Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 46

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

RFC on removal of alt-text related to COVID-19 lab leak theory

Proposal

Propose that alt text Wikipedia:Piped link that is currently used that changes "COVID-19 lab leak theory" to "alternative origins" be removed, as demonstrated in this diff. Note that this RFC appears to be subject to Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Current_consensus #14 (above) and if so, this RFC proposes a reconsideration and modification of May 2020 consensus related to #14 only. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment appears to me that the 2020 consensus we are using is now outdated given the significant media coverage given to the "lab leak theory" and our current implementation is WP:WEASEL. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• That's not alt text, it's a piped link. Anyway, yes per WP:SUBMARINE it should not be piped in such a misleading manner. I don't see the point in removing sources as the diff does, however.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you, I will change that alt-text link. I changed the source to the current source that is used over at the target article. Dont really have a strong opinion on the sources, the subject of the RFC is really the piped link. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• I was randomly chosen by a bot to comment on this RfC. It's difficult to comment without understanding what the sources say and what is the purpose of the paragraph. If the paragraph is not specifically about the COVID-19 lab leak theory, but about different kinds of origins such as animal origin in general and that the lab weak theory is only one specific theory among them, then it should be mentioned only in due proportion, which might mean that it should perhaps not be mentioned at all in such a small paragraph. In any case, it must be either not included or included in a way that intuitively matches with the context. So, my point is that, first, there must be a consensus about whether or not the COVID-19 lab leak theory should be mentioned and, if the consensus is that it should be mentioned. then the phrase should be about the COVID-19 lab leak theory without hiding it under a piped link. Putting it in another way, the first question that must be answered is whether we want to mention the COVID-19 lab leak theory at all. If we want to mention it, then we should not hide it under a non intuitive piped link. Dominic Mayers (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Regarding a link with the current consensus statement, I'd suggest that the only appropriate wl would be to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 instead (though it's the See Also for the section, so it might just not require a blue link here). I'm removing the link until there's consensus to directly mention here. If the consensus item changes, I think we'll need some kind of piping to make the sentence flow, but it should be a direct mention of "leaked from the WIV" or "a lab leak" in that case. If there's desire to update consensus item 14, we should do that directly first. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Here in this diff you removed the link that is the subject of this RFC. Seems somewhat odd to edit text that is subject of an RFC during the RFC. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with this. Even if it seems that a consensus is emerging, one must wait after the RfC is closed before making edits that can render obsolete its description. Besides, until a RfC is closed, there is always a possibility that the comments go into a different direction. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  Something being under an RfC does not mean the article needs to be frozen in the previous version. I'd argue that, entirely disregarding item 14; the link as it stood was misleading and quite WP:SURPRISE (a reader looking for "alternative origin scenarios" would be far better served with a link to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 or/and COVID-19 misinformation#Misinformation regarding virus origin, than for a link singling out one of those alternative scenarios). Now if you add item 14 on top of it, seems rather cut and dry to me. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC

  Sure, it does not have to be frozen because of a RfC, but this link is exactly the issue raised by the RfC. What you are saying is that the answer to the RfC is obvious for you. I think people should propose to close the RfC on that basis and see what happens, not act as if we have already the conclusion of the RfC. Actually, I was going to propose that we close this RfC, because though there might be room to discuss (in a different RfC) whether COVID-19 lab leak theory should be mentioned, I agree that the current piped link is too much like a WP:SURPRISE to be kept. Either we mention it properly or we don't. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  For the record, I don't think COVID-19 lab leak theory should be mentioned in this article. It can only be mentioned in a more focused article that takes the space needed to be truly informative on this issue. But my opinion and the opinion of others about this is irrelevant to the current issue: we cannot act under the assumption that we know the conclusion of the RfC. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  I am not presuming or advocating this edit as the long-term solution, as my final sentence above indicates. My interpretation of the current wording of consensus item #14 Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article is that wikilinking to the lab leak article counts as a mention, and as is typical in RfC discussions the article should maintain a status quo state consistent with previous consensus. I agree we cannot act assuming we know this conclusion of this (or a follow-on) RfC, which is why I believe the article needs to avoid a mention (in the form of a blue link) of the lab leak theory until an RfC concludes it should be included. If there's strong disagreement that a blue link counts as mention I won't edit war over it, but that's my case for the edit. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  The text probably should be left in the article per WP:STATUSQUO. I dont edit this article enough to know how long it was there, but a reasonable guess it has been there for a while. To remove the subject of an RFC in middle of an RFC is WP:TE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  From the sidebar in WP:STATUSQUO: Ultimately, when the main question is whether an article should include the disputed content at all (rather than, e.g., which editor's wording to prefer), policy requires the editors who want to continue to include disputed material to demonstrate that there is a consensus in favor of its inclusion. We have established consensus not to mention this topic. As I said previously, I will not edit war over this if there's a strong view that a wikilink does not count as a mention, but per the above policy I believe I've ensured the article abides by current consensus pending this discussion seeking to change it.

  Here's the diff adding the piped link, pinging X-Editor as the original author. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• agree w/ Bakkster Man--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• The problem has always been one of due weight in relevant sources. I don't see how that has changed. I did a little search on Pubmed for "covid AND origin", and without spending too much time on that, stuff like [1] [2] seems to assume a zoonotic origin; this says that the origin is uncertain, but the uncertainty does not appear to be "zoonotic vs lab leak", but "which animal did it come from and how exactly". This doesn't appear to be a dramatic change from the papers listed here (including the latest paper which seems to have studied this particular topic in-depth, the review by Holmes et al. about 6 months ago; which categorically rejects the lab-based scenarios). So claims that "the 2020 consensus seems outdated" don't seem accurate, hence, without actual evidence that this has actually changed, I don't see the point of this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  This RFC doesnt address if a scientific consensus change has occurred in the scientific community. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Dominic Mayers and the proposal, in as much that the wording of the piped link was not appropriate, and that if the consensus is to include a link to COVID-19 lab leak theory that this link should be explicit and the theory directly mentioned in the text. However, I agree with Bakkster Man that, given the broad-brush coverage in this article, the most appropriate link is to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 which then introduces the broad range of theories. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  09:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• Bakkster Man's argument generally makes sense to me. XOR'easter (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
• I think in general Bakkster Man is right about this. The mention is mostly concerning alternative origins in general, of which the lab leak is one among many theories. The investigations article also covers the lab leak in detail, with links to it in several places. Nobody is going to get lost here. They will find what they are looking for, and that is the primary purpose of Wikipedia. To preference the Lab leak theory above all others in a wiki link like this would be inappropriate. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Jtbobwaysf's proposal per Dominic Mayers's dispassionate assessment. The new sources discussed in Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#Lab_leak_consensus are also relevant. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  administrative comment: The bot was able to archive this discussion because the RFC had been closed automatically after 30 days with no further input. Currently you've only unarchived the RFC, but not actually reopened it. - 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

  FWIW, if you are looking to change the consensus #14, I think your goals may be better served with a fresh RfC. Summarizing the previous discussion as an uninvolved editor:

  OP said that the subject of the RFC is really the piped link, and it looks like there was broad agreement that it was WP:SUBMARINE: the link and article text did not correspond, edits were needed to remove WP:SURPRISE.

  Jtbobwaysf's proposal was this diff which would keep the link and change the text to reflect the link target. I don't see anyone else supporting that suggestion. I do see some procedural complaint regarding an edit that removed the link (reverting to bare text) before discussion was over, but in any case Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 was subsequently proposed as a better target for the piped link, i.e. keep the preexisting text and change the link to better suit the text, without giving undue weight to one single possibility out of a range of other possible "alternative origins". This proposal gained the support of multiple editors, and has been implemented with no further objections being raised in the two months since.

  The author who originally added the piped link was pinged in the discussion, and has not responded even though they are actively editing elsewhere.

  This should resolve the issue of the misleading piped link, construed narrowly.

  The question of whether lab leak theory should be mentioned was left unresolved. However, the general agreement seems to be: even if consensus #14 were to be changed, any mention of the lab leak theory should be done properly and directly, not be concealed behind a piped link or misleading in some other way.

  So, to borrow from someone else above: there might be room to discuss (in a different RfC) whether COVID-19 lab leak theory should be mentioned -- but that is best done as a fresh RfC, with proposals that may include concrete suggestions for new text to be added to the article, that would cover the subject in a direct, explicit manner. - 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

  @ScrumptiousFood do not unarchive discussions without a good reason. I'm re-archiving this. If you want to continue it, a new RFC would be in order. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

  I don't like you barking orders at me. Section 8 of WP:ARCHIVE says not to unarchive threads that have been closed. I think the new WHO report is a good reason to continue this discussion for a more days before closing. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  ARCHIVE says "effectively closed", which a nearly 2 month stale discussion is probably safely described as. Probably the best route is allow this discussion to stay archived, and open a new thread with a link, as the referenced section suggests. Especially if you think the discussion should focus the SAGO report, instead of mostly discussing pre-SAGO content. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Discrimination section should mention the unvaccinated

The discrimination section should mention the discrimination faced by unvaccinated people.

Amnesty International calls for non-discrimination against the unvaccinated in Italy: https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/don-t-discriminate-against-the-unvaccinated-amnesty-international-tells-italy-1.5742029

The Lancet, "COVID-19: stigmatising the unvaccinated is not justified": https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67362102243-1/fulltext 204.191.243.35 (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

An attempt was made. I used reuters instead of CTV. SmolBrane (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Y

"The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of zoonotic origin"

That statement is far too strong, and any consensus has changed. There are many calls for a full investigation. It is also unclear what "Zoonotic" actually means -- does it include infections by lab workers who visted the cave? I would suggest the following (with references to be added)

The virus originated in Horseshoe bats, probably from southern China. It is unclear how it jumped from bats to humans, and then to Wuhan in central China. One possibility is that it infected wild or farmed animals that were traded in the Huanan Seafood Market. Another is that a researcher that works in Wuhan became infected while studying the bats, and brought the disease back to Wuhan. A third possibility is that the virus was being actively manipulated at the [Wuhan Institute of Virology] and accidentally escaped. There is no dispositive evidence for any of these theories, and there have been calls for an independent investigation.

Tuntable (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

With call for ‘raw data' and lab audits, WHO chief pressures China on pandemic origin probe

https://www.science.org/content/article/who-chief-sharpens-call-china-further-help-probe-origin-pandemic

2A02:2F0B:B20D:2700:3002:E73D:4A22:6236 (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

please go to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Y

Color error in map of deaths by country

In the map about confirmed deaths by 100 000 population, is not Brazil the wrong color, namely purple? The number is 312 while the purple range is 100 - 280. Unless I have misunderstood something, shouldn't Brazil be marked red: 280 - 500? Ribidag (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. 2A02:AB04:2C2:E300:B94A:D163:417:F958 (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Living with COVID 19 Section

Since I can't edit I think it should be removed altogether. There are many sections in this whole article where it describes the long term affects and that would be in itself living with it. Just a thought. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

'Living with COVID-19' does appear to be a specific strategy employed by some jurisdictions although the article has an identity crisis and that is affecting its usefulness here, not to mention the recent divergence with 'Endemic phase of COVID-19'. Nonetheless it is a strategy, mentioned in the strategy section, and should be linked on this article in some fashion, so I personally am not removing it at this time. SmolBrane (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Would love to hear what others think is there a place I can take this for further discussion? JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Lead section

I'm wondering whether it would be appropriate to term COVID-19 an "ongoing global pandemic" in the lead instead of simply "a global pandemic"? While otherwise trivial, it could help establish clarity over the timing, and would allow for a clearer transition into past tense when the pandemic is over. This might have been brought up before, but I haven't been around frequently, so I'm not sure. Augend (drop a line) 12:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It was in the lead, until recently. I've re-added, as to the best of my knowledge the WHO still considers it as such, so the removal without a reliable citation saying it has ended is inappropriate. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring "ongoing global" to the lead. I agree it should remain in present tense unless the WHO no longer considers it an ongoing/current pandemic. --89.243.125.209 (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Y

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 July 2022

change:

The novel virus was first identified from an outbreak in Wuhan, China, in December 2019.

to:

The novel virus was first identified from an outbreak in Wuhan, China. It was discovered on November 17, 2019 and reported to WHO on December 31, 2019.

Thank you. KSAWikipedian (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The authors of this paper appear to have misinterpreted the source paper for their introduction. The only mention of November 17th in the cited paper appears to be that An Addendum to this article was published on 17 November 2020, and they've misinterpreted it as the original paper having been written 17 November of the prior year. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. This is already covered in significant detail in the article below. The current language seems fine as a summary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Why is a part of the lead written in past tense?

The last paragraph of the lead, which begins with "The pandemic triggered severe social and economic disruption around the world....", is written in the past tense whereas the previous paragraphs in the lead are written in present tense. Why is this? I know COVID-19 is not causing as much social and economic disruption around the world as it used to, but the way this part of the lead is written somewhat suggests the pandemic has ended (which is obviously untrue). 89.243.125.209 (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe the logic is that the trigger (not the pandemic) is an instantaneous event in time; it occurs and then it ends. Using the present perfect tense may convey the idea better. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I fully agree that using the present perfect tense would be better. --89.243.125.209 (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you also edit this section of the lead "The pandemic raised issues of racial and geographic discrimination, health equity, and the balance between public health imperatives and individual rights" to say "The pandemic has raised issues of racial and geographic discrimination, health equity, and the balance between public health imperatives and individual rights"? This also needs the present perfect tense. --89.243.125.209 (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Start Date of Pandemic

I don't know if this is necessary but could the start date in the table be changed to March 11, 2020. That is when pandemic was declared. I am aware that the virus around before that date. Cwater1 (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

not certain its needed(in the infobox)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 July 2022

There are two groups of sentences in the Deaths subsection that have the same information with slightly different wording, relying on two different articles from the BBC. I would propose that one of them be kept, with the two sources linked at its end.

• In May 2022, the WHO estimated the number of excess deaths to be 14.9 million compared to 5.4 million reported COVID-19 deaths, with the majority of the unreported 9.5 million deaths believed to be direct deaths due the virus, rather than indirect deaths. Some deaths were because people with other conditions could not access medical services.
• In May 2022 the World Health Organization estimated that COVID has caused just under 15 million excess deaths worldwide. The virus directly caused most of these deaths but some were because people with other conditions could not access medical services.

The first seems to be better expressed, and is also included in the main paragraph, while the second is below the rest of the section in its own paragraph. KiraLiz1 | she/her 14:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

to request you should place appropriate template above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I copied the template from the other request on this page. KiraLiz1 | she/her 17:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done P1221 (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Change in policy

Seems the US now has a change in policy here. Wonder if other major countries have a change in policy? If yes, probably would include at least in the 2022 history section, as we can all see the pandemic seems to be winding down (not covered here COVID-19_pandemic#2022. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

That's perfect content for COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. There are around 200 countries in the world. Most don't follow the US "lead". All have had evolving, different policies since the start of the pandemic. I don't think there is any universal change that can yet be written about. HiLo48 (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Y

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 August 2022

Can you please put in a table comparing this pandemic to other pandemics? 68.187.13.55 (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

well a simple link to List of epidemics could be enough IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

We have a link in the opening paragraph linking to it already. MartinezMD (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done

Huanan Market was the source

Two papers published in the journal Science say the Huanan Market was the source. This is what I have seen, though maybe Science would be considered the actual source. I don't want to do this myself because there might be some controversy.

This information should go under "2019" following "Official Chinese sources claimed that the early cases were mostly linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, which also sold live animals.[194] However, in May 2020, CCDC director George Gao indicated the market was not the origin (animal samples had tested negative).[195]". — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

To date, we've aimed to be pretty consistent about using high quality secondary sources on the topic, with few exceptions. While Science is certainly high quality and the kind of source worth discussing whether it is exceptional enough to include (as opposed to smaller, lower quality journals from unrelated fields), I'd recommend that Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 would be the ideal place to start that discussion, where enough detail and context is less likely to be considered WP:UNDUE. If and when it's deemed noteworthy for that article, we could discuss whether it's noteworthy for this broader article as well. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad I asked then.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Y

The Key findings in the latest study of 'The Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the COVID-19 pandemic',Published:September 14, 2022, might be relevant.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)01585-9/fulltext

'The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains unknown. There are two leading hypotheses: that the virus emerged as a zoonotic spillover from wildlife or a farm animal, possibly through a wet market, in a location that is still undetermined; or that the virus emerged from a research-related incident, during the field collection of viruses or through a laboratory-associated escape. Commissioners held diverse views about the relative probabilities of the two explanations, and both possibilities require further scientific investigation. Identification of the origin of the virus will help to prevent future pandemics and strengthen public trust in science and public authorities.' 2A02:A210:3044:1F00:39C3:4290:A6DB:CCB5 (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Pandemic or endemic disease?

Now that regulations have been eased across the world, and epidemiologists from the CDC have declared that the virus is "here to stay" (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/11/health/virus-cdc-guidelines.html), at what point does this topic cease to be classified as a pandemic? What are the criteria for removing it from the 'ongoing' section on the front page? There are many other ongoing diseases in this world that are here to stay. Mtedwar3 (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

good point (however more editors should chime in, and several references to this endemic state would need to be introduced...IMO)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Probably when the WHO says so. The CDC's news briefing comment on 'here to stay' isn't very scientific, the word endemic never appears in this NYT article or what I believe is the primary source [3]. So if the CDC thinks COVID is here to stay, it should fairly soon be regarded as endemic. But we need secondary sources to observe it. There is indeed a section and article on COVID endemicity on this article which suffices for now. SmolBrane (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Understood. But what is the criteria for removing it from the 'ongoing' section on the front page? It has been 'ongoing' since 2020, what other topics have been in that section for nearly 3 years? Mtedwar3 (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Same criteria as above. When it's endemic it will be past the pandemic stage. MartinezMD (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there a wikipedia standard that says all pandemics must be permanently listed on the front page until determined to be endemic? Was the US war in Afghanistan listed as 'ongoing' on the front page for 20 years? My question is what other topics have been in the ongoing section for nearly 3 years? Mtedwar3 (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

You're in the wrong section to discuss the front page. See Talk:Main_Page MartinezMD (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I cannot post on that page as it appears to be limited access for only certain users to post (unless I am mistaken). Furthermore, you have not addressed any of my questions, you are just using the typical bureaucratic tactic of red-tape deflection after initially attempting to address my questions but failing to answer any of them accurately. Mtedwar3 (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

What question was not answered that is applicable to this page? Your first question was already answered - when WHO or other appropriate agency says it's endemic rather than pandemic. Then you asked specifically what topics were ongoing in the main page, so I referred you to the main page talk page. You will be able to post there when you are not considered a new user. I believe it's 10 edits, so you are close to approval. MartinezMD (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I asked about if there is a Wikipedia standard that says all pandemics must be permanently listed on the front page until declared to be endemic. You just referred to whether or not it's declared to be endemic or not which wasn't really the crux of the follow-up question. There were two points to my initial post, and you only addressed the first part. Mtedwar3 (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

MartinezMD seems to have answered that above,thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Y

COVID 19

The COVID-19 pandemic, also known as the coronavirus pandemic, is an ongoing global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The novel virus was first identified from an outbreak in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. Attempts to contain it there failed, allowing the virus to spread to other areas of China and later worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak a public health emergency of international concern on 30 January 2020 and 2409:4051:4E9E:A23B:A381:37B7:444C:56D7 (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

N is there a specific request (edit)...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Herd immunity and Great Barrington Declaration

@MrOllie and others please, my linking was reverted; how is this link SYNTH? The Great Barrington Declaration has the most content regarding herd immunity, these articles should be linked. Not as an endorsement, just to unify content for the benefit of our readers. The severe deprecation of herd immunity on the GBD article warrants some direction from this article. SmolBrane (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Failed at my ping @MrOllie:. SmolBrane (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The section is about efforts in 2021 and onward to reach herd immunity through vaccination. This is not the same thing as the Great Barrington Declaration, which was a proposal to simply drop restrictions before vaccinations were available so as to reach herd immunity though infections. But you should know this, we have been discussing it at Talk:Great Barrington Declaration. MrOllie (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll add that notability isn't necessarily a two-way street. An obvious example is fringe topics, where the fringe belief requires reference to the mainstream to put it into context, but the mainstream topic article may not include any mention of the small fringe. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

N

The page explaining this is WP:ONEWAY. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

This is helpful thanks. SmolBrane (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Biden pandemic is over

President of U.S. said on 09/19/2022 that pandemic is over. Change from present to 09/19/2022. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/19/biden-pandemic-over-covid-team-response-00057649 64.53.212.155 (talk) 04:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

the CDC or WHO would be a better source--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Right, same as before, the US president (nor any national public health body) is not the authority on categorizations that are by definition global in nature. Might be notable for Endemic phase of COVID-19#United_States. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

N

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 October 2022

I want to edit this page to submit some of my knowledge that I have to submit in it about the pandemic. JYOTHSNA UYYALA (talk) 06:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

In the pandemic time the public suffered a lot about their work and issues of grocery.They didn't have any other alternate option to buy groceries after all going out.But,severe dangerous virus outbreak is there.So,that everyone has grow their own vegetables at their home.This helped them to increase their immunity for the fighting with virus. JYOTHSNA UYYALA (talk) 06:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Long COVID

It's fantastic to see this as a GA nominee! One point which may need addressing before a GA review is started:

Long COVID isn't mentioned at all in the article. Surely this would warrant a short section, or at least a paragraph, given that it affects like 100 million people worldwide? (I've just started the long process of bringing long COVID to GA). Again, great work here! Femke (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Y

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2022

COVID-19 pandemic 2019-2022 the end of worldwide Dylan56768 (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2022 (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. MadGuy7023 (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying you want to add that the COVID-19 pandemic is over? If so, you need to provide reliable source(s) that say that the pandemic is over. ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theano Andreia (talk • contribs) 01:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing

As the subject of the article becomes a historic event, the overreliance on news sources from 2020 needs to be revisited and content rewritten based on retrospective, scholarly sources, which may not have the same coverage and emphasis as breaking news content. (t · c) buidhe 02:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

yes agree, will look to PudMed and other med sources --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Vaccine section

I suggest that the section on vaccines should include a sentence or two about the introduction of vaccines against variants, such as the bivalent (original + omicron) ones now in use in the US and Canada. To facilitate this change, it might be better if the section was also moved to a later position in the higher-level section containing it, after the section on variants. (Please make any comments here; don't write to this IP address.) --174.89.144.126 (talk) 06:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

as the GA process goes along, we will see what is needed, thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

"Transition to endemic phase" as a level-2 section

Two months ago, SmolBrane added a new level-2 section, "Transition to endemic phase", linking to an article they had recently created. When I checked in on this article yesterday, I noticed it and attempted to merge it into the history section. My rationale is that this information is just an aspect of the recent history of the pandemic, and as such it should go in the history section. (And indeed, it's a much better way to talk about recent history than the current proseline in that section.) SmolBrane reverted me, restoring the section. Could others weigh in? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I think we could probably merge into history, and if the user wants a name, we could add 1-2 word names for each of the history periods

*2019 China

*2020 Spread

*2021 Global

*2022 Endemic

If we cannot agree on the one word summaries (seems unlikely) then maybe just add it to 2022. I dont agree that it must have its own section. Its pretty wp:obvious to everyone that the pandemic is more or less finished. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Its pretty wp:obvious to everyone that the pandemic is more or less finished. This is a pretty egregious misapplication of the MOS. The style guide doesn't trump WP:NOR, which "it's obvious to me the pandemic is over" is. If anything, WP:OBVIOUS tells us we should explicitly state that the WHO considers the pandemic to be ongoing, since it's not necessarily obvious to the reader. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

If the WHO drags their feet too much with regard to other jurisdictions, we may have to essentially de-prioritize their commentary. We aren't there yet, but it's important to discuss steelmen. I can imagine a circumstance where a majority of non-MEDRS sources could consider COVID endemic based on political or sociological or economic decisions, and it would be our job(likely) to defer to that observation. SmolBrane (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that being endemic in some locations and globally recognized as a pandemic are not mutually exclusive things. See Smallpox#Eradication for a similar example where it was nationally eradicated, but endemic elsewhere.

But my real concern is with the misuse of the style guide to suggest content decisions are allowed to be based on original research. That's the kind of thing that makes collaborative editing impossible, and potentially leads to sanctions. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you elaborate please? Where is the misuse of the style guide, and where is the OR? SmolBrane (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The comment by Jtbobwaysf above linked to the Manual of Style explanatory essay WP:OBVIOUS, in an apparent attempt to misrepresent it as supporting the WP:OR claim that "everyone" knows "the pandemic is more or less finished". As my above comment indicates, WP:OBVIOUS actually recommends that we may need to reiterate that the pandemic is indeed ongoing according to the WHO, because the avoidance of doubt through providing this context is more important than leaving the context unstated in an attempt to use less prose. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed; apologies--my brain is extra small today. What 'everyone knows' is anecdotal and OR for sure, I guess my point was simply that if those anecdotes aggregate into political decisions and coverage in secondary sources, we may have to change our tone. SmolBrane (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure there's a discussion of notability and due weight to be had, but WP:OBVIOUS is very much not it. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

It's obvious it is ongoing in an endemic fashion. It seems the WHO seems to dispute that, but given the coverage on both sides we can include the controversy. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, that's not what WP:OBVIOUS is about. I think you're possibly looking for WP:BLUESKY, but even there if there's a "controversy" than referring to it in terms of 'obviousness' is counterproductive. Again, this gives the impression of WP:OR (Its pretty wp:obvious to everyone that the pandemic is more or less finished apparently elevates personal opinion over the global public health organization in charge of such a declaration), instead of pointing to reliable sources which dispute the WHO's categorization and how we describe that dispute in a WP:DUE manner.

To be clear, I welcome any clarification on what you mean, but the above reference to WP:OBVIOUS remains troubling to me. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure History is the right spot for something bordering on speculation for future policies (E.g. the Human Genomics article).

There's already a Living with COVID-19 subsection, and these two topics are so overlapping that it seems to be a bit odd to have both in separate sections. I get that it's two distinct topics - one on the epidemiology of the disease, the other public health strategies - but the latter stems from the former. I'd like to see us try and combine the two with either a short bit of prose, or with transclusion from the two articles so we're not having to maintain both. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Living with COVID is a policy in the UK and has a fair bit of sourcing; it was the article I spun the endemic phase article off of. I had previously suggested renaming that article to make it a subset of endemicity, essentially, which may still be the right choice(edit--that is to say--living with covid is a subset of endemicity). Endemicity broadly construed is not historical and its dueness and significance warrants a section; regardless--both endemic phase of COVID 19 and Living with COVID-19 would constitute a POV fork if they are not correctly summarized on this article as per WP:SUMMARY. Just expanding my thoughts here, not trying to make a point for/against bakkster man's comments here. I get the impression from a variety of COVID articles that it's kind of difficult to separate the timelines from the sections and how to contrain such timelines and sections. SmolBrane (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this is part of the root issue: is Living With COVID actually a subset of endemicity, or an orthogonal idea? Depending on which part of the concept you look it, it could be both. I wonder how much of this is just a result of trying to do too much with current (and politically charged) events, and could use a bit of WP:TENYEARTEST applied. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Noting here that Living with COVID-19 and Endemic phase of COVID-19 have been boldly merged. SmolBrane (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Crystal issue

Suggestions on how to deal with this sentence COVID-19_pandemic#Transition_to_endemic_phase:

"While the COVID-19 pandemic is still considered ongoing by the World Health Organization, it may become endemic in the future"

This sentence is a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Maybe we need to restate it that some scientists consider it already endemic? Or some other suggestion? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I have made a change, please comment if anyone wants. The intent was to keep the meaning intact, if I didnt please feel free to change it. I also got rid of the one sentence breaks, we dont need one sentence paragraphs...Lets be brief on a long article like this. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I reverted, I don't see a WP:CRYSTAL concern. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced... Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. I would like to reiterate my concern from above, about your incorrectly citing policy when justifying edits. I strongly suggest you voluntarily seek consensus for such edits prior to making them in the future (for the avoidance of doubt, 4.5 hours is insufficient to presume agreement through lack of comment). Bakkster Man (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

A couple things—firstly I see no issue with bold edits; this article has enough protection preventing collaboration as it is. Secondly, Living with COVID-19 was merged without dispute into Endemic phase of COVID-19 which I believe means that any de facto statements surround 'new normal', 'here to stay' and sentiments of this nature demonstrate endemicity unless editors can prove otherwise in a way that warrants exclusion. I have therefore added the recent clearly DUE comments by Tedros repeated in reliable secondary sources. If we are in a good position to “end the pandemic”, this is a statement suggesting endemicity for our purposes. The statement that COVID “may become endemic in the future” is not stated in the Al Jazeera source cited and it is CRYSTAL. If the WHO wants to POV fork with itself, then we can just quote them. SmolBrane (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I see no issue with bold edits, and neither do I in general. My concern is what I feel was the apparent continued misinterpretation of the WP:PAG being cited, alongside bold edits or not.

this article has enough protection preventing collaboration as it is. Page protection typically makes consensus building easier by allowing editors to focus on that, rather than fixing vandalism. I'm confused why you think page protection makes collaboration any more difficult here.

Secondly, Living with COVID-19 was merged without dispute into Endemic phase of COVID-19 which I believe means that any de facto statements surround 'new normal', 'here to stay' and sentiments of this nature demonstrate endemicity unless editors can prove otherwise in a way that warrants exclusion. This is a weak WP:OTHERCONTENT argument. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Page protection disables editing and it's not apparent to me that marginalizing editors with arbitrary edit counts is better than the risks of vandalism. I very deeply value the collaborative nature of wiki.

(OTHERCONTENT)If Tedros makes very DUE comments around the "end in sight", we need to put those comments somewhere. There is no space right now--that exists between pandemic and endemicity which was confirmed with the deletion of Living with COVID-19. This is not an othercontent argument; it is an observation that DUE comments like this need to be explicitly categorized by us, since experts seem unwilling to use epidemiological terms. SmolBrane (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

If you really think page protection should be removed, that should be another discussion to get consensus to ask the admins to lift it. Having been editing here during the worst parts of disruption that caused the original semi-protect and upgrade to ECP, I think you may be underestimating how draining the vandalism was, and how much it interfered with consensus building. I'll also note, this Talk page is not protected (like several of the most disrupted COVID pages) in order to permit this kind of consensus building on Talk. Any brand new IP can participate in this discussion.

If Tedros makes very DUE comments around the "end in sight", we need to put those comments somewhere. I very much agree, the comments added are notable, and I agree with their being in the article in the current location. I'm only opposed to the idea that another page's merge means 'de facto endemicity'. Especially since the original dispute was over how we paraphrased a comments. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

This edit reverted and re-added WP:CRYSTAL. Please fix the crystal issue. Whatever localconsensus is reached on this page does not over-ride the crystal issue. Find another way to state it. You have two editors here noting the issue, maybe some others will chime in with support for your position, but if not, be prepared to fix it. Or we can run an RFC. What do you prefer? As for me, I dont have a specific position on how it is stated, as long as it matches the source and is not a future speculation, which it is now. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it got cleaned up. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I again don't think WP:CRYSTAL is what you mean to cite. The claim that we are in a "position to end the pandemic" is just as inapplicable to CRYSTAL as it "may become endemic in the future" is. CRYSTAL is concerned with our own predictions of the future, not with "reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field" making notable predictions or forecasts.

In an attempt to move things forward, I think your root concern is better described as looking for a better source with a closer portrayal in the article (WP:V, and WP:RS). I thought the previous prose was a reasonable paraphrase, but the new source is better, and has fewer questions around whether our prose matches the source with the quote. I agree, it's an improvement. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

"May become endemic in the future" was our words though, it didn't appear in the source, in a "position to end the pandemic" is a quote from Tedros. Isn't that the difference? SmolBrane (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm saying our dispute is probably more about whether a direct quote or a paraphrase were better, as in MOS:QUOTE, and whether our paraphrase was accurate to the source or needed rewording. Either way, the more recent source is better than the previous one for directly addressing the topic. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Refocus

There's been some good discussion here, but I'd like to refocus and get some further input on the opening question. To me, developments in the course of an event, even if recent/ongoing, belong in the history section of that event's article. And a transition to a new phase of the pandemic is by definition such an event. Do others support nesting this content under the level-2 history section? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Which content are you proposing nesting under history? Because the transition we're talking about is not recent or ongoing, it's expected to happen in the future. Until it actually happens, I don't think it's appropriate wholesale in the History section. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

For content that's merely speculating, even if it's sourced and thus not fully crystal, I think it's due for only a sentence or few, not a full section. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree it's due, which is why it's in the section it's currently in, and has a dedicated article where more detail can be given. I'm just not sure it's History yet. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm all for agreement, but if I think it's due for a sentence and you think it's due for four paragraphs and an image (the current length of the section), then we're not exactly on the same page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I would find a more specific proposal easier to comment on. Right now, I think the two sentences in Transition to endemic phase with the link to the main article Endemic phase of COVID-19 is appropriate quantity and placement. There are only five sentences in the History > 2020 section currently, and even as just 1 of 6 sentences I worry this unofficial speculation (I'd have a very different opinion to an official WHO recategorization) would be UNDUE in the recap of the entire year (think WP:10YT). The current section discusses the European Omicron death toll, two new WHO recommended treatments, an updated estimate of global infections, an update to the global death toll, and the B.4 and B.5 sub-variants. I don't see the above sources and discussion fitting better in the History section, it's just not nearly as notable as the other topics of discussion, and I'd suggest not even close enough to have a reasonable argument supporting it. Maybe I've missed something, please let me know. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

This was the edit I made that was reverted, and that I came to talk here seeking consensus to restore. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

In that case, I stand by what I said above. That's significantly more weight than I think is appropriate in this context. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with anything from zero weight up to a modest amount. The main thing I care about is that we not introduce a new level-2 section for something that's fundamentally not a level-2 aspect of the pandemic. Just looking at the table of contents, it seems clear to me that "History," "Etymology," "Disease," and "Impact" are broad, high-level subtopics. "Transition to endemic phase" is not. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that the threshold for a heading is to be as broad as the examples you give. "Transition to endemic phase" feels similarly as broad as "Information dissemination", the section immediately above.

I remain unconvinced we need to move this under a level 2 heading, but in the interest of consensus building I'd recommend one of them further down the page so we don't give WP:UNDUE prominence of placement. Other Responses and Impact being the two options, and it feels to me like the bottom section remains the best option. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

agree w/ Bakkster Man--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I oppose minimizing the effective end of the pandemic to below level 2... at the moment this means the Endemic phase section. It's a bit clunky but until sources commenting on the end of the pandemic have a clear home other than 'endemic phase' I think it's best to keep it the way it is. The section has seen three significant additions in four days(Tedros' remarkable statements which probably has dozens of citations, the image, and the Indonesian development). SmolBrane (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The bigger issue--the end of the pandemic

Is there going to be an article on the end of the pandemic? I can see how endemicity might be too specific here, but the end of the pandemic is approaching and there should be a level 2 heading for this. I'm sure many sources will emerge regarding this and many may not use the word endemic. SmolBrane (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

When the pandemic indeed ends, maybe, if it's not part of this article (see: Spanish flu#End of the pandemic). But it hasn't ended, not yet. Not according to the WHO which we followed as the only entity with authority to declare it as such (pandemics being, by definition, global).

When we talk about WP:CRYSTAL, this kind of speculation is what we're really meant to avoid. Endemic management methods, and the locations engaging in them, is a current event that seems to justify its own article. The end of this pandemic doesn't yet in my view. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Its not crystal to discuss notable references to the end of the pandemic. For example 'Biden said the pandemic is over' on Sept 15, 2022. But as you noted we would not state that in wikivoice. There is an increasing stream of policy changes and statements, and certainly we can cover them here and on other articles. But it does seem that this article serves to summarize other articles Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, where CRYSTAL would apply in my view is creating an article titled End of the COVID-19 Pandemic prior to said end. With the notable local changes in how the outbreak is managed and notable forecasting of the end mentioned in our current section. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

It won't take many countries' statements about the end of the pandemic to generate DUEness on the creation of an article. I'm hoping to pre-empt this to avoid a POV split(with endemic phase) and the related time wasting of editors. As I said further up the page, the WHO dragging their feet won't affect commentary in secondary sources--or indeed the comments by someone like Joe Biden. The WHO doesn't have veto power against all the other sources, broadly construed. SmolBrane (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

When all the other sources, broadly construed are in agreement, then we'll have something to deal with. Right now you're just arguing hypotheticals. It's too soon. MrOllie (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm just saying--once the sources emerge, an article can be created and it likely won't be even nominated for deletion, like my creation of the Endemic phase of COVID-19. We can be proactive here--the situation went from "end is in sight" - WHO to "the pandemic is over" - Biden awfully quickly. SmolBrane (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

We can be proactive here... Not necessarily. See: WP:NOTLEAD Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. What we do is find neutral ways of presenting them.

I don't understand the concern that the endemic phase article would become a POV fork. If the article is clearly focused on local public policy and behavior, then it's entirely consistent with this article's deference to the authoritative declarations of the WHO regarding the international status of the disease. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no such "all the sources" requirement. It only needs to meet WP:DUE and of course there is nothing in DUE that says all the sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

It's a question of what the WP:BESTSOURCES say and to meet the threshold for an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. And WP:MEDRS of course. It'll be obvious when it happens. Bon courage (talk) 07:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Do any other pandemics in history have an "end of ..." article? There's not much to say. Currently for COVID-19 it's a fringe notion and all we can say is that various people (mostly politicians) have asserted the pandemic "over", while actual scientists have snorted contemptuously at such fatuousness. If and when the WHO/CDC/etc declare the pandemic "over" we could just record that alongside reaction which was noteworthy. Having an article before that would be WP:PROFRINGE (/WP:CRYSTAL) almost by definition. My concern is any such article now would look like trying to bounce Wikipedia into a fringe stance while implying that the WHO is "dragging its feet"; this is completely arse-about-face – Wikipedia reflects the WP:BESTSOURCES on global health (i.e. the WHO) and puts minority/fringe/unreliable views in that context, not the other way round. Bon courage (talk) 06:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  Do any other pandemics in history have an "end of ..." article? Not that I can see. In addition to my mention of Spanish flu#End of the pandemic, it seems nearly every pandemic article simply covers the end within the article. Even one of the most notable examples I can think of is a subsection rather than its own article: Smallpox#Eradication, which is also covered in a sub-section of Eradication of infectious diseases. There appears to be no precedent for such an article, let alone a preemptive one. Unless SmolBrane can provide such precedent, or a much stronger argument for why it's absolutely necessary to abide by WP:PAGs, I don't see a reason to discuss further Bakkster Man (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• I think the phrase 'end of the pandemic' is highly charged statement and results in these off-kilter debates, that are somewhat absurd. It is obvious that the pandemic is somehow ongoing in some apparently limited extent (at least in China the reaction to it is still full-on), so for us to project into the future about a potential end (end really means end) is clearly CRYSTAL (this was my earlier objection above), has largely been resolved. Thank you!. Next, is the endemic phase: that appears to maybe be emerging. Very qualified statement I just made. However, it is clearly due to include the notable statements (ideally summarized and not quoted) comprised of notable people stating it is now endemic or theorizing it might be endemic in the future. We also have a couple of editors here that appear to be in the 'die on this hill' mentality to keep this article important. Some of us edit articles and love it when our article is important and the endemic phase of this article tends to write off this one time super-important article to the annuls of history. Let's keep in mind that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and mostly covers the past, and does an amazing job at it. All the reverts on any type of edit (such as the reverts to correct crystal issues) is too much. It is no more than WP:SQS and all the citing of MEDRS ad nauseam is a bit absurd at this point in time, as this article covers the pandemic (that mostly can be described in the past tense at this point in time) and not the disease (which may still exist and all projections seem to indicate it will exist forever, that is how viruses work). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  This is a level 4 vital article and likely always to be "important", even historically. Editors working against this would be a problem. Application of relevant sourcing standards (e.g. WP:MEDRS) cannot be wished away. Please also remember this is WP:NOTAFORUM so personal musing on the state of the pandemic is unhelpful. Bon courage (talk) 08:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

You confirmed my point exactly by citing various policies to support your belief that this article will "always" be important. Good job. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

What even is your point? Are you saying articles on pandemics are not important? Are you also "against" the importance of Spanish flu (also a level 4 vital article)? Big topics make for important articles. Bon courage (talk) 08:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: It is no more than WP:SQS and all the citing of MEDRS ad nauseam is a bit absurd at this point in time, as this article covers the pandemic (that mostly can be described in the past tense at this point in time) and not the disease (which may still exist and all projections seem to indicate it will exist forever, that is how viruses work). It's worth the reminder that "Population data and epidemiology" are WP:BMI that require WP:MEDRS sources, which would seem to include the status of a disease outbreak as pandemic or not. This is part of the substantive argument based in policy, guidelines and conventions that are being made, which by definition mean this isn't a status-quo stonewall. Please drop the WP:STICK. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

History is not BMI. We are not talking about population data or epidemiology that you put in bold for additional weight. Both of those terms are defined in BMI to make it easier the editor to understand how BMI is defined. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Is there any point to this? A change to make to the actual article. If not I suggest closing. The WP:BMI in this article will always require WP:MEDRS and there will be a metric fuckton of it, so what is the issue? Bon courage (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad that you agree we use the definitions in WP:BMI. Speculation about future population data and epidemiology (the study and analysis of the distribution (who, when, and where), patterns and determinants of health and disease conditions in defined population) of the outbreak is not history. WP:BMI also has a clear definition of what non-biomedical history is, including the important caveat that Statements that could still have medical relevance... are still biomedical. So that should settle it. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

the end of the pandemic is approaching and there should be a level 2 heading for this You all are debating whether the end of the pandemic is indeed approaching or not, but even if we were to assume it is, I object to the assumption that we should create a level-2 section for it. The end of a pandemic is the end part of its history, and as such should be part of the history section. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

It is "approaching" (unless one believes that it's an eternal pandemic, which is a WP:FRINGE view I've not come across). Once it happens the whole pandemic will be "historical" so I don't think there would be a History section. Again, articles on pandemics past are useful for inspiration ... Bon courage (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Spanish flu § History. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

A good example of it done wrong IMO (timeline should be lvl 2 and the origins stuff is not "history"). Also see Great Plague of London. Bon courage (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Public Writing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BU Qi Xue (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by BU Qi Xue (talk) 10:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Pandemic vs. Endemic

Is Covid still in Pandemic stage or has it reached endemic stage? For most of the 19tth Century, TB was considered a pandemic, but it became so common, accepted and treatable with vaccine that by the 20th Century it was considered an endemic. Thus it cannot be listed in the list of deadliest Pandemics here with even with billions dead and millions still dying every year form it: [4]. The Black Death bubonic Pandemic existed in the 14th Century, but while the plague is over bubonic plague disease still exists as an endemic. Covid is still there much like Bubonic Plague, TB, HIV, Measle, and so on, its infectious and deadly, but it is also treatable like the others and had a vaccine, and people are recovering. Many sources are now also referring to it as an endemic that people have to live with just like past pandemics that eventually became endemics: [5], [6]. So do we have to wait till WHO announces it as an endemic? When past pandemics happened, like the Buonic Plague, WHO's announcement didn't matter as it didn't exist then. I have no objection if it stays as a pandemic, it is all fine, but all I am asking is when can it be considered an endemic. Is it after WHO's declaration? if so I am fine with it, but if any other criteria exists, please specify them here. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be wait for a WHO recategorization, as they're essentially the only global reliable source on the topic. Alongside noting that some locations consider it endemic, which doesn't necessarily change the global status of pandemic. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

yes, there several countries (governments) that now consider it endemic Mexico, Philippines, Spain, Vietnam. or poised like Indonesia --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Countries given coverage in the political impact section

Some of the countries given coverage in the political impact section, such as Italy, seem to be a holdover from the pandemic's early days and/or reflective of systemic bias.

I continue to feel that, overall, this article suffers from geographic systemic bias, both in the national responses section (e.g. for North America, we have a paragraph on Canada, pop. 38M, but not Mexico, pop. 128M and with a higher per capita death rate) and more generally (e.g. note the countries included in the charts). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The english speaking country bias is common in english wikipedia (not saying it is right). Please suggest what you propose. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I suppose the GA review is a good time to address this, and any stale WP:RECENTISM/WP:10YT is probably a good target as well. On a quick look of the national sections, I suspect we are talking more about a scalpel than a sledgehammer, room for tweaks rather than entire paragraphs needing to be deleted. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we take a more systematic approach to deciding how to give different regions due weight. The first step of that would be agreeing on which factors are relevant — population? cases? deaths? unusual circumstances? etc. — and then which countries should be allocated space based on those factors. We tried this early on — see current consensus item #5 — but at that point things were changing so much that it became outdated quickly and no one enforced it or went through the proper channels to modify it. I think there's better potential to succeed now that the situation is more stable. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree w/ Bakkster Man--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tom (LT) (talk · contribs) 04:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, nice to meet you, I will be taking up this review. I'll be reviewing this article against the six good article criteria (WP:GA?). As way of introduction, I mostly edit anatomy and medical articles. By way of background I've reviewed something in the range 75 - 100 articles including some prominent, complex and popular articles, amongst these China, Female genital mutilation, and Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I will take my time for this complex and controversial topic and I realise this is GA3 so I will be expecting changes based on what has been written in the GA2 review. I will spend a few days examining this article carefully before posting my assessment and as always look forward to a dialogue after if there are no significant issues identified. Cheers, Tom (LT) (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I want to thank you for your experience and knowledge on this and similar subjects. I'd like to make clear whatever amount of edits, adjustments, additional references or for that matter anything you suggest will be answered in a prompt manner, I want to extend to you my thanks for your valuable time, Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• I should add that this article has been copyedited by the guild, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

this article has suffered from a history of censorship, the primarily due to false claims of MEDRS applicability to historical facts. This issue is documented on these talk pages. Until this balance issue can be resolved GA shouldn't be considered. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Preliminary assessment

I must admit this article is a big article to review. It's 300 kb in size and has > 500 references and has 46 talk pages. IT was at one point one of the 50th most viewed articles here and so to summarise, I anticipate many aspects of the article are carefully thought out, sourced or worded.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is clear and the spelling and grammar correct but it could be more concise
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I think so
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	In the main, the references seem to be from reliable sources presented in a standard way. I appreciate the difference between biomedical and historiographical information and take this into account. However, I'll cast a closer eye at this later in the review.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	See above
	2c. it contains no original research.	Seems to represent a standard and encyclopedic position on the presented material
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Despite all the attribution tags on the talk page, I can't see any relating to COVID-19, yet the wording seems very similar. Was there any copying in either direction?
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I'm leaning towards a 'no' for this aspect. See my comments below.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	At the moment leaning towards a 'no'. See my comments below.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	See comments below
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Surprisingly, does seem to be quite stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	I will check this later in the review
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	In the main, the images are relevant and captions. Will examine this in depth later
	7. Overall assessment.

Overall comments

• It's clear that a lot of effort has gone into this humungous article and I expect many sections are the result of careful concensus over the last few years. Many thanks to all the contributors and I recognise your efforts
• I have found it easiest in these complex reviews to make sure I am firmly reviewing against the six GA criteria above
• I also have to answer before I delve into things, as a review, can this article become a GA whilst the pandemic is active? I think so. So long as an article about a current topic isn't changing rapidly day by day (i.e. passes the stability criteria), I think it's possible. In particular when reviewing, I think it's possible to have an article that represents an excellent encyclopedic synopsis of a current event up until the present moment. The GA can be passed with the expectation that it may not be a GA in six months or even a year if things change, however at the time of the review I still think this is possible.
• I do not however think this particular article meets GA criteria and although I think it can be improved to meet those, I don't think it will be in a timeframe that is suitable to put the review on hold. Also (this might be a bit controversial), I am not certain that it would be a complete improvement for this article to be changed in a way that would get it there. I mean in particular that GA nomination reflects an article's encyclopedic nature however this current article, I think, serves a few masters - e.g. it is an extremely highly viewed article so has some content (I think) so that lazy readers don't change articles, it wants to be easy to read and accessible for readers at an approachable reading level and perhaps personally engaging (hence the scattered quotes), and provides some instructional and informative advice that may have helped some of the millions of readers yet am not sure would be the typical phrasing that I would expect in a GA.
• Some specific contents
  • Some parts of this are done, I think, particularly well. I think in particular elements of the worldwide impact section, and the images, give a good summary of the global impact of the pandemic.
  • Regarding scope: the page is very long (300kb). I compared the articles China (361kg), World War 2 (250kb) and Life (161kb) - all broad topics - for comparison and put their sizes here. Also important, I think, is that just reading the article it feels long to read and I think that's because it's not concise enough and some elements are semi duplicated. Whereas the three articles above are quite interesting to read without fatigue.
    • I think one reason is the section on the virus itself is very long. The pandemic article should be about the pandemic and I feel that the information on the disease should actually be placed on the COVID-19 article.
      • Well this was done to give the reader some background on the virus that is causing the pandemic--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Focus: the article has a scattershot focus which I think would make it a good magazine article but is sometimes a bit contextualless as to why particular examples are mentioned. Some randomly extracted ones:
    • "Singapore provided financial support, quarantined, and imposed large fines for those who broke quarantine" (did this not occur in many countries...?), "In February 2022, the Icelandic Ministry of Health lifted all restrictions and adopted a herd immunity approach" (the article later says the disease is endemic in many countries, I'm not sure how this is in fact any difference), "Many such measures were criticised as "hygiene theatre" by Derek Thompson, a staff writer at The Atlantic" (not sure why this is notable enough to include, was Derek Thompson an extremely notable COVID-19 pandemic person?), "The head of cardiology at the University of Arizona said, "My worry is some of these people are dying at home because they're too scared to go to the hospital." (why is this notable enough to include in this article? is this person's feelings representative of an issue notable enough to mention, as stated by a reputable source? Is it undue prominence to include this sort of quote?)
      • Yes the article, like in any other under review, can have certain text adjusted. I believe the usual hold given to GA nominations should have been offered...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Also regarding focus: for better or worse, the article is very heavy with 2019 and 2020 content, which, gosh, feels like an entire epoch ago in history. It is hard to crystalise or substantiate but I do think that this puts lots of weight on initial issues in the early days of the pandemic (where is it from, how to prevent it, the huge day to day impact of quarantine) and covers some of the more recent issues less e.g. the new strains and the change in the symptoms they are causing, the change to endemic nature, the reopening of the world, it is the lingering economic, social isolation, supply shortages and geopolitical impacts that are the current ongoing impacts of the pandemic. I don't think it is right for me to day how this issue should be fixed as that's probably quite complex, only that I identify it as a barrier to this GA review
    • Yes 2019, 2020 have more text because,at this point, this is how the world initially dealt with the pandemic, so it needed more emphasis however some of what you have indicated (not all) could be emphasized in the present, yet another example of an adjustment that would have benefited from a hold ...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Regarding focus: some sections feel in fact too small - particularly regarding misinformation and transition to endemic.
    • Doing so would have made the article even larger, though I suspect the latter will eventually have more text added as warranted by different countries endemic status--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
    • I have done a cursory review of recent scholarly and conventional sources regarding endemic phase and I haven't found anything due that isn't already covered. It may actually be appropriate to collapse the recent decisions by Indonesia and South Korea into the preceding paragraph--that is to say they might be better added to the list accompanying the other countries that have/are transitioning to endemic phase even though that would make the section more brief contrary to the review. I agree with Ozzie that more endemic commentary should be forthcoming. SmolBrane (talk) 06:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
• Neutrality --> I do agree with the commenter on this review. that this article seems to dwell a fair bit on the pandemic from a US point of view by both the amount of mentions of the US, and also the topics that are addressed which I think need to be more neutral and global. Examples: "Those diagnosed with COVID-19 or who believe they may be infected are advised by the CDC to stay home except" (CDC advice is not relevant to a worldwide audience), "On 23 April 2020, NASA reported building, in 37 days, a ventilator which is undergoing further testing" (again, not sure why this is relevant or worthy of mention). "Hundreds of millions of jobs were lost.[417][418] including more than 40 million Americans.[419] According to a report by Yelp, about 60% of US businesses that closed will stay shut permanently.[420]" (not sure why the US gets more mention than other economies and also not sure how to reconcile 60%... "permanently" with the low current unemployment rates
  • Per pure numbers the U.S. has the most fatalities and cases[7], logic dictates it is going to be mentioned more (while a world view, of course is what the article should always indicate)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  I removed the ventilator. I don't think reported deaths is a good metric, given issues with reporting in the global south. That said, I think there are only a few instances of trivia that need removing, like the above, to get a reasonable balance + a bit added to the Africa section. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

[8]Have done that edit as well as many other edits based on suggestions in this review--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• Neutrality --> the writing does at times stray into an instructive style (as above) which is not really an encyclopedic description of the COVID-19 pandemic, which would instead be something like "In March, the CDC had changed / reiterated advice to X". Also, the section on Africa in the worldwide coverage section feels smaller compared with its counterparts
  • The section on Africa can easily be expanded--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

In summary, I have identified some systemic and structural issues with this article that mean it does not meet the GA criteria at present. To get close to GA criteria I think the article needs a very thorough review of prose, needs to be more concise, and needs to be more recent. Yours, Tom (LT) (talk) 11:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

thank you for your review I have gone over the suggestions above, I am of the opinion the standard 7 day hold would have made a difference,

"Putting the article on hold-If you determine that the article could meet the good article criteria if a few issues are fixed and you wish to prescribe an amount of time for these issues to be corrected (generally seven days), you may put the article on hold by doing the following..."

(on the above rate column you indicated neutral or pass in 9 times- I'm certain that those 3 that indicate fail could be handled in a 7 day hold)

• I am not entirely clear what this means ..."although I think it can be improved to meet those, I don't think it will be in a timeframe that is suitable to put the review on hold. Also (this might be a bit controversial), I am not certain that it would be a complete improvement for this article to be changed in a way that would get it there."[9]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. On hold is intended for a 7 day period and I don't think that's suitable for my commentary. In my experience we'd probably have a detailed discussion which would stretch for several weeks, either by me indicating specific sentences or areas and/or with larger structural changes. In the event of detailed discussions, this would stretch over the 7 day duration, and structural changes should not in my opinion be made without some discussion with the other viewers / contributors to this article. Please don't see this as a failure on your or anyone else's part, it just that I don't think this article is ready for GA status. Rome wasn't built in a day and there is no rush to nominate or pass this article; I think it's better that it's done right, and that includes understanding this is a long, complex article with multiple parties that are likely to want to respond to changes along the way.

I'm happy if you'd like to reverse the closure and put this article on hold and get a second opinion, which, if it agrees in general part with the current structure, depth and scope (as compared with my suggestions) I would contribute to by being a bit more specific regarding wording and readability as well as in that case conduct the required review of images and sources. Yours, Tom (LT) (talk) 04:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I thank you for your offer...after having discussed your reply with a fellow editor, I believe it would be best to go over the article once again as there seems to be yet another surge in Europe (one would have to wait to see how/if this surge reaches North America, as well as other parts of the world) therefore, of course incorporate its effects into the current version of the article. I thank you for the time you have invested in your review, and therefore accept (at this point) your result. Depending on the surge I will try again in about a month....Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

new surge?

(after GAN)may need to add info per the following depending how/if a new COVID-19 surge occurs:

• [10] and [11]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 November 2022

I'd like to add the following reference at the end of the last para of the introduction (ending with: The pandemic has raised issues of racial and geographic discrimination, health equity, and the balance between public health imperatives and individual rights.). Here is the reference: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0960085X.2020.1863752. The reference is freely accessible. Thank you. 2601:197:801:FFD0:2869:1918:B15:DA1 (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Why does this source verify that content? As far as I can tell, it does not.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

concur--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Socio-political impact

A good article posted in the National Library of Medicine (from the academic journal Surgical Neurology International) points out how the pharmaceutical industry, and other large corporations, have used the pandemic to establish control and "argument by authority" over science, such as with the pushing of the dangerous and less-than-effective "vaccines" and trying to label and/or censor opposing or contrary views as "misinformation." How can we incorporate this in the article? 108.18.156.124 (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Probably undue. It's essentially one guy's opinion in a low-tier journal. Bon courage (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree on a first look, and think the editor's note here is relevant for the context of the paper. SNI is devoted to publishing the truth. SNI has no characteristics by which it judges papers except by fact-supported information. The COVID-19 pandemic is one that is marked by conflicting and confusing information for the public. The only solution to this problem scientifically is to hear all sides of the issue, so that a reasonable decision can be made... Hence, this independent scientist has discovered known facts which have been suppressed and are emerging in SNI pages and now, elsewhere around the world. His independent observations are what makes his report special. If you want to see my interview with him about his experience with the COVID-19 controversy, click here: https://vimeo.com/755630905. You decide. At a minimum, they're putting some caveats that this isn't expected to be the mainstream view (ie. WP:FRINGE), or even one they necessarily expect people to agree with or stand unequivocally behind. I haven't gone through the rest, but I'd like to see the IP user (or another person who has read it) recommend what they think is the notable, verifiable info that should be in the article and where. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Extreme fringe content ("the efficacy of HCQ and ivermectin was sabotaged" - seriously?) in a non-MEDLINE journal. No thanks. (Oh and this guy is apparently also into chemtrails[12]) Bon courage (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

no way (not in this article)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the deeper I dig, the worse the journal looks. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CRISIS COMMUNICATION

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): IceyBoyBano (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by IceyBoyBano (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you direct me to the correct archive?

This question has obviously been asked before, so I'm just asking where the answer is in the archives. The actual question is: Why is Covid-19 pandemic not in "Ongoing news" anymore, if the article says "The Covid 19 pandemic is an ongoing global pandemic?" סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 20:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Different criteria for what defines a pandemic (the other active one being HIV/AIDS), and the ones in Wikipedia:In the news#Criteria. So the latter answer is that there's no longer consensus for inclusion, which per ITN is "highly subjective". Bakkster Man (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I see. Thanks very much. סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 21:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2022

The pandemic isn’t “ongoing”. That’s outdated. It ended somewhere between Late 2021 - Early 2022. This article needs to be updated, just because the disease still exists dosen’t mean that the pandemic is still going on. GenZenny (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Going to need authoritative sources describing the pandemic as ended. Cannolis (talk) 07:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Suppose - hypothetically - that we editors were allowed to do original research. And we had a hypothesis that the pandemic was over. We decided to prove this hypothesis by listing a number of countries that had correctly declared that the pandemic was over in their country.

First, how many countries, and which countries, would we have to list to make this declaration? According to pandemic, "A pandemic is an epidemic of an infectious disease that has spread across a large region, for instance multiple continents or worldwide, affecting a substantial number of individuals." So as long as even a few countries, particularly if they are large countries, have not correctly declared endemicity, there is still a pandemic. So we are chasing our tails here trying to list countries that have correctly declared endemicity. If we really cared about doing our own research - hypothetically - we would need to maintain a list of countries that are correctly declaring that they are still in a pandemic. And that list could be pretty small, and the pandemic would still be current.

Secondly, how do we judge if a country is correct about declaring endemicity? According to pandemic, "A widespread endemic disease with a stable number of infected individuals is not a pandemic." One key here is that the number of affected individuals is stable. One corollary of stability is predictability. So we would have to judge any claim of endemicity for a country by (1) looking back at the case rate for that country and seeing if it is stable over a substantial period of time - probably six months or a year or more, and (2) being able to confidently predict that stability will continue. So even if we did start trying to do our own original research and judging whether particular statements (like Biden's) were correct, we would have to show both (1) and (2). As of November 2022, neither (1) nor (2) is correct for the USA. Jaredroach (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

It's important to understand the provenance of the endemic phase of COVID-19 article. It was spun from the Living with COVID-19 article which was containing endemic commentary at the time, even prior to my contributions. So this is not the product of OR, it is emergent from varying approaches that involved living with COVID, "new normal", etc. It appears that editors are making the same error that I had made, that somehow we can deduce on behalf of our readers. We should not do this, we have to defer to sources. The endemic article needs a summary here as per WP:SUMMARY and needs a mention in the lead as per MOS:LEAD. SmolBrane (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

So, the article moved from "rhetoric by governments to play down COVID" to "Places where COVID is contained" without any shift in the actual sources. Bad idea. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

https://khn.org/news/article/biden-promise-tracker-covid-pandemic-over-or-under-control/

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/23/health/pandemic-experts-the-conversation-partner

https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/healthcare-systems-and-services/our-insights/when-will-the-covid-19-pandemic-end

https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/09/1126621 GenZenny💖 (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Per your final source, the WHO (the authoritative source, as pandemics are by their very definition international) explicitly says the pandemic is not over. You'll note most of this information is already covered in COVID-19 pandemic#Transition to endemic phase. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the deference to the WHO is a bit over the top, but think of it like this--if the WHO wants to remain stubborn in their qualification despite all these nations/commentators suggesting otherwise, including Biden, consider it a deductive implication that the WHO doesn't really know everything. So we will defer to them(as per policy), and their poor analysis(my opinion) for the time being, until reliable secondary sources observe this divergence. Wikipedia often needs to be read between the lines IMO, especially in the COVID arena of 'misinformation' etc. Ultimately we defer to sources. SmolBrane (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Eh, I think this misses the context of "this country decided this thing isn't happening globally anymore, contrary to what the international authority says". But we've already reached a decent compromise consensus in the endemic phase section, and saying 'the WHO doesn't know what it's talking about' feels like a very counter-productive stance relative to describing national endemic declarations in addition to the official status as a pandemic. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The WHO has made a falsifiable claim. If the pandemic were ongoing in a global way, Biden wouldn't have said that "the pandemic is over".[13] Not to mention the ten countries that recognize endemicity or a transition towards. My opinion is that--deductively--this means WHO is not an "international authority". This is effectively a POV fork as far as I can tell. But I guess the POV lean towards the WHO will maintain the fork for now. SmolBrane (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

What is falsifiable about the WHO's definition, and how does a politician's statement (which their own administration's personnel said was not an official policy statement) falsify it? I'm very concerned from this explanation that this is an attempt to WP:POVPUSH, rather than an earnest attempt to improve the article's compliance with WP:PAGs. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you and I have different definitions of the word 'global'. I consider it falsifiable when a significant minority of regions dispute the approach--it causes deductive problems and POV forks. I interpret your argument as a global pandemic of the gaps approach, where the globe is whatever it needs to be despite all these regions diverging. This is not a POV push, it is in direct response to the subject of the section. SmolBrane (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the WHO's position, which is my concern. Nothing in the definition of a pandemic requires every nation be affected, let alone equally. And more to the original points of what our sources are saying:

• The original commenter cited the WHO saying the pandemic is not yet over.
• The apparent cherry-picking of US President Biden's statement that the "pandemic is over", rather than his later clarification that it's "more manageable", or the US CDC's continued reference to the pandemic as ongoing and a public health emergency.[14]

You're also arguing that deductively (WP:OR) the WHO is not an "international authority" (as WP:MEDRS indicates they are). Up until now, I've been able to follow your rationales for including the discussion of endemic regions, but this rationale appears to be in direct conflict with core WP:PAGs. I thoroughly oppose this rationale, and it is nearing the line of WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH tendentious editing, which I hope is not the case. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, I realized that I went off the rails a bit here. After thinking on it more, I understand what my issue is now—I will address this further below, to keep this section organized and succinct. SmolBrane (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate it, and hope I wasn't too harsh. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Imagine if we had content that said that the WHO stated that all swans were ongoing-ly white, and we also had articles on black swans--to apply Popper's methodology. Would we not have to correct it? Well, that would be up to sources I suppose, but readers could probably(hopefully?) figure it out. SmolBrane (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest you've misinterpreted the WHO's position. Being a global pandemic is not mutually exclusive with being locally endemic, or (as the case was early in the pandemic) isolated regions having no known outbreaks.

The better analogy is that if someone has necrotizing fasciitis in their leg, you wouldn't use the lack of necrosis on their arm to say "they don't have an infection of necrotizing fasciitis". They're not cured until they're free of the infection everywhere. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

See my response above re: 'global'. SmolBrane (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The McKinsey reference is interesting. One usually thinks of McKinsey as more of a 'business' reliable source than MED:RS, but they also have a lot of experts in the business side of the healthcare industry, so maybe their opinion is of value. Curiously, they define endemicity in their article as follows: "the endemic stage of the COVID-19 outbreak: the virus is widespread, is significantly less fatal than it was in 2020, and is spurring only limited changes in public behavior." This definition diverges remarkably from the medical definition of endemic. First, 'widespread' may apply to both a pandemic and an endemic, but given the choice between the two, would be more applicable to a pandemic. Second, the fatality of a disease has nothing to do with the medical definition of a pandemic. Third, whether a disease spurs public behavior has nothing to do with the medical definition of a pandemic. This reference is a great example of how the words 'pandemic' and 'endemic' have been completely repurposed by some writers and speakers over the last three years. The meanings of these words that the McKinsey writers are using have little to do with the medical meanings. Jaredroach (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed change to lead, regarding 'ongoing'

Current:

The COVID-19 pandemic, also known as the coronavirus pandemic, is an ongoing global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

Suggested:

The COVID-19 pandemic, also known as the coronavirus pandemic, is a pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). While the World Health Organization considers the pandemic global and ongoing, some jurisdictions are transitioning to endemicity or consider the pandemic to have ended.

I would support an RfC on this matter, as well as alternative phrasing suggestions. SmolBrane (talk) 03:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm highly concerned that this suggestion comes at the same time as your suggesting WHO is not an "international authority" and that to treat them as such causes the article to violate WP:NPOV. I think we need to resolve the above policy/source dispute before we can earnestly consider a wording change without the specter of the recommendation above being based on a flawed interpretation of policy hanging over it. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Bakkster, I do not support your above claim at the WHO is the "the authoritative source" on this article. There is no authoritative source on any wikipedia article and we editors discuss all sources, weight, and we change our minds all the time. I also am leaning towards support of removing the word ongoing. I think we can now remove the word ongoing and probably in 12-24 months we will change from is to was. It seems the RfC was not properly formatted, please feel free to format it properly and if you dont know how, ping me and I will run it. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Specifically for the definition of whether or not it is a pandemic or "public health emergency of international concern", I would say that the WHO at a minimum is the only public health organization with any authority that policy would direct us to follow as the 'official' mainstream position. At least, the official one until multiple reliable sources say otherwise (a situation we're not in yet, the ECDC issued a joint statement with the WHO last month that "it is clear that the COVID-19 pandemic is still not over"[15]). The above sources really don't, to my eye, seem to rise to the level of providing a credible doubt of the WHO's definition still being nearly universally accepted, so without stronger sources I don't see a need to change yet.

As an example of similar precedent on Wikipedia, I'd point to the WHO's parent organization the UN, and how we handle disputed nations on the List of states with limited recognition. South Korea is a UN member state so the first sentence of the lead explicitly refers to it as a country, without mentioning North Korea disputes their sovereignty. Contrast with non-UN states South Ossetia (a partially recognised landlocked state in the South Caucasus) and Somaliland (a de facto sovereign state in the Horn of Africa, still considered internationally to be part of Somalia) where the disputed status is put right in the top.

In this way, in the same way President Biden saying the US would respond militarily if Taiwan was attacked by China doesn't make its way into the Taiwan article when his administration officially states that foreign policy remains unchanged, President Biden saying something similar about the pandemic his CDC affirms is ongoing does not rise to the level of saying the WHO's status is 'disputed'. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a scientific question, so we should only use scientific sources. Politicians have no power over scientific facts. That should be a no-brainer. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Addition: Otherwise, the pandemic would have been over when Trump declared it to over in 2020, shortly after he declared it to not exist. Of course, Biden is no Trump, but he still has no such authority. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

This article 2002–2004 SARS outbreak doesnt contain any language (at least in the first couple sentences) about if it is ongoing, is/was status, etc. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

From the last sentence of the second paragraph: The major part of the outbreak lasted about 8 months, and the World Health Organization declared SARS contained on 5 July 2003. However, several SARS cases were reported until May 2004. If that's our precedent, then we should be waiting for a WHO declaration.

Looking further at this example, at the time it appeared to be more of a timeline than the current rewritten version. The following is an ongoing timeline of events surrounding the 2002-2003 outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), emphasis added, quote from January 2004. The SARS article seemed to be more similar to this one, in April 2003 saying halfway through the lead: The WHO reports that local transmission of SARS is taking place in Toronto, Singapore, Hanoi, Taiwan, and the Chinese regions of Guangdong, Hong Kong, and Shanxi.

See also: 2009 swine flu pandemic The 2009 swine flu pandemic, caused by the H1N1 influenza virus and declared by the World Health Organization (WHO) from June 2009 to August 2010, is the third recent flu pandemic involving the H1N1 virus (the first being the 1918–1920 Spanish flu pandemic and the second being the 1977 Russian flu). Revision at the time saying The 2009 flu pandemic is a global outbreak of a new strain of H1N1 influenza virus, often referred to colloquially as "swine flu". Global outbreak wl to Pandemic. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS clearly applies. khn.org, www.cnn.com, www.mckinsey.com and Biden don't meet MEDRS. WHO do meet MEDRS. So I don't see any need to change the lead. We can note the actions of individual jurisdictions later in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 11:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Bondegezou. No need to change the lede. Jaredroach (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The issue with the lead currently is that it is non-compliant with MOS:LEAD. The lead needs to mention transition to endemicity in some fashion since it is an important subsection and it is (arguably) controversial(MOS:It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies). If this article is to achieve good article status, and if its editors would desire that(I do!), it would be prudent to correct this. Issues of MEDRS are not particularly relevant; the Endemicity article would first have to be deleted, so that the section could be deleted, so that the info could be excluded from the lead. Current status is not compliant with MOS guidelines. SmolBrane (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The lede does seem to be a bit non-compliant with MOS:LEAD. Notably, it is too verbose. There does not need to be much talk about symptoms in this article. Symptoms are well covered elsewhere. Issues of WP:MEDRS are relevant; this is a medical article. There is a subsection on COVID-19 pandemic#Transition to endemic phase, so it deserves a mention somewhere in the four-paragraph lede. Not in the first sentence. Even though this is a medical article, the concept of 'pandemic' has become hugely political over the last three years. Lots of people want to use the words 'pandemic' and 'endemic' in ways they were never contemplated prior to COVID. Notably, in 2020 the WHO held off declaring COVID a pandemic for many weeks due to political pressure even though COVID had clearly passed the scientific definition. Now, in 2022 there is political pressure for various entities to no longer use the word 'pandemic' even though COVID still meets the scientific definition. I don't think the meaning of the word 'pandemic' is evolving scientifically. But the meaning clearly is evolving in some other contexts. This article should probably acknowledge these non-scientific contexts. Jaredroach (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

It's a slippery territory and I agree the lead is a bit long. I imagine it shouldn't be too hard to summarize though. Suggested edits are welcome. SmolBrane (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I would support simply removing the symptoms and spread paragraph, as the first paragraph links to articles which cover the topic in greater detail. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I can agree that this topic might be notable enough context for the lead. However, per MOS:LEADREL, I would suggest it should follow our current structure and be mentioned either in the final paragraph of the lead alongside the summaries of the surrounding article sections, or in the third paragraph alongside the vaccination and other mitigation discussion. So the first sentence would continue to read "is an ongoing global pandemic" per our primary sources, with the later paragraph summarizing the ongoing process of nations moving to endemic management. In other words, the endemic shift shouldn't be in the second sentence of a four paragraph lead when the content is in section 10 of 16, because that would be a mismatch of relative emphasis.

I'm having trouble coming up with a one sentence summary, because it's such a diffuse topic without some kind of date I can easily see to say "In this year a number of nations began implementing endemic management strategies, which replaced their more aggressive mitigation earlier in the pandemic", so I'm open to your recommendations. Perhaps a slight tweak to the second half of your original proposal? "Some jurisdictions are transitioning to endemic management, or consider the pandemic to have ended." Bakkster Man (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I made a bold edit at the end of the lead, figured it was clear enough, not sure if you saw it. @Bon courage: It's weird that you reverted my edit based on ledebombing, your essay on ledebombing would suggest my edit was the correct approach, given that endemic phase in select areas is already covered clearly in the article(From your essay:If new material is truly WP:DUE it may be added to the article body and then, if it figures significantly for the article's topic, it may be summarized in the lede.) MOS requires something. SmolBrane (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article about how many "countries" have "announced the transition to endemicity", nor can there be since it is WP:OR. Bon courage (talk) 08:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic#Transition to endemic phase:

As of 4 November 2022, the following countries have declared the COVID-19 virus endemic or have begun transitioning to an endemic phase: Cambodia, Indonesia, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mexico, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Spain and Vietnam.(deliberately omitted refs for talk page purposes here)

-There might be a better way to summarize--an attempt would be appreciated to comply with MOS. SmolBrane (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I support a version like that suggested earlier by Bakkster Man: "Some jurisdictions are transitioning to endemic management, or consider the pandemic to have ended." It's accurate, but at the same time balanced because we still indicate it as ongoing overall. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

A decent start although endemic management is a little bit original. It's not management in most sources cited, it's either an endemic phase, endemic, or 'transition to'. I see no reason why we have to mince words here. The Manila Times source actually addresses this conflict:

The Department of Health (DoH) is laying the groundwork for shifting the country's coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) response plan from the pandemic to the endemic phase. The DoH is preparing for the transition even as the World Health Organization (WHO) cautioned it may be too early to consider Covid-19 as an endemic since a new variant could still emerge in areas with low vaccine coverage[16]

If you would kindly address why we have to insert the word here, then I will reluctantly support this addition as a compromise since the addendum "pandemic to have ended" is in the ballpark of what I consider accurate(Edit: and it is indeed accurate regarding Biden's statement even if his statement was criticized). SmolBrane (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe something like "Some jurisdictions are transitioning to endemic status, or consider the pandemic to have ended." Crossroads ^-talk- 04:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

This is very similar to the bold edit I attempted[17] so I will definitely support. I think past-tense is necessary if I'm not mistaken. SmolBrane (talk) 04:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

How about "Some jurisdictions are transitioning their public health approach towards regarding SARS-CoV-2 as an endemic virus, and some officials have claimed the pandemic to have ended." Jaredroach (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I this "jurisdictions are transitioning their public health approach towards regarding SARS-CoV-2 as an endemic virus" is right on the money for how to describe what's happening briefly and neutrally. The "some officials" part may need some work, both to clarify which officials (national and local ones, mostly, not international ones at the WHO), and to clear up MOS:CLAIM if possible. Alternately, do we need what's after the comma in the lead, or is the public health stance change sufficient to convey the most important information? Bakkster Man (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps we could just cut it off at the comma. If we could add in something about how restrictions have been lifted as a result, that would be nice too, but that would require sources and material in the body (I haven't confirmed we have that yet) so might be more difficult at this point in time. Just this sentence itself would be a huge improvement. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I actually collected the relevant paragraphs from the sources cited last night, I didn't post them but since this edit is proving troublesome I will post it now for ease of parsing. Sometimes I get the impression people don't have the time to actually read the sources:

In assessing the ten countries and their sources currently listed on this article:

The Health Ministry is confident that Cambodia is now entering the endemic stage of the coronavirus after putting in place adequate measures to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic.[18]

Jakarta: Executive Board of the Indonesian Medical Association's (IDI's) COVID-19 task force head Erlina Burhan stated that Indonesia is on the right track in its endeavors to enter the COVID-19 endemic stage.[19]

(Lebanon)He said the coronavirus “has begun to turn from a pandemic to an endemic, which means that the virus that transmitted from animals to humans is adapting to live among humans, but in new forms.”[20]

Health Minister Khairy Jamaluddin pointed out that Malaysia was in a transition phase to endemicity but the government would continue to implement and strengthen existing public health measures and strategies against Covid-19.[21]

The Mexican government said Tuesday that COVID-19 has passed from a pandemic to an endemic stage in Mexico, meaning authorities will treat it as a seasonally recurring disease.[22]

(Philippines)The Department of Health (DoH) is laying the groundwork for shifting the country's coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) response plan from the pandemic to the endemic phase. The DoH is preparing for the transition even as the World Health Organization (WHO) cautioned it may be too early to consider Covid-19 as an endemic since a new variant could still emerge in areas with low vaccine coverage[23]

Singapore has been taking steps to prepare for COVID-19 becoming endemic, and has ramped up its vaccination drive, amid the battle to bring down the spike in cases.[24]

(South Korea)The government is shifting its focus from controlling the virus spread to treating it as an endemic. After almost all social distancing measures were dropped in April, all remaining outdoor mask requirements were lifted in September, in what was widely viewed as a major step in entering the endemic phase.[25]

Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said the Spanish government was exploring how and when the management of the COVID-19 pandemic would shift to the management of the coronavirus as an endemic illness.[26]

Vietnamese Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh earlier this month declared coronavirus to be "endemic," like the flu. The government is now considering an end to daily reporting of new cases.[27]

The Spain source is the only one that uses the word 'management'. SmolBrane (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

IMO, the sources are adequate--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean here. Adequate in what sense? Anyway I'm fine with what Crossroads suggested [28]. 'Pandemic is over' is specific to the US and isn't explicitly about endemicity.and doesn't appear on the article therefore doesn't need to be mentioned. SmolBrane (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, even related to the US, the "pandemic is over" statement came from the President, was walked back by his press office and other officers, and CDC/HHS explicitly refer to the public health emergency as a result of the ongoing pandemic (as cited above, and repeated here for clarity). We've spilled enough text here on the topic, it would be a waste not to end with and unambiguous agreement that the "pandemic is over" quote is a sound-bite made in error, not an official US policy statement. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to agree with you on that--but the convo has moved on. I will make an edit to the lead since it appears a consensus has more or less emerged. SmolBrane (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

We don't have to discuss now, but if this remains a disagreement it'll just crop up again later. Unless, of course, some official status change happens prior to the next discussion here from an editor who believes the pandemic is over. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the list of countries where Covid is considered endemic

Back in July, the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare released a statement on the topic. It was widely reported in Finnish media:

• Yle: [29]
• Helsingin sanomat: [30]
• Aamulehti: [31]
• Lääkärilehti: [32]
• MTV: [33]

Brittletheories (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic in Finland would be a good place to start, then the content can be copied to endemic phase of COVID-19 article, then perhaps listed here if DUE. I'll try to get around to it. English sources might be preferred or even needed here(I am not an expert editor). SmolBrane (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

See my comments above (made earlier today). In an article about a pandemic, It makes no sense to have a list of countries with endemicity UNLESS that list includes almost all major countries in the world. As of now, it doesn't include any major countries with confidence. Jaredroach (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

"Doesn't include any major countries with confidence" is WP:OR unless you have a source suggesting that the countries listed are incorrect. We repeat what secondary sources say. It could be arguably undue but I think it's appropriate based on WP:SUMMARY(Each subtopic or child article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in its parent article.) SmolBrane (talk) 06:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Umm. It's the other way around. You need to have confidence (i.e., WP:MEDRS) to list a country. Remember (see my above comment):

According to pandemic, "A pandemic is an epidemic of an infectious disease that has spread across a large region, for instance multiple continents or worldwide, affecting a substantial number of individuals."

So as long as even a few countries (as few as two) have outbreaks, there may still be a pandemic. There is a bit of room for scholarly debate about exactly what would meet the definition of a pandemic. But a list of 'endemic' countries would be peripheral to such a debate. We would be chasing our tails here trying to list 'endemic' countries. Such a list does not belong in this article. A discussion about the politics of the meaning of the words 'pandemic' and 'endemic', together with the scientific meanings, would be appropriate if reliable sources can be found to support such a section. Jaredroach (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I have made my case based on the guidelines I specified above(MOS:LEAD and WP:SUMMARY)--the lead currently does not summarize all the sections in the article. SmolBrane (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@SmolBrane and Jaredroach: Perhaps now? Brittletheories (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what exactly the question is, but if you are asking if the current state of the main article is good, then yes, I think it is. There is excellent consensus building in this forum. Jaredroach (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merger notification

{{Merge from |Endemic COVID-19 |discuss=Talk:Endemic COVID-19#Proposed merge |date=December 2022 }} [[User:Bakkster Man|Bakkster Man]] ([[User talk:Bakkster Man|talk]]) 15:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Closing stale merge proposal; no case made; no support; no merge. Klbrain (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry; was confused by the misplaced template; main discussion continues at Talk:Endemic COVID-19#Proposed merge. Klbrain (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

When would covid “end”

This is referring it as an ongoing issue event even though leaders like Joe Biden have said it’s over. The article about the Black Death does not says it’s still going on even though people can still get it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuxembourgLover (talk • contribs) 12:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

See the section on endemic COVID. Bon courage (talk) 12:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@LuxembourgLover - Respectfully, as much as President Biden is the leader of a world superpower, he is not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination nor is he a public health authority or physician. He has 0 credibility on the official declaration of the end of this. That is for the WHO and other international bodies to decide. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 19:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

"That is for the WHO and other international bodies to decide."

No it's not. Wellthisisanaccount (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The Who has declared seven PHEICs and ended four (Swine flu, Ebola (Western Africa),Zika, and Ebola (Kivu)). Q.E.D. kencf0618 (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

"Decide" and "Declare" are not the same thing. Wellthisisanaccount (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I hope no text in Wikipedia says the Black Death has ended. Rather, if such text exists, it should read that particular outbreaks and pandemics have ended, but that the Black Death is still endemic. Note that there is no guarantee that COVID19 will eventually become endemic. It may instead have periodic outbreaks or some other more complex dynamic. The question you pose is valid. For a (possibly hypothetical) disease which begins as a single pandemic and then becomes endemic, at what time point does one draw an absolute difference between pandemicity and endemicity? It's a bit like picking an arbitrary point on a Gaussian distribution as to "when the tail becomes flat". Most experts would be more comfortable going way out to many Z-scores and stating that it is flat there, and stating that it is not flat near zero Z-scores. And they wouldn't want to be pinned down on exactly when the transition occurred. We are many many Z-scores away from the last Black Death pandemic. So it is over. But don't ask me exactly which month/year it ended. Likewise, the "1918" flu pandemic is over. When did it end (month/year)? I don't know, but there are decent estimates (see Spanish flu) and the consensus is "by 1921". But this estimate of "by 1921" wasn't made with confidence until several years after 1921. Because it took awhile for reliable data to be accumulated and accepted with confidence. In a few years, Wikipedians will likely know when COVID19 ended. But it is not a Wikipedian's job to jump to conclusions. Jaredroach (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Per the Black Death article, the term refers to a specific pandemic of bubonic plague, not modern cases of bubonic plague. The bubonic plague is still around, but the Black Death pandemic did indeed end in the 1300s. This is why we need to be clear in our terminology between diseases (COVID-19, Influenza A virus subtype H1N1) and specific outbreaks (COVID-19 Pandemic, Spanish flu). Otherwise this is accurate, it will take time to know, and it will depend on international experts rather than national politicians. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I have heard modern doctors refer to plague as the Black Death. But I am OK with Wikipedia using the term 'Black Death' to refer exclusively to a specific plague. Jaredroach (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Culture and society section

There are a gazillion references to the pandemic in popular culture, so the culture and society section that has been added is an unmanageable cruft magnet unless we improve it. I'd argue that hardly any depictions of the pandemic in popular culture rise to the level of being due here because there are simply so many of them, and none have become iconically representative in the way that, say, Titanic (1997 film) is for the sinking of the Titanic. A better approach would be to highlight the themes about the pandemic found in culture, with either no or very few examples, and a strongly worded hidden comment discouraging their addition. Fortunately, COVID-19 pandemic in popular culture already has some good material on that, much of which could simply be copied over. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

trimmed one [34] and added as you indicated [35]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the current list of 4 (somewhat) notable series and movies seems due. The summary also seems short and sweet. What exactly are you suggesting to remove? As covid fades into the historybook, it is encyclopedic to have a small list here (noting we have a full sub-article). Wait, we need to remove these shows as they were not mentioned in MEDRS (joking)... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf, one thing to note about the four examples: They're 100% in English. So at the very least we'd need to globalize the entries. And what about documentaries like 76 Days or In the Same Breath? Even if we could agree on what to include, balancing factors like how popular the work is with how directly it relates to the pandemic, I think it'd be near-impossible to articulate a standard that'd prevent the list from accruing entries we don't want. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I didnt realize there were more that are being excluded. For sure both that you mentioned would be great to include as well. I see how if there are many we are adding too many to the article. Maybe then just reduce to prose and we agree on 3 to keep and I would suggest keeping one US, one China, and one other (if it exists). If it doesnt exist, one US and two China, with the reason being to offset the excessive US focus often found on wikipedia-en entries. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 February 2023

Preventive measures to reduce the chances of infection include getting vaccinated, staying at home, wearing a mask in public - is demonstrably, scientifically false, and not consistent with 'follow the sciience'. Remove "getting vaccinated", "staying at home" and "wearing a mask in public". Haptdms2020 (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - the existing article information is correct. No contrary source was provided. Zefr (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

"Ongoing Pandemic"

According to what/whom/who exactly?

The "Pandemic" more or less ended with the emergence of SARS-2-Omicron. Wellthisisanaccount (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

do you have a reference/source--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

• On 27 January, the World Health Organization met to decide if the current pandemic still meets the criteria of public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC)....we will see today--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
• clarification- they (WHO) meet today will announce on Jan 30 .--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Whether WHO says COVID-19 is no longer a public health emergency of international concern is a separate question to whether it is endemic. "Endemic" means a specific thing. It's not a vague term describing COVID being "over". Bondegezou (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, that last comment was specifically thinking about the Endemic COVID-19 article, which I didn’t make clear. More generally, if WHO declares COVID is no longer a PHEIC, that doesn’t mean it ceases to be an “ongoing pandemic”. “Pandemic” also means a specific thing that is a separate question to whether COVID-19 is a public health emergency of international concern. Bondegezou (talk) 13:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

still a pandemic--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Direct link to the remarks: [36]

Direct quote

Three years ago today, I declared a public health emergency of international concern over the global spread of COVID-19 – the highest level of alarm under the International Health Regulations, and for the moment, the only level of alarm. As you know, on Friday the Emergency Committee met to consider whether that remains the case. The committee has advised me that in its view, COVID-19 remains a global health emergency, and I agree. As we enter the fourth year of the pandemic, there is no doubt we are in a far better situation now than we were a year ago, when the Omicron wave was at its peak.

The above news article is interesting for their interpretation that Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said he was hopeful that the world will transition out of the emergency phase of the pandemic this year, which is the subtext of the overall statement. A PHEIC isn't a synonym for a pandemic, though the suggestion seems to be that the PHEIC is the most dangerous portion of a pandemic. When the PHEIC ends, we should be sure to make that distinction, particularly as it will likely be the case that our systemic WP:BIAS will have most editors in locations where the pandemic has long ceased to be an emergency, but non-English-speaking areas still have the signs of a pandemic. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Y

Bats

Can we wikilink Bats in the infobox and potentially specify the type of bat if that info is available? 142.150.32.15 (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

In context, bats are a common enough English word concept that it doesn't need linking, per MOS:LINK, we don't link common words unless there is a special, overtly technical definition we mean. In this case, we don't mean anything different than the generic winged furry critter that everyone thinks of when they think of bats. Also, we don't know the exact species of origin, merely that the human variant closely matches several animal coronaviruses, many (but not all) of which are known to infect primarily (but not exclusively) bats. In other words, scientific consensus is that the disease is of zoonotic origin, we're pretty sure it was a bat of some type native to the area around Wuhan, but don't have anything more specific than that. Further details are probably not needed in this one article, as Wikipedia has an entire article titled Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 that has more details should you wish to explore further. --Jayron32 12:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we should wl to Bat virome instead, as that gives the more directly relevant context for the reader. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, but ONLY if we explicitly mention Bat virome. We should not do something like [[bat virome|bats]], per WP:EGG. --Jayron32 14:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe that this is a case of WP:EGG, as I would suspect that readers clicking a link on bats as the source of a coronavirus outbreak would expect something directly related to bats as a viral reservoir, per WP:PLA. That said, I'm not opposed to removing the piped link that I added, if you strongly disagree. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I like [[bat virome|bats]] in this context. It certainly gets close to WP:EGG, but I don't think it crosses the line here, in this infobox. I don't think anyone will be astonished by that pipe, anyway. It's on the same level as "[[COVID-19 misinformation|conspiracy theories about COVID-19]]" Just one-step removed from the actual "title" — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Y