensus, but it's not surprising as a political statement coming out of the Trump administration. We shouldn't be giving it credence here at Wikipedia. -Darouet (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Clearly local consensus here won't override an RFC, this I agree with, but it doesn't prohibit discussion which is common prior to another RFC. And a prior RFC would have little to no bearing on this more recent news. I would suggest running another RFC. The assertion that a former director of the CDC Dr. Robert R. Redfield is not qualified to speak on the subject, and/or his opinion is fringe, is absurd. Or are we talking about different people? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The assertion that a former director of the CDC Dr. Robert R. Redfield... his opinion is fringe, is absurd. - Jtbobwaysf. It's not absurd. One person's opinion, stated as an opinion, does not mean the opinion isn't fringe. No matter how preeminent such a person was at the time, fringe is defined by preeminence. There is no argument whether or not the idea is fringe, both sources given at the top unequivpcally state the idea is fringe. If there's an argument to be made, it's in presenting the idea in the article with suitable language describing it appropriately as a fringe belief. If you want to propose an alternate wording that meets the WP:FRINGE guidelines, please do so. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The professional opinion of a medical doctor who happens to be the former CDC director I would suspect will get due weight in an article, as the commentator is the very definition of an expert even if the theory he is putting forth is not yet mainstream. Please suggest your disclaimer and then we can run an RFC to go over it if we cant come to a compromise here. This is a DUE weight issue, not fringe. Sometimes these political articles (or in this case political claims) can have no comprise without RFC. We will see what happens here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I look at the due weight issue from the opposite perspective. While Dr. Redfield is obviously one of the most prominent to espouse this opinion, which would make him a clear candidate if the theory gets a mention in this article as exemplar of the view, his prominence was precisely why I disagreed with the original text. Particularly, that the following sentence WHO had earlier claimed that this possibility was "unlikely" gives the impression of Redfield's statement somehow being more up to date or superseding the WHO's analysis (and the scientific consensus according to both cited sources). This is in addition to being a somewhat substantial portion of the two paragraphs in the first section of this article, which again referring to WP:UNDUE hits most of the descriptions: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery. Near the top of the primary article is not the place to include something like this, it's the very definition of undue weight.

Regarding WP:FRINGE I think it's worth pointing out, fringe doesn't necessarily mean pseudoscience. It can fit more along the lines of Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective. If we're going to reference Redfield's statements, a much better location would be in Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Reservoir and zoonotic origin, where it would add context to the 5th paragraph of this section which already references this belief, in a way that fulfills this WP:DUE criteria If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. Another suitable location is COVID-19 misinformation#Wuhan lab leak story. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Note that this kind of thing was previously subject to an RfC; and the consensus (noted in the "current consensus" thread at the top) was not to include any mention of the lab leak theory, because it is too WP:FRINGE. An opinion of a non-medical expert is even more so. This does not go in; unless you're arguing that the previous RfC needs revisiting (it does not). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• We have several ultra-strong peer-reviewed, scholarly, secondary publications on this. There is no need to hold an RfC because of an individual's comment. Alexbrn (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

FWIW - latest "official" news from WHO re the origin of the virus has now been reported - and suggests the source of the virus is "likely" animals, and that the lab leak source is “extremely unlikely”, although "some scientists say that is an important question to explore" - hope this helps - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Drbogdan, in light of this, can you see why your original wording was problematic? Bakkster Man (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: and others - Thank you for your comments - no problem whatsoever - whatever "WP:CONSENSUS" finally decides is *entirely* ok with me - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to @Drbogdan:, @Jtbobwaysf:, @Ozzie10aaaa:, @RandomCanadian: et al. I have made the following edits that I'd like to bring to people's attention:

• Added the formal WHO report's conclusions (excluding the "extremely unlikely" lab leak, per current RfC) to this page, under COVID-19 pandemic#2019 where details of zoonosis are discussed [34]
• Added the formal WHO report's conclusions (excluding the "extremely unlikely" lab leak) to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Reservoir and zoonotic origin, where there is a more detailed section on zoonosis [35]
• Added to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Reservoir and zoonotic origin alongside existing discussion of the engineered original conspiracy, the comments by Dr. Robert R. Redfield alongside the WHO's official conclusion contradicting that opinion [36]

The latter is likely to be the most controversial, but I think it fits the WP:FRINGE guidelines for mentioning Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community... put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective, and WP:UNDUE which states that If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. I'd like to see 1-2 additional adherents added to that location if possible, to further fulfill that latter criteria. I'm not sure I'd call this a compromise, rather a jumping off point to refocus the discussion on a location I consider more likely to reach consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

No. 1 and 2: this needs to be a short and sweet statement which does not give UNDUE prominence to other theories. Maybe "The formal investigation conducted by the WHO in early 2021 found that the most likely hypothesis was natural zoonosis, while calling for further inquiry to provide more robust conclusions." No. 3 - "significant minority [implied] of scientists/subject-matter experts". To quote WP:PROFRINGE: {[tq|However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight. A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position. Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable.}} - there are no high-quality sources which discusses it as a serious alternative position, since they deem it to be extraordinarily unlikely. "may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable", hence my contention that goes in the article about misinformation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a fair analysis, do you think the existing text of 1 and 2 is suitable or needs further cleanup? My read on the lab hypothesis in the WHO report is that this is the 'critical review' of the theory, and that being considered "extremely unlikely" is not necessarily equivalent to being dismissed. At least, not yet (the proposed further research to completely rule out the hypothesis could do so). Particularly with the location in the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Reservoir and zoonotic origin which also discusses the even more fringe human-engineered theory, I think we either have a better case for the level of exposure being due, and if not then the engineered discussion should be removed as well for the same reasons. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

WHO orders further investigation

on the other hand it was reported today 30 March...."The head of the World Health Organization called for further investigation into whether the novel coronavirus first leaked from a laboratory, in remarks to the press on Tuesday."--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Here's a direct link to the WHO Director-General's statement, as referenced in that article. Of note, the complete list of additional investigations he mentions, in order, are as follows:

• Full access to raw data
• Earliest human cases and clusters
• Source of the Huanan market contamination
  • Trace the animals sold at markets in and around Wuhan
  • Range of potential animal hosts and intermediaries
  • Role of animal markets
  • Full analysis of the trade in animals and products
  • Possible food chain contamination
  • Role of farmed wild animals
• Possibility that the virus entered the human population as a result of a laboratory incident
  • Further data and studies will be needed to reach more robust conclusions
• We have not yet found the source of the virus, and we must continue to follow the science and leave no stone unturned as we do.

So this remains a case of WP:UNDUE IMO, half of the Director-General's statements were regarding animal intermediaries and the market itself, with the laboratory hypothesis being mentioned last. I'm concerned with the phrasing above (though being the National Review, I'm not exactly surprised) being solely about that last significant category of investigation called for, not the multiple primary hypotheses given more weight and priority in the statement. Not to mention, none of this counters the current assessment of likelihood, only that more investigation is required to reduce the set of viable hypothesis to a single one. Until something turns up that suggests the scientific consensus has changed the lab leak remains "the least likely hypothesis", in other words WP:FRINGE. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

given todays news Im not so certain anymore--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

"Today's news" meaning the WHO Director-General's statement, or the partisan reporting by National Review? I think the plain text of the WHO statement makes clear what's WP:DUE and what's WP:UNDUE, so you're going to need to clarify. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

the former --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Any particular reason you characterized it the way you did, rather than "The WHO called for further investigation into the earliest human cases and clusters of COVID-19 with full access to the raw data"? Or "The WHO called for further investigation into the range of potential animal hosts and intermediaries for COVID-19, including the role of farmed wild animals and possible food chain contamination"? Or even "The WHO called for further investigation to identify with certainty the source of the COVID-19 virus, stating they must leave no stone unturned in the investigation"? Because the answer to that question will lead to the answer of whether making particular reference to the lab leak hypothesis is DUE or UNDUE. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

its the lead sentence[37]...time, Im afraid, will indicate where the viral origin was[38]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

You said you based your opinion on the WHO statement itself, but again referred to the headline of an article in the National Review (direct link, instead of redirect, for transparency). As I laid out above, the National Review's retelling is quite clearly biased when compared with the WHO statement. That's the part I'm struggling to reconcile. If you want to make the argument that the lab leak story is WP:DUE here (let alone not WP:FRINGE), you need to do it using the bare WHO text or another secondary source, not using a biased tertiary source. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

At the risk of being told I'm out of line, I think both of you (Bakkster Man and Ozzie) are looking to the same end goal. That being said, before either of you comment further, I think you may wish to read my explanation of why this isn't what people seem to think it is. Remember that we aren't just a collection of quotes/statements from others - we curate them based on editorial decisions (primarily WP:DUE), and as such, it's important to review the context in which the WHO made their statements. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that's possible, but that's why I wanted to pull the discussion back away from the NRO commentary (which we shouldn't base due/undue weight decisions on), and stick with the WHO statement alone (and, as you say, the context in which it's made). I do think your analysis is more likely than not true (though equally inappropriate to place in the article), and is part of why if we were to include these statements in the article I'd want to see us focus primarily on the greater access to data and animal trade aspects. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Something needing "further research" does not necessarily mean "we believe this is a viable outcome of the investigation". In this case, as is made clear by the full statements by the director-general and others, it means "we need to find conclusive proof it's not a laboratory leak before people will stop spreading this conspiracy". We have the editorial judgement to make as to whether this is WP:DUE or not, and that judgement must be based on the totality of the information - not just one statement without looking at the context in which it was made. The WHO does not believe the lab leak theory to be viable - it simply won't come out and say it wasn't until there is hard data to conclusively prove it was something else - because if they come out before that data exists, they'll be complained about as "covering it up". So no, the WHO does not believe the theory, nor are they giving credibility to it by simply saying "we keep investigating". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

So now we have a WHO party as well as a former director of CDC? Did the intel community in Australia also make this claim a few months ago (hence the start of the political spat between China and Auz). Wikipedia doesnt just censor the other opinions and include only the mainstream, this is wiki101 basics. Are there any other notable orgs or people making this lab claim? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it's inaccurate to label the opposition in this discussion 'censorship'. The arguments above all tend to focus on whether this minority opinion is would be given due weight or not, particularly on this article, with the originally proposed wording, and in the opening section. It's a very significant leap from 'consensus not to mention the lab leak theory at all' to 'discuss it in a place of prominence on this article'. Not that this consensus can't change, but that it will need a solid policy rationale based on a change in reliable source information. As I proposed above, one location I feel this information could be included where it has a much better argument for being WP:DUE by not being given undue prominence is Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Reservoir and zoonotic origin, contrary to wanting to 'censor' said theory. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

We arent talking about the lede are we? I certainly wasnt advocating for lede inclusion at this point in time. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Not the lede, but the first content section after the lede (Epidemiology → Background) is where the original edit was located. I'm not sure if there's another generic name name for the section immediately after a lede. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The WHO report considers a lab leak origin of the virus to be "extremely unlikely," and given the way scientists have viewed this compared to politicians, we should continue listing the "lab leak" idea under misinformation. The WHO report merely confirms the conclusions of the research of tens of thousands of scientists' over the last year. -Darouet (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Quite so. We are not going to lend credence to the idea that the virus came from Fort Dedrick (or whatever) just because that's a remote possibility. Alexbrn (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I think this will depend on the information. Some of it will be scientific consensus which we should include (the WHO report stating "extremely unlikely"), some will be misinformation to be handled appropriately (extraordinary and unsourced claims of 'proof'), and some will be WP:FRINGE Alternative theoretical formulations which can be discussed as long as it's given due weight and contextualized relative to the consensus. It may not be WP:DUE in this article, but may be WP:DUE in other articles where the origins are discussed in more detail where such a mention wouldn't by its very inclusion be given undue prominence. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a constant puzzle to me why there seems to be any difficulty with this. We have several excellent sources; we reflect what they say. The rest is noise. I get the impression some editors here think Wikipedia (editors) should be deciding what is said about this topic. No. We summarize what third-party, reliable sources have said about it. Alexbrn (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Google scholar/first article(s)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

A list of 4,150 papers, not all peer reviewed, with titles including Nasoseptal Flap Necrosis After Endoscopic Skull Base Surgery in the Setting of COVID-19 Pandemic, Cerebrospinal fluid leak after nasal swab testing for coronavirus disease 2019, and Tackle the free radicals damage in COVID-19 seems to back up @Alexbrn: that there's a lot of unreliable noise out there. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

FWIW - yes - *entirely* agree - a lot of unreliable noise out there - more simply perhaps - Facts: an "animal" and/or a "lab-leak" is the source of the virus; Opinions: "likely", "very likely"; "unlikely"; "very unlikely" and related - hope this helps - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Likelihood is just a less definite probability, it's a stretch to label it an opinion alongside editorials. But this is why we use WP:MEDRS, this article would be unmaintainable without it. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Unnecessary info in Deaths section - remove? or move elsewhere?

Hi,

In the deaths section, there are two paragraphs which I think don't fit the tone of the neighboring paragraphs (which I think are pretty good). There are copied here:

On 24 March 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of the United States, indicated the WHO had provided two codes for COVID-19: U07.1 when confirmed by laboratory testing and U07.2 for clinically or epidemiological diagnosis where laboratory confirmation is inconclusive or not available.[59][60] The CDC noted that "Because laboratory test results are not typically reported on death certificates in the U.S., [the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)] is not planning to implement U07.2 for mortality statistics" and that U07.1 would be used "If the death certificate reports terms such as 'probable COVID-19' or 'likely COVID-19'." The CDC also noted "It Is not likely that NCHS will follow up on these cases" and while the "underlying cause depends upon what and where conditions are reported on the death certificate, ... the rules for coding and selection of the ... cause of death are expected to result in COVID–19 being the underlying cause more often than not."[59]

On 16 April 2020, the WHO, in its formal publication of the two codes, U07.1 and U07.2, "recognized that in many countries detail as to the laboratory confirmation... will not be reported [and] recommended, for mortality purposes only, to code COVID-19 provisionally to code U07.1 unless it is stated as 'probable' or 'suspected'."[61][62] It was also noted that the WHO "does not distinguish" between infection by SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.[63]

These two paragraphs talk about how deaths are coded into health systems and death certificates (the first paragraph about the US CDC and the second about the WHO). But I don't think these paragraphs fit well with the neighboring paragraphs. The neighboring paragraphs deal with death statistics, the numbers, and how these statistics are collected or what they mean - all good info.

Because of this objection, I would like to delete these paragraphs, or alternatively if someone could guide me to a place they would fit better? It's a piece of detail that isn't very important to most readers, who would be reading the Deaths section to learn about things like probability of death or factors contributing to death.

I would do this myself without posting a discussion but this is a very very important page and so I don't want to remove information if others deem its important for the article. So I would please appreciate your thoughts. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 03:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Good catch. I agree that at a minimum it makes more sense in a separate subcategory, so I created one and moved it there. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Climate effect source

Hope i Use this page the right way. I am participating since notes I added to that very article, explaining the origin of the virus got deleted. According that ( https://www.bpb.de/politik/innenpolitik/coronavirus/308483/pandemien-umwelt-und-klima) german source the virus is result of mankinds destruction of natural habitats such as forests. It also explaines how pandemics are the effect of mankinds unsustainable industrial policies causing effects like climate change. The article is provided by the federal agency of civic education, valide scientific source. Please try to translate and use that source. It is necessary for mankinds progress and preventing further pandemics to include mankinds impact on biosphere within explaining the virus. We should not hold back that information. WikiYeti (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I moved it into a new section as it is a new issue. Your source was reverted by another editor. You need to read WP:RS. The source you use is an opinion piece that offers no scientific evidence. Climate/epidemiologic claims require robust information because many times the people writing them are only offering inferences and not conclusive results of consensus statements. MartinezMD (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

picture of covid in Europe

The text under says: Cases of COVID-19 per 100,000 residents in Europe. The numbers are not comparable, as the testing strategy differs among countries and time periods.
"The numbers are not comparable, as the testing strategy differs among countries and time periods." WTF? They are compared by putting them in a map. What do strategy and time mean? The data used is based on the whole pandemic time (and if it is not, that should be mentioned). And what does it matter, since those are the official given cases in each country? 109.240.230.91 (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The warning seems reasonable. If one country is testing a higher percentage of their population than another country, they are likely to have a higher percentage of reported cases. It is good to remind the reader of this when looking at the diagram. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

A disclaimer seems reasonable, but it's worth asking if this is the right disclaimer. "The numbers are not comparable" seems a bit too absolute and non-specific to me. I'd suggest changing it to "case rates may not indicate the relative rates of infection, as the testing strategy differs among countries and time periods." That explains 'which numbers' are at question, and 'under which circumstances' comparisons are limited. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this link useful?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33113270/ 142.112.140.242 (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Clearly a WP:PRIMARY study. Per the requirements of WP:MEDRS, it's not sufficient. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

"continuing" vs "ongoing" in lead

I find "... is a continuing global pandemic" a bit odd. Wouldn't ongoing be a better adjective? I remember it was ongoing a while abck. Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 12:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

perhaps it is better wording--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• I prefer "ongoing". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Green recovery in the see also section

I'm here to advocate including the page Green recovery in the see also section. It is a page with direct relation to the COVID-19 pandemic (see the lead of the linked page) and I think it is more than acceptable that it should be allowed to be included in this section. Thoughts of other editors would be really appreciated. Helper201 (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

What is the direct and explicit link between the two (compare with the links to the previous SARS outbreaks; or to Globalisation and disease (which I'd guess does a decent job covering the environmental aspects - if it doesn't WP:FIXIT)? Other than being a matter that might be spurred by this, it seems entirely unrelated. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The term "green recovery" is directly related to recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. It is a response directly attributed to this specific pandemic. This is directly specified in the opening line of the page. Helper201 (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I'm opposed. There are dozens and dozens of pages that have the tangential level of relevance to the pandemic that that page has, and can't fit all of them in the section. I'd suggest looking at Environmental impact of the COVID-19 pandemic or similar pages instead. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  I'd assume that is already linked from somewhere and doesn't need an additional link in the see also section? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2021

I want to edit indian section in covid-19 pandemic 27.97.244.236 (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Please, specify the changes that you want to make. Ruslik_Zero 08:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding extra information regarding the impact on education

I intend to add a small paragraph containing statistics of students' experience learning during the pandemic. I will be using the BBC article.--Julius Royale (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Fake News

DFTT EvergreenFir (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is fake news in this article. The number of cases is 135 million, not 13.8 million. Fix that please. Ak-eater06 (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC) "fake news" is a contrived political term. There is an error. That is the correct term, and proper notification has been made to address it. MartinezMD (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC) This error has been corrected. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2021 (2)

Please change reference 143 (Levine-Tiefenbrun, Matan et al. (8 February 2021). "Decreased SARS-CoV-2 viral load following vaccination". medRxiv: 2021.02.06.21251283. doi:10.1101/2021.02.06.21251283.) to https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01316-7, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01316-7. The paper is now published after peer review. 2001:4DF4:8580:71:C8DB:F59:5A60:AF2 (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Seems like you had an earlier version of the article because this has been removed, seemingly for other reasons, now. And simply changing the link is insufficient, that reviewed version needs to be checked to see if there's any change in the content being cited. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Important question about figures.

The Covid death toll reached 3 million many days ago. However, for the last few days this article was displaying a figure less than 3 million. For example, 2.9 or 2.89 million. Feel free to look at previous versions. Any reason for this? P.S. I'm not saying that the editors are always misleading or disruptive. 123.103.210.114 (talk) 08:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The data gets pulled from Template:Cases in the COVID-19 pandemic, and sometimes takes a bit to get updated. If you notice something is clearly wrong, head over to that talk page. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for your help.123.103.210.114 (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

First sentence in second paragraph

The first sentence of the second paragraph says:

Symptoms of COVID-19 are highly variable, ranging from none to life-threatening illness.

Is "illness" redundant? The second half of the sentence feels slightly awkward but maybe I'm just seeing ghosts  AltoStev ^Talk 18:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@AltoStev: "life-threatening conditions"? Better? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I changed it to "ranging from none to life-threateningly severe". I think that is the correct grammar, since these would be adjectives describing the symptoms. MartinezMD (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with that, but I think that it may be able to be improved by reworking the sentence completely but I'm not sure how. Good work all. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

My thought is to use terminology used in the medical field that better describes the possible ranges. One source says "The spectrum of symptomatic infection ranges from mild to critical". (See https://www.uptodate.com/contents/covid-19-clinical-features). It then goes on to describe the ranges, including Mild disease, Severe disease, and Critical disease. What are your thoughts on adapting this approach as it seems to use more clinical terms which better describe the possible outcomes. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

If I were writing in a technical section, I might use that language, but we have to consider the audience and that this is just a summary statement in the lead. I won't resist a consensus change, but for a simple statement, I think it's fine as is. MartinezMD (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 May 2021

Analysis by age in China indicates that a relatively low proportion of cases occur in individuals under 20.

This item is now more than a year old (the source is dated April 11, 2020), and because so much research has been done in the last 13 months, this needs a date to indicate that it's not really recent. Please change it to

An April 2020 study analyzing patients in China by age indicated that a relatively low proportion of cases occurred in individuals under 20.

Thank you. 74.98.192.38 (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I made an edit. This area should be updated but I added a qualifier to the statement for now. MartinezMD (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 May 2021 (3)

The United Kingdom Section needs to reflect the vaccine and declining death rate after 3 lockdowns. There is no information since 2 December and all UK people will know a lot has happened since then such as:

> 50 million vaccinated > 3rd lockdown > shops and non essentials reopened

Another admin rejected my request without even looking at the link but you can find all this information here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/50-million-doses-of-covid-19-vaccine-administered-in-uk https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-response-spring-2021 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-response-spring-2021/covid-19-response-spring-2021-summary?priority-taxon=774cee22-d896-44c1-a611-e3109cce8eae 82.18.22.183 (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Please provide the actual edit you'd like made, rather than telling volunteers to spend their time reading through links and writing prose. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 May 2021 (2)

UK Section is EXTREMELY out of date Hi, I'd like to note that the UK section is out of date as the death rate has dropped massively and the vaccine has been given to 50 Million+ and the section seems to stick to ages ago. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/50-million-doses-of-covid-19-vaccine-administered-in-uk

It needs updating 82.18.22.183 (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. You need to follow the instructions and tell us how you think this issue should be resolved. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

As you were told below - edit requests are not "do this for me", it is to suggest specific edits to a page. If you're not willing to write the prose and citations you want added, the edit request feature is not for you to say "do it for me". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 May 2021

Please update the total number of cases and deaths in the infobox; Johns Hopkins (the citation already given) is currently saying 3,245,054 deaths and 155,327,705 cases. Also, please change "154" to "155" in this introduction sentence:

As of 6 May 2021, more than 154 million cases have been confirmed

Thank you. 74.98.192.38 (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done The data isn't part of the page itself; rather, it is sourced from Template:Cases in the COVID-19 pandemic. I went ahead and updated the template to reflect Johns Hopkins's latest data. Thank you! TimSmit (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Timeline details

Ozzie10aaaa (talk · contribs) reverted my removal of the statement On 25 January, the Brazil variant was detected in Minnesota. There are a lot of variants in a lot of places, and we have a very abbreviated time line here. How is this one detail sufficiently prominent for a very high-level article? Note that "the Brazil variant" is not discussed in this article in any other way, I would assume that the Brazil variant being detected in Brazil would be at least as notable. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 14:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

IMO it is an important part of the article, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

That's not even an argument. I'm restoring my change. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain why you believe the first identification of the P.1 variant in the US (Minnesota) is notable, but its identification elsewhere is not? Why is the identification of the variant in the US more relevant than the original identification in Brazil? To me, this seems important for COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, but this page should list the P.1 identification in Brazil instead. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Im not going to get into an 'edit war', thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Asking for a comment isn't an edit war, though. If there's no justification, I'll revert and add the P.1 identification date in Brazil. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with identifying P.1 in Brazil, if at all. The Minnesota statement seems too detailed and US-centric to include in the article. TimSmit (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa, the questions others are asking here are reasonable. If it's a line you want the article to include, please engage with them. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb, your right however if you check the history diff and above That's not even an argument. I'm restoring my change. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC), means there was a change/edit immediately...to be frank perhaps its best to use one's time & energy to keep an eye on India and the COVID disaster thats going on --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

While it was certainly WP:BOLD in its swiftness, it seems to me WP:BRD was followed. Made a bold edit, got reverted, opened a discussion. I can understand why they interpreted the above exchange as an unwillingness to discuss. We're also not in WP:3RR territory either, so I don't see an issue. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)