Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Car accident

Collapse discussion that quickly turned into a WP:SOAPBOX.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The article says : "An analysis of those IFR rates indicates that COVID-19 is hazardous not only for the elderly but also for middle-aged adults, for whom a fatal COVID-19 infection is two orders of magnitude more likely than the annualised risk of a fatal automobile accident and far more dangerous than seasonal influenza." Are you kidding me? What is this to compare the risk of COVID with a car accident? Are you totally nuts? This is ridiculous! You could also compare it with the risk of being hit by a lightning bolt or to die by sugar or nicotin. That's insane! Stop this framing! What about all the people that died because of poverty and hunger cause of the pandemic?! --TheGoldenRule P.S.: 99.8 % of all people survived COVID-19! (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC) @TheGoldenRule: That is a comparison the source uses; that being said, the paragraph is very closely paraphrased when compared with the source, and should either be enclosed in quotes or substantially reworded.—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC) I think there's a fair question to ask whether the comparison is notable enough for the article, or if we can provide a more relevant one. Influenza would probably be better, so we're at least comparing two respiratory infections. Bakkster Man (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC) Your sources are crap. Just tell the truth: masks are not efficient, PCR-tests are not working, vaccinations are Gene-experiments! I could write down the sources for this if I would, but you can see them on your own if you want. That's not my job! --TheGoldenRule (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC) Without you providing a reliable source, there's nothing for us to change. Take care, now! Bakkster Man (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC) I don't want to provide a source for you, you can look it up on your own, if you want. To compare the risk of COVID with a car accident is ridiculous. Hope you wake up when you see all the Walking Dead. --TheGoldenRule (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC) References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2021

The estimated worldwide deaths from the Covid-19 pandemic is currently 15.4 million (ranging from 9.5 million to 18.6 million). This is sourced from The Economist, which is the updated source for the current estimate.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-estimates 92.236.208.171 (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done: Also updated the other source as well. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 02:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Updating Projected Covid Infections

Are there any new sources for projected covid infections? The last source was Oct 2020, and the value has remained at 770-80 million for the past year now.Chantern15 (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2021

Add section Shipping as Section 8.2.

As would be expected, the pandemic and related containment measures had an effect on shipping. As a whole the industry appears to have been resilient but with specific sectors e.g. cruise and passenger shipping to have been affected heavily. Several early works attempt to analyse the effects on a global scale such as , , while others attempt to offer a regional assessment .

In authors quantify the drop in maritime traffic and report, with a few exceptions, a generally reduced activity observable from March to June 2020, when the most severe restrictions were in force. They quantify a variation of mobility between −5.62 and −13.77% for container ships, between +2.28 and −3.32% for dry bulk, between −0.22 and −9.27% for wet bulk, and between −19.57 and −42.77% for passenger traffic. It is assumed that many of the effects will be reported when data becomes available for a longer coverage period. 46.246.223.176 (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: We don't cite sources like that, by referring and linking to them in-line. We write a summary of the sources, then cite them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 September 2021

"On 20 September 2021, it was reported that the COVID-19 pandemic had killed about as many individuals in the U.S., 675,000, as the 1918 Spanish flu did in its era."

The above line is a rather meaningless and US-centric statistic. The population differences in the United States between 1918 and now make a direct comparison like this rather pointless, as it isn't being compared on a per-capita basis. It is not a relevant benchmark of the global pandemic and should be relegated to the United States section of the article. —Legoless (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: The fact itself was moved to the US page but was not included in the excerpt as it doesn't improve the overall quality of the article by much. BJackJS talk 19:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

While I understand the point being made by Legoless, I believe the historical significance is important as many in the United States do not believe that COVID has risen to the level of a serious pandemic. The current pandemic has often been compared to the 1918 Spanish Flu and this statistic is notable. I agree and support BJackJS's action as I believe this is relevant to the United States more than the general article. Jurisdicta

Updating suspected cases measurement

Has anyone found a newer source for the suspected number of cases in the first infobox? The current estimate there (10% of global population) is a year old at this point. I've looked, but I haven't found any sources more recent than 2020 for cases. Most estimates are on the number of unreported deaths, not cases. 9yz (talk)

I found a source from the world health organization that shows 237+ million cases globally and it appears to be updated on a daily basis. See https://covid19.who.int/ Jurisdicta (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thats a source for confirmed cases. In October 2020, when there were 45 million confirmed cases, the WHO estimated that there were 780 million unconfirmed cases. I'm looking for an updated estimate. 9yz (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I doubt that you will find anything that's believable within an order of magnitude. Figures in the West and East may be good approximations if someone has done the work (e.g. by extensive random testing) but in the global south this just isn't being done. Sub-Saharan Africa is the most obvious example but India may be as bad if some reports are to be believed. And they make up approaching 40% of the world population. It's of the nature of pandemics that it takes years to establish a reasonable evaluation.Chris55 (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Is infobox picture correct?

Currently, we have File:COVID-19 Nurse.jpg in the infobox. However, the hospital ship USNS Comfort, which the nurse shown was deployed on, took patients "without regard to their COVID-19 status", as described in the file description and the original article. So, is it really correct to boldly state that the picture depicts a nurse as she "treats a COVID-19 patient"? MSG17 (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

well the 'general idea' is that USNS Comfort was for assisting with the pandemic (as were all nurses and medically trained individuals), based on this your specific question is moot IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@MSG17, ack! That's a good catch. Looking at the source, there's nothing stating that the nurse was treating a patient with COVID. And that matters, since our caption says that and we need to be accurate. Our two options are to change the caption or to find a new lead image. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I think our older montage in the infobox was better. It showed the impact of the pandemic throughout the world (still tilted towards the Western world tho) both inside and outside the leathcare system, with stuff like disinfection, social distancing, masks and other societal changes. Or there is the "virus image" approach. MSG17 (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

The number of estimated cases is missing from the Infobox, unlike the estimated death numbers. Its cases percentage World map is also without revision since 22 August, almost two months. 94.62.84.110 (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 October 2021

This is an aesthetic change that I think is needed. Under Infection fatality ratio (IFR) there is a large amount of white space next to the table. I suggest moving the table up a little bit so that the text wraps more pleasantly around it. I would place it under the paragraph starting with In November 2020, a review article.... The content around would still relate to the table. Maybe this looks worse for some people, but for me it looked better. Pabsoluterince (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done, sort of. I moved a few other images around to make it all flow better and for images/templates to be closer to the text they are most relevant towards. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

That looks even better, although, another white space popped up under Prognosis. May I suggest moving the picture to the bottom of the previous section like this?

* ''[[SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant|B.1.617.2]],'' also known as the Delta variant, first detected in India, which has spread to over 170 countries [[File:Temporary graves in Iran during COVID-19 pandemic 1 cropped.jpg|thumb|right|Burial of a deceased COVID-19 patient in [[Hamadan]], [[Iran]], March 2020]]

=== Prognosis ===

Tell me what you think. Pabsoluterince (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done I'm marking the request as answered, but if you find another white space issue appears, change the "answered=yes" to no in this template and someone should be able to change it. By the way, I appreciate you giving a clear example of what the wikimarkup should look like -- thanks! RFZYNSPY ^talk 06:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

File much too large

This article is much too large to be useable by many people who are on slower network connections. I have started the process of removing excess detail to the sub-articles. I recommend deleting nothing at this stage. Just move the excessive content downward, and the references along with it. Jehochman ^Talk 14:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Wuhan scientists planned to release coronavirus vaccines into bats 18 months before outbreak

Since it seems like the origin article still refuses to accept non-wikiactivists edits on the talkpage, hopefully someone here will decide to update the correspoinding articles with the latest leaks.

US ‘rejected funding for bat coronavirus project at Wuhan lab’

The Lab-Leak Debate Just Got Even Messier [

New team to ask if Covid escaped from Chinese lab 2A02:2F0E:D519:3C00:3DC7:55F0:2187:2FC4 (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith, and check either those discussions or the reliable source policies. I'll note, the reason those talk pages are locked down was due to significant disruption by IP users. I recommend creating an account if you're looking to contribute to these areas. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

1) They planned to release bits of the virus (Spike protein) as a vaccine. Not the whole virus. A very important point. 2) They did not have access or include any data from viruses that were close enough to SARS-CoV-2 to have created it. 3) The animal work in that grant would have been done elsewhere, at Wuhan University, in a BSL3, exactly where any other country or research group would have done that work. 4) They would have tested antivirals and antibodies against those viruses, to ensure we had the best possible tools to fight any future outbreak. 5) It was a grant proposal, not a record of work done. There is no proof that any of these experiments were ever carried out.

These 5 points are extremely important from those sources, because they demonstrate that some sources are getting this wrong. We should not report incorrect information from low-quality RSes. This is complicated enough stuff that we should probably defer to scientific sources. And these 4 points also show how unlikely it is that this would have anything to do with the origin of the virus, as also stated in those sources.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @Shibbolethink:, but going as devil's advocate here, what are your thoughts on WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and its application in this case? Forich (talk) 06:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

RIGHTGREATWRONGS is when someone is trying to fix a perceived bias in wikipedia through every edit, and that is their purpose here. This situation is where I'm pointing out that our more reliable sources, per WP:RSP, have details which show our less-reliable sources, per WP:RSP, are getting some things factually incorrect, re: the primary source. RGW does not implement policy effectively, and is typically from WP:SPAs. This version is using policy to point out why we need higher quality sources here. It's in line with WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:SCHOLARSHIP most of all. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 08:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe we think similar but, pardon me, there are slight disagreements on the premises. Here's the real deal, in my humble opinion: there are currently three sources that have covered the DARPA proposal, as far as I know: i) The intercept; ii) DRASTIC tweets; iii) The atlantic. I agree that they have made important mistakes in interpreting the primary material, the scanned grant proposal, and I agree that we should responsibly omit reporting the lies. However, as long as the only counter source to them is our opinion, we are left with no tools to fix their lies (if we are to obey WP: RIGHTGREATWRONGS). I am saying this not to cause any misalignment, I concur that the wrong facts from the intercept should be left out, but right now we have no better quality source because mainstream media has forgot to cover the DARPA proposal thing. You say we need higher quality sources here and I agree; all I'm saying is, let's have this practical solution that we can agree: how about we wait a reasonable amount of time (2 weeks top), stall the facts from the intercept and the atlantic, until some other news media or journal covers it and does it right. If that doesn't happen, editors can invoke RGW to slip the edits in, which is unfortunate. Forich (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

By the way, Reuters, and AP, if you are reading this, consider issuing soon one of those Fact checking things you do. Wink, wink. Forich (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it's worth waiting a bit to allow the dust to settle and more reliable (and accurate) sources to come (or for the story to blow over and end up non-notable). That said, I'm not entirely in agreement that avoiding using a popular press article that misrepresents a scientific proposal violates WP:RGW. If anything, it's respecting WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:MEDPOP. For the latter, whether or not we consider this proposal to be WP:BMI (I think there's a case that it is, but not looking to start up that debate again), MEDPOP more broadly states The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. So we've got a guideline telling us these articles are generally unreliable for this kind of information, it's not RGW to avoid using them. Particularly when we can point to the WP:PRIMARY source and explain the inaccuracy as described in policy: A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge (RGW usually implies using uncited info, or completely unreliable sources). If anything, it's just suggesting we need to give it time (WP:NOTNEWS) for reliable, usable sources. As always, we're not necessarily going to be on the cutting edge, since we depend on secondary sources (which take time). Bakkster Man (talk) 13:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

There are lots of new sources on this, but its probably more WP:DUE in COVID-19 lab leak theory than it is here. I would suggest a new "Alleged US government involvement" for that page, and possibly also the Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 page. LondonIP (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2021

Add |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00865-8|doi-access=free parameter to <ref name=":5">{{cite journal | vauthors = Maxmen A | title = WHO report into COVID pandemic origins zeroes in on animal markets, not labs | journal = Nature | volume = 592 | issue = 7853 | pages = 173–174 | date = April 2021 | pmid = 33785930 | doi = 10.1038/d41586-021-00865-8 | s2cid = 232429241 | bibcode = 2021Natur.592..173M }}</ref>. Thanks in advance :) Pabsoluterince (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Thanks, but this is redundant with the already given doi RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Thank you for the quick reply, however I don't think it can be considered redundant. Url is always included with doi in all the citation templates, including Vancouver system citation style specifically for scientific journals. The page also implies that the url should be used when an online location where the text of the publication named by title can be found. I personally find it more intuitive to click on the title of the article when accessing the source. At the very least, I think |doi-access=free should be added to the citation: without it, the assumption is that the doi is not freely accesssible (Template:Cite_journal#Access indicator for named identifiers), which it is. Pabsoluterince (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Unnecessary and does not improve the citation.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: I added the doi-access parameter. I agree the url is unnecessary. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I think this is an effective and worthwhile compromise that improves the citation. Wish I had done it myself :) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Citation needed tags

"On 24 December 2019, Wuhan Central Hospital sent a bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BAL) sample from an unresolved clinical case to sequencing company Vision Medicals.[citation needed]"

This is one of the most viewed Wikipedia articles in existence, and it is a medical one, but it has two CN-tags that should be easily taken care of. I'll take care of the second tag, but for the first tag:

• This citation mentions "bronchoalveolar lavage fluid" samples "early in the outbreak" (probably alluding that it's in Wuhan). This is further confirmed in the inline citation immediately at the end of the sentence. However, there is no mention of "Vision Medicals" in either, and it is only mentioned at the second sentence in the wikiarticle (this one). Penny for your thoughts? Wretchskull (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I was confused by this as well. I read a translated version of the Caixin report that all the sources reference [1] and it said nothing about Vision medicals. It does mention that Wuhan Central Hospital sent bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BAL) sample (27th not 24th) from an unresolved clinical case to Beijing Boao Medical Lab (who then sequence it). But the story is also all different from there. This translation seems far from perfect (mentioning "the new crown virus" and is very difficult to read). The only two different translated versions I found, both mention Vision Medicals; straits times and aforementioned AP article. I trust the later two sources more anyway, so that's why I kept it how it is. Pabsoluterince (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2021

A worthwhile resource to add to the External Links / Data and graphs section is "Data in the Time of COVID" ( https://opendatawatch.com/whats-being-said-resource/data-in-the-time-of-covid-19/ ) . This is a regularly updated and highly regarded compilation of current research, reports and studies on COVID-19 that is widely used by government and agency "decision-makers" to keep up with emerging open data resources on the COVID-19 pandemic. 戈胜达 (talk) 09:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done This page looks reliable, however the page itself does not provide any data or content. You should provide external links directly to content. If you think that the page offers links to important sites that should be included in the external links, you can suggest those instead. Make sure that they provide content relevant to this page and aren't already covered by an existing link. Pabsoluterince (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2021

Sean0115 (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Add a new map https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Daily_new_cases_COVID-19_map.svg

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Suspected Cases And Greenland

Why has any mention of suspected cases been removed, and why is Greenland uncoloured for deaths per 100K? Chantern15 (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Covid-19 origins may never be known, US intelligence agencies say

Since the talk page on the origins is STILL blocked to IPs, I can't post this GIANT news article that is already a week old and that article is STILL not covering. TLDR is US agencies, at Biden's request gave their 90 days conclusions:

1) not bioweapon;

2) "Four agencies assessed with "low confidence" it had originated with an infected animal or a related virus."

3)"But one agency said it had "moderate confidence" that the first human infection most likely was the result of a laboratory accident, probably involving experimentation or animal handling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59100114

have fun updating that article. 188.24.140.23 (talk) 12:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

you may want to post this at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19,thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Pandemic Start Date should be changed from November 17, 2019 to December 1, 2019

The case on November 17, 2019 is only a suspected, not confirmed case based on retrospective analysis. The first official case was confirmed to be on December 1, 2019. Thus, shouldn't the official start date be changed to December 1? Chameleon790 (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Chameleon790

do you have a reference for the above statement--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Here are two references: [2] [3]Chameleon790 (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Chameleon790

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

SARS-COV-2 Likely Circulating Earlier in 2019

https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1009620

Abstract

[Copyright violation redacted] ProxA (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a WP:PRIMARY source (not really usable here), and you should not just quote entire abstracts like that... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

error in the infobox

The case number is reported cases which includes confirmed and probable. Should change confirmed cases to reported cases.

38.121.67.155 (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

...and therefore you believe this to be an error--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Lapses

The estimation of the actual number of cases is missing on the Infobox. The map with the percentage of cases in each state also on the Infobox is from one month and two days ago. 62.48.155.6 (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

"estimation of the actual number of cases is missing on the Infobox"?....source?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Map Correction

The Infobox Cases per Capita map is not altered since 3 October. 79.169.252.20 (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Image description

The caption for File:COVID-19_Outbreak_World_Map.svg as it is used on this page still says its for August when I'm pretty sure this is now incorrect. -184.56.75.144 (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Start Date

When did the Coronavirus actually start? In the lead it says in Dec. 2019, in the infobox it says Nov. 2019, in the naming it says Decmber 31, 2019, in the Epidemiology it says Nov. 2019 again, and in History it says the same thing. so which one is it? Kaleeb18 (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

If you read through the article, first case was identified December 1. So the person had it a few days before, making it November when they become infected. MartinezMD (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

oh gotcha thanks. Kaleeb18 (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Infobox photo is misleading

I don't want to take on the task of finding a replacement, but the photo in the infobox, File:COVID-19 Nurse.jpg, doesn't appear to depict a COVID case being cared for as is claimed. The caption says that the nurse was involved with caring "for critical and non critical patients without regard to their COVID-19 status". Surely a better photo can be found. Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, this is actually a really valid point. The picture does showcase a nurse wearing a mask, which is commonplace within the pandemic, but a more relevant picture really should be used here since it's the first and forefront picture used on this article that is being seen and read by thousands constantly. Fluddulation25 (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Potential Endemic Stage in India

It has been speculated multiple times that Covid has now entered Endemic Stage in India
I request a mention of this in the end of the India section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Extorc (talk • contribs) 13:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

"it has been speculated " ...what reliable (science/medical) source so indicates the above?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Both citations are opinion pieces and don't seem to rise to reliable sources to justify inclusion in the articles. Are there other sources that support your point of view Extorc? Jurisdicta (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Lab leak underrepresentation

Looks like this article AND the Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 article are STILL heavily minimizing the lab leak hypothesis. There are reasonably impartial experts calling this into the spotlight like in this interview with Matt Ridley. 2A02:2F0E:DB02:5E00:ED5D:D16B:A3F3:4966 (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I listened to the interview. The key bit for me was when Matt Ridley said "We don't think in our book that we know the answer. We don't think we can rule out that it came through a market route". In that, I'd agree with him. I wouldn't call him a "reasonably impartial expert". He knows what he's talking about, but he's best known in Britain for being the (non-executive) chair of the Northern Rock bank when it crashed. I thought much of his presentation was designed to please the show host. The topic is clearly a hot potato and if you have any well-established facts please add them in the appropriate place. But it's not the place of Wikipedia to speculate. Chris55 (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

missing information on how this pandemic may end or that its virulence may change

Please see Talk:Pandemic#missing_information_on_how_pandemics_end for important information missing on Wikipedia that should be referred to and linked to in this article. --Espoo (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

the Omicron variant seems to warrant our attention/and this articles... for now(as the end of the pandemic is still in question)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2021

Someone added a reference in the final line of the 'Etymology' section, but it wasn't added correctly and the formatting is off Lugnutlarry (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

[4] Done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Changing main infobox photo

A temporary hospital for COVID-19 patients in Brazil.

Dear All,

I would like to propose changing the first photo of the article to one that expresses the severity of the pandemic better. I suggest using this one. --Adam Harangozó (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why intensive care unit aboard the U.S. the hospital ship USNS Comfort is considered as inappropriate. You don't know whether this patient here is sick because auf COVID-19. But does it actually matter? It's a very special occasion that because of COVID-19 the hospital ship USNS Comfort was sent to New York, since the usual hospitals could not cope with the amount of patients. But although we do not know for sure whether this is a corona patient, the probability is very high - and if not, it's still a special patient on a special hospital ship, due to COVID-19. --Traut (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not questioning if the photo depicts a Covid patient. The reason for my proposal is that the suggested image shows the patient too and expresses the seriousness of the infection better. --Adam Harangozó (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 December 2021

Several variants have been named by WHO and label as a variant of concern (VoC) or a variant of interest (VoC). They share the more infectious D614G mutation:[173][174][175]

Change ‘variant of interest (VoC)’ to ‘variant of interest (VoI)’. 2A02:C7F:5108:A100:F0F6:44C2:3D90:7140 (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Done. MartinezMD (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 December 2021

After the sentence "The state of alarm ended on 21 June" in COVID-19 pandemic#Spain, the reference with the name "2020-06-22-elpais", which gives an error, should be replaced with a reference with:

{{cite web |title=Así fue el día 1 de la nueva normalidad |url=https://elpais.com/sociedad/2020-06-21/asi-fue-el-dia-1-de-la-nueva-normalidad.html |website=El País |access-date=22 June 2020 |language=es |date=22 June 2020}}.

The broken reference was added here. It was copied from COVID-19 pandemic in Spain, which has the reference "2020-06-22-elpais". ObserveOwl (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

... ignore the weird & parts ... ObserveOwl (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC) Fixed. ObserveOwl (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done

Edit request: "NPIs" (under Impact, Politics) should be expanded

Under the Impact section, in the Politics subsection, the article reads:

"Although they developed broad support among epidemiologists, NPIs were controversial in many countries. Intellectual opposition came primarily from other fields, along with a few heterodox epidemiologists."

This is the only use of "NPI" on the page, other than in the title of a cited article, and should be spelled out in its entirety — "non-pharmaceutical interventions" — to avoid confusion. Nick Heer 00:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Copyedit

Copyedited this. Feedback encouraged! Will fix any errors introduced. Comments:

- Reduced word count from 11181 to 8429 over a 17 day period (with many other editors changes interspersed.)...thank you

- Article is too US/UK focused.....have/had trimmed US section (under North America)...will trim more  Partly done

- Article is too long. Compress/split is encouraged.... have trimmed some more  Done

- Many referenced studies are outdated and need replacement with later work....durring GAN

- Not sure info on R is helpful. Difficult to interpret and estimates are of low quality. N...R is usually very important

- Info on WHO codes doesn't seem salient and should probably be removed.  Done

- Into on contact tracing needs to be updated. AFAIK the pandemic outran most gvts ability to do it and it is no longer actively pursued in many places. Pending

- Geographic stuff rots quickly, is random in scope and is very selective in terms of countries. I propose talking about waves in regions, rather than individual countries. I.e., the winter wave, or the Delta wave. An interesiting aspect is the radically different experience across continents. Asia is nothing like Europe, while the countries within a continent are much more similar. Otherwise, at least shift to transclusions....during GAN

- The Cases section shows charts with a pretty random selection of countries. If possible, better to shift to continents and a world total. Also, the semi-log chart is hard to read and adds nothing beyond what the per 100k chart shows....during GAN

- Two cents on origina: I don't think the animal consensus is that strong. I'd at least mention lab leak. (I did not.) N..this topic is too controversial (though I'm inclined to believe there is scientific evidence that the lab theory is very plausible, however I'd rather avoid the topic here)

- Suggest removing the transclusion on Disease from the article. This article is about the pandemic, not the disease. Instead just include a summary paragraph and point them to COVID-19, where the disease is properly described.,  Done

Lfstevens (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Lfstevens, thank you for an outstanding c/e will be going thru your comments--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Covid 19 Pandemic in Japan.

I would like to add a Further Reading: Covid 19 pandemic in Japan to the japan sub section. I ask for permission to add this.

I saw that the japan sub section did not have a further reading and I found a article that explains more in depth about that article. I have Extended confirmed user already. HelpingWorld (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Typo

Sentence " As of late-December 2021, more than 4.49 billion people had received one or more doses[115] (8+ million in total) in over 197 countries " ... it should be Billions,not millions . 46.40.8.3 (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit request for a minor correction in an image caption

Under the Epidemiology > Deaths section, the image caption reads: "Gravediggers wearing protection against contamination bury the body of a man suspected of having died of Covid-19 in the cemetery of Vila Alpina, east side of São Paulo, in April 2020."

Covid-19 should be capitalized to COVID-19 to remain consistent with the rest of the article. 2604:3D08:6E82:3400:9036:A7DB:EA68:AEAE (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Country vaccination data updates

Many countries have been doing vaccinations with India crossing 100 crore vaccinations. Suggest updation on the same.

Amitized (talk) 06:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done and thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Concerns about summary style

The article should summarize each aspect of the disease succulency, since too much information is redundant when you can read more in main pages. In my opinion, having level 3 headers (==== COVID-19 example header ====) is a bit too overkill, and a good indicator of non-compliance to the summary style. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

yes level 3 headers may have issues (good and not so good), will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

(see-Individual sub-sections for countries under the "National Responses" section below)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 January 2022

In the introduction, please remove this:

Mutations produced many strains (variants) with varying degrees of infectivity and virulence.

and add this:

Mutations have produced many strains (variants) with varying degrees of infectivity and virulence.

Just using "produced" makes it sound like it's a completed event, as if the pandemic isn't around anymore. 122.150.71.249 (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done a simple fix, and thanks for pointing that out. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Continued imbalance in the national responses section

This article has continued to suffer from imbalance (particularly overrepresentation of the West) in the national responses section. Canada (pop. 38M, with 30k deaths) should not be given more coverage than all of Africa (pop. 1,275M, with likely undercounted 226k deaths).

Can we discuss how to do this better? I think part of the approach needs to be to combine small sections for many individual countries into larger sections that can do a better job of adopting a regionalist lens. For instance, could we merge most of the Europe coverage into a "European Union" section? I don't think we want an entire section on Antarctica, as that's not going to be WP:DUE for more than a sentence. China, India, the U.S., and Brazil all I think warrant a section, but beyond that it's dubious. Certainly at this point sections like Iran are clearly just a vestige of the early pandemic—Iran became a centre of the pandemic in February 2020. is all that's needed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

yes good idea, however if we use 'European Union' might we not miss specific details of certain countries like Italy which was devastated at the begining of the pandemic in 2020...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure just talking about countries doing bad is the balanced approach to any article. We normally caters to those that we know are reading our version of Wikipedia...thus usually English speaking countries Stats. That said perhaps a clickable map to country articles with a preview might work better.--Moxy- 20:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, hi Moxy; I see that you added the Canada section a little more than a week ago (with a misleading summary to boot).

We normally caters to those that we know are reading our version of Wikipedia...thus usually English speaking countries No, that's the very definition of systemic bias, and it's something we should make every effort to avoid.

I am intrigued by your clickable map idea, though; I'd be interested to see what a mockup of that would look like. It could take the form of a {{Maplink}} map of the world, where clicking on any country would open an excerpt of the lead of that country's pandemic article in the description field, with a "read more" link to the article itself. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

You could do a chart with country name, number of cases, and coordinates with the other items in the name, and a bot could update the name of the coordinates when there was a discrepancy, as if someone updated the numbers column but didn't update the coordinates name. For example,

|- | Australia | 100000 | {{coord|33|S|140|E|name=Australia, 100000 |-

Tomorrow, if you changed the first 100000 to 200000, the bot could update the coordinates name to "Australia, 200000". 122.150.71.249 (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

(see Individual sub-sections for countries under the "National Responses" section below)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 January 2022

Change:

On 1 January, it was reported that Europe has passed the 100 million mark in cases, counting the new Omicron variant surge

To:

On 1 January, Europe passed 100 million cases amidst a surge in the Omicron variant.

--Xarm Endris (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Impossible/improbable eradication of SARS-Cov-2

Nowhere in the article is mentioned a fact that many scientist have been stating for a good period of time - that the eradication of SARS-Cov-2 is improbable or impossible. (Such as this scientist states in this article - [5]). Of course, there are still some researches that still support the idea of eradication. However I think it's important to mention the conclusion most of the researchers reached.--Kotys ek Beos (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

one would need a more MEDRS type source for such a claim than this, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I was little lazy citing only one source. Here is what other sources say:

•  DoneNature.com:

It’s a beautiful dream but most scientists think it’s improbable. In January, Nature asked more than 100 immunologists, infectious-disease researchers and virologists working on the coronavirus whether it could be eradicated. Almost 90% of respondents think that the coronavirus will become endemic — meaning that it will continue to circulate in pockets of the global population for years to come (see 'Endemic future').

• The Wall Street Journal:

Infectious-disease experts say that eradicating the Covid-19 virus—permanently reducing it to zero cases world-wide—is likely out of reach, at least for the foreseeable future.

• Globalnews.ca:

“COVID-19 cannot be eradicated, it’s impossible,” said Dr. Peter Juni, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Toronto and scientific director of Ontario’s COVID-19 Science Advisory Table. “It’s not the same as the measles, it’s more like influenza.”.--Kotys ek Beos (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Zhang Jixian pronouns

As far as I know, Zhang Jixian is a woman. In the article: "A pneumonia cluster was observed on 26 December and treated by Doctor Zhang Jixian. He informed the Wuhan Jianghan CDC on 27 December.". I propose changing "He" to "She". --Antonijn (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done, and thanks. Firefangledfeathers 21:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Global pandemic

Isn't "global pandemic" redundant? If it weren't global it would be an epidemic, not a pandemic. Nojus R (talk) 05:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

good point...a closer look at [6] indicates some uncertainty as to whether several continents or worldwide....--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

While it might be technically correct, I'd say it's better to keep "global" in there to remove any ambiguity, as many people might not know the exact difference between the terms. 9yz (talk) 07:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done

"UN Global Coronavirus Fund" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect UN Global Coronavirus Fund and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 14#UN Global Coronavirus Fund until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Individual sub-sections for countries under the "National Responses" section

Some countries have a sub-section for their country and I note edits like this to add more countries. I'm concerned there's no objective basis to give sub-sections to some countries and exclude others -- almost every country has been massively impacted by the pandemic. It's just going to lead to people adding another country that's missing. Some sections are just stubby and not best covered here. Should we just keep the sub-sections at a continent level instead? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep sub-sections at continent level and remove existing countries. Introducing countries is going to bloat the article really quickly (and I've seen enough of that), and the presence of some would suggest that additions are allowed, which I'm not a fan of. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

keep as is currently some countries like the U.S. , Japan, U.K. and others need their own sub section because of importance during the pandemic--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

…and the rest? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

some countries like those aforementioned (above) should have their own subsection as now, depending on how important they are during the pandemic, other countries could be mentioned in a line or not at all...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

remove national subsections have altered my original opinion and have gone along with other editors on this--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Remove national subsections They are a bit arbitrary and repetitive. It's probably more realistic to have an overview for every continent.--Llewee (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

{{done}} see article history--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• It's not done; you removed the headings but left all the content there. Much of it is just cookie-cutter paragraphs and could be added for any country, e.g. On 6 March 2020, the first confirmed case in Peru was announced; a 25-year-old Peruvian living in Lima who had recently returned from travels in France, Spain, and the Czech Republic.[349] Nationwide lockdowns began on 16 March 2020.[350] In June 2021, the Peruvian government increased the official death toll from 69,000 to 187,847 deaths, placing Peru with the highest death rate per capita in the world, according to the Johns Hopkins University.[351][352] As of 14 January 2022, Peru had 2,412,577[325] confirmed cases and 203,157[325] deaths., so this doesn't fix the concern I had about coverage of individual countries. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

so... what else did you have in mind?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

We summarise the pandemic on a continent-level, and let people go to the main article to learn about country-level details (per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE etc) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

South America, something like this--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Yup, perfect. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

ok, North America--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Europe

Asia

Thanks, that's a good start. I still think there's too much content though. e.g. look at the Europe section. The Italian outbreak began on 31 January 2020, when two Chinese tourists tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in Rome.[8] Cases began to rise sharply, which prompted the government to suspend flights to and from China and declare a state of emergency.[9]On 22 February 2020, the Council of Ministers announced a new decree-law to contain the outbreak, including quarantining more than 50,000 people in northern Italy.[10] On 4 March the Italian government ordered schools and universities closed as Italy reached a hundred deaths. Sport was suspended completely for at least one month.[11] On 11 March Conte stopped nearly all commercial activity except supermarkets and pharmacies.[12][13]On 19 March Italy overtook China as the country with the most COVID-19-related deaths.[14][15] On 19 April the first wave ebbed, as 7-day deaths declined to 433.[16] On 13 October, the Italian government again issued restrictive rules to contain the second wave.[17]On 10 November Italy surpassed 1 million confirmed infections.[18] On 23 November, it was reported that the second wave of the virus had led some hospitals to stop accepting patients.[19] This is mostly cookie-cutter content. The fact that the pandemic hit Italy is covered by By 17 March 2020, every country in Europe had confirmed a case,[1] and all have reported at least one death, with the exception of Vatican City. Italy was the first European nation to experience a major outbreak in early 2020, becoming the first country worldwide to introduce a national lockdown.[2] (and that part is good as a high-level summary). Then: On 10 November Italy surpassed 1 million confirmed infections. is just an arbitrary milestone and can be said about many countries, On 23 November, it was reported that the second wave of the virus had led some hospitals to stop accepting patients. can be said for many countries as well, etc, etc. I think the nitty gritty should be kept in COVID-19 pandemic in Europe and the lead there expanded. I'll trim it myself but since people get icky about the removal of content, even if it shouldn't be present, I'm writing it out on the talk page too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

yes I agree with mostly all you trimmed to here[7] :-) Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I left some notes in the wikitext. I don't want to remove content on national response measures without adding more generalised content, but I think we should say something like "In early 2020 many countries and/or provinces in Europe enacted measures such as social distancing, closures of hospitality venues, .... Infected individuals were ordered to quarantine at home. ..." (etc) rather than have a few sentences on what the UK did, then a few sentences on what Germany did, then a few sentences on what France did, etc..., because these sentences are more-or-less the same. I would have to do more research on sources to word it like that though, so haven't done it yet. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

tldr: it's more interesting when countries differed from the standard response (like Sweden) so I think the different approaches are definitely worth noting in the main article. But where the responses are the same, it's not worth repeating it in a dozen different sentences. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

yes your correct on that point--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Y

Duplicate links

As info, a quick scan of the article (1/16/2022) shows over 25 duplicate Wikilinks. TwoScars (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong @TwoScars, but I thought the guideline actually recommended/allowed for links to be repeated as the first usage in each section of an article, not just at the first usage of an article at all. I know this isn't actually uniformly followed, but that's why I would suspect a lot of dupes exist. I'm trying to remove the ones I can find that are intra-section dupes. A lot of these dupes are "see also" links, which are not just permitted, but recommended. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You may know more about it than I do. I have always been told that the first section (in this case, the four paragraphs before Etymology) "does not count", or is treated separately. However, it should not have duplicate Wikilinks within that section. Then the counts start over from, in this case, Etymology on down. The Tool "Highlight Duplicate Links" follows those rules, although some people ignore it for captions for images. It looks like someone has started cleaning things up. Some of the dups I see are Wuhan, SARS-CoV, coronaviruses, Middle East respiratory syndrome, variant of concern, common cold, acquired immunity phase, Zero-COVID, mass testing, Contact tracing, intensive care, outbreak, GISAID, Pune, World Health Organization -- that's up to North America. This is an important article that has had a lot of work done to it, so don't let someone (like me) using a Tool cause you much heartburn. You do what you think is appropriate. TwoScars (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@TwoScars and Shibbolethink: The guidance is provided at WP:REPEATLINK (wikilinks removed, emphasis mine):

Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article; e.g. |work=[[The Guardian]].

That's not to say it's a hard and fast rule; I think it boils down to a question of is it helpful and even necessary for readers to have links to the same page peppered throughout the article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Y

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 July 2020 and 28 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WilliamWang002.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marianneostos. Peer reviewers: LawrenceH2020, Egarn005, Taha.A13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2021 and 12 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kris7535.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2021 and 24 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stannous98.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rishad98.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lsipling, Svonstein.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amber MWY.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Lab leak theory

So according to rule 14, you're not allowed to post ANYTHING regarding the lab leak theory in the article? Despite the fact that even scientists who were in contact with Fauci early on thought it a probable origin? Jmajchrz (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

please see COVID-19 lab leak theory--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Y

Sources for graphics need updates

May I have the edit permit, please. Or please fix the source references and add one more graphic: I had to change the source of my graphics from [8] to JHU [9]. ECDC does focus on Europe from 2022 on and has no more current international data, not even for Great Britain after their Brexit. Thanks --Traut (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Traut your at least 'extended confirmed', why would you need anyones permission? (just do it)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any option how to edit this article. So I guessed I was not extended enough. Where do I find the edit option for this protected article? --Traut (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

are you serious?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I think so. My guess is that I'm still below 500 edits on en.wikipedia, since I'm more a de.wikipedia user. Edits on commons and de are not counted here. --Traut (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

ok, so I add the four graphs on the side/below, will do--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Oops sorry - I did not describe the task properly. The job was to change the references for the sources, not the text of the images. And the fourth image should be added. But the Variant is named "Omicron", not Omicrone, as named first by me. --Traut (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done (hopefully)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how to show the former versions linked here:

Data

JHU data

Data

JHU data

Data

JHU data

Please add yet another image for the development of the current Omicrone variant, which does cause infections beyond the former scale of the graphics

latest COVID-19 infections, mainly caused by the Omicrone variant, with data since 2021-10-01

Should we include a mention of the Corrupted Blood incident, and if so in what way?

I'm reopening this again as its been about a year and I still feel that this is a relevant piece to the article: the famous (infamous?) Corrupted Blood incident. Prior to the outbreak of COVID-19, the incident had inadvertently become a live fire exercise of a real world pandemic situation, and although not intended to became a model of study of sorts by those in or orbiting the infectious diseases areas as a quasi study of human behavior in a pandemic. Notably, the article for the incident now sports a section titled Corrupted_Blood_incident#Comparison_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic, which is what compels me to once more reopen the debate here: Should this be mentioned in the article, and if so to what extent? I can think of a few ways to address this, but by far me favorite options is to simple add a link (ideally the specific section link since it now exists) to the See Also section so as to preserve the integrity of the COVID-19 article. What does the community think? TomStar81 (Talk) 18:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I think adding a link in the See also section would be perfectly reasonable per how the See also section is intended to be used -- articles on related topics that aren't mentioned within the article. Mentioning it in prose seems like it might be undue weight or fluff, but it's certainly relevant enough for a See also mention. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I generally think it makes more sense for the Corrupted Blood incident to include a reference to COVID-19 pandemic than the other way around. Corrupted Blood drew a lot of early comparisons to COVID-19, but in the grand scheme of the COVID-19 Pandemic this is just one small epidemiological example that doesn't necessarily merit inclusion relative to other epidemiological examples (in particular, any number of flu epidemics). Bakkster Man (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no opinion on a See also link, but I oppose mentioning the incident in the article body or lead. The sources present at the incident article do not demonstrate that a mention here would be due. Firefangledfeathers 18:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• same per Firefangledfeathers--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• No. definitely not appropriate here. Agree with Bakkster MartinezMD (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Failed reference

What am I missing here? Why is reference #64 being used in COVID-19_pandemic#Signs_and_symptoms? Pabsoluterince (talk)

thank you for pointing this out, it has been dealt with[10]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2022

Change deadliest to deadly pandemic, or other less inflammatory word as you see fit. Why because using your numbers the death rate is approximately 1% Using https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html data on Spanish flu the death rate was estimated at 10%. 1.132.105.80 (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

per this edit you answered your own question[11]?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Deadliest pandemic usually refers to fatality count, not lethality rate. Therefore, the article is accurate. Siccsucc (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I can understand why some people would interpret 'deadliest' to refer to percentage of population. Though, according to our List of epidemics article, that measure still leaves COVID-19 as 12th (or 14th, given the long-running pandemics listed) deadliest as an estimate of global population. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to adding "modern" or another qualifier, so we're clear we're comparing the toll to 1918 flu and HIV/AIDS, rather than the Black Death. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

What will be the criteria for this article to state "The COVID-19 pandemic, also known as the coronavirus pandemic, was a global pandemic" in its first sentence, and the article to be written in past tenses? I'm not saying the pandemic is over, but I believe it will be controversial to determine the end of the pandemic. Some scientists say COVID-19 might become endemic in the near future. If we use the most recent Swine flu pandemic as an example and precedent, its article still uses a present tense in its first sentence, while the end of the pandemic was declared by the WHO Director-General, Margaret Chan. Once more, I'm not discussing that recent variants will end the pandemic, or other controversies, just reminding that criteria will have to be discussed about the pandemic's end in this article. 187.16.138.227 (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

When major health organizations (primarily the WHO) say it's no longer a pandemic, which they haven't yet done. I think you may be reading a bit too much into the word 'is' when determining present tense, as the article's title 2009 swine flu pandemic suggests a time bound (while this article does not). If you think that should change, please make the suggestion on that article's talk page. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

N

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 January 2022

In the etymology section, please replace "it's" with "it is". This article ought to use formal language. 122.150.71.249 (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

to be frank I fail to see a significant 'grammatical' difference...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. If you make any similar requests in the future, it might help to point to MOS:CONTRACTIONS as the relevant guideline. Firefangledfeathers 20:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

good point--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Neocov reports

There should be a section here regarding the emergence of a possible new "NeoCov" virus, that was reported by multiple WP:RS today. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

No link to the multiple WP:RS? Bakkster Man (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 January 2022

Add Pandemics to portals.

Vegan dog lover 1993 (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

 Already done Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Update map of Cummulative percentage of people infected with Covid-19

The map is more than 1 year old. It needs an update. 136.185.177.99 (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

My preference would be to remove it. It was never really that beneficial once we reached pandemic spread as it wasn't population normalized, and I don't think there's much utility of a map anymore. Looking at the other charts in the section, any thoughts on trimming it to just the weekly new cases, and perhaps one additional chart? Bakkster Man (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

trimming it to just the weekly new cases...is a good idea IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Can we add both? Because I see there are 2 maps about cumulative people infected by Covid-19 in this page. 122.177.139.102 (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

End of Covid-19 Pandemic

Sweden declares that the Pandemic is over on Feb. 9, 2022.

Should we add the ending date? 2A07:23C0:0:F001:0:0:0:B310 (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Sweden does not have the power to declare that. You're missing half of the Reuters headline: Sweden declare pandemic over, despite warnings from scientists And the article doesn't say they declared the pandemic is over. It says Sweden's government, which throughout the pandemic has opted against lockdowns in favour of a voluntary approach, announced last week it would scrap the remaining restrictions - effectively declaring the pandemic over - as vaccines and the less severe Omicron variant have cushioned severe cases and deaths. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

concur w/ Muboshgu--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The Health Minister is actually quoted in that article as saying "It's not over, but as we know it in terms of quick changes and restrictions it is". It's important to read past the first half of a headline. HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

N

Misinformation

"Misinformation and conspiracy theories about the pandemic were widespread." Shouldn't this read "are widespread"? Considering misinfo and conspiracy is practically more widespread and even accepted in larger percentages of people right now than any other time in the pandemic. JanderVK (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done [12]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Sentence

There’s a sentence somewhere that reads: “COVID-19 symptoms range from undetectable to deadly”. To describe symptoms as things that are detected, (I.e. using the word undetectable), seems wrong: symptoms aren’t detected. It’s just the wrong metric as well; asymptomatic means no symptoms, not that the symptoms can’t be detected. What I would suggest is something closer to: COVID-19 symptoms range from non-existent to deadly”. Pabsoluterince (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

seems like similar wording..--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

N

Edit request March 12 2022

The infobox says 23.7 estimated deaths. The cited source actually estimates 20 million deaths:

"our single best estimate is that the actual toll is 20m people. We find that there is a 95% chance that the true value lies between 14m and 23.7m additional deaths"

Please change the estimate to 20 million or to 14-23.7 million.

Of the universe (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Update!

Deaths are now OVER 6 MILLION! 6,013,405 https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyraminxsolver (talk • contribs) 00:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

added--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, but please remember to sign your comments with 4 tildes ( like this "~ ~ ~ ~"), as some auto-archiving bots can't archive with unsigned comments. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 16:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Y

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2022

Wuhan, China, China is NOT shown as a link Egyptio-Comrade (talk) 06:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done I think you want us to link the word "China". But Wikipedia doesn't link major countries like China or the United States. Please see MOS:OVERLINK. Art LaPella (talk) 06:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Covid-19 SP - Santo Andre's hospital at peak of pandemic.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

[13]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Y

Verifying estimated deaths in infobox

The infobox says there are "14.1–23.6 million (estimated)" deaths. I can't find these numbers in either citation. The Economist citation contains no total estimates as far as I can find, focusing solely on regional estimates and explaining the methodology, and it links to a different Economist article that gives a global estimate of 7 to 13 million deaths. The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation citation estimates 14.9 million deaths as of February 10 2022, and 16,135,012 projected deaths by June 2022. Where does "14.1–23.6 million (estimated)" deaths numbers come from? These numbers should be changed to accurately reflect the cited sources, or the citations should be changed to point directly at the estimates. Of the universe (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

thank you for pointing this out (I myself have not edit those numbers) I will edit to reflect the numbers indicated by ref, and thank you again, --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

According to the Lancet, the estimated death toll is over 18 million: "Estimating excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic analysis of COVID-19-related mortality, 2020–21" published 10 march 2022 2A04:EE41:83:595F:45AB:E0F0:AB26:2D1A (talk) 10:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

link?(as it would help find the text in question easier)...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Y

The primary study is here. Worth pointing out that it's aiming to estimate all-cause excess mortality, not necessarily deaths resulting from COVID-19. In other words, it will include deaths from other causes like lack of access to healthcare from overwhelmed hospitals, and shouldn't be directly attributed to the disease itself. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

thats what I thought--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

New congressional report says covid-19 likely emerged in Wuhan months earlier than originally thought

It's been almost 6 months since this came out and there doesn't seem to be any mention of it in Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. [14]. Great job "wikipedians". 188.27.42.181 (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

please post at article talk page (which is not here), thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 is protected, due to past socking and other disruptions, so the above IP delightfully WP:AGF may not be able to post there. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

WaPo. 188.27.42.181 (talk) 10:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

however, this subject is still very controversial (I wont include it here at least...perhaps other editors should chime in)....--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll also note, this was a report released only by the Republicans on this committee, it's a partisan report rather than an official government report. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done

Just like all the included reports are partisan (i.e. no republican has agreed on those). And the comment was about the origin article, which a wp:npov reader would expect to cover ALLLLL points of view covered in mainstream sources. If WaPo is not mainstream enough to worth mentioning what a few hundred lawmakers in a country decided to put out as a statement, then perhaps wikipedia should altogether abandon the npov principles.. 188.27.42.181 (talk) 07:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Kind of agree with this IP, except for the snark at the end--I don't know much about this matter but I hope editors are not excluding RSed and DUE information on the basis of "partisan" or "controversial". Republicans exist, and their reports should be assessed based on policies just like everything else. SmolBrane (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Generally the issue is less whether or not the view is a significant minority, and thus notable. It's with misstating the significance and reliability of the source, like in this case the linked headline saying "New congressional report" to refer to the "House Foreign Affairs Committee minority staff", and the recommending editor describing that group as a few hundred lawmakers (there are 25 minority members in the committee). I also disagree with "the minority party disagreed" necessarily making the majority statement partisan, as this borders on a inflation of conflict. Especially since we have official reports which present their own alternate explanations, suggesting it's not merely a 'close ranks' situation by both sides.

I'll also add that IP editors proposing an addition in the midst of WP:TE claims of WP:RGW is ineffective consensus building, compared to a recommendation on the merits. Comments ending in Great job "wikipedians" tend to get dismissed outright, because the chance they're followed by reliable sources is low and WP:VOLUNTEERs need to be mindful of their time. Maybe it's worth considering, but insults don't tend to engender that consideration. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Those are much more substantive objections, thanks. SmolBrane (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Infection fatality rate and the unvaccinated

I added a request for clarification whether IFR excludes vaccinated infected individuals.

I'm even more confused by the following page's information on weekly "death rates" for the unvaccinated (currently at 4.9 and 15.28% for Switzerland and the US) https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination : Is IFR or CFR meant? --Espoo (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe per the references indicated [15] (for first question)the answer is yes, Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Those references don't say anything even similar to that and don't mention the vaccinated even indirectly. --Espoo (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

yes...IFR excludes vaccinated infected individuals--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Is it more accurate to clarify that "the commonly cited IFR excludes vaccinated individuals", as those with vaccinations and/or past infections would have their own IFR? That reduction in IFR is one of the primary benefits of vaccination. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm no expert, so that may be correct, but i was thinking more of the people that should probably be more correctly called infected vaccinated individuals (i.e. infected and contagious for a while despite being vaccinated) instead of what i added, vaccinated infected individuals, after it was approved by Ozzie, since he seems to be an expert. --Espoo (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

no one is an expert, here all of our opinions are heard based on the sources--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

For reference, infections of vaccinated individuals are called "breakthrough cases", which might be the search term required. More broadly, the current sources we have seem to be primarily from late 2020, meaning pre-vaccination, and pre-Alpha variant (B.1.1.7). So in addition to the cited IFRs being for the unvaccinated (because there were no vaccinated individuals, and breakthroughs were rarer with the older variants than Omicron), they're likely underestimates for the currently circulating strains (Omicron being less severe than Delta, but potentially not enough less severe to be comparable to pre-Alpha strains). Variants of SARS-CoV-2 may have some decent sources on this (this is the best I could find, but focuses on case reduction), but I expect we'll need to speak with a lot less certainty on the topic. One of the difficulties with understanding the risk of Omicron in particular was the lack of reliable data on breakthrough infections; both due to testing shortages and the unknown of how many patients had immunity from previous infection. If we can find the sources to give these answers, let's add them, but we might just not have reliable data yet. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done

Use of Cashless payments increased

Another area of life that has been impacted by Covid-19 is the increased use of cashless payment. Some example international references https://www.magzter.com/news/751/2133/112020/h11mh and https://www.itp.net/business/digital-payments-use-in-middle-east-surge-consumers-cite-pandemic-as-key-driver MaryPercival (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

that may be best placed at Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Y

Herd immunity needs an update

I got around to updating the 'herd immunity' section, only to see I don't have the 500 edits to contribute! So here's my suggested update:

During a briefing in October 2020, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus of the WHO stated that herd immunity as a strategy was “unethical”.

(existing content)In July 2021, several experts expressed concern that achieving herd immunity may not be possible because Delta can transmit among vaccinated individuals.[172] CDC published data showing that vaccinated people could transmit Delta, something officials believed was less likely with other variants. Consequently, WHO and CDC encouraged vaccinated people to continue with non-pharmaceutical interventions such as masking, social distancing, and quarantining if exposed.[173]

On 23 February 2022, the Icelandic Ministry of Health adopted a herd immunity approach toward COVID-19, saying that “widespread societal resistance to COVID-19 is the main route out of the epidemic,” and “to achieve this, as many people as possible need to be infected with the virus as the vaccines are not enough, even though they provide good protection against serious illness”.

An article published by Nature in March 2022 stated that unvaccinated citizens can be indirectly protected from infection via herd immunity, but emphasized the “collective benefit of vaccination”.

Discard the WIRED source if you see fit. Editors could also expand on Tedros' comments or Nature's article if they see fit. SmolBrane (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, Great_Barrington_Declaration#Critical_commentaries expands heavily on the herd immunity rebuttals, perhaps a 'further' link here would be worthwhile. SmolBrane (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Great! Just fyi, the first paragraph was lifted from the GBD critical commentaries section(to help harmonize these pages), the second paragraph comes from the COVID-19 pandemic in Iceland article, and the last paragraph I added as new material. The situation in Iceland should definitely be mentioned. SmolBrane (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The WIRED source can go, I see now that the NYTimes covered the Iceland herd immunity decision. The content is the same though. SmolBrane (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Additional source on herd immunity in Iceland, I can't read the article unfortunately. - SmolBrane (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Isn't there anything from academic journals about this? I mean, if "experts" are talking about this, it would be ideal if we had their written words (and not simplified statements in popular news) with which to write an encyclopedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Quoting the Icelandic ministry is a great source, and sociological decisions like this need not be deferential to MEDRS. SmolBrane (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is the primary source . SmolBrane (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• We probably need to be more clear about the breadth of interpretations considered a "herd immunity strategy", as it typically refers specifically to "naturally-acquired immunity" rather than vaccination-acquired. Of note, the WHO statement was made prior to vaccines being widely available for use, whereas Iceland dropped their restrictions after 60% of their population had received both vaccine doses. These two items should not be conflated as if Iceland were unethical, or the WHO had been wrong. But I otherwise agree in principle with expanding the section to include the pre-vaccine WHO statements, and the post-vaccine statements by Iceland, with sufficient context not to be conflated. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

This is sort of a POV fork issue, as I brought up on the noticeboard but that didn't get much attention. I don't have the experience to reconcile the WHO statement with Iceland's statements so I'll have to hear other opinions. The Icelandic health authority is pretty explicit on "as many people as possible need to be infected". SmolBrane (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Bakkster Man brings up very good point(s), as to not conflate...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

No conflation here, Tedros was very clear(from the GBD article):

Tedros said that trying to achieve herd immunity by letting the virus spread unchecked would be "scientifically and ethically problematic", especially given that the long-term effects of the disease are still not fully understood.[9][12]He said that though "there has been some discussion recently about the concept of reaching so-called 'herd immunity' by letting the virus spread", "never in the history of public health has herd immunity been used as a strategy for responding to an outbreak, let alone a pandemic."[9][12][44]

From the RSes above:

“to achieve this, as many people as possible need to be infected with the virus as the vaccines are not enough, even though they provide good protection against serious illness”.

And from the Icelandic primary source:

In his memorandum The Chief Epidemiologist accounts the latest developments of the pandemic. Between 2100 and 2800 infections have been diagnosed daily but serious illness has not increased in the same manner. In his opinion the way out of this pandemic is a wide-spread herd immunity against COVID-19, i.e. an infection of up to 80% of the population.

Not to pick on Tedros, but we should include some of the commentary from the GBD article(since it covers the herd immunity commentary from authorities). Both Tedros and the Icelandic Chief Epidemiologist are discussing naturally acquired immunity here. It is definitely a problem for this section when we have such severely conflicting positions. I hope that this material can be integrated for the benefit of our readers. I thought at first, maybe we could say “Early in the pandemic, Tedros said...” but that's not really accurate since October 2020 was hardly early. We would need an RS saying it to avoid SYNTH.
The WHO and others(mentioned at the GBD article) have spoken in no uncertain terms here, and unfortunately we are left with the reality that infection-derived herd immunity is indeed being employed by a reliable state authority. Perhaps it is best to simply quote the authorities in question as I have proposed, at least until either another country explicitly adopts this form of herd immunity, or until a non-opinion RS discusses it. I wouldn't want editors to spend a bunch of time copyediting only for another source to come out in short order. (The article by Nature does indeed refer to vaccine-generated immunity, and it's perhaps undue anyway.) SmolBrane (talk) 03:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, clarifying the timeline is probably the best way to handle this. And probably noting that the Tedros statement was a response to the GBD (in a complete absence of vaccines), and should be phrased as such to avoid people mistakenly linking it to Iceland's decision more closely than they actually were. It's not that they're unlinked, just that things changed significantly in those ~9 months and Iceland didn't seem to be the thing Tedros was warning against. Has the WHO weighed in on Iceland's relaxation (in specific) or naturally acquired immunity strategies (in general) since widespread vaccination? Bakkster Man (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Answering my own question, I'd suggest we add this WHO press conference from February 2022 in the section about Iceland and any other natural herd immunity strategies. We’re concerned that a narrative has taken hold in some countries that because of vaccines, and because of Omicron’s high transmissibility and lower severity, preventing transmission is no longer possible, and no longer necessary. Nothing could be further from the truth. More transmission means more deaths. We are not calling for any country to return to so-called lockdown but we are calling on all countries to protect their people using every tool in the toolkit, not vaccines alone. It’s premature for any country either to surrender or to declare victory. This virus is dangerous and it continues to evolve before our very eyes. WHO is currently tracking four sub-lineages of the Omicron variant of concern, including BA.2. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we can escape the fact that the WHO and Iceland's strategies are conflicting. This is illustrated further with the press conference you describe, where the WHO reiterates their position that “more transmission means more death”, and the suggestion that decisions like Iceland's is “premature”. It appears neither Iceland nor “herd immunity” get a mention in this press conference. Other editors elsewhere have mentioned the risks of adding commentary that doesn't mention the subjects clearly. I don't think we can soften the statements by the WHO here without engaging in SYNTH. Again simply quoting the clearest stances seems to be the best path at the moment. SmolBrane (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

For sure, looking at this February '22 statement, there's a conflict between the WHO's recommendation and Iceland's strategy. I just think these are the right two things to pair together, with the previous WHO statement pairing with the GBD (and the gap to avoid conflation being between the 2022 GBD and Iceland's 2022 strategy). On a somewhat related note, I find it interesting that Iceland's death toll just over doubled over the course of Omicron. Not looking to SYNTH something, just seems to be the context behind WHO's recommendation. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

We could add something like:

At a press conference on 1 February 2022, the WHO reiterated their position, saying that they were “concerned that a narrative has taken hold in some countries that because of vaccines, and because of Omicron’s high transmissibility and lower severity, preventing transmission is no longer possible, and no longer necessary. Nothing could be further from the truth. More transmission means more deaths.“

Following the chronology. This would then be followed by the Iceland info from 23 of Feb. It's still going to look like Iceland is doing the bad thing, but that's unavoidable for now. (Yes, Iceland's death toll has increased dramatically, to ninety-one. Their new case rate has rolled off equally dramatically.) I'll remind you that I can't edit this page, so I encourage bold edits on my behalf! That usually generates more collaboration from others. I'm still reluctant to add the second WHO source, since Iceland's decision still came after it, the WHO didn't really change their stance, and what I already mentioned about the subjects not being explicitly mentioned. SmolBrane (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll take a look at it. I do think the reiteration is important, because there's reasonable expectations that views of Omicron post-vaccine could be significantly different from the views before even B.1.1.7 had been named a VOC. In other words, that reiteration of their stance (in response to others saying strategies should change) is itself notable. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Reiteration of their stance warrants inclusion, I agree. SmolBrane (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Iceland situation still not included on article

I would kindly ask editors to include this due, and copyedited material. For the benefit of our readers given this unusual and remarkable policy. SmolBrane (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

References

COVID-19 pandemic - Herd immunity and Iceland

Prior discussion: Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Herd_immunity_needs_an_update

Should the 'herd immunity' comments by the WHO, and the policy in Iceland be mentioned in the 'Herd immunity' section, and if so, should we cite authorities chronologically with the edits I have suggested or should it be included in a different fashion?

Pinging editors @Ozzie10aaaa, Bakkster Man, and RandomCanadian:

I do not have permissions to make bold edits. More collaboration would be appreciated, thanks. SmolBrane (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I do think that they're due in this section, with the chronology discussed above. I think it's going to be a bit more significant of a change than I have time to workshop at the moment. I would be open to reviewing a sandboxed version and moving over when ready. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Great, I would support this, thank you for commenting on DUEness which was my first question. Not really sure how to do the sandbox thing, I'll try to figure it out but others can take initiative here if they want. SmolBrane (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I have moved this editing to my sandbox. User:SmolBrane/sandbox#Herd_immunity @Ozzie10aaaa, Bakkster Man, RandomCanadian, and Shibbolethink: - SmolBrane (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Sky News Australia "special investigation"

This was already discussed previously (here and on other pages) and the source was found to be far too close to the batshit-crazy level of the scale. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

There is an important documentary Sky News Australia had produced called SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: What Really Happened in Wuhan, and it goes into what really happened behind the scenes of Wuhan. DISCLAIMER: It must be taken into account that not all conspiracy theories are dangerous and nonsensical, as the more sane ones can carry a huge amount of weight. Besides, what happened in Wuhan is no theory, as it really happened. I recommend watching the entire video before making some judgement on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh2Sj_QpZOA — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChocolateElemental (talk • contribs) 17:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC) this cant be added to any article please see WP:RS Wikipedia:Reliable sources--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Probably should add a wikilink to the previous discussion so the editor can see it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done

Lab leak theory

Hi, I see Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Current_consensus which states: "14. Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article." Article COVID-19 lab leak theory has a lot of information since the May 2020 RFC. Seems that the current consensus should be discussed again, given that two years have passed since the consensus was formed. Is there a prohibition on running another RFC on this subject? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

not that Im aware of, however be ready/able to use reliable sources for this topic...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I could see how distance from the previous contentious morass of SPAs and POV disputes, along with the 2021 shift in mainstream coverage, could lead to the potential of a more productive discussion now that might change that consensus. This consensus was already updated for the Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 article, and a reasonable case could be made that nearly two years later is a practical timeframe to reevaluate here. Though I agree, it would depend on high quality reliable sources to make the case that it is now a mainstream perspective worth discussing in the primary articles, and any updated RFC should provide guidelines for which articles the topic is WP:DUE. For instance, if it's DUE on this article, is it also DUE for Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2? COVID-19? Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019? The more narrow the RFC, the more likely we are to reach consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasnt discussing adding sources, we have plenty of sources over at the other articles. I dont think a wikilink needs to be sourced, as if the other article exists we can assume it has already passed notability tests. Or is my understanding incorrect? Let me clarify: In COVID-19_pandemic#Background I just noticed the lab leak theory wikilink exists, and a WP:WEASEL alt-text is used "alternative origins". I have made a proposal below of a new alt-text. Or we could strike the alt-text and link directly to the sub-article. I suppose I wish to challenge the censorship of this lab mention in the article that is causing the current use of weasel words. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposal #1

In COVID-19_pandemic#Background change "Despite this, the subject has generated extensive speculation about alternative origins." amend to read "Despite this, the subject has generated extensive speculation about the possibility of a lab leak in Wuhan, China." Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Had hoped for a bit more discussion here, but seems to be no major opposition to another RFC on the subject after a couple of years passed since current consensus, so I have run it below. I will strike the proposal here in hopes to focus the discussion at the RFC below Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#RFC_on_removal_of_alt-text_related_to_COVID-19_lab_leak_theory. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit request: 18-Apr-2022

The dates mentioned in the following paragraphs is missing the year 2020. I was just wondering if this omission is deliberate? MOS:DATE states to "omit year only where there is no risk of ambiguity". If this isn't on purpose, I'd like to request that the year 2020 be added to these dates please.

• Section 8.1 (Impact -> Economics): "The pandemic and responses to it damaged the global economy. On 27 February, worries about the outbreak crushed US stock indexes, which posted their sharpest falls since 2008."
• Section 8.3 (Impact -> Politics -> Italy): "In early March, the Italian government criticised the EU's lack of solidarity with Italy. On 22 March, after a phone call with Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, Russian president Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian army to send military medics, disinfection vehicles, and other medical equipment to Italy."

2604:3D08:6E7D:2100:4C10:9ADF:D140:590C (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done...[16]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

500 million cases

In the article lead it states that case numbers have surpassed 504 million globally, but without citation. Please could someone edit the subheading Cases under the Epidemiology heading to include this statement: As of the 14th April 2022, over 500 million cases have been confirmed globally. along with this citation from reuters (or other suitable citation) https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/worldwide-covid-cases-surpass-500-mln-omicron-variant-ba2-surges-2022-04-14/ Asimoth (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

will look.... Done [17]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 April 2022

I noticed a few minor problems that I wanted to fix. BOBByjsdf ohsfj (talk) 20:19, 25 April 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. You are more than welcome to point out what the problems are, how they should be fixed, and provide reliable sources, if relevant. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2022

Can you add newer link to other articles? Also, try to add vocabulary and date of word created. 2601:205:C002:D1E0:B0B7:360C:595E:DD5E (talk) 08:21, 9 May 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. Cannolis (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Classification of Virus

Should Covid-19 be considered a respiratory disease? Covid-19 has been shown to affect multiple parts of the body, so why do we say it's just a respiratory disease? BadKarma22 (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

this question which is more to the condition, rather than the pandemic, should be taken to COVID-19/talk,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Y

How does the death/case count get updated?

I wish to contribute to the page by updating the case/death count since I got extended-confirmed access, but it's a bit weird to look at when I view the source for it. Is it automatically updated from an API or something else? Pyraminxsolver (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The template uses data updated by a bot. The data is, basically, taken from Our World in Data. However, it is not without problems. For example, the Slovak website korona.gov.sk with official data says that the total number of confirmed cases in Slovakia is currently 1,786,579 whereas the template says it is 2,537,896, as that is what OWiD says. 2A02:AB04:2AB:700:F47A:115:D77A:A1E (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Y

National responses

In the national responses section, the sentence "National reactions ranged from strict lockdowns to public education." doesn't make sense. Wretchskull (alt) (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

It does to me. HiLo48 (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Me too. MartinezMD (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Me 3--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The article is reffering to how in some parts of the U.S, some public schools are still shut down while some public schools are open. Thepanthersfan201 (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I should make sense. The definition of National is "of, relating to, or being a coalition (see COALITION sense 2) government formed by most or all major political parties usually in a crisis" according to the Merriam-Webster definition, if that helps. What do you propose for it to say? — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 18:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Y

Flybe

Flybe link needs to be changed to Flybe (1979-2020). Tyeenera (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

an editor was kind enough to do so [18]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Y

Unrelated

I know that this is totally unrelated and may also be premature, but can a similar wikipage be created for the current monkey pox outbreak? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

See 2022 monkeypox outbreak. CMD (talk) 06:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Y

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 [19] [20] 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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 June 2022

I suggest adding this paper published on the Journal of Internet Research (JMIR) as a reference to the end of the 4th paragraph about the health disparity shown on social media(Twitter): Liu X, Kar B, Montiel Ishino FA, Onega T, Williams F The Associations Between Racially/Ethnically Stratified COVID-19 Tweets and COVID-19 Cases and Deaths: Cross-sectional Study JMIR Form Res 2022;6(5):e30371

The publication link: https://formative.jmir.org/2022/5/e30371 LuFaL (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The lead is a summary of the article, which is already cited. There's no reason to add a cite to a formative study to the lead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

Can someone update the caption on the image File:COVID-19_Outbreak_World_Map.svg that is in this article (not on the image itself). It still claims its last updated since December 2021 which I think by now is inaccurate. -184.56.75.144 (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

JackintheBox has taken care of it[21]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Y

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 June 2022

I suggest adding this paper published on the Journal of Internet Research (JMIR) as a reference to the end of the 4th paragraph about the health disparity shown on social media(Twitter): Liu X, Kar B, Montiel Ishino FA, Onega T, Williams F The Associations Between Racially/Ethnically Stratified COVID-19 Tweets and COVID-19 Cases and Deaths: Cross-sectional Study JMIR Form Res 2022;6(5):e30371

The publication link: https://formative.jmir.org/2022/5/e30371 LuFaL (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The lead is a summary of the article, which is already cited. There's no reason to add a cite to a formative study to the lead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

Can someone update the caption on the image File:COVID-19_Outbreak_World_Map.svg that is in this article (not on the image itself). It still claims its last updated since December 2021 which I think by now is inaccurate. -184.56.75.144 (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

JackintheBox has taken care of it[22]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Y

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 [23] [24] 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)

Adding fatality rate to main infobox

I have noticed that COVID-19 pandemic in the Northern Territory has a fatality rate section on its main infobox and I was just wondering if we can integrate that onto the main COVID-19 pandemic page here. 101.103.121.19 (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Seems useful info to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that, while we might have precise figures for some countries or regions; that is not the case everywhere. And even when we do have precise, "exact" numbers, those numbers are probably underestimates (and, well, let's not even talk about the difficulties of updating case numbers and other stuff when authorities across the world all report at different times), as the present content in the infobox (which to me seems like plenty enough, an infobox is supposed to only be a "summary of key features of the article's subject"). We can maybe add a few generalised statements about infection fatality rate or something as described in scientific papers, but those belong in the body (where they already are, IIRC), not in the infobox. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: WHO hasnt provided a global pandemic fatality rate? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Endemic stage, post-pandemic management

A number of jurisdictions have begun moving on from what could be described as a pandemic to what can be described as an endemic illness, broadly defined; much of this content is on specific countries' articles but there is now an article entitled Living with COVID-19 which seems to be functioning as a repository for these types of strategies. Some context on this article regarding “Living with COVID-19” or other strategies similar would be beneficial. Please note I have suggested renaming that article to Endemic management of COVID-19 or Post-pandemic management of COVID-19. The herd immunity strategy from Iceland as I mentioned before ("widespread societal resistance to COVID-19 is the main route out of the epidemic"[25]) can be part of this, herd immunity on this article still needs an update. SmolBrane (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

interesting, though the U.S. (the country w/ most COVID deaths) has cases rising again[26]...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I count at least ten countries on the Living with COVID-19 article that are endorsing some explicit endemic management of COVID-19. Summarizing here on this article and wikilinking is DUE. SmolBrane (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

An academic source on the matter, from the Lancet--"COVID-19 will continue but the end of the pandemic is near":[27]

"The impacts of future SARS-CoV-2 transmission on health, however, will be less because of broad previous exposure to the virus, regularly adapted vaccines to new antigens or variants, the advent of antivirals, and the knowledge that the vulnerable can protect themselves during future waves when needed by using high-quality masks and physical distancing. COVID-19 will become another recurrent disease that health systems and societies will have to manage...The era of extraordinary measures by government and societies to control SARS-CoV-2 transmission will be over. After the omicron wave, COVID-19 will return but the pandemic will not."

Many jurisdictions, including the ten jurisdictions I mentioned as well as Rhode Island have moved on to endemic management, this article still lacks inclusion and updates. SmolBrane (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

other editors should chime in--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed they should. I am surprised at how out of date this article is given the number of experienced editors involved with editing it. The most recent citation in the 'Strategies' section is from August of last year! Obviously a great deal has changed since then. Living with COVID-19 should be linked and summarized on this article. I'll keep y'all up to date regardless; I've got ~50 edits to go and the number of jurisdictions moving on to some sort of endemic management is increasing weekly. SmolBrane (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

In the UK no-one has to wear masks (except for in some medical places such as hospitals if you work there), no-one has to take Covid tests to do anything, there is no social distancing or social restrictions at all. Although cases will no doubt fluctuate seasonally like any illness, each peak now comes with less hospitalisation and deaths. As far as the UK government and most people I know we are in a post-pandemic country now. Figures here: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ Sirhissofloxley (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I definitely share the sentiment regarding post-pandemic, at least where I live and where many others live too. And there's plenty of sourcing by now. Wikipedia just needs to catch up. SmolBrane (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The issue is this article is about the pandemic. I would not support a change per WP:NOTNEWS. It is possible this event fades into history and this whole endemic thing also becomes history. Then it is like the black plague or something historical (encyclopedic). Mostly what we do here at wikipedia is document history. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

You believe the end of this pandemic will fade into history and its conclusion won't be historical? That Living with COVID is not due and reliably sourced? I hope our readers know better--sad to see that this article cannot reflect encyclopedic reality. SmolBrane (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

So I've just learned about how transcluding works. This would be an easy fix, here's the lead section right now at Living with COVID-19:

"Living with COVID-19" is a term used to describe management strategies for the COVID-19 pandemic that designate Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as an endemic illness that has lessened in severity but cannot be fully contained, and prioritise a return to normal lifestyles.

These strategies consider SARS-CoV-2 to be a respiratory virus that can be controlled with vaccines and prescription treatments, without the continued use of extraordinary public health measures such as lockdowns, restrictions on gatherings, mandatory self-isolation, PCR testing programmes, and mandatory masking. Emphasis is usually placed on personal responsibility, as opposed to government-mandated mitigations.

It is contrary to COVID-Zero, a strategy that aims to suppress and/or eliminate any community transmission of the virus. Some countries that attempted to pursue COVID-Zero (such as Australia and New Zealand) pivoted to this strategy when SARS-CoV-2 variants made it intractable to continue.

This would be an easy addition to this article--In case editors aren't clear I don't have the necessary edit count to edit this article. SmolBrane (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Is it "ongoing" - reliable and widely trusted BBC News now constantly suggests it is over?

Is this an "ongoing" global pandemic anymore? We now have the BBC on its domestic news channel in the UK constantly making suggestions that it has ended, including several different journalists referring to various things as being "post-pandemic". Should we make clear here that the pandemic continues to be ongoing despite BBC News being in a current state of denialism over the matter? There is, last week, ten times the amount of virus in the UK suggesting by the ONS infection survey compared to the same time here last year - arguably the pandemic is even more *present* now and there has never yet been any "post-pandemic" stage. The WHO and also the body of mainstream worldwide scientific expertise is that the pandemic is still ongoing - although I have to doubt myself and whether I am in the real world over this due to BBC News telling me constantly that it is not, thus seeming to be a form of gaslighting. We are not out of the woods yet in the UK, with Omicrons 3, 4 and 5 potential to lead to another wave in maybe a month or two's time, one possible worse if people are in widescale denial of the pandemic due to BBC News.

Around the world, the situation with the pandemic is dire, with many people in poorer countries yet to receive a first vaccine. There does also seem to me to be a feedback loop of misinformation also starting appearing now - in which guests who've probably watched BBC News and now think it is post-pandemic or is "post-Covid" are now repeating that when talking on air - and no occasion yet in which I have ever heard a BBC News journalist jump in and correct. Believing the pandemic has ended is something that many people, for emotional reasons since the pandemic has been so hard for them, want to believe to be the case and, therefore, I suspect the news will have little difficulty persuading them of this falsehood. Am I in a fake reality world or is BBC News? Should we make clear ongoing despite BBC News being unreliable on this one matter? - the danger is we may now get people especially other people from the UK arriving here and editing this to remove "ongoing" on the basis of the denial caused to them by BBC News (whilst journalists being excellent on everything else - although their constant pandemic denial, of the ones, including many really big names, well trusted and respected, is making me tend to distrust them now when they start telling me of other things but where they are being excellent and trustworthy and reliable journalism).

Am I even creating an issue that doesn't exist? Is it me in some form of mental illness in which I am imagining all this near-daily, and daily, pandemic denial and speaking of the pandemic as if it is now all in the past that I am hearing now - can someone else please watch the BBC News Channel and confirm I am indeed not imagining it all? Economics people have been telling us for some weeks now of some "post-pandemic recovery" having already happened, even though no such thing has ever occurred as any recovery has been *during* this *ongoing* pandemic. If everything after the pandemic first arrived in the world is now "post-pandemic", then why weren't we "post-pandemic" when we were being told to go into lockdown in 2020? Clearly that was in the pandemic, and so is now.

Quote today, political correspondent speaking about an airline: "Staff shortages post-pandemic have contributed to queues, delays and cancellations" (BBC News Channel, 5 June 2022, 1320 UTC). I am aware of no such shortages. There have been no staff shortages post-pandemic and none therefore that have contributed to any such thing, although I am aware that there have been staff shortages *during* this ongoing pandemic that have done this.

aspaa (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I notice above "In the UK no-one has to wear masks (except for in some medical places such as hospitals if you work there), no-one has to take Covid tests to do anything, there is no social distancing or social restrictions at all." This is not evidence of the pandemic being over, it is evidence of our Government's recklessness in failure to respond now to do anything in relation to an ongoing pandemic in my view. You should also not think there is "no" social distancing since I am still doing so and there are severe social restrictions de facto on me at present due to the existence of Covid created by everyone else following no restrictions and everyone else's recklessness making society's high prevalence of the virus too dangerous to go out into society, for *anyone* in my view and not just clinically vulnerable. Now 200,000 extra reporting long Covid - total 2 million to date. The consequences are there of people's behaviour and thinking wrongly it wasn't much risk. Clarification that patients in medical settings do still wear masks, it is not just confined to people that work there. aspaa (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

"Although cases will no doubt fluctuate seasonally like any illness, each peak now comes with less hospitalisation and deaths." Does it? As far as I knew, the last Omicron peak just gone was more deaths than the previous peak in the wave earlier this year. "As far as the UK government and most people I know we are in a post-pandemic country now" You are being told this by the media constantly with no basis given by BBC News yet as far as I am aware on which it is claiming this. Listening to reliable scientists on social media instead, and not those that support the official narrative that seems to me to be putting all of us at risk, as shown by further long-term illness - no mention anywhere on mainstream news about doubled risks of several serious conditions in the year after even mild infection and I have heard hours of coverage every day - there is more virus even after this wave is now going than there was this time last year (around 10 times as much infection rate on ONS Infection Survey end May 2022 compared to end May 2021) - again if you believe that this is Omicron milder this is a part truth used in what appears to have been part of some successful propaganda campaign which doesn't tell us about how more children have died in the UK this year in the two Omicron waves than died here in the entirely of 2020 from Covid - due to the sheer amount of infection. There are not fewer children dying in peaks now, the official narrative is likely to have discouraged parents from getting their children vaccinated as it presents this as "non-urgent" after earlier messaging the end result of which if that was all I had heard I am not surprised that many people wouldn't think it was needed (and our vaccination programme regarding children has stalled as a result) - stop relying on BBC News and mainstream media for your news and listen to independent scientists instead! So, all this is disputed by me on the basis of vast amounts of information provided by experts, those who have been more right throughout the pandemic, there is far more that has formed what I say here than I can mention. aspaa (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Condense your thoughts please and read WP:FORUM. Lots of places are moving on from the pandemic state in a variety of jurisdictions, observed by a variety of sources, which can be found over at Living with COVID-19. We just cover what sources say(or try to, anyway). SmolBrane (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

agree[28]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, as I were to explain below I am on the autism spectrum so am actually unable to condense my thoughts as that is how I write in detail. Yoi should also be aware that the phrase "Li***g with C***d" is hugely offensive as sets off my PTSD. I am not sure it is possible for me to read the variety of sources on a page I can't therefore visit. EDIT: Forget to put original time as had to leave in distress, have now put user details in as I should have done earlier. Unfortunately I can't now remember the time and I'm somewhat in a state of confusion trying to think about it, therefore my apologies. aspaa ([[User talk:aspaa|talk]) Time forgotten, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

If you think "Living with COVID" is triggering, perhaps you should refrain from being here. Just a thought. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The suggestion I should refrain from being here is discriminatory. It means I am excluded and the discrimination is so effective it prevents me from being here at all. It is not a matter of my thought that it is triggering, it is triggering as a matter of fact. The heart racing is there, I cannot stop it and it was simply unexpected to see the phrase all of a sudden like that and I couldn't help it. The lack of apology is a further compounding of the matter now - however, I shall move on as this is not the place for complaints about offence. In addition, repeating the phrase after knowing it is potentially triggering, you now take your victim as you find them and intentional harm therefore if it were to do so - sometimes it does, it doesn't - fortunately the second use hasn't compounded it in fact (as doesn't relate necessarily to what I think but is just random what it happens to do sometimes) but it does risk doing so. aspaa (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Do not hold others responsible for hurdles you must deal with, especially when the topic at hand just so happens to be something only you have a problem with. Wikipedia is not censored. Are you insinuating that BBC is no longer a reliable source in regards to COVID-19? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed Tenryuu. We can't stop using words because people have issues with them. Phobias and fears come in so many shapes and forms there would be no Wikipedia if we listened to stuff like this Sirhissofloxley (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

extended content

Attempt at summary I think the overall point is that what was perceived as discussion about the article topic was in fact related to the question of whether the article should be saying "ongoing" or not, albeit that that was in detail. It was about how people may perceive that it is now post-pandemic due to being told that by the media, rather than it being true. We may have a flat earth society in which almost everyone then believes the pandemic has ended but this does not make that the case unless it actually has ended and Wikipedia should be going by the truth, not by what people widely believe, caused by the media, that isn't true. The discussion by myself was based on the science and directly relevant to the points that people posted claiming their society is now "post-pandemic". This isn't science based, it appears to be based on several weeks now of repeated, relentless, ad nauseaum suggestion and unsubstantiated claims. The claims are with no basis ever explained on air as to why journalists are claiming it is "post-pandemic". Where has this idea come from? It has never been explained and people apparently now believe it is the case and everyone else around them does and they are claiming their society is "post-pandemic", posted on here as a suggestion that the article should be amended to end the pandemic because people think it has ended, or has ended in their country, but this is not science. My own view is based on the science as to likely surges and the fact that around the world the pandemic is nowhere near over, with many people in poorer countries yet to get their first vaccine, so the post-pandemic anti-science is just that - anti-science. The BBC coverage may not necessarily be propaganda but may arise from the ordinary processes of news instead, including reliance on official sources that have been assumed to be reliable (including when making disputed claims or claims that have yet to be substantiated). What was inserted above was unclear. It says "This talk page is not a forum for general discussion". General discussion of what? However, whilst I did not immediately notice it, the previous page clarified that it meant the article's subject. I wasn't discussing the article's subject, I was discussing whether the pandemic was ongoing or not (and hence whether amendment should be made to the article, i.e. improvements to reflect the facts) - I note people here have been claiming their counties were now post-pandemic and I was responding, on scientific evidence, to that as to whether that was the case or not and hence whether the article needed changing, which is what presumably the inclusion of the post-pandemic discussion other people have put here before I've arrived was also about. I wrote what I did, then saw what other people have been saying previously and then responded on some of that, including on some narratives within what was said that appear to be false on the full evidence rather than the selective information presented in the media that may have caused people on a widespread scale to believe it is "post-pandemic" in their country and then have this discussion. I then added a section on "Independent experts" to clarify that this meant a wider range of experts and not just the limited set of experts on the most-viewed parts of television media, who may be giving a view that supports an official narrative and again relates to whether the pandemic has ended or not or has ended in their countries whilst the official narrative of the WHO may not also be getting airtime, so favouring one official line over another and one that leads to people wrongly thinking it is post-pandemic in their countries and hence directly relates to what is here on this talk page previously and whether the article needs amendment or not. The reply that "lots of places are moving on from the pandemic state in a variety of jurisdictions" was itself illuminating as I have seen no evidence to support this claim. It is, again, something that people wish to believe for emotional reasons. The fact that it refers to a "variety of sources" that support the thing with an offensive title further illustrates the point. If I were able to look at the sources on that page, it may be that I would be pleasantly surprised and not find what I expected to find in them. I will have to try to steady, at the right times though, if I am to be able to do that. What I expect to find is that the "variety of sources" aren't a variety of sources, because they are not sources that support a variety of views, instead they are all sources in favour of the biased political rhetoric that tries to get us to do what it says and therefore the "variety" of sources is a limited range of sources, namely all those that support the same offensive title plan. In the process the alternative has been rejected from the start, by media hostility to it from the very start of the pandemic and never being explained properly to the public what it meant, until a point where failure even to try that meant more variants that increasing set it off limits because it was never pursued, with false narrative deployed again, and then being left with something being inevitable or to the point where it is seen as such due to never doing anything to create an alternative option and thus this biased rhetoric that people then have accepted rather than being objective on the matter and then me seen as biased due to everyone thinking their POV is neutral and objective and that a variety of sources all supporting the same is in any way variety: the point that relates back to the amendment or not of the article is that is then claimed that "lots of places are moving on" but the only 'evidence' is from this limited range of sources that all support the same biased one thing and therefore is not a neutral or objective way to leading potentially to an edit to the article. I just see unsubstantiated claims without evidence, claims that have been accepted because of repetition or being the biased rhetoric they are, because they support a particular approach that people may have decided on from the start and shut down the options and now people think those places are moving on when in fact they have huge levels of Covid and are in denial as to the existence or ongoing nature of the pandemic, when then directly relates back to here. The public in denial may be moving on but the jurisdictions aren't actually moving on from the pandemic? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/16/once-again-america-is-in-denial-about-signs-of-a-fresh-covid-wave I don't know - may change as this is now back in March, although we've seen 'unpredictability' with this virus before that people like me predicted and, just when people think the pandemic is over, we've then seen another surge come back again that shows the pandemic, still in their country, wasn't stable and therefore had not moved into endemic stage (I don't know why people want that stage by the way, when it seems to mean at very high levels of virus that aren't at all safe as stable high consistent constant virus is never-ending - an unacceptable stability where people assume stable is a good thing - and probably leads back to pandemic, so it is still ongoing even if they thought it was "post-pandemic"). And then post-pandemic is an unexplained misinformation trope it seems to me at present as I have been given no basis on which it is being claimed beyond people's probably now widespread beliefs from a false impression of normality that has been taking place throughout the past six months, reinforced by scenes that suggest such a thing is happening when it is not (as constant circulating of virus at such high levels is not normal nor is the airbrushed consequences of what that is doing), the widespread belief that it is post-pandemic that then arises from the misinformation and very easy indeed to persuade most people that it is post-pandemic because they have an emotional need to think it is as well as wishing it to be true). In other words, pandemic is ongoing and it isn't post-pandemic anywhere (except possibly North Sentinel Island where I assume Covid has never got and remained without pandemic therefore in the outside world that is where absolutely everyone else is, actually wasn't even after a pandemic in North Sentinel as never even had the pandemic at all - wish we could have been there probably on the assumption the people on that island are missing the pandemic entirely - ongoing pandemic in the world outside of North Sentinel Island). aspaa (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC) This is even longer. This type of long summary is not how we work at wikipedia. Explaining us your opinion would fall under the treatment of WP:OR and also you might want to read WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. If you would like to make convincing arguments, you will need to spend a lot of time finding sources and using WP:RS to justify your arguments. This type of position that a high profile article needs to be re-named will face huge consideration and certainly opposition. You can see above the discussion about even adding one link. Giving us a long explanation and or talking about your own personal feelings isn't going to help anything, and may eventually result in you getting banned from the article per WP:NOTFORUM as others have pointed out above. Please go with the flow and accept the wikipedia norms. Nothing that you argue personally will likely change wikipedia norms which are codified at WP:5P. I would say it is safe to assume that all editors somewhat dislike every article, that is part of forming consensus and if we love an article, it is probably not showing an WP:NPOV. Think on it please before you take another stab at a personal essay here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC) These topics in the talk page seem disruptive to me and should stop before they need to be escalated to an admin. See WP:TALK for guidance. MartinezMD (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC) Additional thing disputed Appears in "It is contrary to COVID-Zero, a strategy that aims to suppress and/or eliminate any community transmission of the virus. Some countries that attempted to pursue COVID-Zero (such as Australia and New Zealand) pivoted to this strategy when SARS-CoV-2 variants made it intractable to continue." SARS-CoV-2 variants caused by... countries not pursuing COVID-Zero that proved a block on waiving vaccine patents, which is also, although some limited process has now been made, why the pandemic won't end this year. There was a chance said the WHO at the turn of the year to end it by the end of this year and people were optimistic such as an article in the Daily Mirror. IIRC the WHO said if the same mistakes were not repeated, i.e. failing to vaccinate the world, and I expected that the same mistakes would be repeated so no chance. The limited progress now means, it seems to me, it won't be anytime soon and not by the end of the year that vaccination will be worldwide and hence still pandemic at year end. I also don't know that those countries did pivot to that strategy when variants made it intractable. New Zealand PM claimed that they were always going to change strategy when enough people vaccinated in NZ etc., so suggests it was *not* a pivot to the strategy because of the variants. Why so much seeming dispute over the facts these days? Is it just me? Countries "endorsing some explicit endemic management of COVID-19" - doesn't mean they are actually in endemic stage yet, question is are they going to get there or are they going to pretend they are post-pandemic when, on the science and likelihood of non-stable surges, they are not? aspaa (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC) No offense but you really need to stop posting on here. It's not healthy for you Sirhissofloxley (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Commented out navboxes

I noticed that navboxes {{Epidemics}} and {{History of infectious disease}} at the bottom of the article have been commented out due to WP:PEIS concerns. Is this still a problem? Currently the page uses about 70% of the limit, and the two navboxes would add another ~4% — that seems kinda okay to me. If need be, I am willing to take a stab at proposed short version of Epidemics requested by @Sdkb: ——2406:3003:2077:1E60:D59D:E6EC:AEA9:4652 (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done. I've restored those navboxes and nothing seems to be broken. So long as editors add little new content here or go mostly to related pages, we should be fine. Thanks for pointing it out. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)