Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19

MainTalkTask forcesAlertsNewsTipsSourcesSources listMissing topicsMessagesAssessmentPortal

Highlighted open discussions

• Talk:COVID-19 pandemic § Highlighted open discussions
• Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data § Highlighted open discussions

Current consensus

NOTE: The following is a list of material maintained on grounds that it represents current consensus for the articles under the scope of this project. In accordance with Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019, ("prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content except when consensus for the edit exists") changes of the material listed below in this article must be discussed first, and repeated offenses against established consensus may result in administrative action. It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19#Current consensus]], item [n]. To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

General

1. Superseded by TfD October 2020 and later practice - consult regular {{Current}} guidance.
2. Refrain from using Worldometer (worldometers.info) as a source due to common errors being observed as noted on the Case Count Task Force common errors page. (April 2020, April 2020)
3. For infoboxes on the main articles of countries, use Wuhan, Hubei, China for the origin parameter. (March 2020)
4. "Social distancing" is generally preferred over "physical distancing". (April 2020, May 2020)

Page title

1. COVID-19 (full caps) is preferable in the body of all articles, and in the title of all articles/category pages/etc.(RM April 2020, including the main article itself, RM March 2021).
2. SARS-CoV-2 (exact capitalisation and punctuation) is the common name of the virus and should be used for the main article's title, as well as in the body of all articles, and in the title of all other articles/category pages/etc. (June 2022, overturning April 2020)

Map

1. There is no consensus about which color schemes to use, but they should be consistent within articles as much as possible. There is agreement that there should be six levels of shading, plus gray   for areas with no instances or no data. (May 2020)
2. There is no consensus about whether the legend, the date, and other elements should appear in the map image itself. (May 2020)
3. For map legends, ranges should use fixed round numbers (as opposed to updating dynamically). There is no consensus on what base population to use for per capita maps. (May 2020)

New study out in The Lancet regarding COVID-19 vaccine booster dose

• Munro, Alasdair P S; Janani, Leila; Cornelius, Victoria; Aley, Parvinder K; Babbage, Gavin; et al. (December 2021). "Safety and immunogenicity of seven COVID-19 vaccines as a third dose (booster) following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 or BNT162b2 in the UK (COV-BOOST): a blinded, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial". The Lancet: S0140673621027173. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02717-3.

Thanks 2402:3A80:6E8:2C90:59DA:42FC:1E3D:B10E (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Primary source, so not reliable per WP:MEDRS for medical content. Alexbrn (talk) 10:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: But this article is from the prestigious journal The Lancet and looks it has been accepted after a peer-review only. 2402:3A80:6E8:2C90:59DA:42FC:1E3D:B10E (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

If you don't want to read MEDRS, maybe WP:MEDFAQ#Sourcing would be quicker. OTOH, given the likely push for inclusion I wouldn't object to something like "A clinical trial reported in December 2021 that there were no safety concerns with a third "booster" vaccine following double vaccination with the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine or the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine". Alexbrn (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Usefuless of medical cases charts

Are those kinds of templates still useful? Most of those templates have become severely outdated. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

UK maps

Could somebody please update the maps for COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom? I think maps are more neutral than the other images on the page and so should remain but they are now almost a year out of date. --Arcahaeoindris (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination#Requested move 18 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination#Requested move 18 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Australia numbers all wrong

The box in COVID-19_pandemic_in_Australia#Timeline is all wrong. It claims that we've had about 185,000 total cases, including about 280 in the last two weeks. But according to its source, we've had almost 240,000 total cases, including more than 1,000 per day in the last several months. 122.150.71.249 (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

"Omicron wave appears milder"

The BBC is reporting today on a number of studies that suggest that Omicron infection may result in a milder illness (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59758784). I wanted to include mention of this in History of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom, as it adds additional information to the impact of our current wave of omicron-driven cases. However it occurs to me that discussion of variant potency might count as biomedical claims, and I'm not sure which if any of the BBC's source studies, or their article itself, would be acceptable under WP:MEDRS. I feel like there's probably something that can be included here - at the very least, it is a fact that the national press is reporting this - but I'd appreciate guidance on the wording/sourcing if possible. BlackholeWA (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it's going to need more than the preliminary reports to confirm it. The "appears" milder may turn out not to be. I'd keep that on your short list of things to add to the article if it pans out to be accurate imo. MartinezMD (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Can't really trust newsorgs nor single studies for biomedical information. Best avoided. Need to wait for organizations like NHS or the WHO to release a statement about it, or for review articles in medical journals to be published. Better to lag behind a bit than to be wrong. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree with everyone above. This is way too big for anything other than an impeccable source. Alexbrn (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@MartinezMD, Novem Linguae, and Alexbrn: - the UK government has started commenting on these reports about the "milder" wave in their messaging, and the UKHSA has apparently released a report about the matter (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59769969). This is clearly becoming a pretty large part of the narrative that needs to be properly addressed in the article in some way - and another user has already inserted mention of it, although it's poorly spelled and needs refactoring. Would appreciate insight on how to proceed, whether to merely neutrally state what is being said by the authorities about the matter without weighing in on the facts of it, or whether the new UKHSA report is a satisfactory secondary source. BlackholeWA (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

If any policymakers say that these reports are influencing their decisions, one could say "HM Government did ___, based on reports that the omicron variant tended to be milder". But that would only fit in a history-of-responses section, not in a section reporting on the virus itself. 122.150.71.249 (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Broadly agreed, we could mention where action was taken based on a perception of lower mortality. Especially if there's a national health agency explicitly citing it (how does UKHSA compare to NHS? are they notable for such statements?). Though wikivoice discussions of relative mortality and severity of symptoms is clearly BMI requiring MEDRS. Bakkster Man (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I would be okay with something to the effect of "Based on preliminary reports that the omicron strain may be less severe, X government did Y". This would be factual and not make a medical assertion. MartinezMD (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I like the "based on preliminary reports" wording for the same reasons. Good call. Bakkster Man (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

3-way merge proposal being drafted at Draft:Chinese government response to COVID-19

A merge proposal is in the process of being drafted that may interest watchers of this talk page. For details please see Draft talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19 § About this article ––FormalDude ^talk 08:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Circling back on Dr. Vin Gupta AfC

Dear Colleagues,

Im hopeful for your re-review of Dr. Vin Gupta -- NBC News's COVID-19 analyst -- and a critical care pulmonologist by training. He continues to be on primetime cable TV nonstop for over the past 2 years and feel like there's a clear void on wikipedia that can provide people relevant background info on him -- "Vin Gupta wikipedia" is a frequent search term.

Given the state of the pandemic, hopeful you can please help me bring this over the top. Thank you,

CG.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vin_Gupta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caroline grossman23 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Hubei#Requested move 23 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Hubei#Requested move 23 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 12:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Zero Covid

In a GA review, one of the copyedit issues which arose was whether to link the term "Zero Covid".

This search found 29 mentions of the term, and it seemed to me that "Zero Covid" or "Zero Covid strategies" might be a suitable topic for a standalone article, or at least a section in some other article.

A JSTOR search for "Zero Covid" gives 11 hits. Some of those about zero Covid cases rather a zero Covid policy/strategy/goal, but there may be something in the rest.

This is not my field, and I have no agenda other than noting a possible omission. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)