Talk:COVID-19 pandemic

Current consensus

NOTE: The following is a list of material maintained on grounds that it represents current consensus in the article. In accordance with Wikipedia:General sanctions/COVID-19, ("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 [[Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Current consensus]], item [n]. To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

01. Superseded by #9

The first few sentences of the second paragraph should state "The virus is typically spread during close contact and via respiratory droplets produced when people cough or sneeze. Respiratory droplets may be produced during breathing but the virus is not considered airborne. It may also spread when one touches a contaminated surface and then their face. It is most contagious when people are symptomatic, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear." (March 2020)

References

02. The infobox should feature a per capita count map most prominently, and a total count by country map secondarily. (March 2020)

03. The article should not use {{Current}} at the top. (March 2020 (informal))

04. Do not include a sentence in the lead section noting comparisons to World War II. (March 2020)

05. Include subsections of the "Domestic response" section covering the domestic responses of Italy, China, Iran, the United States, and South Korea. Do not include individual subsections for France, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia and Japan. (March 2020) Include a short subsection on Sweden focusing on the policy controversy. (May 2020)

06. Obsolete

There is a 30 day moratorium on move requests until 26 April 2020. (March 2020)

07. The infobox should feature a confirmed cases count map most prominently, and a deaths count map secondarily. (May 2020 (prevailing)) Consensus is currently unclear on this issue.

08. Superseded by #16

The clause on xenophobia in the lead should read ...and there have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people and against those perceived as being Chinese or as being from areas with high infection rates. (April 2020)

09. Superseded as this content is now transcluded from COVID-19

The first few sentences of the second paragraph should state The virus is mainly spread during close contact and by small droplets produced when those infected cough, sneeze or talk. These droplets may also be produced during breathing; however, they rapidly fall to the ground or surfaces and are not generally spread through the air over large distances. People may also become infected by touching a contaminated surface and then their face. The virus can survive on surfaces for up to 72 hours. Coronavirus is most contagious during the first three days after onset of symptoms, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear and in later stages of the disease. (March 2020, April 2020 (informal))

Notes

References

010. The title of the article was decided to be "COVID-19 pandemic". It was also decided that the title of related pages should follow this scheme as well. (April 2020, August 2020)

011. The lead paragraph should use Wuhan, China to describe the virus's origin, without mentioning Hubei or otherwise further describing Wuhan. (April 2020)

012. The second sentence of the lead paragraph should be phrased using the words "first identified" (not "originated") and "December 2019" (not "early December 2019"). (May 2020)

013. Superseded by #15

File:President Donald Trump suggests measures to treat COVID-19 during Coronavirus Task Force press briefing.webm should be used as the visual element of the misinformation section, with the caption U.S. president Donald Trump suggested at a press briefing on 23 April that disinfectant injections or exposure to ultraviolet light might help treat COVID-19. There is no evidence that either could be a viable method. (1:05 min) (May 2020, June 2020)

References

014. Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article. (May 2020)

015. File:President Donald Trump suggests measures to treat COVID-19 during Coronavirus Task Force press briefing.webm should not be used as the visual element of the misinformation section. (RfC November 2020)

016. Incidents of xenophobia and discrimination are considered WP:UNDUE for a full sentence in the lead. (January 2021)

017. Only include one photograph in the infobox. The exact image in question has no clear consensus. (May 2021)

018. The first sentence is The COVID-19 pandemic, also known as the coronavirus pandemic, is a global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). (August 2021) and later edits

RFC on current consensus #18

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

Having read the RFC several times over several days, I think 12 now, it is clear the consensus is to Retain. Looking at the RFC, the initial consensus was to change the sentence from "is" to "was" with the premise that previous discussions had led to a consensus and this premise was still valid in the RFC. That was rejected by retain over the rest of the RFC and discussion, with a particular focus on the assumption that WP:MEDRS applied and the World Health Organisation was a valid source in this instance. The question of the validity of sources particular to specific organisations was advanced by remove but this was rejected by a relatively strong consensus. The examination of the length and definition of the end of a pandemic was examined in detail but effective arguments failed to form by remove, by the rebuttal from retain. By the point of the examination of sources along with questioning of grammer, a full consensus had formed around retain and no argument could be offered by remove to change that. It is definite retain for the moment at least. The question of actually who decides when the pandemic end needs to be examined in detail. It is a really interesting question. That is core of it for the future. Lastly its nice to see a collegiate discussion at RFC. Kudos to all those who took part and maintained the free flow of ideas without the discussion droping into recriminations and blame. scope_creep^Talk 17:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Proposing to either strike down or replace Consensus #18 "The first sentence is The COVID-19 pandemic, also known as the coronavirus pandemic, is an ongoing global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)." The purpose of this discussion is to find a consensus mainly surrounding the first line using the past tense 'was' instead of 'is' or ongoing. This is either a new standard first line or to allow for the editor liberty to later decide one. AndrewRG10 (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

It is an ongoing pandemic, so the article should reflect that in its language. Groble (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support Removing I don't imagine there is going to be a lot of edit wars going between was and is. There may be a rouge vandal every few months who insists on it being present tense but I imagine the discussion in the section above will be enough to create a new consensus that the entire article is to refer to it as was, there is no need for the first line to have its own specific consensus. -AndrewRG10 (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support Striking Down however, I do think there is going to be a lot of editor disagreement over this. We have had what appears to be weekly discussions on this talk page about was vs is. Am I permitted to ping the other editors that comment on this topic in the past month or two (both sides of the fence), or does that run afoul of CANVASS? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  Comment I am inclined to agree with you their are going to be editor disputes. Currently there are more editors throughout the three discussion supporting change, and provided that continues to the end of discussion it would be best for a new consensus to be written, not just about the first line but the entire article. AndrewRG10 (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• eventually support however retain there's no rush (or need) to change this now...IMO --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I'm concerned about two things. Firstly, the haste with which some editors seem so keen to say it's all over. It's NOT! Is there politics behind this? In truth, it is fading away, but will never be gone. Secondly, the murder of the English language. "Striking down? WTF? Can't we just amend or remove it? HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, I take offense to the idea that this has been a rushed process. The discussion gained momentum over two months ago with the end of the PHEIC and a lot of discussion has happened as people change their opinion. This isn't politics, this is just making an observation that very few reliable sources are referring to the pandemic as ongoing. Pandemic can't Never be gone as you said, that is contrary to every pandemic in human history. If you look in the section above, you may see a consensus is being reached that not enough sources refer to the pandemic as ongoing to justify Wikipedia's stance, this is about consensus 18 and changing/removing it in order to be consistent with the paragraph above. I do agree the language isn't right, I have amended my Support statement as such. AndrewRG10 (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry. No offence was intended. My response on that aspect was probably intensified by my concerns about the language. I didn't mean that the pandemic can never be gone. Just that the disease can't. The problem is that we live in a world where many still claim that the disease never existed, or was never a pandemic. Unfortunately, it IS political, though not in the way you or I speak about it. I am happy for the tense to change, but not without the Post-pandemic section I wrote about above. And there is still no rush. HiLo48 (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  We have the COVID-19 article for the disease in general, akin to influenza. Anything new about the disease that is post-pandemic and not related to the pandemic itself would go there. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I also haven't seen any rush on this talk page. I have seen a number of editors come here asking the same question every week. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

it is wrong to say that it is currently an ongoing pandemic. if we don't want to use the verb "was" then we need to find anther neutral sentence that will not say whether it is or not. This is my opinion. ArmorredKnight (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Question Am I allowed to notify the editors who have discussed this topic on this talk page over the past month or two? Does that comply with WP:APPNOTE "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)? There have been I recall two or three discussions on exactly this topic on this talk page in the past couple months, it seems they should participate (those for and against). I see these discussions (often not very involved, but things seem to get archived quickly on this talk page). These were found in the last two archives (47 and 48)
  • Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_48#"Was"_a_pandemic?
  • Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_48#updating_it_to_"was_a_pandemic"
  • Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_48#Present_tense
  • Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_47#End?_5

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I would say it's for the best to ping anyone who has had an active part in the discussion. Those who had lesser involvement in it are definitely wanted but it'd be better to just ping the more actively involved. AndrewRG10 (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I made a bold edit [1] to correct #18 with regard to 'ongoing', since this article has taken the unusual path of straying from the discussed consensus and gaining implicit consensus there. My edit didn't appear in the history here so I wanted to notify editors here. #18 needs to reflect the article in its current state so we can discuss it correctly here. SmolBrane (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
• Remove per my arguments in the previous talk page section. TocMan (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
• Remove, clearly hamstringing us in the post-PHEIC world. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

uptick in cases--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps worth noting that the word 'pandemic' never appears in this article. SmolBrane (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• Remove since RSes are not treating the pandemic as ongoing or present. SmolBrane (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  Except the very best RS's. Like the WHO/Europe director saying last month the the pandemic is "certainly not over". Bon courage (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  Unfortunately as much weight as the WHO has, if every single news article and the vast majority of medical articles are using terms like post-pandemic and refer to the pandemic as over, we cannot in good faith continue to call the pandemic ongoing. It also doesn't help the WHO has made it very clear they cannot and do not declare the beginning and end of pandemics and their recent definition is flawed and in objection to all established definitions of a pandemic (including their own written one).

  We are not keeping this article in present tense for the next 30 years. AndrewRG10 (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  We follow the WP:BESTSOURCES, which is part of NPOV and not negotiable. A single authoritative source overrides an infinity of unreliable ones and for biomedical topics, WHO is as good as it gets. Newpapers and sites, not so much. It is simply not true that "the vast majority of medical articles" are saying the pandemic is over. If COVID-19 is pandemic for 30 years according the best sources, that is what Wikipedia shall say. That editors for some reason don't like this is irrelevant. Bon courage (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  The WHO is one expert organization among many, they do not speak for, nor do they claim to, entire expert fields, and especially on whether something is a pandemic. At the very least if at some point they still say it's ongoing and many more expert bodies or MEDRS have stopped calling it a pandemic or explicitly says it no longer a pandemic, then per due weight it isn't. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  If there are other top-quality MEDRS saying something different, then of course they should be cited. But interpreting sources "non-mentionings" to mean something is WP:OR, and prohibited. Simply reflect the best sources. It seems a number of editors here think they're on some kind of WP:RGW mission, rather than just doing the core job of summarising such sources.. Bon courage (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• Retain The pandemic's not over according to the WHO (especially outside the developed West) and WP:NOR is policy. 4 days ago the WHO said COVID remains a "major threat" and that "some countries continue to report high burdens of COVID-19, including increases in newly reported cases and, more importantly, increases in hospitalizations and deaths". Just because some lazy, medically-unreliable lay-sources in the West refer to the pandemic as over, doesn't mean Wikipedia should. Instead we must follow the WP:BESTSOURCES. Bon courage (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  As noted above, per RS the WHO does not determine when pandemics end. The 4 days ago quote is 100% irrelevant because none of that is inconsistent with it being non-pandemic. And while it's true we follow the best sources, WP:DUE is also a factor. HIV pandemic redirects to Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS and has for ages, and the article does not refer to it as an ongoing pandemic but as an epidemic, despite the existence of a minority of sources claiming otherwise. We are not waiting for universal assent that the pandemic is over, just due weight.

  Why is outside the developed West any different? They do not have any restrictions or exceptionally high deaths either as far as I am aware. Where is the evidence for your contention it is more severe in these places? Many of these countries have younger average populations and therefore a less severe burden of disease.

  The time sensitive nature of claims is also an issue. Suppose years go by, with the WHO only referring to "COVID-19" and not commenting anymore on which "-demic" it is? Because present-tense is time-sensitive, a lack of sufficient weight of sources describing it as ongoing is or will be enough to change it to past tense. A source directly saying "it's over" is not actually necessary. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  Saying the pandemic is "certainly not over" is somehow not relevant to the pandemic being over you say? huh? As to AIDs, high quality sources refer to it as a pandemic, yes.[2] Your other questions you'd need to address to the WHO. On Wikipedia we follow sources, not the reckonings of editors. Bon courage (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that "the WHO does not determine when pandemics end...", but I hope that we can also agree that the WHO is particularly well placed to know whether or not experts believe that a pandemic has ended. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  Re Bon courage, Saying the pandemic is "certainly not over" is somehow not relevant to the pandemic being over you say? huh? - I did not say that, and I don't know how this is supposed to connect to what I said. This is apparently a reference to what the WHO/Europe official said in June, which I was aware of. None of what I said contradicts it.

  As for AIDS, yes, I already stated that some sources call it a pandemic. But most call it something else, like an epidemic, including (in this case) the WHO itself. Therefore, Wikipedia does not call it a pandemic in its own voice.

  Re WhatamIdoing, I hope that we can also agree that the WHO is particularly well placed to know whether or not experts believe that a pandemic has ended - I'm not sure the WHO actually claims to speak for experts in general, let alone that they actually are representative in doing so. Because the WHO is not the authority over whether something is a pandemic or not, we are not obligated to wait for them to say it is not (which may never happen or happen absurdly far in the future) before we stop calling it such. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  we are not obligated to wait for them to say it is not (which may never happen or happen absurdly far in the future <-- This @Bon courage @Draken Bowser several months ago a consensus was reached that pandemics status on Wikipedia will be based off of what the Weight of sources state purely because the WHO does not, and cannot declare the beginning and end of pandemics. Both of you seem to be expecting that the WHO will one day come out and declare COVID-19 as a pandemic over. That's never gonna happen. The closer we are ever going to get, as stated by lead WHO officials, is when the next pandemic starts, the last one ends. You are looking at referring to the COVID-19 as an ongoing pandemic for potentially decades with an end date the same day the next pandemic starts.

  That is why months ago it was decided that we would wait for reliable news and medical sources to refer to it as over. That is what the discussion is about, not whether the WHO has got infinite weight against the entirety of the worlds Reliable Media and Medical sources.

  If you do think that most media sources refer to the pandemic as ongoing, please do share your articles, but from what I see the only still referring to it as ongoing are fringe opinion articles. AndrewRG10 (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  This "declaration" thing is a canard. The WHO cannot formally DECLARE pandemic start or ends because such declarations are not within the suite of mechanisms it has been given (unlike PHEIC e.g.). But they certainly say what they think about pandemic status, as multiple cited sources show. Non-MEDRS sources are not reliable for whether there's a pandemic or not, which is WP:BMI: that's just basic. If there are MEDRS sources (beside the WHO) then those are relevant. Let's see them. I am interested in such WP:BESTSOURCES, not the shitty ones that have been pressed into service to advance editorial POV. Bon courage (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  What I am emphasizing is that the WHO is not an exceptional MEDRS that can carry the burden of WP:DUE alone perpetually. And whether or not it is, for present tense and "is" to persist in the Wikipedia article we would need ongoing, continual support in the sources. If for a while there are few or no such sources referring to an event as ongoing, then that event defaults to being in the past due to the nature of the passage of time. Already there have been very few sources referring to it as an ongoing/present-tense pandemic for about 2 months now, an unprecedented occurrence and something that could easily continue - possibly the most likely outcome.

  An analogy could perhaps be drawn with that other big event beginning in 2020, the George Floyd protests. There are zero sources declaring the Floyd protests over (of course; nobody holds that authority), and I'm sure police brutality protests still occasionally include reference to him, but we don't describe them as ongoing because there are essentially no sources on that topic that do. Historical events end whether they are declared over, or they fade away and gradually society agrees they are a "was". Crossroads ^-talk- 23:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  then that event defaults to being in the past due to the nature of the passage of time ← nope; classic original research, which is prohibited and which could be used to justify any number of fringe POV-pushing attempts. Please review WP:V - another core policy. I note none of these supposed MEDRS sources which say the pandemic is "over" have been produced; in fact looking at recent MEDRS on COVID-19 like PMID:37481886 we see a reference to the "ongoing COVIS-19 pandemic" right there in the abstract. Bon courage (talk) 05:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  WP:Original research would be referring to something as present tense or ongoing when there are no contemporary sources doing so. To say that something is present-tense is itself a claim needing verification and due weight. So yes, if 6 months or a year from now there are few or no sources referring to Covid as a present-tense pandemic, then it should be referred to as past tense, by RfC if necessary. The general concept to which I refer is a logical necessity - otherwise we would have to refer to any historical event without a "it's over" source as present tense no matter how old, which is clearly absurd.

  The source you link to is a primary source (something you complained about below) and was received by the journal in March 2023, before the end of the PHEIC. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Retain as long as the WHO and others refer to the pandemic in present tense so shall we. Declaring that COVID-19 is no longer a PHEIC has no bearing on whether the pandemic is still ongoing. Draken Bowser (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

This logic, the same as Bon Courage, in the section above, is flawed. It is not at all WP:V and presumes that we shall follow only one govt organization. If we did that, we just merely be a PR piece for the WHO. We have hundreds of sources we follow, not one. The more RS we follow (in general principle) the better the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Use the WP:BESTSOURCES. Top-level MEDRS like WHO and not, say, Forbes and WebMD (good grief). Bon courage (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The more RS we follow.. No, what Bon courage said. I'm somewhat fascinated by the attempts to subvert premier sources by pretending following them would reduce Wikipedia to a mouthpiece of the WHO et al. Draken Bowser (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

According to this recently added source the WHO has signaled toward the possibility of calling it a pandemic for the next 50 years or more. It's honestly shocking and one wonders on what basis they ever declared any flu pandemic over. I really, really wish a journalist would press them as to what specifically it would take for them to say the pandemic is over akin to past respiratory virus pandemics that are still circulating. We have been in an H1N1 pandemic since 1918 by their logic.

This is why WP:Due weight and WP:RELTIME are so important. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Please keep your personal shocked POV off this page. WP:NOTFORUM. Bon courage (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

A forever pandemic simply because something hasn't been eradicated is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Which reliable source says "forever pandemic"? Bon courage (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a play on forever war. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

We have no policy that states that WHO is sole form of truth in this matter. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

We have a WP:V and WP:NPOV which means content must be verifiable and represent the most reliable sources. This is not negotiable. The WHO is the most reliable source on the planet for what constitutes a global pandemic. That editors want to omit/contradict it and use Forbes or WebMD instead is just POV-pushing and shows a basic misunderstanding of what an encyclopedia is (as your invocation of Truth™ rather shows). Bon courage (talk) 06:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with this statement: "The WHO is the most reliable source on the planet for ____". I dispute the very premise of the argument, so repetition will not change my position. WHO position is essentially a primary source from our perspective and they are pushing their own POV, with an obvious COI in that they want to stay relevant in the public eye and get increased funding and regulatory rights. Few cared about the WHO prior to this, maybe they thought it was a former rock band. I am sure the same argument is being made elsewhere that the US SEC is the most important financial regulator, Microsoft is the most important tech company, Elon Musk is the most important CEO, etc. None of this makes their blog posts the sole point of truth for us here at wikipedia, and while their self promotion we might fine DUE in some cases, we dont put it in wikivoice in the LEDE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

they want to stay relevant in the public eye and get increased funding ← That's just dumb conspiracism. Wikipedia follows authoritative sources, and has WP:PAGs to identify the relevant ones for biomedicine (WP:MEDRS). Comparing the WHO to an Elon Musk blog has to set a low-point for the day which is going to be hard to beat! Bon courage (talk) 08:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Please be civil. Is there a policy that states that WHO is the definative source? Musk is the richest human, Microsoft is the largest software vendor, the SEC probably the most powerful securities regulator. We dont use the blogs of market leaders as definitive single source truth. Thats not how wikipedia works, see WP:5P2, please see "we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view"." Policy pages never trump 5P. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

As 5P2 (which is not policy) says we should be "citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial". There is no such thing as "definative source" [sic] but the WHO for global health is an ideal one, per WP:MEDRS - reliable and authoritative. Other quality WP:MEDRS would be welcome. So far, tumbleweed - just some news sources and a desperate attempt to reason away the WHO with conspiracy theories. Bon courage (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is 5P is above policy, you seem to argue otherwise. Anyhow, other editors can think for themselves what is true. As for MEDRS, WHO is only mentioned once at the MEDRS article, it is mentioned in WP:MEDSCI section which states "Wikipedia policies on the neutral point of view and not publishing original research demand that we present prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles, in statements and practice guidelines issued by major professional medical or scientific societies (for example, the European Society of Cardiology or the Infectious Disease Society of America) and widely respected governmental and quasi-governmental health authorities (for example, AHRQ, USPSTF, NICE, and WHO), in textbooks, or in scholarly monographs." This in no way states that the WHO is the sole source of medical consensus, and in fact is listed in a for example section, containing other options. Your point is that we just go with the WHO alone as the source of ultimate truth continues to fail, despite repetition. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is saying it is the "sole" usable reliable source. As I say, if there are other MEDRS on this topic (AHRQ, USPSTF, NICE, etc.) then bring them forth. Wikipedia reflects such reliable sources; it doesn't undercut reliable sources with unreliable ones. Bon courage (talk) 10:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty of MEDRS referring to pandemic in past tense:

• JAMA published stating "Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was a public health crisis affecting medical, social, and psychological wellness."
• Nature published stating "Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic was a public health emergency that required massive control efforts like the 1918 influenza pandemic, the HIV pandemic, and smallpox eradication."
• UN stating "The COVID-19 pandemic was a public health crisis of unprecedented proportions which often exacerbated existing inequalities and disproportionately affected the most vulnerable groups in society, including migrants."
• ICMRA states "Between 2020 and 2023, the COVID-19 pandemic was a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), as declared by the World Health Organization (WHO)." Bioethics "The Covid-19 pandemic was a public health emergency."

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Let's see:

1. is a primary source
2. is not Nature but an obscure, non-MEDLINE journal with a passing use of "was" (just as other, better sources make passing use of "ongoing" for the pandemic).
3. is not the "UN' but a copy of some Portuguese migration policy, with the disclaimer "The content of this practice reflects the views of the implementers and does not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations, the United Nations Network on Migration, and its members". Not MEDRS.
4. does not say the pandemic is over (the emergency is).

Bon courage (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bon courage I hate to be a pain, but you're yet to provide any proof that there is more weight suggesting the pandemic is still referred to as ongoing. Yes you've said the WHO does but that idea was settled months ago and it's very clear that isn't going to fly no matter how hard you try. You cannot cherry pick articles and suggest sources that support your opinion hold far more weight than others. You cannot say only MERDS are allowed despite the extensive use of 'lay man' media on this article. You need to balance it all out, maybe even provide us a nice graph.

Start by searching for terms "post-pandemic", "COVID-19" and "pandemic is not over". AndrewRG10 (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:POVSOURCING. Better to read the WP:BESTSOURCES and summarize them rather than "research" content by doing google searches for desired phrases[3] and then pushing whatever random source comes comes to light. MEDRS are for WP:BMI; other sources may of course be used for other aspects. Bon courage (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

NPOV results from editors putting forth lists of sources. The argument for us to following WHO (which you argue for) is that the other journals are not MEDRS, not official, primary, etc. It appears most of the other editors here support removing changing the ongoing treatment. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

AFAICT the "best sources" on Covid at this time refer simply to "COVID-19" and don't call it a pandemic. It takes cherry-picking to find ones that do. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support Removing WHO declared Covid 19 no longer a public health emergency. Its over. Past tense. Eruditess (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  They said the emergency is over, but confusing this into the pandemic being over is misinformation. Bon courage (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  Do any recent pro-present-tense sources specifically define what it would mean for the pandemic to be over? None do, if we follow them we're headed straight for a forever war situation ("no clear conditions that would lead to its conclusion"). Before now sources treated the pandemic as a higher status than the PHEIC, given that it was called such later (March 2020 rather than January), and as largely synonymous with restrictions, overrun hospitals, or the PHEIC itself. The idea that it could still be pandemic despite all things returning to normal seems to have been pulled from nowhere by a few WHO officials after the PHEIC ended. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  In fact, here's a source from February 2020 stating the WHO's official position at the time: The World Health Organization no longer uses the term pandemic, but the COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak remains an international emergency that is likely to spread further, a spokesman said on Monday. So, individual WHO officials using the term "pandemic" carries no special weight compared to any other officials or MEDRS, most of whom do not use the term. Compare e.g. [4] Crossroads ^-talk- 23:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Retain, and oppose any wording that unequivocally declares it as over in the strongest possible terms. The WP:BESTSOURCES still seem to refer to it overwhelmingly as ongoing; most of the arguments against them, above, seem to essentially be editors trying to substitute their own arguments for what the sources say or preferring statements from weaker sources. We should cover the debate over whether it is over and the positions different organizations have taken, but actually declaring it over requires a consensus among academic sources which does not seem to be present. See eg. discussing this specifically, or It's certainly not true WHO has stated that the COVID pandemic is "over"; they merely stated that its "emergency phase" is over, something that coverage notes - There are no hard and fast rules to determine when a PHEIC is over, says [epidemiologist Salim Abdool] Karim. “We are still very much in a pandemic, we are just in a different stage in which we are no longer seeing large numbers of deaths and pressure on hospitals,” he adds. For Karim, the end of the PHEIC is a recognition that SARS-CoV-2 is no longer an emergency, but it will be around for a long time. On top of this, many of the arguments that people are presenting to assert that it's over (the ones that reference the sources at all; far too many of the arguments above are basically just "well of course its over") are just referencing passing mentions, usually things like a passing mention of "was" or "post-pandemic" in lower-quality sources; whereas there are numerous sources of the highest-quality stating unambiguously that the pandemic is still in progress. Obviously the latter takes precedence. And at an absolute bare minimum, we absolutely cannot use "was" or anything similar implying unambiguously that the pandemic is uncontroversially over in the lead - I think that the highest-quality sources are clear enough that it is still in progress, but it would be absurd to completely ignore those sources or to treat them as WP:FRINGE to the point that what they say can be completely disregarded when they are high-quality experts published in reputable journals. The absolute furthest we could go as a compromise is to say that there is controversy over whether it is over; arguing that it is uncontroversially over to the point where we can state that as fact or that the perspective that it is still in progress is WP:FRINGE is clearly absurd. --Aquillion (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  Many of these sources are problematic. Sources 1 and 2 both predate the end of the PHEIC. Source 3 is from a very minor journal and uses an WP:EXTRAORDINARY definition in which it will probably not be over until a new pandemic comes along, which is very odd (pandemics can run concurrently, but more often end well before another one occurs). Source 4 is from an MDPI journal, and is therefore of unclear quality. That all said, I think the suggestion to describe the differing opinions as to whether it is over is reasonable. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Retain. When we make this change, it should be because the best sources available have also done so. There doesn't appear to be any showing above that this has happened. Even with the end of the US public health emergency, the CDC is saying: "As a nation, we now find ourselves at a different point in the pandemic". Aquillion's points below about WP:BALANCE are also persuasive: even if the best sources start to shift on this, we should likely first describe the debate before moving to favor one side of it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  What is the source for this quote? Crossroads ^-talk- 01:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  Here is one place it occurs. XOR'easter (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  That was where I found it. Sorry I didn't link it earlier! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Retain per Aquillion and Firefangledfeathers (as well as wastewater data [5][6][7][8]). The Lancet described the pandemic as "far from over" in a January editorial [9] and does not appear to have changed that stance since. For example, an item published in May [10] wouldn't be more generous than "transitioning out of the emergency phase of the COVID-19 pandemic". Overall, we can't say that the best sources have unambiguously moved past calling it a pandemic; we should expect some variability as different researchers, organizations, etc., apply different definitions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  None of the wastewater data sources call that evidence it is still a pandemic; it's therefore irrelevant. Of course the virus will ebb and flow and mutate indefinitely to some extent, like all respiratory viruses. No restrictions have returned, in fact they continue to be lifted (e.g. in L.A. of all places [11]). Crossroads ^-talk- 23:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

We dont use opinion pieces and we dont use editorials, this is far from an RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. Consider this statement from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Explanation: Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Why wouldn't we use opinion pieces or editorials (which, BTW, are opinion pieces written by the editors of the publication; they are not a separate thing from opinion pieces) to support the opinions that NPOV tells us to present in the article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I have before seen WP:NOTOPINION referred to when editors attempt to add opinions. It says "Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes", Wikipedia is not the medium for this." I would think this opinion piece, aka editorial (I dont see a difference) seems to put forth the POV that 'the pandemic is ongoing, we must do everything we can to keep it in the news' which means we wikipedia editors dont follow this junk. This kind of opinion piece is essentially WP:SOAP in which the author and/or the organization he represents is advocating for continued interest in the pandemic or funding for its continued study. This source is being used on this talk page essentially as it was intended, for advocacy. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I like the careful way that you have phrased that first sentence, because editors often "refer to" WP:UPPERCASE shortcuts without apparently reading the page that they have linked. NOTOPINION says that editors may not post opinion pieces to Wikipedia themselves – that Wikipedia should not host articles on WhatamIdoing's opinions about COVID-19. The policy does not say that the (properly sourced) opinions of experts, politicians, etc. may not be mentioned as appropriate in encyclopedia articles.

(There are traditionally two types of opinion pieces: the ones written by the publication's own editors, which are called editorials, and the ones written by outsiders, which are called op-eds [because they were published in the newspaper on the page opposite the in-house editorials].) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Retain "is", present tense, as that's what the best WP:MEDRS-compliant sources say. The text can explain the difference between being a pandemic and a PHEIC. Bondegezou (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

References

WHO or who else?

One of the themes in these discussions is "The World Health Organization says...", followed by "but my source says..." and so forth. I wonder if editors might be able to reach an agreement on which sources should be considered important. For example:

1. Is the pandemic over if politicians from major Western democracies say so?
2. Is the pandemic over if newspapers and political magazines say so?
3. Is the pandemic over if one or more national health organizations from Western democracies say so?
4. Is the pandemic over if major international organizations (e.g., WHO or the UN) say so?
5. Is the pandemic over if researchers publish a paper in a major medical journal saying so?
6. Is the pandemic over if one or more of these groups doesn't explicitly say that it's ongoing?

That last question is because a pandemic (from the statistical/epidemiologist viewpoint) is merely an outbreak with geographic reach, and the end of an outbreak, no matter how local or how widespread it is, is something one can't see on the day it happens. You can only calculate the end point afterwards. So there is always an in-between time in which an outbreak is actually over, but it can't yet be proven to be over. In that space, do we say "it's over", and hope that we aren't going to be proven wrong later? Or do we try to avoid the question, perhaps by re-writing "The COVID-19 pandemic, also known as the coronavirus pandemic, is a global pandemic..." into something like "The COVID-19 pandemic, also known as the coronavirus pandemic, started in 2019 and became a global pandemic in early 2020..."? Or say that it is still ongoing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Something that I lightly touched on above but which bears mentioning here is the WP:RS requirement to represent both sides of an ongoing controversy according to WP:BALANCE. I'm not convinced (per above) that there's enough debate among highest-quality sources to change the current consensus, but even if people can produce sufficiently high-quality sources to argue that there's no longer agreement saying that the pandemic is in progress, we should probably consider the possibility that we have to simply describe it as an ongoing debate. Stating in the article voice that it's over wouldn't simply require "some sources say so", it requires that there be so few sources saying anything else that that position be marginal or even WP:FRINGE. I don't see how anyone can reach that conclusion currently. Or, in other words - it's extremely unlikely that we will be able to go straight from "the pandemic is in progress" to "the pandemic is over". It'd require that almost every point you said be true (or, more properly, that any voices saying otherwise are noticeably lower in weight.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  Well, I'm sure that we all hope that there will come a day when the previous consensus is deemed out of date. What kind(s) of sources would you need, at that hypothetical future date, to feel comfortable changing the article to say "The pandemic is over" or "The pandemic likely ended in 2023"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

You raise good points, but I'd note that the claim that the pandemic is ongoing (or, is an "is" rather than "was") is itself a positive claim needing to follow WP:V and WP:DUE. So I think the burden of proof is really quite the other way around; e.g.:

1. Is the pandemic ongoing solely if WHO officials say so?
2. For how long is such a statement sufficient to refer to it in present tense? 3 months? 3 years? 30 years? Forever?
3. What if WHO officials say it is but equally many or more experts and expert bodies say it isn't pandemic anymore?

etc.

And I would say no, WHO officials are not alone sufficient, as the WHO is not the official arbiter of this matter, as numerous sources make clear. Sources discussing COVID-19 like the CDC and not calling it a pandemic in present tense is meaningful. And even if we do grant that a WHO official is alone sufficient, such a statement cannot verify a time-sensitive claim in perpetuity. I'd say 6 months is a generous length of time before it would be considered outdated.

And as for countervailing experts, they do exist. Here is "one of the most cautious" German virologists calling it over, here is the South Carolina Department of Health calling it endemic and stating that other states and the federal government have done the same, this says a Finnish health official described it as endemic, and the the Netherlands' Outbreak Management Team said the pandemic ended and it's endemic.

Now, as you note and as Aquillion suggested above while I was writing this, one possibility is to make it more ambiguous and describe that sources differ. This would be akin to some degree to the epidemiology of HIV/AIDS (which some call a pandemic but the WHO calls an "epidemic") or seventh cholera pandemic (which the WHO calls an ongoing pandemic but many disagree). All in all this seems like it could be a fruitful route, at least for now. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm looking at this less from the POV of "do we have the sources today?" and more from the POV of "which sources would matter, whenever we get them?" You seem to imply that the WHO is a valid source (just not the official arbiter, because AFAIK no entity has ever been the official arbiter of pandemics). Who/what else is a valid source? Who/what else isn't a valid source?

Perhaps a more basic way of asking this is: In your opinion, is the existence or absence of a pandemic a type of scientific/biomedical information (in which case, we'd want to prioritize the views of scientists and medical organizations), or is it a type of news/history/political information (in which case, we'd want to prioritize the views of politicians and journalists)?

I am a little concerned about the sources you supply as examples. The German virologist is quoted and then immediately followed by an equally qualified colleague saying that the pandemic isn't over yet but will probably be over soon. The South Carolina page does not say that COVID is endemic; it merely says that they have "begun treating COVID-19 as an endemic virus", which is not at all the same thing. The Finnish piece also says that "the situation in Finland differs from that in the rest of Europe", and it's entirely possible for a pandemic to exist in the world but not be affecting some small countries, so that doesn't actually say that the pandemic is over globally. The same complication applies to the Dutch source: "is now at an endemic phase in the Netherlands" – not in the whole world.

But let us leave the specific examples to one side, and tell me: What would be a very strong type of source, if someone wanted to convince the regular editors of this page that the pandemic was/wasn't ongoing? What's your imaginary ideal, for that day when [we hope!] the pandemic can be declared to really, truly, undoubtedly be over? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding an imaginary ideal, since the WHO called it a pandemic well after the PHEIC was first declared, my hope was that they wouldn't claim it was somehow still the former despite not being the latter. Yet, here we are. I think an ideal source would be the WHO themselves eventually deciding to make a statement anyway, or other prominent agencies, but why would any of them? None of them are the arbiters of it, and it in itself makes no difference in policy. But that would be ideal.

Another strong type of source would be a scientific survey of epidemiologists or other experts on the question, but this too is unlikely to materialize.

I'd be more interested in hearing from those who strongly support it being too soon to move the descriptor into past tense - what they think is sufficient to do so, and/or how much time would need to pass before existing statements it is ongoing 'expire'. For instance, if we find ourselves here a year from now, and like the last couple of months nobody really calls it an ongoing or present-tense pandemic again, what then?

I think both biomedical and society sources are relevant here, and this is de facto the case for the current article anyway. I also think some of the above-presented sources were too quickly dismissed, and I expect that national bodies comment mainly on their nation - the idea that something could be simultaneously pandemic and endemic doesn't seem to exist in reliable sources as far as I know.

Nobody officially declared past pandemics over, certainly not MEDRS, and I don't expect the same for this one, because they have no reason to or mechanism in place for that. (The 2009 Swine Flu pandemic was an exception. [12]) We're probably just going to get an increasing drip of sources, MEDRS and otherwise, nonchalantly referring to it in the past tense, and a decreasing drip of sources calling it ongoing or present-tense. Even if not today, eventually Wikipedia would become an extreme outlier if the text remains unchanged, which is bad. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The WHO have said (but not "declared" because they have not that power) past pandemics have come to an end; they might with COVID-19. Other good sources would be quality epidemiological scholarly content, particularly secondary sources, and that might include editorials giving the opinion of relevant journals. Basically give me anything with a PMID which is secondary, MEDLINE-indexed, and which specifically addresses the question of whether the pandemic is over, and I'm happy. Also, statement from major medical bodies (European CDC etc). Given the classical definition of pandemic, the timeframe could well be many decades (or more) before the COVID-19 pandemic is over, as is already indicated in this article. Bon courage (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

(od) In re since the WHO called it a pandemic well after the PHEIC was first declared, my hope was that they wouldn't claim it was somehow still the former despite not being the latter:

It sounds like you have been assuming that the event would work like this:

[Public health emergency .........]
   [Pandemic...............]

or perhaps that the PHEIC and pandemic would end simultaneously. I think I've been assuming it would work like this:

[Public health emergency .........]
   [Pandemic...................................]

That is, I've always assumed that if the pandemic lasted longer than a few months, the situation would stop being "an emergency" (e.g., an extreme situation requiring new and different behaviors) before it stopped being "a pandemic". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

This source says that politicians and government agencies talking about "living with COVID" and "managing COVID as if it were endemic" signal "not the end of the pandemic agenda but they do signal the end of the state of exception and elite panic". This aligns with my impression of the PHEIC's end: it is the end of "the state of exception", not the end of the pandemic per se. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that's right. One problem here is that while more scientific sources use 'pandemic' in its technical sense, many lay sources use 'pandemic' loosely to mean something like 'the time when everything was weird and we wore masks and I couldn't go on holiday' (or somesuch). By that lay definition the 'pandemic' is over. But by the technical definition, we lack sources (in fact the calling of the pandemic as 'over' prematurely seems to have been a consistent gambit by certain fringe figures pushing an agenda, especially in the US, as is described in detail in this[13] interesting book). I don't think Wikipedia should be buying into that. Bon courage (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This is a challenge that editors deal with in every area, e.g., "I was triggered by his unkindness" (Really? Unkindness is actually a trigger (psychiatry) for your PTSD? Or did you mean plain old ordinary "upset"?). We have experience with this, and the pandemic situation is fundamentally the same problem.

Perhaps the thing to do, when an editor advocates for declaring the pandemic over, is to ask them what pandemic means to them. For myself, a pandemic is a quantifiable situation involving changing disease rates. I don't know whether we're in a pandemic right now; they're still collecting the data. But for someone else, a pandemic might be what you describe about "everything was weird", in which case it's currently over, and I hope it never comes back. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS applies. WP:MEDRS is pretty clear what it wants. Lay sources can be ignored. Bondegezou (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm weirded out by the idea that the claim "is" is stronger than "was" and that "6 months is a generous length of time before it [the use of 'is] would be considered outdated". Really? Both 'is' and 'was' are equal claims but 'is' is the incumbent and we'd need evidence to shift it, not just time. It isn't like Wikipedia is the only place that cares about whether to use "is" or "was". Consider smallpox and polio. The former "was an infectious disease" and the latter "is an infectious disease". And we will certainly know about it when polio is declared extinct and we will also certainly be looking to one or two authority organisations to determine that. Why are editors determined to rubbish WHO's authority on Covid 19 but would happily accept them saying that polio is or isn't extinct as being authoritative. Covid 19 being no longer pandemic would be a big thing, though WHO's comments in our article suggest it being a pandemic may persist for longer than editor patience. I think there will be pressure to declare something should we reach that point.

I also second the comment about that journalists and politicians may use the term "pandemic" as shorthand for "public health emergency" when we had restrictions and so on. I think I probably do myself. Maybe we could even find a source for that. -- Colin°^Talk 15:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

At some point, the continued commentary around COVID will be due for the COVID-19 article, not this one, to your point about smallpox and polio(note those articles don't have 'pandemic' in the title). The ongoing wastewater reports are a good example. If articles stop using the word 'pandemic', for how long are they implicitly due on this article? The reason we can't use the WHO regarding the end of the pandemic is because we have three sources cited stating that the WHO doesn't declare the end of pandemics. SmolBrane (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but as had been said repeatedly this is because they have no power to make such a formal DECLARation. But they can simply state when they consider pandemics start (as they did with COVID-19), or end (as they did for the 2009 H1N1 Pandemic). Any other high-quality on-point MEDRS would of course also be relevant. But all we're seeing here is editor POV and sources like Forbes, WebMD, and over-reading of passing mentions in random papers to support the idea that the "pandemic is over". Bon courage (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Editors will continue to explore a variety of sources since people like Joe Biden said the pandemic was over nearly a year ago. We all know you'd prefer gold-standard MEDRS but it's not persuasive to everyone that this is the only approach. SmolBrane (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Facepalm Politicians are the opposite of what we want for reliable sourcing on medical questions. There are documented cases of contrarian doctors saying the pandemic was over as early as 2020, and we don't value those views either. Crucially, WP:V is core policy so content should be backed by the WP:BESTSOURCES, for NPOV. For medical questions those sources are WP:MEDRS. Some people may want to disagree with that, but that would be POV-pushing against the grain of core policy, and so not useful. Bon courage (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Joe Biden is at a similar level to Donald Trump wrt "reliable source on healthcare facts". I accept that personally, he's on a whole different level, but job-wise, he's just a politician who says random things if they get themselves elected again. The point about polio and smallpox is that when reliable sources start dealing with polio in the past tense, then so can we. You've got to remember that to editors used to dealing with medical sources and fighting against healthcare crap, the idea that we might use Joe Biden as a source for "Ok, the pandemic is officially over", and seeing editors arguing against major organisations like CDC or WHO, sets off alarm bells. The editors who do that are generally the ones pushing horse medicine or advocating sticking crystals up places. You wouldn't contemplate doing that for the end of polio, which we all hope is not too many years away. So don't do it for Covid's pandemic.

Perhaps the problem is what is the scope of this article? If it is to describe the Covid 19 pandemic using that dictionary epidemiological definition of an infectious disease spread, then it doesn't appear that our best sources and the critical scientific consensus is that it is over. But if "Covid 19 pandemic" refers to the period of emergency where we anxiously saw the disease first spread, we got locked down and schools and pubs and churches all closed, and we all prayed for a vaccine to deliver us... That's over in the public eye. At least in the rich countries, who have the vaccines. The Joe Bidens of this world, who use the word "pandemic" to describe that period of history, are not "wrong" but they aren't using the word as we do currently in this article. As I said earlier, I think I would use the word that way in conversation with friends. But if I was a scientist attending some epidemiology conference, then probably not.

Maybe what is needed is a "terminology" section, we we provide sourced commentary on this conflict between the lay use of the word (public health emergency) and the scientific/medical use (epidemiological event). Perhaps the current "Etymology" section could be renamed and repurposed to cover this, because it ain't "etymology" (the origin of words and the way those words change in meaning over time). Instead it currently lists various words that were used over time, but they are different words. And the variant naming isn't etymology either. The whole thing would fit under "terminology". -- Colin°^Talk 10:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes - what this Wikipedia article really covers is "COVID-19 pandemic, the emergency that occasioned, and the response to that emergency". I've had a rummage and can't turn up anything solid on the terminological inexactitude we're seeing here, but it's a general case of the PHEIC/pandemic confusion we saw when the WHO announced the PHEIC was over, and as covered thoroughly in PMID:34903120. It's important given the confusion about terminology, that Wikipedia doesn't get sucked into becoming part of the problem. Bon courage (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The paper linked earlier is also pretty good at explicitly calling out confusion or misuse. I don't know if any of these are good enough to explicitly say that lay and political use of the word "pandemic" typically refers to the public health emergency period. But I think something like that would be good to have in the article.

Years ago I remember a Q&A in the newspaper where a reader asked "What's the difference between a herb and a spice?" This is before WWW and Google and Wikipedia. One reader replied that in his local Sainsbury's, the herbs have green lids and the spices orange lids. I thought of this when I read the above article and got to the bit "This article is made freely available for personal use in accordance with BMJ’s website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic". So there we have it. Once those BMJ articles get locked up in a paywall, or at least future ones do, then we'll know. -- Colin°^Talk 15:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to draw attention to this paper, although I haven't read it thoroughly yet. But it looks to be very useful. Interesting quote: Not only does a given epidemic “end” at different times in different locations, and for different groups in the same location, but also for different academic disciplines: epidemiologists, anthropologists, policymakers, and historians follow different parameters to gauge the decline and end of epidemics. A multidisciplinary analysis of how epidemics end therefore suggests that epidemics should be framed not within linear narratives—from outbreak to intervention to termination—but within cycles of disease and with a multiplicity of endings. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

It could probably be achieved by moving:

COVID-19 pandemic → COVID-19 (the big picture article about COVID)

COVID-19 → COVID-19 (disease) (about the disease in itself)

and having a new article COVID-19 Epidemiology which gets the epidemiological content from here, including the "pure" discussion of pandemic status.

Bon courage (talk) 03:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, having "COVID-19" and "COVID-19 (disease)" seems pretty confusing. I've wondered what the reception of this might be:

-COVID-19 pandemic is moved to COVID-19 public health emergency (this is about the era of lockdowns/travel bans/school closures/mandates/etc. that most everyone agrees is behind us)

-'New' page Epidemiology of COVID-19 (we'd merge or move Endemic COVID-19 into this and it is patterned after Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS - currently it is a redirect here)

-COVID-19 stays as is, being about the disease itself, analogous to HIV/AIDS and influenza

-A new disambiguation page is created titled COVID-19 pandemic (disambiguation), with text something like:

The term "COVID-19 pandemic" may refer to any of the following:

• The 2020-2023 COVID-19 public health emergency
• The Epidemiology of COVID-19, describing its epidemiological status as pandemic and the hypothesized endemic phase
• The circulating disease itself, COVID-19

I'm not entirely sure if this is the way to go myself, but I figured it was worth laying out here. The idea is to capture the varying meanings of "pandemic", both the colloquial/sociological uses and the epidemiological sense; perhas akin to the "different academic disciplines" mentioned here. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think these various renames or DAB pages would help. People refer to "COVID-19" as the disease, not the pandemic. If someone say's they caught covid, they aren't saying they caught a pandemic. So I don't think you could shift COVID-19 from its position as "the disease". But also the "Covid 19 pandemic" is a thing and very worthy of an article. And it isn't a fatal problem if people use a word/term to mean slightly different things. For example, family covers all kinds of families. We just need to be clear ourselves what we think the primary topic of the article is, and can note if needed that some people use the term to mean something else. There's a very convenient and considerable overlap between "epidemiological pandemic" and "global public health emergency" in terms of what we cover. A DAB pages is a last resort option and I don't think it would fly. When people talk about the Covid 19 pandemic, they are referring what this article covers. DAB pages are more for when people are sometimes referring to entirely different things. -- Colin°^Talk 10:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Both 'is' and 'was' are equal claims but 'is' is the incumbent and we'd need evidence to shift it, not just time. Hmm, I think there's a limit to this. Let's imagine a thought experiment. Let's say starting in 2024 no RS refer to Covid-19 as a pandemic or refer to the pandemic in the present tense, only in the past tense. Surely you aren't saying that (in that scenario) in 2044 we should still be referring to the Covid-19 pandemic as "is", as present tense? Even though there have been no sources describing the activity of such a pandemic for 20 years? What about 50 years? 100?

Obviously this is an extreme scenario, but my point is that there absolutely is a limit (even though editors will disagree about what it is) to how long we can use present tense before sources are just too old to support it, if no new ones come out. To continue referring to it in the present tense we need a relatively continuous stream of high-quality sources supporting that claim (because it is a claim), and thus things to say about it in future years (the 2024 heading, 2025 heading, etc.).

This article is not analogous to the smallpox and polio articles; the COVID-19 article is. That one would only be put in past tense it if the virus stopped circulating. The pandemic is much more specific and, being about a historical event, needs sources to sustain it. The proper analogy here is Spanish flu, about a specific pandemic rather than the H1N1 virus in general.

Good faith editors will naturally disagree about how long sources describing it as present tense are 'good for', but the longer the time period the fewer would likely support it in a future RfC. I do not view it as a given that any authoritative source will cleanly declare the pandemic over; none appear to have done so for the Spanish flu. The WHO declaring the 2009 Swine Flu pandemic over mentioned above by Bon courage will never happen again because that system of officially categorizing pandemics is no longer in use. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC) revised Crossroads ^-talk- 00:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

You need to read WP:NOR. Wikipedia reflects accepted knowledge as WP:PUBLISHED in reliable sources. There are oodles of sources for when the Spanish Flu pandemic ended; in time there will be for the COVID-19 pandemic too. Maybe next year, maybe in a hundred years. We just don't know. It's not for us to say. Bon courage (talk) 00:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with NOR, thanks. To state that the pandemic is a present-tense matter in 2044 if there have been no sources calling it that in 20 years is also a claim, and therefore an act of OR. That there will be MEDRS sources specifically describing when the pandemic ended would be nice but is ultimately speculation. We may only get sources from historians or in passing rather than a medical review article all about "the pandemic ended at roughly this point and here's why".

There are oodles of sources for when the Spanish Flu pandemic ended - are there? Meeting the standards being insisted upon here? I don't see any. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, oodles of sources. The accepted dates for the Spanish flu pandemic are 1918-1920 (as our Wikipedia article says). To pick one at random: PMID:32626922. Incidentally, is this novel line of argument confined to COVID, or are you also pressing for Wikipedia to declare the HIV/AIDS pandemic "over" without your "continuous stream of high-quality sources" saying that it's ongoing? Bon courage (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

This is an article about Covid that makes passing reference to "since the Spanish flu of 1918-1920". I'll take it then that you will accept reviews that come out saying something like "the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020-2023". Good to know!

Wikipedia (and WHO) largely doesn't describe HIV/AIDS as a pandemic; Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS (which HIV pandemic redirects to) calls it a global epidemic in the lead. And in general sources seem conflicted on this matter. I would expect somewhat recent sources in any case, especially if something like a PHEIC had ended, due to WP:MEDDATE and WP:RS AGE. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes a review article putting defined start and end dates on the COVID-19 pandemic would be useful. In time we may have such sources. Our HIV/AIDS article has in the lede "HIV/AIDS is considered a pandemic—a disease outbreak which is present over a large area and is actively spreading." The WHO certainly does refer to HIV/AIDS as a pandemic[14] also, as do quality MEDRS sources.[15][16]. So Wikipedia calls HIV/AIDs a pandemic even without this "continuous stream of sources". So too, with COVID-19. Bon courage (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I might have misremembered or overlooked that, or perhaps it was added recently. But in any case there do seem to be a more or less continuous stream of sources for this. It's not like we're referring to it as a pandemic with only many years or decades old sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

In fact the source used for calling HIV/AIDS a pandemic is from 2008, and has been there since 2012.[17] Bon courage (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the problem with your argument is "if no new ones come out". That's just so spectacularly unlikely. Just stick "covid site:theguardian.com" into Google and apply a filter for "last week". You can keep scrolling through results (with a fair degree of repetition it has to be said) endlessly. If I search PubMed here (and correct me if I've got it wrong) select just August 2023 as a publication period, I get 8000 results, 800 of which are reviews. -- Colin°^Talk 09:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Hypotheticals that won't happen aren't useful. Crossroads, consensus is clearly against you on this one. Bondegezou (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Obviously sources about Covid will continue coming out, at least in the near term, but I am clearly talking about if there are a lack of sources specifically making a case that it is over (or not), as opposed to only being about the disease in general, etc. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

On adding an official RfC tag (August 5)

XOR'easter, I don't think the RfC tag should have been added (would have said "restored", but looking in the history it doesn't look to have ever been there). The OP's prompt is worded ambiguously, seemingly at times being outright about whether to describe it in past tense, but in other parts being merely about replacing the old consensus item and leaving it as "editor liberty" afterward. I'd rather this be treated as a preliminary discussion and an RfC held off on until (A) more time has passed and the state of sources in the months following the end of the PHEIC becomes clearer, and (B) that when asked it clearly and directly be about "should it be described in past tense?". Crossroads ^-talk- 00:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC) (forgot to sign earlier, was commented 21:59 5 August)

I agree with it being added (well done XOR'easter)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• I've just realised that some editors are treating the #Current consensus section as a kind-of set of legal articles and this pseudo-RfC as about 'changing the law' (hence the talk above of 'striking down'). So really this is about changing the consensus about what the consensus is. Peak Wikipedia. It would be much simpler if somebody just proposed a textual change. Bon courage (talk) 06:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

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

RFC on current consensus #14

Is Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Current_consensus #14 still valid?. It says: "Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article. (May 2020)" Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• It seems it is not valid as we currently link to the article in question in the article. COVID-19_pandemic#Background says "Controversies about the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory, heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China.[34]" It seems given that this is included in the article, the consensus should be overturned. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• Before responding, some editors may wish to look at the prior RFC from the same editor, on the same subject, several months ago: Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 48#RFC on current consensus #14. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Polling

• Strike down #14 consensus: We currently link to the lab leak theory in the article, putting the consensus in conflict with the aritlce. This is obvious as the theory is now mainstream and while controversial, the likely cause of the pandemic according to a large number of RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• The bold edit that added the link is over six months old [18] and it was never disputed so it enjoys the policy of implicit consensus. This therefore could have been boldly edited to reflect the current stable version. But since you took the formal approach I will support striking down #14 consensus. SmolBrane (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
• Strike down - Look, I'd be all for it if it said not to endorse the theory or treat it as equally plausible with a natural origin. But at this point, going so far as to exclude it entirely from this article, when this article is supposed to be a broad overview of the topic, seems untenable. It makes sense to mention it even if just to say it is mostly rejected, but even if we didn't, there is no need to be bound by this discussion from May 2020, which is practically ancient history by Covid standards and was before many new sources came out about how some scientists did consider it worth investigating (at least for a time). Plus, as noted, mentioning it is already the status quo anyway. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
• Close and trout. We had this RfC a few months ago, and it was a process-spinning waste of time then.[19] Repeatedly pressing the same thing is disruptive. Bon courage (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  Consensus #14 is not an accurate reflection of the undisputed state of the article though. SmolBrane (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, and thus the reason for this RFC and the current consensus of this article is obviously different from the time of the previous RFC. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Strongly opposed to #14 consensus - As an outsider to this topic on Wikipedia, I'm quite surprised to see there was a strict rule established here stating "Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article." This seems like a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED - even if the lab leak theory is completely false it is undisputably due to be mentioned.

That being said, perhaps the consensus/rule should not be striken entirely but mollified to something like "Special care is to be taken not to give undue weight to the lab leak theory" or "The lab leak theory is undue for inclusion in both the lead and background section." These are only approximate suggestions but some sort of softening of the current consensus would likely be better than either keeping the strict rule or abolishing it altogether.

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I believe the article should be able to mention lab-related theories when necessary. The other editors from last time should perhaps be notified. Senorangel (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• Not determined here. Whatever we have should follow the principle of WP:SYNC and mirror what is said (probably in the lede) at Origin of COVID-19. If that changes there, it changes here too. Bon courage (talk) 08:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

This is your second !vote on this RFC. How about editing your initial vote instead of just appearing to vote again? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Keep consensus 14, and remove anything in the article that contradicts it. Obviously a consensus established through an RFC is stronger than any implicit consensus; that much is just basic. And while WP:CCC, nobody has actually presented any argument why we ought to overturn it; things haven't actually changed since the last RFC. Sometimes things fall through the cracks even on high-traffic articles, that's all. Recent coverage, to my understanding, has if anything pushed the theory further towards the fringes. --Aquillion (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

PHEIC ≠ pandemic

Just a perioic reminder that a "Public health emergency of international concern" is not the same as a "pandemic". Mixing these things up is a mistake RS warns about, and not a bungle Wikipedia should be making. We have a date for the pandemic start (as assessed by the WHO), so we must use that when we want a date for ... the pandemic start. Bon courage (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding that and these edits, the PHEIC is nevertheless a major aspect of the topic and should at least be mentioned in addition. That is the time period when legal and social restrictions were in place, and consequently dominates both this article and many others about the Covid pandemic. Its distinctiveness means it is worth mentioning. For an example comparison, we don't merely refer to the Korean conflict as ongoing even though that is technically true; both the lead and the infobox distinguish important periods such as the 1950-1953 Korean war. Many of the other articles linked at List of ongoing armed conflicts are arranged the same way. Many other articles also use multiple date parameters, such as George Floyd protests, nation articles like United States, and so forth.

Also, the consensus in the discussion Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 48#Infobox date parameter was to include the PHEIC dates in the infobox. Per WP:APPNOTE bullet point 5.2, I will ping those editors (other than myself) from that discussion: Ozzie10aaaa and Yeoutie. You and others reading this - thoughts on which dates should be in the lead and infobox? I note too that the version named as a WP:GA included it in both.

As for the WHO's "assessment" on March 11, 2020, this used to be in the lead of the article, but was removed by someone a while back. I'm not terribly opposed to it being restored, but it's hard to square this supposed 'assessment' with the fact that other sources show the WHO does not formally assess a "pandemic" category. [20][21] At the very least, we shouldn't expect that they will necessarily announce another "assessment" that reverses the March 11, 2020 one, and say the pandemic is over. There is no evidence for an internal mechanism that assesses this, like there was for the PHEIC which was re-assessed every three months. Describing the pandemic as over will require looking at a broad range of sources, and it may be that at some point it becomes disputed enough in high-quality RS that it becomes necessary to be non-specific on the question and attribute POVs.

Even now, for example, there is some dispute on the issue. This 3-day-old article from Boston University asked three of their professors the direct question "is COVID-19 still a pandemic?", and by my reading, one says no, one leans toward no, and one leans toward yes. Interestingly, the three vary in how they define "pandemic" in the first place - this may be widespread among experts. One also made the very interesting point that such an assessment is "difficult to identify...in real time" and is usually made retroactively in reassessments. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

This is an article about the pandemic. We have a "dates" property, and we have a well-sourced value for the pandemic start date. If you want to invent a new property for "PHEIC dates" (which are different) then make them, but don't confuse one with the other. Bon courage (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Crossroads I still agree[22] w/ you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we need an end date and move to "was" for this article. We all know the pandemic is over, just as this jargon sounding PHEIC states. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Please stop POV-pushing and this is WP:NOTAFORUM. Bon courage (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf A friend of mine is home sick with COVID right now. This could not have happened five years ago. How can YOU say it's over? HiLo48 (talk) 07:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That people still get Covid is irrelevant. That will keep happening long after the pandemic, same as people are home sick (or sometimes, worse) with the flu or the cold or whatever and those pandemics ended a long time ago.

Jtbobwaysf, it's clear by now that just saying it's over won't convince people. What we need are sources that give expert opinion, especially academic articles from, say, Google Scholar. If whether it's over or not is somewhat widely disputed in those, then a case could be made to attribute POVs in the article and shift away from present tense. I'd be in favor of that if so. Or if most say it's over (although that's probably not likely yet) then a case could be made for past tense. I certainly haven't done a comprehensive search yet. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:OBVIOUS can also be used here. In this case what is being suggested is that we need to find RS to refute what is obvious, which is a hard thing to do, since not many people (let alone RS or MEDRS) talk about the sky being red. I think what we were discussing here is of the PHEIC jargon that also has an end date, no? Apologies if I was confused. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the interview from the university is something we'd be happy to cite in this article, but that and other sources like it can tell us something about the likely overall scientific consensus. If the scientific consensus had concluded that it was definitely not a pandemic any longer, the contents of that interview would likely sound very different.

(Sources do talk about red skies; see Red sky at morning.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@HiLo48 Many people are also still sick with spanish and swine flus, althrough the main "pandemics" ended 104 and 14 years ago respectively. These two flu viruses are today parts of the yearly seasonial flu. Karamellpudding1999 (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)