Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16

Centralise COVID-19 Origin Discussion

We absolutely need to centralise the discussion on COVID-19's Origin here in the Project page.

We need to start a unified discussion and every time a discussion on this topic is opened on a project article talk page we need to close it immediately (using the appropriate tools [1]) and link to the discussion here. Otherwise we currently have 10s of discussions arguing the same thing with a huge time loss and no conclusion in sight.

  • We currently have a crucial RFC being conducted on whether the virus origin is WP:BMI and therefore WP:MEDRS would apply or not here: [2]. This determination will be crucial and determine the way forward significantly.
  • Once this is done I think we need to centralise any discussion here every time a new discussion is opened. They should be closed from the specific article page and moved here.
  • As soon as we start accumulating some consensus we should add it to the project consensus to ensure we stop wasting time in discussions. If a discussion is opened relating to a consensus item it should be speedy closed immediately.

Thoughts? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 12:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

It's subtly different for that RfC. It's not whether "WP:MEDRS would apply or not here" but whether "the origin" (vaguely defined, in all its aspects presumably) is WP:BMI and so needs WP:MEDRS sourcing (the proposal is that we "unambiguously define disease and pandemic origins as a form of biomedical information"). I opposed that, as did others, on the basis that some aspects of "disease and pandemic origins" are not biomedical; others are. The guidance for MEDRS to be used for WP:BMI is baked into the WP:PAGs and will remain so however that RfC question is answered. Alexbrn (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Alexbrn I agree. The RfC will take some time to close but I think it has been clearly rejected. So it seems the origins are not BMI and we won't need MEDRS sourcing. As soon as it is closed I would place that in the project consensus and then centralise discussions on the virus's origin here (by closing and moving here/consolidating) so that we avoid this mess of discussions all around and the time waste. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 08:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine

Extended discussion of non-MEDRS

While this topic has probably been brought up before, I would like to iterate my skepticism towards Wikipedia's stance on this treatment. Hydroxychloroquine has been successfully used in countries such as Senegal, India, Morocco and various parts around the world. It is also the opinion of Dr. Harvey Risch at Yale and Dr. Didier Raoult in France that they are effective. The latter has successfully treated 15 000 patients with it. I wrote about France's failure late last year and how Marseilles in particularly have a lower excess death because they ignored the official advice. There has also been significant evidence that the lancet gate and discovery trials were both fraudulent, the first was a simply fake and the latter gave the patients an illegal dossage. HQC as it currently stand has efficacy in the early treatment stages. http://www.newgeography.com/content/006850-frances-covid-fall

In terms of Ivermectin, Dr. Pierre Kory as many of you know is a big advocate, but the person who effectivly showed that the WHOs guidelines is not up to date is Dr. Tess Lawrie, Furthermore the article that Wikipedia cites to "disprove Pierre Kory's statement is from a Computer Scientist called Philip Machanick, he is neither an epidemiologist or a medical doctor.

The correct source to Dr. Tess Lawrie should be the following one. She rans an independent consultancy firm and has written many of the WHOs guideines. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348297284_Ivermectin_reduces_the_risk_of_death_from_COVID-19_-a_rapid_review_and_meta-analysis_in_support_of_the_recommendation_of_the_Front_Line_COVID-19_Critical_Care_Alliance_Latest_version_v12_-_6_Jan_2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkrugertjie (talk • contribs) 15:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I am relatively new to Wikipedia, so please let me know if you want a specific quality of the source. The story currently is that the WHO has outdated advice and unfortunately many patients have been deprived of this treatment.

I am not taking an anti vaccination stance in this article as I am generally in favour of it, but I would like for Wikipedia to consider at least that there is a difference of opinion on these treatment and that a fixation on only randomization as opposed to large retrospective trials and meta analysis is simply not scientific in this respect.

Please let me know how I can make the conversation constructive,


I suppose that one big challenge that you're finding in this pandemic is that the paradigms haven't been established and that makes it difficult to get accurate date.

regards

@Hkrugertjie: Welcome to Wikipedia. We have a number of policies and guidelines that it would be useful to familiarize yourself with. The most relevant is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (aka, MEDRS). The two biggest items I'm not seeing in your above suggestion are reliable secondary sources (review articles), let alone evidence that the sources are peer reviewed (though I only clicked the final link, please share any source references that meet this criteria from the prior links). This means inclusion would not fulfill our goal to summarize scientific consensus. Until scientific consensus shifts, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Hope that helps. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

edit: Thank you for the response,

1. I am not interesting in right wing fanaticism.

2. I would like to insist that the current article by Philip Machannick (cited on Dr. Pierry Kory's website) cannot be justified as he is not a medical doctor or have any training in the field, even if you still maintain your position on Ivermectin.

3. A few Wikipedia entries on some skeptical scientists look like emotional hit pieces, and that is not conclusive for larger public debate. In particular the scientists that hold different opinions.

By secondary review in this respect I suppose that you mean what is commonly said to be Peer Review, all the evidence for Ivermectin and HQC, observational, primary and peer review is in the following website, this includes over 250 peer reviewed articles and a lot of preprints (that unfortunately replaced a peer review to an extend during this pandemic).

https://c19ivermectin.com/ In terms of Ivermectin for example, the following in my view is stronger evidence than what is currently cited on wikipedia. Ivermectin and outcomes from Covid-19 pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trial studies https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/rmv.2265

Clinical study evaluating the efficacy of ivermectin in COVID-19 treatment: A randomized controlled study https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmv.27122

Clinical study evaluating the efficacy of ivermectin in COVID-19 treatment: A randomized controlled study https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmv.27122

The point that I would like make is that the Wikipedia articles read as if there isn't anything to them and that skews the public debate and frankly enrages the far right.


I never insinuated you were interesting in right wing fanaticism, so I'm confused why you bring that up. Regarding "secondary reviews", while they should also be peer reviewed before inclusion in Wikipedia, these are usually literature reviews or meta-analyses summarizing the results from multiple studies. This is to filter out statistical anomalies. Unless you can provide these high-quality sources (if they exist, the consensus would likely change as a result, solving the issue), Wikipedia policy is pretty clear that the current presentation is (more or less) an accurate reflection of scientific consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Your comment

@Hkrugertjie: Ivermectin/COVID is covered at several articles, but principally:
I've had a quick check and we're up-to-date and well-sourced. So I'm not seeing a need for change. The suggested sources above are unreliable, falling afoul of MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for I overreacted, I have had that argument thrown out during this pandemic.

If I understand correctly, Wikipedia's MEDS system prioritizes national guidelines over meta analysis? The 'dispute' if you will currently lies that the WHO and the national bodies do not use the latest guidelines, for example South Africa's SAHPRA still refers to the JAMA study that that now been debunked.

I looked quickly at your drug repurposing research, the HQC section is out of date, https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m2670 the Recovery trial used an illegal dosage for example. Secondly I would also want to point out that the Lancetgate study has been retracted and it was the reason why many governments reversed their guidelines (a case of Malfeasence). https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/04/covid-19-lancet-retracts-paper-that-halted-hydroxychloroquine-trials https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2021225 (here is the retraction)

Guidelines still advice against HQC in England, but it is not the case in many African countries. The individual guidelines are found here, https://hcqtrial.com/#results

thanks for the response.

A reputably-published meta-analysis would be a good source, but for ivermectin a number of unscientific "fake" meta-analyses have circulated on the web, duping a lot of people. See pmid:33888547. Wikipedia already covers this in its misinformation article. Alexbrn (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

that is understandable, the most comprehensive one currently going on around (that I know many doctors are citing) is the interview is done by Dr. Tess Lawrie from the evidence based consultancy group in the UK.

The meta analyses and reviews are listed in the document. https://b3d2650e-e929-4448-a527-4eeb59304c7f.filesusr.com/ugd/593c4f_cb262b08142747c99f40929fb617652e.pdf

Let me know if you need something more specific, understandably that this topic has become a political football.

regards

That's one of the self-published "fake" ones. Look to established journals instead, for reliable sources Wikipedia can use. Alexbrn (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I will ask those detractors, from my understanding you only accept peer review journals with a relatively high impact factor? regards.

More than that, per WP:MEDRS it needs to be good secondary sourcing, and considering every reputable medical body on the planet has found no good evidence for HCQ/Ivermectin, WP:REDFLAG probably also applies. Alexbrn (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
And to expand on this, recommendations by major health organizations (CDC, WHO, etc) are preferred even further, as they are the "scientific consensus" that matters most. If the literature supports a medical practice, they should be quick to recommend it as well. We don't put ourselves in the position of attempting to second-guess their determinations, and certainly not without very high-quality evidence. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


So I am just leaving the information here, understanding all of the above and Wikipedia's criteria.

Ivermectin has now made itself into the Lancet, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00239-X/fulltext Peer Review has also hit the American Journal of Therapeutics and Nature Magazine (not the journal) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00430-5 https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/06000/Review_of_the_Emerging_Evidence_Demonstrating_the.4.aspx

Given the lawsuits in India, I expect that the authorities are going to change course soon (they haven't yet as per your previous discussion). https://trialsitenews.com/indian-bar-association-serves-legal-notice-upon-dr-soumya-swaminathan-the-chief-scientist-who/

All As per previous post, all the studies (good and bad) are located below. https://c19ivermectin.com/

Proposed splitting of COVID-19 pandemic in Australia

I have proposed splitting COVID-19 pandemic in Australia into separate articles for each state and territory. We can discuss this at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Australia#Proposed splitting. Steelkamp (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine experts working on Saturday

Several Wikimedia groups are teaming up with the World Health Organization for the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Vaccine Safety Wikipedia Edit-a-thon June 12, 2021. If we're lucky, we'll see some improvements to articles about COVID-19 vaccines, too. Please be on the lookout for new editors who might need help with formatting or have questions about how to edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Article COVAX

I don't know if this is the place to ask, but article COVAX seems to need months of updating... AnonMoos (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Wuhan virus

Wuhan virus is a disambiguation page (because of the existence of an unrelated bacteriophage with the same name). However, there has been disagreement about the exact wording of the entry for SARS‑CoV‑2. One version was this:

Wuhan virus, an informal name for the SARS‑CoV‑2 virus, associated with the xenophobia related to the pandemic

This links both to the SARS‑CoV‑2 article (because "Wuhan virus" is a synonym for it), and to Xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic (because that's the only Wikipedia article that actually mentions the term and provides some sort of context for its history of use).

An editor has objected to the second link, insisting that the entry should read:

Wuhan virus, an informal name for the SARS‑CoV‑2 virus

Their argument is that because of the evidence for the lab leak theory, the term "Wuhan virus" is now actually neutral. If that's the case, then this neutral term will need to be mentioned in the article about the virus. Otherwise, I believe we'd continue to need a link to an article where the term is mentioned and its connotations made explicit ("neutral", "racist", "correct", "derogatory", etc.). A similar situation obtains about the dab page Chinese virus.

What do others think? – Uanfala (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The lab leak idea is completely irrelevant to the question of what the disambiguation page should link to. I think it's useful to include both links: the link to SARS‑CoV‑2 is for readers who want to read about the virus, and the link to Xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic is for readers who want to read about the term. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
It is undeniably supported by WP:RSes that the term "Wuhan virus" is linked to xenophobia in the pandemic. So that part of the redirect should stay.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I reverted the change, see that redirect's talk page: Talk:Wuhan virus#Xenophobia link for the WHO advice against geographic locations in names being 'neutral'. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

I have seen that some pages have a note at the talk page about discretionary sanctions for the Covid-19 articles. Others, like COVID-19 pandemic in Argentina, do not. Question 1: Are those sanctions for all articles, regardless of having a note at the talk or not? If so, should I add the note when a Covid-19 page lacks it, or only in case of user disputes? And question 2: what is it all about? Sanctions against "editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process" sound like normal stuff for me, someone doing that would likely be blocked anyway, regardless of topic. Is there some specific thing that users did in those articles that must not be done and that caused this whole situation? Cambalachero (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll add a question, as it doesn't seem apparent. Where do we report what we suspect is a violation of the discretionary sanctions? Bakkster Man (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
1. I believe it is mostly the medical articles, to prevent disinformation. 2. Discretionary sanctions means that an admin can immediately block or limit an account for violating "normal stuff", rather than waiting, reporting, etc. - the DS notice acts as a first warning. Kingsif (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
WP:AC/DS (or in this case, GS) usually require awareness (but arbcom is in the process of reworking that broken system), but basically yes the point is avoiding protracted messing about from disruptive editors by encouraging admins to act on it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Could one please explain for exopedians like me, what's the difference between former (current at the time of the discussion above) "general sanctions" and current "discretionary sanctions"? Sadly, I couldn't make any sense from the primary sources =( Thank you in advance Ain92 (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ain92: My understanding is they're a bit more formalized with more process. Idea is that action is more likely to be taken by the arbitration committee than individual editors (due to the risk of harassment and such acting individually, among other things). Requests go through Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, and I believe the first topic ban went through today. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Cambalachero. I think that the COVID-19 DS banner can be added to any article relating to COVID-19. Personally if I ran across a talk page without it and I noticed it, I'd probably add it. The idea behind GS and DS is to give admins more power in contentious topic areas to place page editing restrictions, issue topic bans, and issue blocks. For whatever reason, COVID-19 is sometimes a contentious topic area. In particular, it seems to suffer from some conspiracy theories (bioweapon origin, ivermectin as a miracle drug, etc.), and it requires a lot of skill to edit correctly (MEDRS is complicated). Hope that helps.–Novem Linguae (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

We made the news 📰👀🦠🤪

(cross posted from Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#We_made_the_news_📰👀🦠🤪)

  • Ryan, Jackson (24 June 2021). "Inside Wikipedia's endless war over the coronavirus lab leak theory". CNET.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

page for covid-19 literature?

Hi, I was wondering if there is an existing page on the increase in interest and production in pandemic-related fiction caused by COVID-19. Maybe it's too early for such a page? I found a Washington post article on the subject of "post-pandemic fiction". Maybe it would be more appropriate as a section on Disease in fiction? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

To me it seems too early for an article. Maybe even too early for a section. A paragraph, yes. Yes, start with a paragraph in Disease in fiction. Later, probably, expand. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Definitely too early. I would compare "post-pandemic fiction" to post-9/11 fiction: a lot of works agreed to be in that category were actually originally developed/began production pre-9/11 and were about Y2K fears of a changing world but, published post-9/11, were received as relevant to those anxieties. Any post-pandemic fiction already published - and which is "post-pandemic" in theme (i.e. not just fiction set in lockdown and the like) - was probably really Trump-era fiction as it was conceived. Development, writing, publication, take time. Kingsif (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies! I'll come back in a few years, haha. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

RE: Template:Current COVID-19 Project Consensus

I've been doing some talk page clean-up, and came across this template from this project. The content of the template is obviously fine as a consensus template; the problem is it is absolutely huge and there is no option to collapse it, so it ends up taking a huge amount of space in the talk page header. I'm suggesting that collapse option be implemented, but I wanted to run it by y'all since it came from this project originally. Curbon7 (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Definitely agree, I think making it collapsible is absolutely in the interest of the project. That way we can still direct people to it, but it won't be massive and make scrolling these talk pages even more of a chore.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

RE: Template:Origins of COVID-19 (current consensus)

Also wanted to put this on everybody's radar. ProcrastinatingReader made it because we keep fielding over and over again the same arguments on the most controversial talk pages. At least if we have something like this collapsed at the top, we can direct newcomers to it before they re-assert the same 5 arguments for the 3rd time.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The collapsible issue above seems to be about the talk page banner. Collapsibility for the first section (this being a different template) seems problematic; firstly because collapsing doesn't work properly on mobile devices, and because I think this template works best if it's visible. This is similar to how it works at Talk:Donald Trump and WT:MOS. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I, for one, think that it would be super annoying to scroll through it every time. I get the reasoning that it would be all but invisible to new users if collapsed, but I think the pros of collapse outweigh the cons. We can still point to it like an FAQ. I just hate with a visceral passion, the extremely long and convoluted talk page banners of those pages. Can we make it collapsible, but default to open? I think there's a way to do that with the ctop template, for example. Not 100% sure. And then if that is a thing, I think you can also set your own js preferences to open or close on viewing. Not sure how that works with mobile, but I will say that I have never had a problem with ctop templates on Android or Chrome mobile.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I dunno personally, for example just one of the sections at Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19 rehashing the Segreto paper is several times as long as this current consensus section. I don't know whether ctop default uncollapsed would work; I do personally think the current form provides more emphasis to the discussions though (under a separate section header and with an emphasised background colour), and thus serves its purpose better, and this format is tried and tested. But if consensus disagrees then that's fine with me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Help regarding Covaxin Phase-IV trails

Dear members please help to identify which one can be included in "Postmarketing study (participants)" i.e. Phase-IV column in the table COVID-19_vaccine#List_of_authorized_and_approved_vaccines for Covaxin.

  • (1) A prospective, longitudinal, observational, post licensure vaccine evaluation study to assess the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine among the Healthcare workers of Max group of hospitals; (1000 participants, India)[1]
  • (2) COVID-19 Vaccines Safety Tracking (CoVaST); (It comprises of 10 vaccines including Covaxin) (30000 participants, worldwide)[2]

References

  1. ^ "A prospective, longitudinal, observational, post licensure vaccine evaluation study to assess the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine among the Healthcare workers of Max group of hospitals". ctri.nic.in. Clinical Trials Registry India. 24 June 2021. CTRI/2021/01/030782. Retrieved 3 July 2021.
  2. ^ "COVID-19 Vaccines Safety Tracking (CoVaST): Global Consortium Study". ClinicalTrials.gov. United States National Library of Medicine. 21 April 2021. NCT04834869. Retrieved 3 July 2021.

Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @Berchanhimez, Alexbrn, and Shibbolethink: for help. Run n Fly (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and added (1) supported by WP:MEDRS from Clinical Trials Registry India reference per WP:BOLD. Run n Fly (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Pandemic outcomes

This description caught my eye today:

"So far it looks as if the legacy of covid-19 will follow the pattern set by past pandemics. Nicholas Christakis of Yale University identifies three shifts: the collective threat prompts a growth in state power; the overturning of everyday life leads to a search for meaning; and the closeness of death which brings caution while the disease rages, spurs audacity when it has passed. Each will mark society in its own way."[1]

If we can find more content along these lines (e.g., analytical and focused on long-term effects), it might be easier to improve some of the articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The long goodbye to covid-19". The Economist. 2021-07-03. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2021-07-05.

Page move discussion at Talk:Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, Talk:Moderna COVID-19 vaccine and Talk:Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine

Greetings members, two page move discussions are on-going at Talk:Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, Talk:Moderna COVID-19 vaccine and Talk:Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. Interested editors are requested to participate/contribute. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Centralized discussion on MEDRS vs NEWSORG on the origin of SARS-CoV-2

There is a notable dissonance between some information published in NEWSORG as facts and the way the same information is treated in MEDRS, regarding the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Under many wikipolicies (WP:MEDRS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and others), information sourced on a MEDRS is more reliable than NEWSORG. This prerrogative has subordinated many pieces of information on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 published in NEWSORG to stronger, more reliable facts published in MEDRS.

Given that WP:MEDRS is not an absolute truth (is only an ideal not a prohibitory guideline); and given that WP: NEWSORG suggests that Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.; and given that in a recent RFC the community has shown divided and valid opinions on whether disease and pandemic origins are a form of biomedical information that falls under strict MEDRS enforcement; I am bringing to this centralized thread the specific instances of NEWSORG including information that is at odds with MEDRS.

Critics of this approach would call this inventory unnecessary, arguing that the only thing that can prompt new edits or discussion including this information is that MEDRS pick it up, which they haven't, so far. In defense of this exercise, I'd stress that it can bring out two important benefits:

  • By digging deep into this dissonance we can understand where the real conundrum lies. Once we narrow it down, we could fine-tune the appropiate guidelines, essays, or temporary recommendations that can help improve the time sink that many pages related to SARS-CoV-2 origin have become

I've been thinking about this topic, and am currently wondering if we should add a section to the end of (or after) Investigations for something along the lines of press/media. A lot of these conversations/debates are clearly notable, and I think we've mostly been putting off inclusion as part of fighting the broader NPOV/V fight for what gets said in the bulk of the article about the origins themself. Put another way, we've been so focused on why certain sources are unreliable/UNDUE citations for the scientific investigation, we've had a blind spot on their notability relative to the public/press attention itself. I think a section like this would help us in both directions: give DUE weight to notable news coverage, and relieve some of the pressure on covering the sources. The Wade article, WaPo timeline, Vanity Fair's coverage, Gorski, continued skepticism, the overall shift in how the lab was covered, etc. Not as a dumping ground, but addressing the media coverage of investigations and public perception of them that doesn't fit in the SARS-CoV-2 or Misinformation articles.

Let's begin listing the controversial NEWSORG-based information on the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Forich (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

1)

Those three deaths are now at the centre of a major scientific controversy about the origins of the virus and the question of whether it came from nature, or from a laboratory

.[1] From BBC, this implies that the subject about the origins of the virus holds a major scientific controversy. But per MEDRS, there is no controversy among scientists about it, and much less a major one.Forich (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
2)

Seven years after it was found in that mineshaft, RaTG13 was about to become one of the most hotly contested scientific subjects of our time.

[1]. From BBC, a search on the scientific literature brings *crickets* on any debate about RaTG13. Forich (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
3)

The two prevailing competing theories are that the virus jumped from animals, possibly originating with bats, to humans, or that it escaped from a virology laboratory in Wuhan, China. The following is what is known about the virus’ origins.

[2] From Reuters, this places the lab leak theory as important as any other. In MEDRS, the lab leak is a conspiracy theory, or at best, a fringe and tiny scientific view. Forich (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
4)

These three pretty huge coincidences foster the lab-leak theory, and mean it has not yet gone away. Western intelligence officials CNN has spoken to say they cannot "disprove" the idea -- or prove it. These coincidences are perhaps why it sits in this hinterland -- never permanently debunked, never proven. Their solution is like "Occam's razor" -- the idea that the simplest explanation is the most likely.

[3] No MEDRS source qualifies the coincidences as huge. Forich (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
5)

But none of it is solid or even compelling evidence that a lab leak occurred. That evidence may exist, and be super-classified within the government that possesses it. But as it is not public, we can't presume it exists to confirm a bias that China is hiding something terrible. But the likelihood China is hiding something is of no help either. (Even the WHO team, whose report Chinese officials helped author, admits they would like access to more material and better information -- to hospital blood bank samples from the time of the outbreak, and to raw data across Hubei about possible cases in October and November. Despite making that clear months ago, they have yet to receive it).

[3] From CNN, this implies it is likely that China is "hiding something". MEDRS say nothing about this. Forich (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
6)

As the World Health Organization draws up plans for the next phase of its probe of how the coronavirus pandemic started, an increasing number of scientists say the U.N. agency it isn’t up to the task and shouldn’t be the one to investigate.

[4] From AP. MEDRS say nothing about doubts on the WHO treatment of the investigations. Forich (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the WHO source in particular fails to note the underlying reason it is missing so much key data (China is playing games), has an utterly conflicted Chinese team (because they are under the thumb of Xi Jinping) and a somewhat conflicted international team (Peter Daszak) and is doubted by numerous WP:NEWSORG sources and by the WHO's own boss. This highlights the failure of Wikipedia sourcing rules in this area. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
You might want considering reading the recent letter in Lancet about science vs. speculation. As for Wikipedia's sourcing policies, they seem to have worked perfectly in preventing the inaccurate depiction of WP:FRINGE positions which might be politically convenient but are otherwise unsupported by the vast majority of scientists. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
By any reasonable definition of "vast", the "vast majority" assertion is false. The assertion that lab leak is WP:FRINGE is no longer true, either[3].Adoring nanny (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Since when is Fox News either of A) a neutral source for US politics or B) a scientific journal? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Sudworth, John (21 December 2020). "Covid: Wuhan scientist would 'welcome' visit probing lab leak theory". BBC News. BBC.
  2. ^ "Explainer: What we know about the origins of COVID-19". Reuters. Reuters. 27 May 2021.
  3. ^ a b CNN, Analysis by Nick Paton Walsh. "We need to know how Covid-19 emerged so we can stop it happening again". CNN. CNN. {{cite news}}: |last1= has generic name (help)
  4. ^ Cheng, Maria; Kang, Dake (2 July 2021). "Experts question if WHO should lead pandemic origins probe". AP NEWS. Associated Press.

Category:COVID-19 conspiracy theorists at CfD

Category:COVID-19 conspiracy theorists has been nominated for deletion. Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_3#Category:COVID-19_conspiracy_theorists. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 05:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted to draw your attention to User:S201050066. They have been posting raw links for the daily Ontario and Quebec entries in the various Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic articles. I have messaged the twice on their talk page but have received no response. The User has made no efforts to listen to feedback about properly citing references. I'm getting tired of having to constantly convert their raw urls into proper references. Any advice? Andykatib 22:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

They might be editing on mobile, in which case there's absolutely no point in leaving TP messages, since that's broken. Maybe pointing them towards Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Canada/Ontario medical cases chart might be the better solution - since that's where that information should go, while we're at it... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks RandomCanadian, will see if this works. Another user has reached out to User:S201050066 in the meantime. Hopefully, they will respond. Andykatib 03:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
    • They aren't editing on mobile. If they were then it would say "Tag: mobile edit" after the edit summary in their contributions. Even if they were, logged in users on the mobile site do get notifications about talk page messages so it's still worth leaving them, there's just a question of whether the notification should be made more prominent. It's IP editors on mobile who are currently unreachable - see WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU for a summary. the wub "?!" 10:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Request of participation in a discussion at Talk:ZyCoV-D

Dear members, there is a dispute regarding addition of this information in ZyCoV-D COVID-19 vaccine page. I would like to request members to participate if anyone is willing to help or resolve. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Impact on the LGBT community

New category: Category:Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the LGBT community. Feel free to help populate! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I would say the category needs some de-populating. While Global Pride and Lesbian Bar Project appear to be intimately connected to the main article, not everything mentioned in Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the LGBT community merits categorization. Miss'd America and individual bars and clubs that long predate the pandemic were of course affected to varying degrees, just like every music venue, restaurant, public library, theatre company, etc. But looking beyond recentism, I don't think the impacts of the pandemic are defining characteristics of the establishments. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Relocating sub-national entities' references

After getting in touch with Tenryuu and S201050066, I am planning to move the Ontario and Quebec references in the various monthly Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic to the Ontario and Quebec timeline articles. Just wanted to check if Wikipedia's policy is to only include national COVID-19 related statistics in the monthly timeline pages and to relocate those from states, provinces and territories to the appropriate articles for sub-national entities. Is this the best course of action? Andykatib 02:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Michael Worobey

Hello, I recently created an article for Michael Worobey, an American evolutionary biologist who has done extensive research on COVID-19’s origins. Any help improving the article would be appreciated! Thriley (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Two useful early chronologies which apparently qualify as reliable secondary sources

One is the Authoritative Chronology produced by WHO's Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response (a PDF and a web version linked here) and the other is a chronology produced by the Congressional Research Service (PDF versions linked here). The articles which stand to gain from these sources include but are not limited to Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019, Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in January 2020, Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in January 2020, COVID-19 pandemic in Hubei, COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China and more (which is the reason why I decided to post it here and not on one of the talk pages). And as a side note, we don't have a section about the aforementioned panel even in World Health Organization's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, not to say about a separate article. Ain92 (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

More editors needed

Interested editors might want to regularly visit Template:COVID-19 pandemic data and update some countries. In recent months, the number of editors who edit the template regularly has been continually decreasing. Any help will be appreciated. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 16:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@LSGH: I'm working on implementing an automatic system that stores data in a central location (Template:COVID-19 data/data, a JSON page) and uses a module (Module:COVID-19 data) to generate tables (and later, plain-text numbers). Unfortunately, my data source doesn't store recoveries information, so I would have to add that in manually from government websites. Tol | talk | contribs 17:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

CDC + Wikipedia for COVID and more

Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

There is a relevant discussion at Talk:Wikipedia coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Help needed

There is a dispute regarding WP:NPOV and WP:V at the new article China COVID-19 cover-up. Help would be much appreciated. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Should China COVID-19 cover-up be merged with one of the other COVID-19 in China articles?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:China COVID-19 cover-up. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Article COVID-19 cases at the 2020 Summer Olympics

I have objected to the stand-alone existence of COVID-19 cases at the 2020 Summer Olympics (formerly COVID-19 outbreak at the 2020 Summer Olympics). Before, it was WP:SYNTH creating a singular outbreak out of thin air. Now, it seems to be a CFORK of List of athletes not attending the 2020 Summer Olympics due to COVID-19 concerns#Qualified but withdrew due to testing positive for COVID-19 at its current title. The page creator has objected to a redirect, as well as a move-expansion to Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the 2020 Summer Olympics. The participation of other editors to find consensus is requested. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Removal of 'Prognosis' image. on Covid-19 and Covid-19 pandemic

I can't edit either myself, I wanted to see if there is consensus for removing this image before making an edit request (or if someone here could do so?) I think this image should be removed from both articles. On the basis of

  1. Verifiability - The reference included doesn't seem to work, it doesn't take the user to the original data and a search on the linked database doesn't obviously return the data in question. I think I have found the original source, which is data from February 2020, clearly no longer representative. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105510/china-wuhan-coronavirus-covid-19-patients-distribution-by-severity-of-symptoms/
  2. Policy - It is displaying textual information as an image as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Avoid_entering_textual_information_as_images
  3. Personal preference - the image doesn't actually relay the information particularly well any more than just including the text in the article would. It's not clear if the percentage on the pyramid is represented by height or volume, The caption doesn't sufficiently describe where the data comes from (i.e. was this in the first week or all time, prior to mitigation or not, with or without vaccination etc.) there are 4 groupings on the key but only 3 colours, the text is tiny and it's not really in proportion to the section it presides in in both cases. finally, 'Cases' don't die, people die, cases may 'lead to death.'

JeffUK (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing these problems out. I've boldly removed the image. If someone wants to create a new image based on more up-to-date data, displayed a clearer way, that would be fine, but the current image is misleading. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Undue weight to adverse vaccine reactions on page for COVID Australia

I have drawn attention to the WP:UNDUE weight to adverse vaccine reactions on the page for Covid Australia. It is several times the length than the sections on anything else vaccine related on the page, and its content also lacks adequate medical context and possible WP:POV editing. It needs urgent attention. Even if this was moved to COVID-19 vaccination in Australia, the counterpart section there is currently also probably too lengthy to the point of being WP:UNDUE. I have not seen anything like this on any other pandemic country page, or vaccination country page for that matter. Advice or input welcome. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Centralized discussion on MEDRS vs NEWSORG on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 (...continuation)

Part 1.

6) The leading theories are an accidental lab leak or zoonotic spillover from a bat or other intermediary species. From Wall Street Journal. MEDRS sources do not give this weight to the lab leak. Forich (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
And what does that tell you? Alexbrn (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I just saw that discussion for the first time.
Someone pointed out that WP:MEDRS is "not an absolute truth", and nobody asked "how does that count in favor of any alternative, unless the alternative is an absolute truth?"
Does nobody know how to call a bluff anymore? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Carter Mecher

Hello, WikiProject,

I'm hoping that someone who is more familiar with the development of COVID-19 in the U.S. than I am could look over this brief article and decide whether the claims that this doctor gave an early warning about COVID-19 is supported by the sources. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Howdy. I took a look at the three sources. I personally think they're acceptable and support the statement. I did a copyedit to hopefully summarize the sources a little better. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 vaccine mandates in the United States

COVID-19 vaccine mandates in the United States could probably use some additional eyes to ensure balance is being achieved—I'm not confident I'm familiar enough with the subject to do it myself. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I created a new article about Love is not tourism. Could I get some help with categories and whatnot?

Love is not tourism is about a grassroots movement that wants to unite couples, married or not, that were separated due to the pandedmic. I added a few categories, but I believe a few more, templates, etc. Are in order. I haven't done one specific to relationships because I couldn't find enough information, and I guess we'll only have some researches about it in the future. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 04:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Tetizeraz, hey there. I added the template {{Improve categories}}. A category expert should be along shortly to improve the categories. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Robert W. Malone

Evening. Can someone with a better understanding of wikipedias Covid 19 policies, particularly with regards to individuals take a look at the R W Malone article. His notability is strongly related to his historic work, but in the last year he has become prominent among various fringe groups. Any content about him is highly polarised, either being self promotion or criticism - and striking a BLP balance is difficult due to the quality of the sourcing being so generally poor. Koncorde (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Koncorde, thanks for posting. You may also want to post this at WP:FTN. That board is quite active, and they are specialists at dealing with fringe biographies. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Cheers Novem. Koncorde (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

A third authoritative early chronology published recently

Just two days after I posted Two useful early chronologies which apparently qualify as reliable secondary sources here, Elsevier published online a third one: The First 50 days of COVID-19: A Detailed Chronological Timeline and Extensive Review of Literature Documenting the Pandemic PMC 7378494. Ain92 (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:COVID-19 treatments (current consensus)

Hi all. I recently created a consensus template on COVID-19 treatments, because I (and many others) have become frustrated at the endlessly repetitive discussions on relevant talk pages. See, for example: Talk:Bret Weinstein, Talk:Ivermectin, Talk:Didier Raoult, Talk:Pierre Kory, Talk:Hydroxychloroquine. My hope is that writing all of this down in a template could be helpful as a place to direct new and inexperienced users who have repeatedly come to these talk pages to push a POV. Much like it has worked for Template:Origins of COVID-19 (current consensus), Talk:Donald Trump, Talk:Joe Biden#Current consensus, Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput. (credit to ProcrastinatingReader on those prior templates).

However, I would appreciate your feedback. Overall, of course, but also on the following specific issues:

  1. Too long? I'm an academic and I'm verbose as hell. They teach us to be this way in graduate and medical school. :) Help me trim the fat.
  2. Represents actual consensus? I want it to be rock solid so please steel-man my claims. These templates only work if they are pretty indefensible. Of course nothing is 100%, and bad faith editors will disagree no matter what... but I appreciate criticism on this nonetheless.
  3. What else should be included here? I'm sure there are other topics I'm missing, like maybe Vitamin D? ...Forsythia? (kidding, kidding)
  4. Which articles would this be good to include on? So far, I'm thinking Talk:Ivermectin, Talk:Hydroxychloroquine, Talk:Bret Weinstein, Talk:Didier Raoult, Talk:Pierre Kory. Any other suggestions?

Thank you for any help you can provide.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Great job on this. Maybe replace the bullets in #3 with one succinct sentence, which should shorten the template a lot. Maybe also get Alexbrn's opinion since he knows a lot about ivermectin. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
This all looks great and with luck, should save some time. Alexbrn (talk) 06:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Alexbrn, Novem Linguae thanks to both of you for the insightful comments and edit. I sure hope it does! But I fear that if our IPs and meat puppets aren't convinced by the high quality refs, they likely will not be convinced by this. lol. Only time will tell...--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
It's always nice to be able to go "Please see FAQ #3 above" rather than relitigating from scratch though :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

ZyCoV-D

Please add this peer-review publication of phase-II results[1] at last paragraph of "Phase I and II trials".

References

  1. ^ Momin, Taufik; Kansagra, Kevinkumar; Patel, Hardik; Sharma, Sunil; Sharma, Bhumika; Patel, Jatin; Mittal, Ravindra; Sanmukhani, Jayesh; Maithal, Kapil; Dey, Ayan; Chandra, Harish; Rajanathan, Chozhavel TM; Pericherla, Hari PR; Kumar, Pawan; Narkhede, Anjali; Parmar, Deven (August 2021). "Safety and Immunogenicity of a DNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (ZyCoV-D): Results of an open-label, non-randomized phase I part of phase I/II clinical study by intradermal route in healthy subjects in India". EClinicalMedicine. 38: 101020. doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101020. ISSN 2589-5370. PMC 8285262. PMID 34308319.

42.106.203.255 (talk) 10:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:BBIBP-CorV#Requested move 12 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:BBIBP-CorV#Requested move 12 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit request at DNA vaccine

Can someone perform the necessary update at DNA vaccine as per Talk:DNA_vaccine § Semi-protected_edit_request_on_20_August_2021. 2409:4061:700:93AF:418E:4466:2FDB:DC48 (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

ping last active registered editor @Shibbolethink: here for help. 2409:4061:700:93AF:418E:4466:2FDB:DC48 (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Tong Zeng

Tong Zeng has heavily promoted the lab leak theory, and the article claims it in Wikipedia voice. I cut a pile of the worst of it out of the article - but the article is a badly-translated propaganda piece, and very hard to work on. (I'd suggest WP:TNT for it but the guy appears to be noteworthy.) Is there someone here who knows the lab leak theory-to-conspiracy-theory well who could look over what's in the article for medical conspiracy theories? - David Gerard (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 in pregnancy : Outdated

Most sources of this article date back from the initial writing : July 2020. This is inadequate. If someone know :

  • how to initiate review and rewriting, where to raise this issue
  • which warning / medical caution templates to add

It would be really welcome. Yug (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Error at COVID-19 vaccine page

Please fix the errors in sections "See also", "References", "External links" etc. as all are showing links to default template. 2402:3A80:1A4E:9F7E:690B:788B:37A:E014 (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

This is currently being discussed at the article's talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation by China#Requested move 30 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation by China#Requested move 30 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation by the United States#Requested move 30 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation by the United States#Requested move 30 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ––FormalDude talk 08:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

B.1.621

WHO has added "Mu" (Pango lineage B.1.621) as a Variant of Interest. Would anyone like to add this to the wiki article?

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/variants-concern

https://www.who.int/en/activities/tracking-SARS-CoV-2-variants/ Hongsy (talk) 06:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Hongsy. Hey there. Consider posting this message on the page Talk:Variants of SARS-CoV-2. I believe that article is where our paragraph on this variant currently is. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I have haha. And it looks like someone has updated the page to include Mu as a heading. Hongsy (talk) 08:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Deletion discussion concerning all monthly data pages for deaths and cases

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 pandemic deaths in July 2021. The discussion there has expanded beyond that monthly data page to all the monthly data pages linked from here:

My comment there:

Keep. Notability is obvious since it is COVID-19 data that is constantly reported in the media. This COVID-19 info is invaluable, because it is difficult to find in this monthly table form. Many other table lists on Wikipedia of all kinds are notable. Sourcing is from World Health Organization (WHO). How much better than that can you get? The monthly pages get around a hundred views a day during the month it is being filled in. See those numbers via the {{page views}} banner at the top of the talk page: Talk:COVID-19 pandemic deaths in August 2021. The overall page at COVID-19 pandemic deaths that links to those monthly pages gets around 700 page views per day lately. The first of the month data from those monthly pages is used to compile this important and notable template: Template:Monthly cumulative COVID-19 death totals by country 2021. It is found on this page: COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory. That page gets around 13,000 views per day lately. People come for the tables and maps. The creator of the monthly pages is User:Anguswalker. He has been thanked by some Wikimedia Foundation staff for his great and tireless work. People and news media from around the world come to all these Covid data pages. As I said, notability is obvious.

People at the deletion discussion may not understand these issues as well as the people here at Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19. So please get involved. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

All the monthly death data pages were deleted. The closing admin gave his reasons here:
User talk:Sandstein#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 pandemic deaths in July 2021
That discussion will probably be archived soon. Check the talk archives then.
Further discussion may happen here:
Talk:COVID-19 pandemic deaths#Monthly cumulative death pages with daily data have been deleted. Need external links. Section name may be changed, so look around for a similar section heading. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:RSN concerning a paper about COVID origins and bioengineering

There is a discussion at WP:RSN concerning this paper by Yuri Deigin and Rosana Segretto in Bioessays which may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. See discussion here.

Segreto, R., & Deigin, Y. (2021). The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin. BioEssays, 43, e2000240. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202000240.

Thanks.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic

See discussion here re: whether or not we should mention contributions by individual (notable) Wikimedians at Wikipedia coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

New article 'COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy'

Would it be a good idea to have a new article focusing on misinformation related specifically to COVID-19 vaccines and the resulting hesitancy among populations of various countries. There is enough information out there for it to be a stand alone article. This section could start as a base and then expanded upon. This would also help that parent article as it is getting length and over-detailed and will continue to do so.

Thoughts/Opinions, User:BD2412, User:FormalDude, User:Abrilando232, User:Tenryuu and User:Ftrebien? •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 17:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Just noticed now that Shawnqual tried to ping me and a few others (which unfortunately didn't go through due to an unsigned comment).
Courtesy ping: BD2412, FormalDude, Abrilando232, and Ftrebien
With what I see so far, I would say potentially yes. If we're doing this, the current "See also" links to Misinformation related to vaccination and Vaccine hesitancy should probably be replaced with a {{Main}} template leading to the new article, and those two links should be present somewhere in that article's lead. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
--Fernando Trebien (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I will wait a day or two before creating the article, in case other editors have an issue or opinions. @Ftrebien:, yes, that article does require a lot of work, mostly in terms of splitting and/or moving the various sections into other appropriate articles. Regarding the origin section, there is an article Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 where this section would be more fitting. I'd suggest creating a new talk section on Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and asking for opinions. Ping me there when you do so.•Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 12:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Concerns about User:S201050066

Hi everyone, I just wanted to bring your attention some problems with User:S201050066. Recently this user pasted a lot of raw urls on the Ontario entries of the various Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic articles even though those entries already have proper references. I and other Wikipedians have reached out on this user's talk page in an effort to educate them about Wikipedia policies and norms. Frankly, I don't think this user is wiling to listen to constructive feedback. I sadly recommend taking disciplinary action. What do you think? What is the best way to handle S20105066's unwillingness to follow the rules? I have told them that I will reverse all of their recent unnecessary edits. Andykatib 04:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Don't worry everyone, S201050066 has reached out to me and apologised. They have also made amends as well. I consider the matter close and resolved. I accept that I overreacted yesterday due to my Asperger's Syndrome. We will try and work things out. Andykatib 21:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Could you please review these articles: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the United States & High-risk people ?

Hello WikiProject COVID-19, Thank you for the amazing work you do to slow the spread of COVID-19. I'm working on expanding the COVID-19 coverage on wikipedia. I have published a couple related articles recently: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the United States and High-risk people. If you could take a look and possibly make an edit, I would appreciate it. Open to any feedback.

Thank you again. --Wil540 art (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Wil540 art:, Noted, made some minor changes to the vaccine hesitancy article today and will be editing it further in the coming days. It could use better structure. The High-risk people article does have scope, you should perhaps notify some editors of medicine articles so they can contribute to it and help with expansion.•Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 20:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
@Shawnqual: I appreciate you working on the article. You are obviously a highly skilled editor. I also hear what you are saying about the High-risk people article. What is the best way to notify editors of medicine articles to get them involved? -Wil540 art (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Gubernatorial Timeline Needed?

The "COVID-19 pandemic in State" articles are wildly uneven, with lacunae of months (as with Idaho) and major developments apparently coming out of the blue (as with Alaska exceeding its ICU capacity -there's not an ECMO in the state https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/24/alaska-covid-coronavirus-rations-care-hospitals).

Overwhelm is a very real thing; there's not an aspect of this pandemic which doesn't present a fire hose of information, after all. A consistent format is needed.

I began Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic the day they shut Wuhan down; I suggest we use that method and format, with gubernatorial announcements and executive actions Ă  la the WHO for each state. A state of emergency is akin to a PHEIC; mandates differ, or are not instituted at all; styles and philosophies of governance differ. Etc.

The main benefit of this parsed information would be that each of the 50 timelines would grow organically, just as the global, omnibus COVID-19 timeline has. We start with chief executive press releases and actions...

Sound like a plan?

kencf0618 (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic needs a lot of work

As the headline implies - the page for Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic was originally split off from Immunity passport and is rife with issues, additionally the page COVID-19 vaccine card also exists and there's probably a lot of confusion there. Would appreciate some more eyes on these. Thanks. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 vaccine efficacy

I've heard lately that vaccines are losing efficacy against the delta variant and in general, so I went to look it up. The article I landed at is COVID-19 vaccine clinical research#Effectiveness. The section could use a lot of work, its opening paragraphs have almost no WP:MEDRS sources. I have added a bunch of {{medical citation needed}} tags, and also a {{unreliable source}} tag to address the WP:FORBESCON. I encourage project members to visit this article and attempt to improve it with WP:MEDRS sources. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 vaccination in Japan

The article itself needs some updating. Only tried to update the infobox. Ominae (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Should we use "the unvaccinated" to refer to patients not fully vaccinated for COVID-19?

I feel that the term "the unvaccinated" (especially with definite article) has become politically-loaded; in my opinion, I think that maybe we should use people-first language such as "patients not fully vaccinated for COVID-19". But do you think this would be a good idea to adopt as consensus? ViperSnake151  Talk  07:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

They are not the same. People in between the first dose and two weeks after the second dose are part of "patients not fully vaccinated for COVID-19" but not part of "the unvaccinated". You can drop the "fully" to only describe people who did not receive any vaccination dose. Why do we refer to them as patients in general? --mfb (talk) 08:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I prefer "vaccine hesitant" but that wouldn't apply to people who are just between doses. For them I would say "patients between doses" or "not fully vaccinated" — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Like Mfb said, "the unvaccinated" does not equal "people not fully vaccinated for COVID-19". I'd rather not go people-first, as it unnecessarily bloats articles that are rather already large as they are. I don't see anything wrong with saying something like unvaccinated individuals. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:COVID-19 lockdown in Italy#Requested move 7 October 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:COVID-19 lockdown in Italy#Requested move 7 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. VR talk 03:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Mistake at Template:COVID-19 pandemic sidebar

Please undo mistake at Template:COVID-19 pandemic sidebar. The coronavirus image is replaced by a map ! See the change here. 2402:3A80:1C44:43:4504:598A:C12B:9BA (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Resolved
2402:3A80:1C44:43:4504:598A:C12B:9BA (talk) 09:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Current Events Long COVID-19 Article List

As part of a restructuring of the Current Events WikiProject, a very long list of every COVID-19 article is being constructed since every COVID-19 related article is a current event. Please feel free to help expand the list being created. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Seven days incidence

Seven days incidence is now available as changetype "w" in medical cases chart module. I'd prefer it to absolute or precentage type as depicting the current epidemic situation much better and making for comparabilty between countries charts. Please consider changetype "w" for all national uses of the medical cases chart module. -- Kohraa Mondel (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Vin Gupta/NBC & MSNBC Medical Analyst AfC

Dear Members of the WikiProject COVID-19 section,

Im hopeful you'd be willing to provide an additional review for a new AfC for Dr. Vin Gupta, NBC News's prominent COVID-19 medical analyst, who's been on national media platforms speaking about this virus hundreds of times at this point. I created an AfC to address a key gap on wikipedia, since "Dr. Vin Gupta wikipedia" is a frequent search engine query when you type his name and viewers should be aware of his background, given his reach.

Thank you in advance. Link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vin_Gupta

Caroline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caroline grossman23 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Caroline grossman23. Hey there. I'll take a look if you reply here with links to the three best sources. WP:GNG passing sources need to have several paragraphs speaking about Gupta biographically and in detail, and need to be reliable sources such as newspapers or books. Passing mentions, or being primary about a topic rather than primary about Gupta will probably not be sufficient. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae. Absolutely. Thank you.

Top three sources: 1. Seattle Times Profile in 2020: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/350-tv-spots-and-counting-uws-dr-vin-gupta-delivers-coronavirus-expertise-to-the-nation/ 2. Stat News Profile in 2021: https://www.statnews.com/2021/06/14/vin-gupta-amazon-chief-medical-officer-profile/ 3. CNBC profile: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/08/amazon-hires-vin-gupta-pulmonary-doctor-and-public-health-expert.html

Several other top ones highlighting him on NPR, Washington Post, NBC, MSNBC, etc but too many to include -- cited many of them in the piece itself. Thanks again! Should note that I also included briefer mentions of Gupta in Politico and other sources as being shortlisted for Biden's Surgeon General on the back of his covid-related commentary -- which only adds to his notability.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Caroline grossman23 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Caroline grossman23. It's close but not a clear WP:GNG pass. Better leave it in the queue and let one of our experts that work the back of the queue take a look. Specifically, source #1 is probably a pass but could be argued it has too many quotes so not independent. Source #2 was paywalled so I couldn't evaluate it, but looks promising. Source #3 may not meet the WP:SIGCOV threshold because it talks so much about Amazon and not about Gupta specifically, and I also have concerns about it not going in depth enough about him, just stating some easily googled facts about him. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

"COVID-19 pandemic" "exposure notification" OR "contact tracing"

Taxonomy? :

0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic

Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic is a controversial subject and it would be always good to have other eyes on it. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Include list of Vaccine passport apps by country or province? ... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Omicron variant

The article SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant has just been created. Any help in improving it would be greatly appreciated. -- The Anome (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Request for updating COVID-19 related article

The article Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, which is within the scope of this project, hasn't been updated with new absolute figures for the USA since early July, 2020, nor are there any updates on the "suspected" cases outside of the USA much more up to date or, as regards the article, were ever followed up on whether those "suspected" cases outside of the USA could be confirmed. Close to 350 confirmed cases were *RANDOMLY* (as opposed to the systematic mass-screenings done for acute infection with COVID-19) found in the USA within the course of only two months in spring, 2020, and then the article just pretty much stopped counting in early July, 2020.

Also, all those figures are buried way deep in the article, where nobody would even suspect them, and the only figure named prominently in the article is the low risk of dying from MIS-C immediately, although the condition itself causes more than enough suffering and intensive care even if they don't immediately die from it. --2003:EF:1704:7257:A562:1B77:6B93:20CE (talk) 08:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

New identifiers for virus clades

I have found some new identifiers for SARS-CoV-2 variants here: https://www.who.int/en/activities/tracking-SARS-CoV-2-variants/ The GISAID clade identifier for Omicron is GR/484A, and the Nextstrain clade identifier is 21K.

I have now created the property proposals Wikidata:Property proposal/GISAID identifier and Wikidata:Property proposal/Nextstrain identifier on Wikidata, to contain this information on the Wikidata entities for this and other relevant articles. If anyone would like to join the conversation there, that would be very helpful. -- The Anome (talk) 10:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Strains template

Can we have a template for COVID-19 strains? Or is it already covered in an existing template? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

Editors are invited to participate in this RfC:
RfC about how we should use the Frutos source Adoring nanny (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in December 2021#Requested move 12 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in December 2021#Requested move 12 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:China COVID-19 cover-up#Requested move 8 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:China COVID-19 cover-up#Requested move 8 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19_lockdowns

Greece is not out of lockdown, but it's not true. There is a total lockdown since 07.11.2020, movement only with a permit only, curfew, closed restaurants and etc. Take a look please: https://greekreporter.com/2021/03/19/greece-to-loosen-covid-19-restrictions-make-rapid-tests-available-to-all/?fbclid=IwAR10xtt-aJWFsrl_aIyMQrqwNI-bZFfJisQvdiQ8grdFDk35v62ZQrPBHTY and: https://www.varnavas.gr/en/newsroom/lockdown-movement-permit/

Signpost end of year interview with COVID-19 project contributors

Hi everyone. I am involved in WikiProject interviews on the Signpost, which I think are a great way to help us build a community, understand how and where and why we are editing, listen to our fellow humans, and always interesting to read!

I would like to end out this crazy year by interviewing the members of this WikiProject. This isn't the first and I'm sure won't be the last of COVID-19 related coverage, but I thought it would be a great way to end the year with some reflections on how this WikiProject has changed and how COVID-19 has changed Wikipedia. I invite anyone (from regular to passing by editors) to contribute to the interview here: User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/WikiProject COVID19 interview draft.

Hoping to hear from you soon! Tom (LT) (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19/Archive_15&oldid=1062931380"