Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Claim that first genome was shared via GISAID is disputed by reliable source

The article currently states in two places that the first genome sequence was shared via the database GISAID. That this claim is disputed is supported by an in-depth article in a reliable source (Science news): https://www.science.org/content/article/dispute-simmers-over-who-first-shared-sars-cov-2-s-genome.

I suggest that either a disputed tag should be added to both statements. Or that the sentences are reworded to mention the dispute and virological.org.

The sentences as they stand, claiming that GISAID was are supported exclusively by an Op-Ed in "Business World" by Teodoro B. Padilla who "is the executive director of the Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Association of the Philippines (PHAP)" (see [1]). The article mentions this claim only in one single sentence: "Let’s remember the events of 2020: On Jan. 10, SARS-CoV-2 sequence data was shared through the Global Initiative on Sharing Avian Influenza Data (GISAID) Initiative."

In contrast, the Science article goes into a lot of depth to show that there are good reasons to believe that the claim may not be true, potentially manufactured by GISAID. Available evidence points to the first sequence being shared via a forum called virological.org instead.

This content dispute was already discussed in-depth on the talk pages of the GISAID article, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GISAID#Disputed_claim_of_GISAID_being_first_to_share_SARS-CoV-2_sequences

Disclaimer: I am one of ten thousands of registered users of the GISAID database and created this account as a WP:VALIDALT for fear of retaliation, see e.g. this recent article for examples of retaliation from GISAID: https://www.science.org/content/article/invented-persona-behind-key-pandemic-database AncientWalrus (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

[2] yes it does go in-depth, perhaps reword...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean, could you please rephrase your suggestion? AncientWalrus (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I think there are quite a few other sources supporting GISAID as the earliest sequence: [3][4][5][6][7].

Of course I am sympathetic to the dispute and completely agree, this is disputed by many in the community as shown on Science twitter and elsewhere. But we must report what our best sources report. So I think what we should do is, say that GISAID claims to be the first to share the content, and that it is disputed with cites for both. The science.org cite is perfect for the second sentence. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's a proposed rewording:

According to GISAID, the first complete SARS-COV-2 genome was shared on the organization's database on 10 January 2020.[8][9] Others have disputed this claim, noting that the website has since altered the date of their "in-focus" post from 12 January to 10 January. Edward Holmes, virologist at the University of Sydney, shared a complete genome sequence on the discussion page virological.org on the evening of 10 January after receiving it from Zhang Yong-Zhen, virologist at Fudan University.[10][11][12] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

agree with rewording proposed by Shibbolethink --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for proposing an edit @Shibbolethink, I largely agree. Is there a reason that you list GISAID's claim first as opposed the other way round? Following the sources I feel that the available evidence tilts against GISAID being correct here, there are also general concerns about GISAID's reliability. It is undisputed that sharing via "virological.org" took place. So I feel this should come first:

Edward Holmes, virologist at the University of Sydney, shared a complete genome sequence on the discussion page virological.org on the evening of 10 January after receiving it from Zhang Yong-Zhen, virologist at Fudan University.[13][14][15] According to GISAID, the first complete SARS-COV-2 genome was shared on the organization's database earlier that day on 10 January 2020.[16][17] Others have disputed GISAID's claim, noting that the website has since altered the date of their "in-focus" post from 12 January to 10 January.

What are the time zones used for dates in this article? Maybe add UTC (if that's what you use) for preciseness in line with MOS:TIMEZONE. I think the virological sharing happened on 11th January in UTC, though. Lastly, since there are two places on this page where the sharing event is mentioned. It's probably best to reduce this to one. AncientWalrus (talk) 08:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

We usually list things in chronological order as they happened. The claim by GISAID was covered first by our sources (probably wrongly), then the virological.org correction. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

By "chronological order" do you mean: a) the order in which the edits/additions to an article happened (i.e. GISAID claim was added first, now we're adding that this is disputed and that virological shared on 11th) or b) the order in which the actual events the article describes happened? Assuming you meant b), I'm not sure why the organization's weakly supported claim should come first. GISAID's claimed sharing had no effect (no media reports at time, no trace on Twitter), listing it first appears undue to me. I would say facts first (virological sharing), disputed claims (GISAID first) if at all second. AncientWalrus (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Neither. I mean the order in which our reliable secondary sources describe the content. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

An additional reliable secondary source has been published: First shared SARS-CoV-2 genome: GISAID vs virological.org, Lancet Microbe News AncientWalrus (talk) 11:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Claim that first genome was shared via GISAID is disputed by reliable source

The article currently states in two places that the first genome sequence was shared via the database GISAID. That this claim is disputed is supported by an in-depth article in a reliable source (Science news): https://www.science.org/content/article/dispute-simmers-over-who-first-shared-sars-cov-2-s-genome.

I suggest that either a disputed tag should be added to both statements. Or that the sentences are reworded to mention the dispute and virological.org.

The sentences as they stand, claiming that GISAID was are supported exclusively by an Op-Ed in "Business World" by Teodoro B. Padilla who "is the executive director of the Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Association of the Philippines (PHAP)" (see [18]). The article mentions this claim only in one single sentence: "Let’s remember the events of 2020: On Jan. 10, SARS-CoV-2 sequence data was shared through the Global Initiative on Sharing Avian Influenza Data (GISAID) Initiative."

In contrast, the Science article goes into a lot of depth to show that there are good reasons to believe that the claim may not be true, potentially manufactured by GISAID. Available evidence points to the first sequence being shared via a forum called virological.org instead.

This content dispute was already discussed in-depth on the talk pages of the GISAID article, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GISAID#Disputed_claim_of_GISAID_being_first_to_share_SARS-CoV-2_sequences

Disclaimer: I am one of ten thousands of registered users of the GISAID database and created this account as a WP:VALIDALT for fear of retaliation, see e.g. this recent article for examples of retaliation from GISAID: https://www.science.org/content/article/invented-persona-behind-key-pandemic-database AncientWalrus (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

[19] yes it does go in-depth, perhaps reword...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean, could you please rephrase your suggestion? AncientWalrus (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I think there are quite a few other sources supporting GISAID as the earliest sequence: [20][21][22][23][24].

Of course I am sympathetic to the dispute and completely agree, this is disputed by many in the community as shown on Science twitter and elsewhere. But we must report what our best sources report. So I think what we should do is, say that GISAID claims to be the first to share the content, and that it is disputed with cites for both. The science.org cite is perfect for the second sentence. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's a proposed rewording:

According to GISAID, the first complete SARS-COV-2 genome was shared on the organization's database on 10 January 2020.[25][26] Others have disputed this claim, noting that the website has since altered the date of their "in-focus" post from 12 January to 10 January. Edward Holmes, virologist at the University of Sydney, shared a complete genome sequence on the discussion page virological.org on the evening of 10 January after receiving it from Zhang Yong-Zhen, virologist at Fudan University.[27][28][29] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

agree with rewording proposed by Shibbolethink --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for proposing an edit @Shibbolethink, I largely agree. Is there a reason that you list GISAID's claim first as opposed the other way round? Following the sources I feel that the available evidence tilts against GISAID being correct here, there are also general concerns about GISAID's reliability. It is undisputed that sharing via "virological.org" took place. So I feel this should come first:

Edward Holmes, virologist at the University of Sydney, shared a complete genome sequence on the discussion page virological.org on the evening of 10 January after receiving it from Zhang Yong-Zhen, virologist at Fudan University.[30][31][32] According to GISAID, the first complete SARS-COV-2 genome was shared on the organization's database earlier that day on 10 January 2020.[33][34] Others have disputed GISAID's claim, noting that the website has since altered the date of their "in-focus" post from 12 January to 10 January.

What are the time zones used for dates in this article? Maybe add UTC (if that's what you use) for preciseness in line with MOS:TIMEZONE. I think the virological sharing happened on 11th January in UTC, though. Lastly, since there are two places on this page where the sharing event is mentioned. It's probably best to reduce this to one. AncientWalrus (talk) 08:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

We usually list things in chronological order as they happened. The claim by GISAID was covered first by our sources (probably wrongly), then the virological.org correction. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

By "chronological order" do you mean: a) the order in which the edits/additions to an article happened (i.e. GISAID claim was added first, now we're adding that this is disputed and that virological shared on 11th) or b) the order in which the actual events the article describes happened? Assuming you meant b), I'm not sure why the organization's weakly supported claim should come first. GISAID's claimed sharing had no effect (no media reports at time, no trace on Twitter), listing it first appears undue to me. I would say facts first (virological sharing), disputed claims (GISAID first) if at all second. AncientWalrus (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Neither. I mean the order in which our reliable secondary sources describe the content. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

An additional reliable secondary source has been published: First shared SARS-CoV-2 genome: GISAID vs virological.org, Lancet Microbe News AncientWalrus (talk) 11:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Unexplained?

Hey, @Gianluigi02, you made this edit without providing an edit summary or a source? Valereee (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee: See COVID-19 pandemic#2023, which is probably why they updated the end date. It's now been undone since the pandemic is still ongoing, it's just no longer a global health emergency. Anarchyte (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! Valereee (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

A global health emergency is a pandemic. Technically, the WHO downgraded the global health emergency. When the WHO declared on March 11, 2020, it was announced as a global health emergency. https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/who-pandemic-not-emergency-1.6833321 Efuture2 (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Claim that first genome was shared via GISAID is disputed by reliable source

The article currently states in two places that the first genome sequence was shared via the database GISAID. That this claim is disputed is supported by an in-depth article in a reliable source (Science news): https://www.science.org/content/article/dispute-simmers-over-who-first-shared-sars-cov-2-s-genome.

I suggest that either a disputed tag should be added to both statements. Or that the sentences are reworded to mention the dispute and virological.org.

The sentences as they stand, claiming that GISAID was are supported exclusively by an Op-Ed in "Business World" by Teodoro B. Padilla who "is the executive director of the Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Association of the Philippines (PHAP)" (see [35]). The article mentions this claim only in one single sentence: "Let’s remember the events of 2020: On Jan. 10, SARS-CoV-2 sequence data was shared through the Global Initiative on Sharing Avian Influenza Data (GISAID) Initiative."

In contrast, the Science article goes into a lot of depth to show that there are good reasons to believe that the claim may not be true, potentially manufactured by GISAID. Available evidence points to the first sequence being shared via a forum called virological.org instead.

This content dispute was already discussed in-depth on the talk pages of the GISAID article, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GISAID#Disputed_claim_of_GISAID_being_first_to_share_SARS-CoV-2_sequences

Disclaimer: I am one of ten thousands of registered users of the GISAID database and created this account as a WP:VALIDALT for fear of retaliation, see e.g. this recent article for examples of retaliation from GISAID: https://www.science.org/content/article/invented-persona-behind-key-pandemic-database AncientWalrus (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

[36] yes it does go in-depth, perhaps reword...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean, could you please rephrase your suggestion? AncientWalrus (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I think there are quite a few other sources supporting GISAID as the earliest sequence: [37][38][39][40][41].

Of course I am sympathetic to the dispute and completely agree, this is disputed by many in the community as shown on Science twitter and elsewhere. But we must report what our best sources report. So I think what we should do is, say that GISAID claims to be the first to share the content, and that it is disputed with cites for both. The science.org cite is perfect for the second sentence. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's a proposed rewording:

According to GISAID, the first complete SARS-COV-2 genome was shared on the organization's database on 10 January 2020.[42][43] Others have disputed this claim, noting that the website has since altered the date of their "in-focus" post from 12 January to 10 January. Edward Holmes, virologist at the University of Sydney, shared a complete genome sequence on the discussion page virological.org on the evening of 10 January after receiving it from Zhang Yong-Zhen, virologist at Fudan University.[44][45][46] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

agree with rewording proposed by Shibbolethink --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for proposing an edit @Shibbolethink, I largely agree. Is there a reason that you list GISAID's claim first as opposed the other way round? Following the sources I feel that the available evidence tilts against GISAID being correct here, there are also general concerns about GISAID's reliability. It is undisputed that sharing via "virological.org" took place. So I feel this should come first:

Edward Holmes, virologist at the University of Sydney, shared a complete genome sequence on the discussion page virological.org on the evening of 10 January after receiving it from Zhang Yong-Zhen, virologist at Fudan University.[47][48][49] According to GISAID, the first complete SARS-COV-2 genome was shared on the organization's database earlier that day on 10 January 2020.[50][51] Others have disputed GISAID's claim, noting that the website has since altered the date of their "in-focus" post from 12 January to 10 January.

What are the time zones used for dates in this article? Maybe add UTC (if that's what you use) for preciseness in line with MOS:TIMEZONE. I think the virological sharing happened on 11th January in UTC, though. Lastly, since there are two places on this page where the sharing event is mentioned. It's probably best to reduce this to one. AncientWalrus (talk) 08:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

We usually list things in chronological order as they happened. The claim by GISAID was covered first by our sources (probably wrongly), then the virological.org correction. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

By "chronological order" do you mean: a) the order in which the edits/additions to an article happened (i.e. GISAID claim was added first, now we're adding that this is disputed and that virological shared on 11th) or b) the order in which the actual events the article describes happened? Assuming you meant b), I'm not sure why the organization's weakly supported claim should come first. GISAID's claimed sharing had no effect (no media reports at time, no trace on Twitter), listing it first appears undue to me. I would say facts first (virological sharing), disputed claims (GISAID first) if at all second. AncientWalrus (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Neither. I mean the order in which our reliable secondary sources describe the content. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

An additional reliable secondary source has been published: First shared SARS-CoV-2 genome: GISAID vs virological.org, Lancet Microbe News AncientWalrus (talk) 11:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Unexplained?

Hey, @Gianluigi02, you made this edit without providing an edit summary or a source? Valereee (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee: See COVID-19 pandemic#2023, which is probably why they updated the end date. It's now been undone since the pandemic is still ongoing, it's just no longer a global health emergency. Anarchyte (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! Valereee (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

A global health emergency is a pandemic. Technically, the WHO downgraded the global health emergency. When the WHO declared on March 11, 2020, it was announced as a global health emergency. https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/who-pandemic-not-emergency-1.6833321 Efuture2 (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Global Health Emergency Ended

As the World Health Organization has officially ended on May 5, 2023, the Global Health emergency and ending the pandemic as per the WHO guidelines on pandemics.

We should add and change the date from March 11, 2020 to May 5, 2023 as well as the wiki to make light of the news. Efuture2 (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

well a change of date should be done(see below)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

WHO Declares an ending to the COVID emergency on May 5th, 2023

WHO Declares an ending to the COVID emergency on May 5th, 2023 and this an end to its status as a PHEIC and a pandemic. KevinW23 (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

at last!!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

It is not the end of the pandemic: "But W.H.O. officials warned that the decision to lift the emergency does not signal an end to the pandemic" (from NYT). Bon courage (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The WHO doesn't typically formally declare a pandemic (that quote is the NYT's article, not a direct quote of the WHO). Even when it was starting, they just said something like "it would be appropriate to classify it as such" when asked if it was a pandemic. This announcement is as formal of a "pandemic is over" announcement as we are probably going to get. I would favor referring to everything in the past tense and removing the ongoing tag. 2600:1700:337A:210:AD39:7D69:F438:5BB5 (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

WHO has no authority to declare beginning and end of pandemic, usually pandemics fizzle in and fizzle out with no start or end date. Although the WHO believes they only truly end when the next begins. We do not use that definition for any pandemic on Wikipedia. We use a definition of when it significantly fizzles out, although not to endemic levels as that takes decades. The end of the PHEIC gives a nice solid date instead of the vague different dates we've had from various experts saying it's over for the past 12 months. -AndrewRG10 (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Not a big fan of the word "ongoing" since it has WP:RELTIME issues. Just say when the pandemic was assessed to begin and don't belabour the point with extra wordage. Bon courage (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

FYI to all, discussion about the 5 May statement is also going on at List of epidemics and pandemics. Wracking ^💬 18:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

They said that the PHEIC has ended and not the pandemic, therefore it sounds like WP:OR to me. Sources say that the pandemic is not over yet, it will fizzle out on its own. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 15:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 May 2023

In infobox, change "Date: 17 November 2019 -" to "Date: 17 November 2019 - 5 May 2023" as per recent WHO announcement that the Covid global health emergency is over.

Sources: https://www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2023-statement-on-the-fifteenth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-65499929

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/5/5/covid-no-longer-global-health-emergency-who-says

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/05/covid-19-no-longer-global-health-emergency-world-health-organization

https://www.ft.com/content/a0772e5a-9a42-453f-aee0-30e7c1b61cb2
Epsilon.Prota (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Brief addendum to address possible responses that the pandemic is not over following this announcement - In comparison to the end of Spanish flu, Covid-19 will continue to be a significant concern for society, but there is rarely a definitive end to pandemic and the WHO announcement works well as a concrete date. Epsilon.Prota (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Pandemic is ongoing as with HIV/AIDS, per WHO. Bon courage (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Valid point, withdrawn. Epsilon.Prota (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Not a valid point. HIV/AIDS is considered a global epidemic by WHO, not a pandemic. Dunno the exact reasoning behind it but not relevant here. The WHO doesn't have legal power to declare pandemics, so although their statements should be taken as heavy recommendations, if they've stated themselves they're going to keep calling Covid a pandemic until the next one begins in 30-50 years, we're gonna have to move away from their recommendation. Especially cause if you look at all Wikipedia articles on pandemics, they consider the end to be not when the next one begins, but when the disease has significantly fizzled out. One can easily look at the global Covid-19 deaths and see it has fizzled out. -AndrewRG10 (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

You can't use the WHO's saying that COVID-19 is a long-term pandemic, to say that they've said the pandemic ended. Bon courage (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The WHO didn't say Covid-19 in particular is a long term pandemic, they claimed all pandemics last for decades and they don't end till the next one begins. Yet the 2009 H1N1 pandemic was considered over with the end of the PHEIC, all the pandemic articles on wikipedia consider them over once they have fizzled out significantly and people stop regarding it as one. My point is, one person at WHO's new definition of a pandemic, cannot be used for Covid-19 as it would require us to change the dates on all pandemics on Wikipedia. Instead we should use consistency, when it's fizzled out, people stop regarding it as one, and better yet like with 2009, the end of the PHEIC is a good solid hard date. -AndrewRG10 (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Where did they claim they all last for decades and don't end until the next one? In any case, as Reuters notes, the WHO is not an official arbiter of whether or not something is a pandemic. It seems that it will be a matter of WP:Due weight, among WP:MEDRS. So it will be necessary to keep an eye on how high-quality sources describe it, as an official end for everywhere at once is never going to happen; but if in the future most such sources refer to the pandemic in past tense, then we should do the same. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Çomment. I think an explanatory note should be added to the word 'ongoing' to explain the rationale. To casual readers, it might appear the main page blurb is contradictory to the article's opening sentence. Cheers Chanaka L (talk) 04:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Crossroads 25 minutes into the recent WHO announcement from Dr Mike Ryan you'll find the claim that pandemics don't end till the next begins. He also alludes that WHO's definition of a pandemic isn't consistent with a traditional pandemic cause they use it for say pandemic of gun violence. He further states technically every human disease is a pandemic, and at 28 minutes into the press conference says it's unlikely there will ever be a day where the WHO comes out and says 'the pandemic is over.'

I do fully agree that a better way of defining the end is WP:Due weight. However, it's not perfect because I can already find many reputable public health officials and various governments on various articles having already called the pandemic over from today's announcement to upwards of 9-12 months ago.

And in a few weeks to months, there will certainly be more sources using pandemic as past tense. But then what do we say the date is it ended. May 5th again? Or the date that wikipedia editors found more articles calling the pandemic over. AndrewRG10 (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

That claim about pandemics ending each other seems daft. The COVID pandemic did not end the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Bon courage (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bon courage I fully agree, it's a ridiculous idea and is why I strongly think the WHO is not final arbiter on whether Covid is a pandemic, more per my previous statement. A lot of articles already use past tense for pandemic and many more will do so from today and the next few weeks. May 5th is that defining day. AndrewRG10 (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Nevertheless, leaving Ryan's comments aside, the WHO is a top-level WP:MEDRS and in a unique position for the global perspective. So if their assessment is there is a pandemic, there would need to be some pretty astonishing counter sourcing to say otherwise. Why would COVID not be a pandemic while HIV/AIDS is? Bon courage (talk) 08:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS aside for another day, we don't need pretty astonishing counter sourcing because the WHO in the same press conference states it's their assesment that every disease that is a danger to humans is a pandemic. We are not gonna go to every wikipedia article of every common cold virus and label it as a pandemic because the WHO says so. As ironic as it seems, WHO experts spent quite a bit of time trying to convey that they don't declare pandemics or their end, just what is an emergency and what isn't. It's up to general public and public health officials to decide that, in which case WP:Due weight should be used. All discussions today on whether COVID is a pandemic should be centered around what news articles and various health officials call it, in which case I personally believe the consensus is that it's over. AndrewRG10 (talk) 08:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't use the press conference for anything, but the position statement. Since this is biomedical, WP:MEDRS sourcing is needed. What lay sources (or Trump/Bolsanaro/Johnson/etc) say is irrelevant. The positions of individual country health authorities may be relevant for that country, but not the global view. Bon courage (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I would have to disagree it's a Medical issue. I'd love to send my lecture notes because it's a fascinating concept pandemics and how they're mostly social issues, not medical ones. I think using regular media sourcing, using non-nutjobs is perfectly fine in this regard. AndrewRG10 (talk) 08:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

You'd need to change WP:BMI since questions of epidemiology are included. Raise at WT:MED if necessary. While WP:MEDRS sources are still referring to an ongoing pandemic, Wikipedia isn't going to be taking an alt view. Bon courage (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I have alerted them for their input, but I will go back to your HIV/AIDS example. The WHO does not refer to AIDS as a pandemic, they always refer to it as an epidemic, sometimes calling it a global epidemic. That view is also reflected in most medical sources, usually citing the WHO or giving it a different title. Yet on wikipedia it is referred to as a pandemic, because you'll find a lot of non-medical articles, the ones people read everyday, refer to it as a pandemic, usually 'the forgotten pandemic' or other names like that.

Therefore, it just makes sense to use the sources people read everyday. It's not going to look good if in 6 months all reputable news sources are talking about the pandemic in past tense while we wait for the slow trick of medical sources to come in. AndrewRG10 (talk) 09:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

That's not right.[52] This is the whole point of WP:MEDRS. By your logic Wikipedia would be buying into all sorts of health rubbish which appears in newspapers. Bon courage (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

One source is not enough. I recommend reading up on HIV/AIDS, particularly from the WHO themselves.

You seem to have completely ignored the primary discussions from 12 hours ago saying we would call the pandemic over based on WP:Weight, using reputable sources like the AP, BBC and such, not the Daily Mail or the Sun. I don't know how on earth you jumped to the conclusion that if we don't use medical sources, we have to use rubbish articles.

And I will re-iterate again. Pandemics as the public sees them are social phenomenons. Throughout history, end of pandemics have always been regarded as when people decided it's over, not when the epidemiological situation had stabilized. AndrewRG10 (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I think "what the public thinks" (probably wrongly) would be worthy of coverage with appropriate sources with this topic as with many others (e.g. vaccination dangers). But Wikivoice must mirror mainstream medical sources. Again, this is the whole point of WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 09:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll take that back, it's not 6 months from now we gotta worry about. It's going to look real bad in many years time when Covid is a long forgotten memory, news articles are running stories like "2 years since the pandemic ended, what changed?" And yet Wikipedia still call it a pandemic, slowly counting the ever declining sources of covid cases and deaths because we're waiting for a majority of medical sources to refer to Covid-19 as "was a pandemic that ended in 2023." AndrewRG10 (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

That future editors might not be diligent is not a good reason to buck the WP:PAGs. Bon courage (talk) 09:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

This is not a future editors not being diligent issue. An editor could be watching this page and google for sources multiple times a day for several years to come, watching the vast majority of the world and all reputable articles consider the pandemic over. But they cannot change the wikipedia article to reflect this view because we decided that they can only use medical sources for what is mostly social phenomenon. AndrewRG10 (talk) 10:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm hugely regretting starting this discussion as prior to this, the consensus was that we would wait a few weeks/months for news articles to have a clear consensus of Covid being a former pandemic. We're now looking at wikipedia being years behind reality instead of mere weeks if we go down the route of only medical sources to call the pandemic over.

I'm willing to drop the discussion and compromise, going with the former consensus of maintaining the status quo while we wait for news articles. I'm pleading with you to compromise as well so that this article does not go down that path. AndrewRG10 (talk) 10:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

According to the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/05/covid-19-no-longer-global-health-emergency-world-health-organization), '[T]he WHO does not declare the beginning or end of pandemics ...', so when, precisely, do we move from present to past tense in the article lead? Pikemaster (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

If anyone can find some high-quality sources, especially WP:MEDRS, that have started to refer to the pandemic in past tense, then that would be a strong argument in favor of doing so. Even if they don't exist yet, they may in the coming months.

I also support the removal of "ongoing" due to the aforementioned WP:RELTIME issues as well as redundancy. Additionally, given how common a misconception it is and how many sources on this very topic mention it (e.g. see also Reuters), we should perhaps add a brief sentence that the WHO does not declare a beginning or end to pandemics. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Though this again is not the whole story. The WHO does not declare the beginning or end of pandemics since that is not a formal status - unlike PHEIC - they have in their repertoire of things-they-declare. But they certainly have said in the past that pandemics are over (2009 swine flu, e.g.). Bon courage (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

That does appear to the exception rather than the norm; other 20th century flu pandemics that occurred after their formation they do not seem to have ever declared over. Rather, they simply fizzled out and gradually became past tense. And of course, most pandemics occurred and ended well before the WHO ever existed. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the point is that not having "the power to declare" does not mean they necessarily keep silent on the matter. Bon courage (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Some years back, Sunrise gave me a link to https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7X2j8HAkWdmMoS8PE/disputing-definitions about If a tree falls in a forest and the problem of saying something is true "by definition", and I think that's relevant to this page. (Also fun. Go read that LessWrong page.)

We are trying to deal with a combination of pronouncements from officials, expectations from the general public, and multiple definitions. We know that:

• official declarations about whether this is or isn't a pandemic don't change the facts on the ground;
• what the media says/the general public believes sometimes aligns with the facts, and sometimes doesn't;
• the facts on the ground aren't always clear, and some things can only be identified in hindsight, and
• whether a given situation is a pandemic depends on which definition you're using.

If you use one definition of pandemic, it still is. If you use another one, it isn't. If you use yet another definition, we don't know yet (because it depends on what the global baseline infection rate is for a disease whose baseline rate is still disputed).

In line with the advice from LessWrong, I suggest: Let's try to describe the known facts clearly by using other words. So instead of trying to come up with an all-encompassing "the pandemic ended on <date>" statement, we could instead say "known infections dropped to n% of the peak in <month>" or "Most countries ended their travel restrictions by <date>" or whatever else is relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox date parameter

I've reverted the removal of the infobox date parameter and updated the terminology used therein, as well as splitting it into two dates: [53]

This way of splitting the parameter worked very well at George Floyd protests (see talk page), at which there was much disputing about dates. Since then there haven't been any disputes; the two parameters accurately portrayed the transition in the phenomenon even though it wasn't technically 'over'.

Use of present tense and "ongoing" in the text of the article is a separate matter, and will require watchfulness in the future, as it is likely that at some point in the future most expert bodies and sources will be referring to it (the pandemic itself and not merely the PHEIC) as past tense, but this change may not take the form of any official announcement, as "pandemic" is not a formal WHO designation like PHEICs are. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC) (Addendum: Note what Reuters says: The WHO does not declare the beginning or end of pandemics) Crossroads ^-talk- 02:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

seems like a good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I support this as it maintains the status quo in the article while giving accurate details in the infobox which will doubtless be a point of contention.Yeoutie (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 May 2023

The pandemic ended just to let you know. ItoryMold (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The WHO ended its declaration of COVID-19 being a global health emergency on 5 May 2023, but continued to refer to it as a pandemic. General Ization ^Talk 02:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox date parameter

I've reverted the removal of the infobox date parameter and updated the terminology used therein, as well as splitting it into two dates: [54]

This way of splitting the parameter worked very well at George Floyd protests (see talk page), at which there was much disputing about dates. Since then there haven't been any disputes; the two parameters accurately portrayed the transition in the phenomenon even though it wasn't technically 'over'.

Use of present tense and "ongoing" in the text of the article is a separate matter, and will require watchfulness in the future, as it is likely that at some point in the future most expert bodies and sources will be referring to it (the pandemic itself and not merely the PHEIC) as past tense, but this change may not take the form of any official announcement, as "pandemic" is not a formal WHO designation like PHEICs are. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC) (Addendum: Note what Reuters says: The WHO does not declare the beginning or end of pandemics) Crossroads ^-talk- 02:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

seems like a good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I support this as it maintains the status quo in the article while giving accurate details in the infobox which will doubtless be a point of contention.Yeoutie (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 May 2023

The pandemic ended just to let you know. ItoryMold (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The WHO ended its declaration of COVID-19 being a global health emergency on 5 May 2023, but continued to refer to it as a pandemic. General Ization ^Talk 02:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Unexplained?

Hey, @Gianluigi02, you made this edit without providing an edit summary or a source? Valereee (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee: See COVID-19 pandemic#2023, which is probably why they updated the end date. It's now been undone since the pandemic is still ongoing, it's just no longer a global health emergency. Anarchyte (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! Valereee (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

A global health emergency is a pandemic. Technically, the WHO downgraded the global health emergency. When the WHO declared on March 11, 2020, it was announced as a global health emergency. https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/who-pandemic-not-emergency-1.6833321 Efuture2 (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done

Global Health Emergency Ended

As the World Health Organization has officially ended on May 5, 2023, the Global Health emergency and ending the pandemic as per the WHO guidelines on pandemics.

We should add and change the date from March 11, 2020 to May 5, 2023 as well as the wiki to make light of the news. Efuture2 (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

well a change of date should be done(see below)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

(see discussion below)

Croatia is now in endemic phase

https://dnevnik.hr/amp/vijesti/hrvatska/sto-se-mijenja-u-radu-epidemiologa-nakon-proglasenja-kraja-epidemije-vracamo-se-na-stari-ritam-nasim-starim-zaraznim-bolestima---781385.html Gabica (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

“Vlada je proglasila kraj epidemije koronavirusa u Hrvatskoj. Covid 19 i dalje ostaje prisutan u populaciji i to kao endemski virus. Maske više neće biti obvezne, već će od sada biti preporuka.” Gabica (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Noted. SmolBrane (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done

Claim that first genome was shared via GISAID is disputed by reliable source

The article currently states in two places that the first genome sequence was shared via the database GISAID. That this claim is disputed is supported by an in-depth article in a reliable source (Science news): https://www.science.org/content/article/dispute-simmers-over-who-first-shared-sars-cov-2-s-genome.

I suggest that either a disputed tag should be added to both statements. Or that the sentences are reworded to mention the dispute and virological.org.

The sentences as they stand, claiming that GISAID was are supported exclusively by an Op-Ed in "Business World" by Teodoro B. Padilla who "is the executive director of the Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Association of the Philippines (PHAP)" (see [55]). The article mentions this claim only in one single sentence: "Let’s remember the events of 2020: On Jan. 10, SARS-CoV-2 sequence data was shared through the Global Initiative on Sharing Avian Influenza Data (GISAID) Initiative."

In contrast, the Science article goes into a lot of depth to show that there are good reasons to believe that the claim may not be true, potentially manufactured by GISAID. Available evidence points to the first sequence being shared via a forum called virological.org instead.

This content dispute was already discussed in-depth on the talk pages of the GISAID article, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GISAID#Disputed_claim_of_GISAID_being_first_to_share_SARS-CoV-2_sequences

Disclaimer: I am one of ten thousands of registered users of the GISAID database and created this account as a WP:VALIDALT for fear of retaliation, see e.g. this recent article for examples of retaliation from GISAID: https://www.science.org/content/article/invented-persona-behind-key-pandemic-database AncientWalrus (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

[56] yes it does go in-depth, perhaps reword...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean, could you please rephrase your suggestion? AncientWalrus (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I think there are quite a few other sources supporting GISAID as the earliest sequence: [57][58][59][60][61].

Of course I am sympathetic to the dispute and completely agree, this is disputed by many in the community as shown on Science twitter and elsewhere. But we must report what our best sources report. So I think what we should do is, say that GISAID claims to be the first to share the content, and that it is disputed with cites for both. The science.org cite is perfect for the second sentence. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's a proposed rewording:

According to GISAID, the first complete SARS-COV-2 genome was shared on the organization's database on 10 January 2020.[62][63] Others have disputed this claim, noting that the website has since altered the date of their "in-focus" post from 12 January to 10 January. Edward Holmes, virologist at the University of Sydney, shared a complete genome sequence on the discussion page virological.org on the evening of 10 January after receiving it from Zhang Yong-Zhen, virologist at Fudan University.[64][65][66] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

agree with rewording proposed by Shibbolethink --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for proposing an edit @Shibbolethink, I largely agree. Is there a reason that you list GISAID's claim first as opposed the other way round? Following the sources I feel that the available evidence tilts against GISAID being correct here, there are also general concerns about GISAID's reliability. It is undisputed that sharing via "virological.org" took place. So I feel this should come first:

Edward Holmes, virologist at the University of Sydney, shared a complete genome sequence on the discussion page virological.org on the evening of 10 January after receiving it from Zhang Yong-Zhen, virologist at Fudan University.[67][68][69] According to GISAID, the first complete SARS-COV-2 genome was shared on the organization's database earlier that day on 10 January 2020.[70][71] Others have disputed GISAID's claim, noting that the website has since altered the date of their "in-focus" post from 12 January to 10 January.

What are the time zones used for dates in this article? Maybe add UTC (if that's what you use) for preciseness in line with MOS:TIMEZONE. I think the virological sharing happened on 11th January in UTC, though. Lastly, since there are two places on this page where the sharing event is mentioned. It's probably best to reduce this to one. AncientWalrus (talk) 08:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

We usually list things in chronological order as they happened. The claim by GISAID was covered first by our sources (probably wrongly), then the virological.org correction. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

By "chronological order" do you mean: a) the order in which the edits/additions to an article happened (i.e. GISAID claim was added first, now we're adding that this is disputed and that virological shared on 11th) or b) the order in which the actual events the article describes happened? Assuming you meant b), I'm not sure why the organization's weakly supported claim should come first. GISAID's claimed sharing had no effect (no media reports at time, no trace on Twitter), listing it first appears undue to me. I would say facts first (virological sharing), disputed claims (GISAID first) if at all second. AncientWalrus (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Neither. I mean the order in which our reliable secondary sources describe the content. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

An additional reliable secondary source has been published: First shared SARS-CoV-2 genome: GISAID vs virological.org, Lancet Microbe News AncientWalrus (talk) 11:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd support removing GISAID altogether. It was only ever included here after an editor who appears to have a major conflict of interest added it: [72]. It is worth mentioning that the genome was made available at that point in time, but it is relatively unimportant/undue to this article to get into a debate about where the genome was shared. SmartSE (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• If the claim is disputed and the dispute is now discussed in the RS (seems clear above) then the dispute itself is WP:DUE and we would include both claims and note the dispute. We dont remove things just because it isnt agreed upon, as the dispute itself is in fact DUE. MEDRS doesnt apply to this, as the dispute would be a historical fact, not a medical fact. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but in the grand scheme of the pandemic, this is an irrelevant detail. The discussion of the dispute belongs as GISAID. SmartSE (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and replaced the poor source crediting GISAID with a much better one verifying that the genome was shared publicly on 10 January. Note that this is also consistent with Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_January_2020#10_January which is another place where the dispute could be discussed in more detail. I also removed similar text from the vaccine section entirely as that was also originally added to the lead of the vaccine article by the same editor with a COI. SmartSE (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks I agree with your edits. Besides the first public sharing, the other genome related milestone is the first _private_ availability of the genome sequence (i.e. at least to some researchers as opposed to the public at large). This was at the latest on the 5th of January, when Zhang Yong-Zhen submitted a sequence to Genbank. AncientWalrus (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

WHO Declares an ending to the COVID emergency on May 5th, 2023

WHO Declares an ending to the COVID emergency on May 5th, 2023 and this an end to its status as a PHEIC and a pandemic. KevinW23 (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

at last!!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

It is not the end of the pandemic: "But W.H.O. officials warned that the decision to lift the emergency does not signal an end to the pandemic" (from NYT). Bon courage (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The WHO doesn't typically formally declare a pandemic (that quote is the NYT's article, not a direct quote of the WHO). Even when it was starting, they just said something like "it would be appropriate to classify it as such" when asked if it was a pandemic. This announcement is as formal of a "pandemic is over" announcement as we are probably going to get. I would favor referring to everything in the past tense and removing the ongoing tag. 2600:1700:337A:210:AD39:7D69:F438:5BB5 (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

WHO has no authority to declare beginning and end of pandemic, usually pandemics fizzle in and fizzle out with no start or end date. Although the WHO believes they only truly end when the next begins. We do not use that definition for any pandemic on Wikipedia. We use a definition of when it significantly fizzles out, although not to endemic levels as that takes decades. The end of the PHEIC gives a nice solid date instead of the vague different dates we've had from various experts saying it's over for the past 12 months. -AndrewRG10 (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Not a big fan of the word "ongoing" since it has WP:RELTIME issues. Just say when the pandemic was assessed to begin and don't belabour the point with extra wordage. Bon courage (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

FYI to all, discussion about the 5 May statement is also going on at List of epidemics and pandemics. Wracking ^💬 18:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

They said that the PHEIC has ended and not the pandemic, therefore it sounds like WP:OR to me. Sources say that the pandemic is not over yet, it will fizzle out on its own. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 15:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

(see discussion below)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 May 2023

In infobox, change "Date: 17 November 2019 -" to "Date: 17 November 2019 - 5 May 2023" as per recent WHO announcement that the Covid global health emergency is over.

Sources: https://www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2023-statement-on-the-fifteenth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-65499929

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/5/5/covid-no-longer-global-health-emergency-who-says

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/05/covid-19-no-longer-global-health-emergency-world-health-organization

https://www.ft.com/content/a0772e5a-9a42-453f-aee0-30e7c1b61cb2
Epsilon.Prota (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Brief addendum to address possible responses that the pandemic is not over following this announcement - In comparison to the end of Spanish flu, Covid-19 will continue to be a significant concern for society, but there is rarely a definitive end to pandemic and the WHO announcement works well as a concrete date. Epsilon.Prota (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Pandemic is ongoing as with HIV/AIDS, per WHO. Bon courage (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Valid point, withdrawn. Epsilon.Prota (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Not a valid point. HIV/AIDS is considered a global epidemic by WHO, not a pandemic. Dunno the exact reasoning behind it but not relevant here. The WHO doesn't have legal power to declare pandemics, so although their statements should be taken as heavy recommendations, if they've stated themselves they're going to keep calling Covid a pandemic until the next one begins in 30-50 years, we're gonna have to move away from their recommendation. Especially cause if you look at all Wikipedia articles on pandemics, they consider the end to be not when the next one begins, but when the disease has significantly fizzled out. One can easily look at the global Covid-19 deaths and see it has fizzled out. -AndrewRG10 (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

You can't use the WHO's saying that COVID-19 is a long-term pandemic, to say that they've said the pandemic ended. Bon courage (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The WHO didn't say Covid-19 in particular is a long term pandemic, they claimed all pandemics last for decades and they don't end till the next one begins. Yet the 2009 H1N1 pandemic was considered over with the end of the PHEIC, all the pandemic articles on wikipedia consider them over once they have fizzled out significantly and people stop regarding it as one. My point is, one person at WHO's new definition of a pandemic, cannot be used for Covid-19 as it would require us to change the dates on all pandemics on Wikipedia. Instead we should use consistency, when it's fizzled out, people stop regarding it as one, and better yet like with 2009, the end of the PHEIC is a good solid hard date. -AndrewRG10 (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Where did they claim they all last for decades and don't end until the next one? In any case, as Reuters notes, the WHO is not an official arbiter of whether or not something is a pandemic. It seems that it will be a matter of WP:Due weight, among WP:MEDRS. So it will be necessary to keep an eye on how high-quality sources describe it, as an official end for everywhere at once is never going to happen; but if in the future most such sources refer to the pandemic in past tense, then we should do the same. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Çomment. I think an explanatory note should be added to the word 'ongoing' to explain the rationale. To casual readers, it might appear the main page blurb is contradictory to the article's opening sentence. Cheers Chanaka L (talk) 04:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Crossroads 25 minutes into the recent WHO announcement from Dr Mike Ryan you'll find the claim that pandemics don't end till the next begins. He also alludes that WHO's definition of a pandemic isn't consistent with a traditional pandemic cause they use it for say pandemic of gun violence. He further states technically every human disease is a pandemic, and at 28 minutes into the press conference says it's unlikely there will ever be a day where the WHO comes out and says 'the pandemic is over.'

I do fully agree that a better way of defining the end is WP:Due weight. However, it's not perfect because I can already find many reputable public health officials and various governments on various articles having already called the pandemic over from today's announcement to upwards of 9-12 months ago.

And in a few weeks to months, there will certainly be more sources using pandemic as past tense. But then what do we say the date is it ended. May 5th again? Or the date that wikipedia editors found more articles calling the pandemic over. AndrewRG10 (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

That claim about pandemics ending each other seems daft. The COVID pandemic did not end the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Bon courage (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bon courage I fully agree, it's a ridiculous idea and is why I strongly think the WHO is not final arbiter on whether Covid is a pandemic, more per my previous statement. A lot of articles already use past tense for pandemic and many more will do so from today and the next few weeks. May 5th is that defining day. AndrewRG10 (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Nevertheless, leaving Ryan's comments aside, the WHO is a top-level WP:MEDRS and in a unique position for the global perspective. So if their assessment is there is a pandemic, there would need to be some pretty astonishing counter sourcing to say otherwise. Why would COVID not be a pandemic while HIV/AIDS is? Bon courage (talk) 08:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS aside for another day, we don't need pretty astonishing counter sourcing because the WHO in the same press conference states it's their assesment that every disease that is a danger to humans is a pandemic. We are not gonna go to every wikipedia article of every common cold virus and label it as a pandemic because the WHO says so. As ironic as it seems, WHO experts spent quite a bit of time trying to convey that they don't declare pandemics or their end, just what is an emergency and what isn't. It's up to general public and public health officials to decide that, in which case WP:Due weight should be used. All discussions today on whether COVID is a pandemic should be centered around what news articles and various health officials call it, in which case I personally believe the consensus is that it's over. AndrewRG10 (talk) 08:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't use the press conference for anything, but the position statement. Since this is biomedical, WP:MEDRS sourcing is needed. What lay sources (or Trump/Bolsanaro/Johnson/etc) say is irrelevant. The positions of individual country health authorities may be relevant for that country, but not the global view. Bon courage (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I would have to disagree it's a Medical issue. I'd love to send my lecture notes because it's a fascinating concept pandemics and how they're mostly social issues, not medical ones. I think using regular media sourcing, using non-nutjobs is perfectly fine in this regard. AndrewRG10 (talk) 08:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

You'd need to change WP:BMI since questions of epidemiology are included. Raise at WT:MED if necessary. While WP:MEDRS sources are still referring to an ongoing pandemic, Wikipedia isn't going to be taking an alt view. Bon courage (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I have alerted them for their input, but I will go back to your HIV/AIDS example. The WHO does not refer to AIDS as a pandemic, they always refer to it as an epidemic, sometimes calling it a global epidemic. That view is also reflected in most medical sources, usually citing the WHO or giving it a different title. Yet on wikipedia it is referred to as a pandemic, because you'll find a lot of non-medical articles, the ones people read everyday, refer to it as a pandemic, usually 'the forgotten pandemic' or other names like that.

Therefore, it just makes sense to use the sources people read everyday. It's not going to look good if in 6 months all reputable news sources are talking about the pandemic in past tense while we wait for the slow trick of medical sources to come in. AndrewRG10 (talk) 09:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

That's not right.[73] This is the whole point of WP:MEDRS. By your logic Wikipedia would be buying into all sorts of health rubbish which appears in newspapers. Bon courage (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

One source is not enough. I recommend reading up on HIV/AIDS, particularly from the WHO themselves.

You seem to have completely ignored the primary discussions from 12 hours ago saying we would call the pandemic over based on WP:Weight, using reputable sources like the AP, BBC and such, not the Daily Mail or the Sun. I don't know how on earth you jumped to the conclusion that if we don't use medical sources, we have to use rubbish articles.

And I will re-iterate again. Pandemics as the public sees them are social phenomenons. Throughout history, end of pandemics have always been regarded as when people decided it's over, not when the epidemiological situation had stabilized. AndrewRG10 (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I think "what the public thinks" (probably wrongly) would be worthy of coverage with appropriate sources with this topic as with many others (e.g. vaccination dangers). But Wikivoice must mirror mainstream medical sources. Again, this is the whole point of WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 09:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll take that back, it's not 6 months from now we gotta worry about. It's going to look real bad in many years time when Covid is a long forgotten memory, news articles are running stories like "2 years since the pandemic ended, what changed?" And yet Wikipedia still call it a pandemic, slowly counting the ever declining sources of covid cases and deaths because we're waiting for a majority of medical sources to refer to Covid-19 as "was a pandemic that ended in 2023." AndrewRG10 (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

That future editors might not be diligent is not a good reason to buck the WP:PAGs. Bon courage (talk) 09:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

This is not a future editors not being diligent issue. An editor could be watching this page and google for sources multiple times a day for several years to come, watching the vast majority of the world and all reputable articles consider the pandemic over. But they cannot change the wikipedia article to reflect this view because we decided that they can only use medical sources for what is mostly social phenomenon. AndrewRG10 (talk) 10:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm hugely regretting starting this discussion as prior to this, the consensus was that we would wait a few weeks/months for news articles to have a clear consensus of Covid being a former pandemic. We're now looking at wikipedia being years behind reality instead of mere weeks if we go down the route of only medical sources to call the pandemic over.

I'm willing to drop the discussion and compromise, going with the former consensus of maintaining the status quo while we wait for news articles. I'm pleading with you to compromise as well so that this article does not go down that path. AndrewRG10 (talk) 10:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

According to the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/05/covid-19-no-longer-global-health-emergency-world-health-organization), '[T]he WHO does not declare the beginning or end of pandemics ...', so when, precisely, do we move from present to past tense in the article lead? Pikemaster (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

If anyone can find some high-quality sources, especially WP:MEDRS, that have started to refer to the pandemic in past tense, then that would be a strong argument in favor of doing so. Even if they don't exist yet, they may in the coming months.

I also support the removal of "ongoing" due to the aforementioned WP:RELTIME issues as well as redundancy. Additionally, given how common a misconception it is and how many sources on this very topic mention it (e.g. see also Reuters), we should perhaps add a brief sentence that the WHO does not declare a beginning or end to pandemics. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Though this again is not the whole story. The WHO does not declare the beginning or end of pandemics since that is not a formal status - unlike PHEIC - they have in their repertoire of things-they-declare. But they certainly have said in the past that pandemics are over (2009 swine flu, e.g.). Bon courage (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

That does appear to the exception rather than the norm; other 20th century flu pandemics that occurred after their formation they do not seem to have ever declared over. Rather, they simply fizzled out and gradually became past tense. And of course, most pandemics occurred and ended well before the WHO ever existed. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the point is that not having "the power to declare" does not mean they necessarily keep silent on the matter. Bon courage (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Some years back, Sunrise gave me a link to https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7X2j8HAkWdmMoS8PE/disputing-definitions about If a tree falls in a forest and the problem of saying something is true "by definition", and I think that's relevant to this page. (Also fun. Go read that LessWrong page.)

We are trying to deal with a combination of pronouncements from officials, expectations from the general public, and multiple definitions. We know that:

• official declarations about whether this is or isn't a pandemic don't change the facts on the ground;
• what the media says/the general public believes sometimes aligns with the facts, and sometimes doesn't;
• the facts on the ground aren't always clear, and some things can only be identified in hindsight, and
• whether a given situation is a pandemic depends on which definition you're using.

If you use one definition of pandemic, it still is. If you use another one, it isn't. If you use yet another definition, we don't know yet (because it depends on what the global baseline infection rate is for a disease whose baseline rate is still disputed).

In line with the advice from LessWrong, I suggest: Let's try to describe the known facts clearly by using other words. So instead of trying to come up with an all-encompassing "the pandemic ended on <date>" statement, we could instead say "known infections dropped to n% of the peak in <month>" or "Most countries ended their travel restrictions by <date>" or whatever else is relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2023

Date: (3 years, 3 months and 5 days)

The 3 months should be changed to 5 months. Akhil George Isac (talk) 00:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: It's only 3 months, since it was declared at the end of January, and ended in the beginning of May. February, March, April = 3 months ARandomName123 (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Maps heavily out of date

The maps seem heavily out of date with regards to China. From what I see at the WHO website, there have been about 100 million confirmed deaths cases in China. The same is true at COVID-19 pandemic in China and its infobox. Also, the cases and deaths sections here are heavily outdated and for some reason they use graphs that only include 2022. All maps need a caption with the date. I don't see how this can be a good article with these issues. There's an editnotice here that says "Do not post about updating tables, images or maps. There is a delay in how often these are updated", but is that delay supposed to be nearly 1 year? —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 18:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

yes the Editnotice... Do not post about updating tables, images or maps. There is a delay in how often these are updated...was placed for the reason you mention above, while the WHO has called an end to the 'public health emergency of international concern', that does not mean the pandemic is over (in other words the graphs/maps you mention will have to be updated several times until the pandemic completely fizzles out[74])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa If you look at the first map in the infobox, it says China has 0.3 confirmed deaths per 100,000 people, but it should be about 8, if OWID is accurate [75]. The second map in the infobox is worse, China should be the second darkest color, but most of the country is instead shown in the lightest color. That's just the beginning and I only looked at numbers for one country. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 19:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, it would be good to show snapshot maps from different times. The fact that China nearly suppressed COVID for two years, even if that suppression ultimately failed, is still notable. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 19:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

[76] 'snapshot maps' might be good for something else however I do not believe an article such as this, would benefit from such a map...IMO, thank you (your prior[77] question was already answered)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• This 100M number sounds absurd and we need some really solid RS to discuss this. Your WP:OR is just some WP:NOTFORUM here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
  • @Jtbobwaysf: I'm sorry, I made a mistake. I meant 100 million cases, not deaths. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 02:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, understood. From my understanding (not even remotely RS) is that everyone gets covid and that is how the pandemic ended. Just like every other virus. For sure this article is pushing another POV and wants to advocate for WHO theories. Given that we can only use the numbers that are public. Has the CCP given a number? I think we just use that, why would we question them ;-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

• 2020 coronavirus task force.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

image can be replaced (if deleted, will wait and see)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

"Was" a pandemic?

I propose we change the lead sentence from "the COVID-19 pandemic is a global pandemic..." to "the COVID-19 pandemic was a global pandemic..."

Refer to: https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/05/1136367 Katakana546 (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

there are several talk sections above that deal with this--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. ArmorredKnight (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2023

Change "The COVID-19 pandemic, also known as the coronavirus pandemic, is" to "The COVID-19 pandemic, also known as the coronavirus pandemic, is or was" because per the above discussions, it's probably impossible to know if it's over. Ivyaweoff (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC) Ivyaweoff (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

would need more editor opinions...IMO (I would oppose such a change)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Tollens (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

updating it to "was a pandemic"

As the world health organization declate that the emergency is over, souldn't we change it from "is a pandemic" to "was a pandemic". I mean thta virus itself probably will stay with us forever, but it is now more like flu, seasonal. we may have pandemic in the future again. But right now, it is more local outbreak that are not global.ArmorredKnight (talk) 10:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

see comment above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The World Health Organization ends its designation of the COVID-19 pandemic as a global health emergency.

should some/all of this article be changed to past tense or is it too early to do so? Josephwhyman041104 (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

see various talk sections above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Add comparisons in IFR section

I think the IFR section should have more context, so as to compare it better. I'm not sure a table comparing with several other death causes is warranted (although a link to a page specific about that probably is) but at least fix the paragraph:

"For comparison, the IFR for middle-aged adults is two orders of magnitude higher than the annualised risk of a fatal automobile accident and much higher than the risk of dying from seasonal influenza."

the reader is left wondering how much higher exactly is the risk of covid vs seasonal influenza, because "much higher" can mean basically anything. For automobile accidents, it says "two orders of magnitude" which is a real metric at least.

Apparently IFR for flu is 0.1% in the U.S. [1], you could at least just add that 77.224.235.251 (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

will look (have added your second suggestion[78] and have adjusted text per your first suggestion), thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

IIRC the IFR changed over time because of the buildup of pre-existing immunity in the population, as well as changing variants. This should be added when possible if and when sources for it are found, so we don't incorrectly imply that the 2020 IFR is still the same in 2023 after mass vaccination and widespread previous infection. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

there's also the fact that the iFR changes a lot with group age for example, so it should be taken into account to make the comparison more fair, i say i was glad to see the edit but it still bugged me

"infection mortality rate of seasonal flu in the United States is 0.1%, which is 13 times lower than COVID-19."

not sure if i'm reading it right but "13 times lower" doesn't seem to fit the numbers mentioned in the previous paragraphs (probably because they use different sources). so maybe you want to remove that point, or add a disclaimer sentence that it depends on how you measure and segment the data and different studies may say different things or something like that.

it would be cool a graph showing how the IFR for different things (at least flu and covid, since that was the original comparison) comparing it for different age groups and maybe sex, but i guess you won't want to go that far. maybe it's appropiate to link this table though 77.224.235.251 (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

yes your right depends on how you measure and segment the data and different studies may say different things (I did link to table)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Claim that first genome was shared via GISAID is disputed by reliable source

The article currently states in two places that the first genome sequence was shared via the database GISAID. That this claim is disputed is supported by an in-depth article in a reliable source (Science news): https://www.science.org/content/article/dispute-simmers-over-who-first-shared-sars-cov-2-s-genome.

I suggest that either a disputed tag should be added to both statements. Or that the sentences are reworded to mention the dispute and virological.org.

The sentences as they stand, claiming that GISAID was are supported exclusively by an Op-Ed in "Business World" by Teodoro B. Padilla who "is the executive director of the Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Association of the Philippines (PHAP)" (see [79]). The article mentions this claim only in one single sentence: "Let’s remember the events of 2020: On Jan. 10, SARS-CoV-2 sequence data was shared through the Global Initiative on Sharing Avian Influenza Data (GISAID) Initiative."

In contrast, the Science article goes into a lot of depth to show that there are good reasons to believe that the claim may not be true, potentially manufactured by GISAID. Available evidence points to the first sequence being shared via a forum called virological.org instead.

This content dispute was already discussed in-depth on the talk pages of the GISAID article, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GISAID#Disputed_claim_of_GISAID_being_first_to_share_SARS-CoV-2_sequences

Disclaimer: I am one of ten thousands of registered users of the GISAID database and created this account as a WP:VALIDALT for fear of retaliation, see e.g. this recent article for examples of retaliation from GISAID: https://www.science.org/content/article/invented-persona-behind-key-pandemic-database AncientWalrus (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

[80] yes it does go in-depth, perhaps reword...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean, could you please rephrase your suggestion? AncientWalrus (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I think there are quite a few other sources supporting GISAID as the earliest sequence: [81][82][83][84][85].

Of course I am sympathetic to the dispute and completely agree, this is disputed by many in the community as shown on Science twitter and elsewhere. But we must report what our best sources report. So I think what we should do is, say that GISAID claims to be the first to share the content, and that it is disputed with cites for both. The science.org cite is perfect for the second sentence. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's a proposed rewording:

According to GISAID, the first complete SARS-COV-2 genome was shared on the organization's database on 10 January 2020.[86][87] Others have disputed this claim, noting that the website has since altered the date of their "in-focus" post from 12 January to 10 January. Edward Holmes, virologist at the University of Sydney, shared a complete genome sequence on the discussion page virological.org on the evening of 10 January after receiving it from Zhang Yong-Zhen, virologist at Fudan University.[88][89][90] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

agree with rewording proposed by Shibbolethink --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for proposing an edit @Shibbolethink, I largely agree. Is there a reason that you list GISAID's claim first as opposed the other way round? Following the sources I feel that the available evidence tilts against GISAID being correct here, there are also general concerns about GISAID's reliability. It is undisputed that sharing via "virological.org" took place. So I feel this should come first:

Edward Holmes, virologist at the University of Sydney, shared a complete genome sequence on the discussion page virological.org on the evening of 10 January after receiving it from Zhang Yong-Zhen, virologist at Fudan University.[91][92][93] According to GISAID, the first complete SARS-COV-2 genome was shared on the organization's database earlier that day on 10 January 2020.[94][95] Others have disputed GISAID's claim, noting that the website has since altered the date of their "in-focus" post from 12 January to 10 January.

What are the time zones used for dates in this article? Maybe add UTC (if that's what you use) for preciseness in line with MOS:TIMEZONE. I think the virological sharing happened on 11th January in UTC, though. Lastly, since there are two places on this page where the sharing event is mentioned. It's probably best to reduce this to one. AncientWalrus (talk) 08:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

We usually list things in chronological order as they happened. The claim by GISAID was covered first by our sources (probably wrongly), then the virological.org correction. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

By "chronological order" do you mean: a) the order in which the edits/additions to an article happened (i.e. GISAID claim was added first, now we're adding that this is disputed and that virological shared on 11th) or b) the order in which the actual events the article describes happened? Assuming you meant b), I'm not sure why the organization's weakly supported claim should come first. GISAID's claimed sharing had no effect (no media reports at time, no trace on Twitter), listing it first appears undue to me. I would say facts first (virological sharing), disputed claims (GISAID first) if at all second. AncientWalrus (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Neither. I mean the order in which our reliable secondary sources describe the content. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

An additional reliable secondary source has been published: First shared SARS-CoV-2 genome: GISAID vs virological.org, Lancet Microbe News AncientWalrus (talk) 11:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd support removing GISAID altogether. It was only ever included here after an editor who appears to have a major conflict of interest added it: [96]. It is worth mentioning that the genome was made available at that point in time, but it is relatively unimportant/undue to this article to get into a debate about where the genome was shared. SmartSE (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• If the claim is disputed and the dispute is now discussed in the RS (seems clear above) then the dispute itself is WP:DUE and we would include both claims and note the dispute. We dont remove things just because it isnt agreed upon, as the dispute itself is in fact DUE. MEDRS doesnt apply to this, as the dispute would be a historical fact, not a medical fact. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but in the grand scheme of the pandemic, this is an irrelevant detail. The discussion of the dispute belongs as GISAID. SmartSE (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and replaced the poor source crediting GISAID with a much better one verifying that the genome was shared publicly on 10 January. Note that this is also consistent with Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_January_2020#10_January which is another place where the dispute could be discussed in more detail. I also removed similar text from the vaccine section entirely as that was also originally added to the lead of the vaccine article by the same editor with a COI. SmartSE (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks I agree with your edits. Besides the first public sharing, the other genome related milestone is the first _private_ availability of the genome sequence (i.e. at least to some researchers as opposed to the public at large). This was at the latest on the 5th of January, when Zhang Yong-Zhen submitted a sequence to Genbank. AncientWalrus (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2023

The most vulnerable group in spreading covid 19 is the group with low socio-economic economic state like Sanitary Workers and labourers as they have little awareness regarding the disease and live in crowded places with higher contact with the rest of the community.https://doi.org/10.53350/pjmhs221621107 Hayyan Khan (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Request declined. This user has been inserting citespam across multiple articles, with the apparent intent to promote specific author(s), e.g. Himayat Ullah. Please understand that Wikipedia is not a tool for search engine optimization or a way to promote your own interests. The user has also been warned re: undisclosed paid editing/COI. --Hadal (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

N

Fatality rate in infobox

I think it would make sense to clarify that the given fatality rate is the case fatality rate. The infection fatality rate is far lower now, today most mild cases never make it into the statistics. The infobox just calls it "fatality rate" and lets the reader guess. --mfb (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a conversation best had at Template:Infobox pandemic, where that parameter is delineated. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 07:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Also the number of significant figures is ridiculous for such an inherently uncertain quantity. It should be 1% not 1.02%, not 1.0147382% (the last one just to illustrate what I mean). AncientWalrus (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Y

Panic buying in lead

@Shibbolethink, in this edit you restored a mention of panic buying to the lead and reverted the copy edit I did on the last paragraph of the lead.

Addressing the latter first, was that intentional or just caught up? We already link Public health emergency of international concern in the lead above, and while I'm more flexible on WP:DUPLINK than most editors, linking twice in the lead is way beyond general practice. I also think that The WHO ended its declaration of COVID-19 being a PHEIC would read a lot better if converted into the more plain English The WHO ended its emergency declaration. We already use this plain English above in the lead when we say measures during the emergency phase included.

On panic buying, I think it's telling that, unlike most other links in the lead, there's no Panic buying during the COVID-19 pandemic article. Ultimately, the rush for everyone to buy toilet paper and resulting empty shelves was a brief moment in 2020 that lasted for maybe a week or so, but it didn't persist beyond that. Supply chain disruption, by contrast, was a major consequence of the pandemic that persisted (and in some ways continues to persist) throughout its duration. It, not panic buying, is what has caused the shortages during the pandemic, so I think that it, not panic buying, is due for the lead. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

wikilinks are unique per section, not per article. If sources describe panic buying in the context of shortages, then we should too. If they really really often describe it, then it's also DUE for the lead. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

yes agree w/ Shibbolethink--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

On the plain English copy edit: wikilinks are unique per section, not per article. Can you clarify what you're saying here? We're talking about linking the same article twice within the lead, which is a pretty clear DUPLINK violation in my book. And per what I wrote above, I think plain language would be a clear improvement. Please lmk if reverting that part was a mistake, or if not, respond to my argument for it.

On panic buying: The COVID-19 pandemic has been one of the most (if not the single most) covered events of the century. That establishes an extraordinarily high bar for inclusion in the lead. After 2020, I don't see most sources talking about panic buying as anything more than a blip in the broader story of shortages. And I likewise don't see general-purpose overviews of the pandemic mentioning it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Re: OVERLINK of PHEIC, you are absolutely correct and I think I pointed that out in my GAN review, must have gotten changed since. I have removed the second wikilink. Re: plain language, Tedros has basically said the pandemic continues to be a major issue and an ongoing emergency in some parts of the world, but is no longer a PHEIC. They're not saying it's not an "emergency" anymore. They're saying it's specifically not a "PHEIC" anymore. I've edited so that it's slightly more natural, but I don't think we should remove the key detail that the declaration was the end of the PHEIC. Not a declaration that it's not longer an emergency. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I made a small additional tweak, but overall the wording of the last paragraph of the lead now looks alright to me.

Re panic buying, are you persuaded by comment above on that? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to the idea that panic buying was more key in the earlier stages of pandemic shortages compared to now. But I will also say that a significant amount of coverage about supply chain issues in 2022 and 2023 do still mention panic buying as a component. It just isn't always referred to in that exact two word phrasing. It's instead a "surge in demand". E.g. based on searches of "pandemic supply chain shortage":

• The COVID-19 pandemic prompted a surge in seemingly 'irrational' behaviour such as panic buying and stockpiling items deemed essential. WEF 2023 February
• Adding to these challenges was the volatility experienced in ocean freight rates. With disruptions to international trade routes, strained shipping capacity due to increased demand, and intensifying port congestions, freight rates rose sharply. However, as countries started to recover and the initial panic subsided, these rates experienced a dramatic fall. This rapid swing required retailers to adapt their inventory strategies once again, leading to a tumultuous cycle of inventory shortages followed by periods of overstock. USAToday 2023 June
• The surge in demand for finished goods at a time when supply was severely limited in part due to pandemic-related labor shortages and shutdowns —notably of cities, factories and manufacturing hubs in China — knocked the global logistics system out of whack. CNN Business 2023 January
• Shortages began cropping up a decade ago but worsened during the coronavirus pandemic, with surges in demand for drugs to treat infections and constraints on supply by manufacturers who shuttered plants or limited exports. [ https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/community/public-health/johns-hopkins-drug-shortages-explained-54B6FG4WUJFN3JXSCTY45IHSDU/ BaltimoreBanner] 2023 June
• Before the world turned into a scene out of "Mad Max" where people were hunting for toilet paper and other basic essentials, few Americans ever thought about the supply chain. Now, everyone has experienced going to a store and not finding exactly what we want. TheStreet 2022 December

But I think I would agree, import restrictions and slow downs of international trade were also a major component (if not moreso) and should be mentioned if panic buying is. Based on STAT · Reuters — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I see there some coverage, but it's telling that you're mainly finding roundabout allusions rather than direct mentions ("surge in demand", which could be attributed to many different factors, particularly economic impacts of the pandemic, is not the same as "panic buying", which has a particular psychological cause). There is an extremely high bar for meriting inclusion in the lead of a topic as well-covered as the pandemic, and I still don't see panic buying crossing that threshold. A mention in the body with a photo of empty shelves should be more than enough. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

We have dozens and dozens of scholarly articles about the topic, and secondary reviews often mention it very prominently in the context of cultural shifts during the pandemic:

• coronavirus pandemic is highly contagious and has spread rapidly and is happening globally. The spread of this disease outbreak has affected consumer behavior. The situation during the pandemic caused buying activities to change online. Consumers avoid physical contact to avoid transmission. In addition, panic buying occurred in several situations due to excessive anxiety from the public. This article reviews opinions on changes in consumer behavior during the Covid-19 pandemic. from: Khayru, Rafadi Khan (30 January 2021). "Opinions about Consumer Behavior during the Covid-19 Pandemic". Journal of Social Science Studies (JOS3). 1 (1). Metromedia Education: 31–36. doi:10.56348/jos3.v1i1.6. ISSN 2798-8619. (very prominently in the abstract)
• We now summarize the themes that emerged from an analysis of the author's keywords map as shown in Table 4. Social media (12 mentions), panic buying (8), e-commerce (5) emerge as motor themes indicating the response to the challenges presented by COVID-19. Further, crisis management (18), knowledge management (9) and innovation (7) emerged as the basic themes of relevance that were relevant but not developed in the existing research. from "Mitigation themes in supply chain research during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic literature review". Benchmarking: An International Journal. ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print). Emerald Publishing Limited. 19 May 2022. Retrieved 13 June 2023.

Sources like the second one are what encourage me that it should be at least mentioned in the lead. Even if brief. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

On panic buying, I think it's telling that, unlike most other links in the lead, there's no Panic buying during the COVID-19 pandemic article.

As an aside, I actually think that would be a very ripe article for creation given the vast number of sources both scholarly and press which mention it as a unique phenomenon. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Panic buying was a notably phenomena during the pandemic and is encyclopedic. Summarization in the lede is probably also ok as a group herd behavior. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:PROSELINE in COVID-19 pandemic#Responses

@Sdkb could you give examples of what changes you would make? I completely disagree that this section has a proseline issue. PROSELINE is also an essay, whereas I consider the prose in this section to be entirely appropriate per WP:DUE, WP:TIMELESS and WP:RECENTISM. It appropriately notes significant moments in the pandemic in each country per WP:RSUW, without dwelling too much on excessive detail.

The article also appropriately integrates the content into paragraphs, which is what PROSELINE is actually about. See WP:PROSELINE#Example of a proseline and a possible resolution — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink, sorry, just seeing this now after I finished typing the comment below. I give examples/details there; feel free to lmk if you'd like any clarification. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Breadth/focus concerns

I took another look at this article given the recent GA pass by @Shibbolethink. I think it's been improving recently, thanks to good work by @Ozzie10aaaa/others, aided by the fact that the transition to treating COVID-19 as an endemic disease has made it easier to start zooming out to a broader perspective.

Unfortunately, I still see lots of issues, and I don't think it should have passed the "broad in its coverage" portion of the GA criteria.

The national responses sections in particular have a ton of proseline with incremental statistics about cases/deaths in various countries but lack any sort of zoomed-out picture. For instance, until I just added it (sourced to NYT), the Africa section completely lacked any mention of the fact that the widespread fears that the continent would be devastated failed to materialize. The lack of focus extends to the country coverage. Sweden still has an entire paragraph, when a sentence or two would do (Sweden did X differently, which had X impact), whereas Germany (with 8x the population) gets not even one sentence. Why does the political impact in Italy get a section while the political impact in Brazil (a larger country with by all accounts a much more dramatic political response to COVID-19) gets nothing?

There's also a bunch of proseline elsewhere. Take, for instance, the entire "Repatriation of foreign citizens" section, which currently reads as this:

Several countries repatriated their citizens and diplomatic staff from Wuhan and surrounding areas, primarily through charter flights. Canada, the United States, Japan, India, Sri Lanka, Australia, France, Argentina, Germany and Thailand were among the first to do so. Brazil and New Zealand evacuated their own nationals and others. On 14 March, South Africa repatriated 112 South Africans who tested negative, while four who showed symptoms were left behind. Pakistan declined to evacuate its citizens. On 15 February, the US announced it would evacuate Americans aboard the Diamond Princess cruise ship, and on 21 February, Canada evacuated 129 Canadians from the ship. In early March, the Indian government began repatriating its citizens from Iran. On 20 March, the United States began to withdraw some troops from Iraq.

Those sorts of incremental updates from early 2020 are clearly undue in the ultimate course of the pandemic. I don't think we can reasonably say that the article stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style) while such content remains.

On the other end, there are significant aspects of the topic that remain severely undercovered, affecting criterion 3a. For instance, the shift to remote work for white collar workers has been one of the most significant cultural aspects of the pandemic, but apart from the sentence on it I added to the lead, it is essentially unmentioned.

Many of the issues ultimately stem from the article's poor sectioning. Shibbolethink, you mentioned that some sections are short, but sometimes short sections are all that's due. I think the core problem here goes deeper than that, which is that there hasn't been a good top-down examination of what the sections ought to be. For instance, "Culture and society" is a level-2 subsection while "Culture" is also a subsection of the impact section, creating redundancy. Likewise, as I've argued before, "transition to endemic phase" describes a phase of the pandemic's history, creating redundancy with the recent history content.

I hope this feedback is constructive. If I were less burnt out with everything pandemic-related I'd do more than just point to problems, but I do feel obligated to point out the ways in which this doesn't yet meet the GA standard. These issues could be addressed, but they'll require significant work overhauling the article (which should have been undertaken before the fine-grained MOS aspects were evaluated, as that effort was largely wasted — the core needs to be solid before it can be polished). I'm willing to wait a while to give the editors still active here a chance to review them, but if they're still present in a month or so a community GAR will be needed, I'm afraid.

Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

This does not address my response above. PROSELINE is about repetitive newline prose that is more in an overall timeline/list format than in a prose one. I don't see that being a problem in the Responses section, which groups related events into paragraphs, and flows as if in a narrative summary-style.

For example, how is the section you referred to in "Repatriation of foreign citizens" a proseline issue? It's describing significant events early on in the pandemic, when citizens were repatriated. In the way that our RSes do. It does so in chronological order, but it only refers to events which are in summary, significant for that time period. Not to mention that proseline itself isn't even a guideline or a component of the MOS. It's just an opinion of a few editors.

Re: Culture and Society vs Culture, those are two different sections with different DUE material. Hence why we have the daughter article Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the arts and cultural heritage, versus the Culture and Society section which is not about the Pandemic's impact on "arts and culture", but on the cultural responses of society to the pandemic. I see now why the names might be confusing, but it wasn't confusing to me in context. Perhaps the best thing would be to rename the "Culture" section in "Impact" to "Arts and cultural heritage" ? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

do not see issue with PROSELINE , have removed tag after looking at section carefully[97]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Proseline, as it's commonly understood here, is about more than just being in a list format — it's about content that consists of lots of small updates rather than a zoomed out broader picture. In the repatriation section, for instance, the entire section covers a narrow slice of early pandemic history, and could be suitably covered with a sentence in the history section along the lines of As the outbreak grew, many countries evacuated their citizens from and diplomatic staff from Wuhan and surrounding areas, primarily through charter flights. Everything beyond that is excessive detail — these charter flights affected a relatively small number of people (compare e.g. the travel restrictions). A sentence like On 14 March, South Africa repatriated 112 South Africans who tested negative, while four who showed symptoms were left behind. is quintessential proseline. There's no reason to focus particularly on South Africa. It was just one of a bunch of countries all taking similar action. It got news coverage at the time in the South African media, and someone added it with presumably a breathless "and now South Africa too!" mentality. But in hindsight, we can see that it was just a small step in a trend. There's no reason South Africa shouldn't be listed alongside all the other countries that evacuated (a list that can then just be summarized as "many countries" because it was basically everyone doing the same thing).

I note also that this section is a good example of the article's undue focus on the early pandemic, which is an issue Tom (LT) called out in the third GA review that was never adequately addressed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

we looked at all issues that had been presented and dealt with each in a thoughtful manner--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

For example, the "focus on the early pandemic" in 2020 sources etc. makes absolute sense for a history of medicine article. I still see many 2022 and 2023 sources. I see lots of coverage of these years in the appropriate sections. I think geographic range and the fact that overview sources often mention South Africa's repatriation make it clear that it should be mentioned here. E.g. [98][99][100][[101][102] Among African countries, SA was a very prominent repatriation effort. See also our article on Evacuations related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The mention of SA is not random! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

For instance, the shift to remote work for white collar workers has been one of the most significant cultural aspects of the pandemic, but apart from the sentence on it I added to the lead, it is essentially unmentioned

It's also covered in Lifestyle changes. I admit in our haste to remove UNDUE aspects or non-RSes we may have removed some of this content. And I could of sworn it was mentioned in more places. But I think all that's missing is perhaps one or two sentences about the shift to remote work. I'll see if I can think of something below...

Perhaps this would be a good addition to COVID-19 pandemic § Lifestyle changes:

The pandemic led to a surge in remote work. According to a Gallup poll, only 4% of US employees were fully remote before the pandemic, compared to 43% in May 2020. Among white collar workers, that shift was more pronounced, with 6% increasing to 65% in the same period. That trend continued in later stages of the pandemic, with many workers choosing to remain remote even after workplaces reopened. By May 2023, due to increasing layoffs and concerns over productivity, some white collar workplaces had resorted to performance review penalties and indirect incentives (e.g. donations to charity) to encourage workers to return to the office.

Sources

Happy to workshop it — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

That looks like a good start. It's very U.S.-centric, but I'd rather have that in the article than nothing. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I found significant difficulty getting similar statistics for a worldwide cohort, but I agree some international perspective from scholarly articles would be helpful. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Second round attempt: @Sdkb@Ozzie10aaaa. May need to prune or trim this as it balloons to be less US-centric. But I defer to your judgments.

The pandemic led to a surge in remote work. According to a Gallup poll, only 4% of US employees were fully remote before the pandemic, compared to 43% in May 2020. Among white collar workers, that shift was more pronounced, with 6% increasing to 65% in the same period. That trend continued in later stages of the pandemic, with many workers choosing to remain remote even after workplaces reopened. Many Nordic, European, and Asian companies increased their recruitment of international remote workers even as the pandemic waned, partially to save on labor costs. This also led to a talent drain in the global south and in remote areas in the global north. High cost of living and dense urban areas also lost office real estate value due to remote worker exodus. By May 2023, due to increasing layoffs and concerns over productivity, some white collar workplaces in the US had resorted to performance review penalties and indirect incentives (e.g. donations to charity) to encourage workers to return to the office.

Sources

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, this looks great and very well written, I also believe it covers any previous concerns raised, thank you very much , Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Sweden still has an entire paragraph, when a sentence or two would do (Sweden did X differently, which had X impact), whereas Germany (with 8x the population) gets not even one sentence. Why does the political impact in Italy get a section while the political impact in Brazil (a larger country with by all accounts a much more dramatic political response to COVID-19) gets nothing?

Countries should be apportioned section size based on how DUE the content is in reliable sources, not based on population or geographic size. E.g. we have Antarctica despite year-round population being something like ~1,000 people.

I think Brazil is summarized well in Other Countries. But I would be fine with a short paragraph about Bolsonaro's response. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that we should follow WP:DUE, but note that DUE isn't English-specific. Der Spiegel has covered the pandemic in Germany plenty. My point is not that we need to add coverage on Germany, or Brazil — those are just quick examples. My point is that we need to look more comprehensively top-down (with DUE in mind) at how much space we should devoting to different regions/countries, and then build out content from there. The current approach is scattershot, and still has some geographic bias, although it's not as bad as it used to be. You recently dismissed the to-do item related to this, citing your own GA review. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

That to-do item had sat unvisited for 3 years, to be fair. I'm not saying a reconsideration wouldn't be helpful, more that I disagree the current apportionment is a problem. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

First attempt at short paragraph about Bolsonaro's response:
===Brazil=== (in COVID-19 pandemic § Politics before "China")
The pandemic (and the response of Brazilian politicians to it) led to widespread panic, confusion, and pessimism in Brazil. When questioned regarding record deaths in the country in April 2020, Brazillian President Jair Bolsonaro said “So what? I’m sorry. What do you want me to do about it?” Bolsonaro disregarded WHO-recommended mitigation techniques and instead downplayed the risks of the virus, promoted increased economic activity, spread misinformation about the efficacy of masks, vaccines and public health measures, and distributed unproven treatments including hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. A series of federal health ministers resigned or were fired after they refused to implement Bolsonaro's policies. Disagreements between federal and state governments led to a chaotic and delayed response to the rapid spread of the virus, exacerbated by preexisting social and economic disparities in the country. Employment, investment and valuation of the Brazilian real plummeted to record lows. Brazil was also heavily affected by the Delta and Omicron variants. At the height of the outbreak in the spring of 2021, 3,000+ Brazilians were dying per day. Bolsonaro's loss to Lula da Silva in the 2022 presidential election is widely credited to the former's mishandling of the pandemic.

Sources

As above, very much open to feedback and any changes to this.

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, just like your edit[103] above... this also looks great and is also very well written, it covers any previous concerns raised, IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Apologies if I was not clear enough in my previous comments. The point was that we should probably remove most of the content on Italy, not that we should add a bunch more on Brazil. We really don't have anything close to the room to add all that; we'd want more like a sentence or two. I'm not fully convinced we should be going into country-specific information in the politics section at all, given that such information might be better handled in the national responses sections. Again, as I keep saying, we need to look at the organization more comprehensively and decide top-down on sections that make better sense.

And Ozzie, I appreciate that you're eager to address concerns, but the issues I raised are not quick fixes. I gave examples of each — resolving those specific examples does not cover any previous concerns raised when the same issues are still present at tons of other points throughout the article. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I actually think Brazil should be mentioned much more prominently than it is, now that you've raised the issue. It was the third-highest death rate of any country in the world, had a very prominent demagogue at the helm, and prompted numerous comparisons to the US/Trump throughout the pandemic. Bolsonaro's handling of the pandemic loomed large in their 2022 election, covered by every major newspaper in the world. Hundreds of thousands of news articles were written about it during the pandemic (per LexisNexis), hundreds of journal articles and reviews (per DOAJ/Gale), and it features very prominently in all the summaries of covid-19 politics/policy I've come across thus far: [104][105][106][107][108]. It's part of BRIC, everybody's favorite acronym for emerging markets. etc. etc. I could go on and on. But many if not most tertiary sources cover it prominently, and so we probably should too. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

To address this overall section: I do not think broad pronouncements that the "structure" is problematic" are helpful, constructive, or informative. I think I completely understand some minor points here or there, but I disagree emphatically that the overall structure of the article needs to change. I have seen no evidence that the current structure is UNDUE or puts inappropriate emphasis on anything. Italy, for example, had one of the most covered outbreaks in the entire pandemic. It makes sense that it has a long section. Ditto with China. I don't think we have consensus to make such a change, especially given the many specific and targeted reorganizations/reemphases that have been placed on the article since the GA3, and that have stood the test of time in the intervening months.

Such broad pronouncements sound quite a bit more like WP:IDLI rather than constructive recommendations for change.

The most effective evidence in support of a specific argument in that vein (i.e. Italy should be reduced by half) would be tertiary sources on par with our length and content-style that have very little attention paid to such things (e.g. Italy, Brazil, China). Source-based arguments. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with Shibbolethink on the point(s) he is indicating[109]...I don't think we have consensus to make such a change, especially given the many specific and targeted reorganizations/reemphases that have been placed on the article since the GA3, and that have stood the test of time in the intervening months--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Not sure where to land on this, hard to grasp a very broad proposed change, at least as I read it. I do think that Sweden deserves more coverage and that coverage is DUE as it was the subject of global shaming as a result of their different approach relating to lockdowns. This is certainly encyclopedic. I also agree that the change in work habits also deserves more attention. Today we are seeing a major change in work habits, commercial (office) real estate defaults, and the result from this. So maybe it wasn't so important during the pandemic, but now in the rear view mirror it becomes more encyclopedic. This article probably has an excessive medical focus and reduced historical focus. We do have medical articles that cover the disease, this article should cover the sociologic and historical facts in greater depth and push off all the medical jargon to the other articles. Readers can always click around and read the subjects they want, and this subject is that of history, the human's response to a global medical event. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Y

Lede concerns

I suggest we trim the lede to focus on pandemic and wikilink where possible to other articles. Excess focus on the disease when we have fully developed disease articles. See a suggestion here. I suggest we trim a few sentences and then we can free up space to add more pandemic thoughts and breadth as being discussed above. Initially I was confused, but now agree with the premise above in this main talk section. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: you reverted this, with I suppose the argument being that this is some sort of special content that requires additional weight. I dont see any reason why this cannot be in a section or even a sub-article. We need space in the lede for summarization and not for promotion of themes (in this case that vaccines are ultra important?). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the lede is one of the stronger parts of the article, and I don't find it to focus on the disease aspects excessively. I also think that the estimated lives saved by the vaccines is a relevant statistic (borderline for the lede, but worthy for the body). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I was assuming the stat was covered in the body, if it isnt then it shouldnt be in the WP:LEDE, as the lede summarizes. I would have moved it to the body, I just assumed such a busy article would have others looking at that stuff as well. Is the stat not in the body? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you need more consensus and need more opinions (@Shibbolethink: ) , as I don't agree with this particular edit[110], thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ozzie, I have moved it down into the section. Seems be consensus (at least thus far) that the content belongs in the body and not the lede. I wasnt aware it wasnt in the section at all, apologies for not checking that earlier I should have. I just assumed it must be since it was mentioned in the lede. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I would say that statistic is DUE for both body and lead since vaccination is extremely important in the history of the pandemic. This is basically the reason the pandemic ended, from my perspective. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

There is already coverage of the vaccine in the lede. You are seeking additional weight. It is also likely WP:PROMO. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 July 2023

I would like to suggest that, the same way that it is said that "many drew comparisons to the fictional movie Contagion", the book Blindness by Saramago is also mentioned (you have instances of comparisons here: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31352-0/fulltext and https://cse.journals.ekb.eg/article_217018.html), while also mentioned that it became a bestseller in some countries like Italy. Petnog (talk) 08:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The sources you provided do not speak to any widespread comparison between the work suggested and the pandemic; whereas the comparison made in the article to Contagion is referenced by CNN. Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Spintendo  03:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Vital article

{{vital article}} was recently at TfD, where consensus was reached to place that template in {{WikiProject banner shell}}. It appears this article has been listed as a level 4 vital article twice, once in the History category and once in Health and Medicine category. I would support removing one of them, but as I wrote this comment I have changed my mind three times on which one to remove. Thoughts? HouseBlaster^talk 17:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

it should be in both (however history category should lose out to medicine category...IMO)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, this is a history article not a medicine article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Ozzie. It's a history of medicine article, but it is not so historical to render it no longer relevant to the medicine of its occurrences and character. A great majority of our sources are still medical and contemporary in nature. In 20 years, it will be more suited to the history section. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The medical concepts can be toned down in the article. It is a history article now and will be in the the future. It is no longer a current event article that bears any sort of tag (like it probably used to). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The historical concepts can be toned down in favor of information that is still fully relevant, with ongoing transmission, morbidity and mortality caused by Covid-19. I am in agreement that this will be a history article in 20 years, but for now it is chiefly medical. There is not enough historical material to understand it from a historical context as of yet. CFCF (talk) 10:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shibbolethink (talk · contribs) 16:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

The article lacks any banners or inline tags which would indicate ongoing disagreement or dispute (e.g. cleanup, POV, unreferenced, citation needed, etc). I see 3 prior nominations and reviews, and I will be examining these closely. I myself am relatively new to the GA review process, but I am very familiar with the GA criteria and the topic of the article, as a PhD virologist very interested in the pandemic as a topic. But if I make any procedural mistakes or missteps, don't hesitate to let me know! I'll be doing this over the course of a weekfew weeks (sorry about that) or so, as this is a large article with great importance to the project! It is clearly, in my eyes, in good shape with an initial read-through and deserving of a full review. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC) (edited 16:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC))

Discussion of ongoing editing.

Note-As a matter of continuation until the pandemic fizzles out[111], the infobox [112] image will continue to be updated, as I have spoken with [113] JackintheBox who usually takes care of this. To be clear, this is an ongoing update/change which has been done before (per the link given to commons) and will continue until the last cases/death numbers come in from this pandemic, irrespective if that means a few months or another year , thank you, Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC) done (and will continue until its over) Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC) Note the article lacks NPOV and relies excessively on WHO. The article relies heavily on MEDRS censorship of historical facts (despite that historical attributes are not applicable to MEDRS). It also contains out of date local consensus findings that are not suitable for GA. The article needs a lot of work before GA, GA should be used for actual GA articles and not POV pieces. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   The article has been copy-edited by the GoCE most recently on 25 December 2021 (Lfstevens)

   In my own thorough review sentence-by-sentence, I note only minor issues with respect to spelling, grammar, or adherence to summary-style. I find the prose to be concise and clearly written. I see a number of sentences have been improved and made more concise since the GA3. I found just a few (less than 10) sentences which would benefit from re-writes to benefit clarity, a fact I think is also true of many GAs. To the article's credit, the main contributor (Ozzie) has been very responsive throughout all of these suggestions.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article complies with the MOS for lead sections, layout, and words to watch. This was noted also during the GA3.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   The article contains an extensive list of well-formatted references, in accordance with our layout style guide linked above. Any references which were previously missing authors (an amount consistent with most articles) have been corrected.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   All statements which could reasonably be challenged have a verifiable citation to a reliable source, including all medical statements which are sourced to a WP:MEDRS. All unreliable sources (~only 2 that I could see) have been removed. All WP:PRIMARY citations have been backed up by secondary ones where feasible. Scholarly sources have been prioritized per WP:SOURCETYPES. All quotations, statistics, and published opinions have been directly cited to their sources and attributed where necessary. There were some minor corrections to be made, but on the order of what is usual, these are absolutely a reasonable amount and easily meet the GA criteria. This was a section of contention during the GA3, which noted the over-prevalence of citations to 2020 and 2019. I believe from my careful review, this has been fixed to a large extent. Virtually none of the references are now to 2019 material. Many (if not the majority) are still from 2020, but have been updated with additional references to 2021 and 2022 material. Where not done, the content has not changed to a large extent and does not require updates as historiographic in style. I think the amount of improvements here easily pass the GA criteria in that regard. Especially given the largely historiographic nature of this article.

   c. (OR):

   I have checked a subset of ~30% of the citations and they verify the content. I see no obvious original research, and we have removed any citations which are clearly PRIMARY and would lead to original research concerns, replacing with secondary RSes. This was not a concern in the prior GA3.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   I did not see any direct copied material in those checks for NOR, during which I manually Ctrl-F'd for unique key phrasing. All quotations were properly attributed. I also checked for copyvios with some automated tools (turnitin, Earwig - [114]) and did not find any suspicious passages. I saw this was a point of contention with the GA3, but did not see similar issues in my review, and see many of those attributions have been fixed or removed entirely in the time since.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   I was leaning towards a "no" or "unclear" on this, until I read the precise GA criteria. My instinct was to point out the many sections which are quite short, even with the additions Ozzie and I worked on. These are not very detailed, but they do cover the most important points. Especially the subsections of COVID-19 pandemic § Impact and COVID-19 pandemic § Information dissemination which are quite short. This was also a criticism mentioned in the GA3. But then I read what the GA criteria (#3) actually says: The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics. We don't need to be comprehensive. We only need to cover the most important salient points of the topic. And this article definitely does that. Especially with the few additions (<5) that I suggested and Ozzie implemented (see below). I cannot think of any major point about the pandemic that is not at least mentioned with 1 or 2 sentences in this article. And any more depth in some of those topics might run afoul of 3b (no excessive detail). This is not meant to be a comprehensive coverage of this topic, and indeed to do so would easily lengthen the article beyond all reason (it's already 360kb). This is a major event that happened in human history, and it deserves a long article. But it should break off those larger issues into smaller chunks in daughter articles (which it does!) I see no reasonable argument why this should not be a "yes" and have thus marked it so.

   b. (focused):

   See 3a. I see many sections which are very focused! Almost too focused! But I could not conceive of any major additions beyond what I have suggested already and which were already implemented by Ozzie below. I do not think it goes into unnecessary detail. This was one of the major GA3 criticisms, that the article went into too much depth about the virus itself. But I see major changes have occurred since, and I find the introduction and first few sections to be heavily improved compared to Fall 2022. These are tight prose, accomplishing excellent summary style, without meandering. I suggested the removal of a few passages (<5) and Ozzie has implemented those removals handily with aplomb. Each section (or most) refers to a subsection for greater detail, and then covers only the most DUE points. With those and the aforementioned changes since Fall 2022, I think this criteria is easily met. I see many less focussed GAs out there, and this ranks among the best I've read.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   In my own thorough review of the text, I believe it now provides DUE and proportional weight to all relevant perspectives present in our highest quality reliable sources (e.g. scholarship, medical/professional guidelines, highly trusted news sources, etc.) I see that this has been a contentious point on the talk page in the past (and in the GA3), with regards to heavy reliance on the WHO, CDC, and other medical sources for ostensibly non-medical historiographic topics. This was something I paid particularly close attention to in my own review, and requested independent and non-medical sourcing where applicable. I also requested a few edits to wording where I believe it relied too heavily on a US-centric or WHO-centric perspective, providing high quality scholarship from academic review articles to help make this more compliant with the heart of our NPOV policy (especially WP:BESTSOURCES). I think in total it was probably 10-15 changes, and these were implemented without much issue. I think these edits solve many if not all of those concerns while staying true to summary-style writing in such a high-level broad-topic article. Particularly the requirement to "describe disputes" without engaging in them. See, for example, COVID-19 pandemic § Religion, where we now describe the impact of religious practices, both positive and negative, on the experience of the pandemic for religious and non-religous persons. These statements are based on the highest quality narrative and systematic reviews published in topic-relevant expert-edited scholarly journals. These are how we determine the "POV" of Wikipedia's voice. And I believe we do so fairly and proportionally. Many contentious passages (e.g. "controversies about the origins of the virus") have been discussed ad nauseum on the talk page, and have settled on consensus-driven wording that has remained relatively stable for months. This is Wikipedia working at its best, in my humble opinion. I believe this article meets the NPOV criteria, even if more improvements will be made as time goes on. GAs are not frozen in stone, they are simply held as good examples.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   This, I think, is the most salient place where the answer could be "no" or "maybe?". But I also think this article is likely not going to be at the same level of stability as the best possible GAs for many years. And that is okay. It was, until very recently, an ongoing event with massive effects on basically every member of this planet. One can expect some mild instability. There are often disagreements on the talk page. But, I think overall, it is as stable as one could hope at this point in time, when multiple countries are setting back or reducing their restrictions, and many established authorities are transitioning to "endemic" language. I also note that the page is much more stable now than it was at the time of the GA3. There will continue to be edits and discussions on this page for many years to come, as such things become more established. But I think, overall, this does not get in the way of me agreeing with the GA nomination. Most, if not 99%, of these changes are made "in good faith" efforts to improve with more accurate detail, which does not qualify for this assessment. There are very few edit wars, proposals to large-scale rewrite, etc. At most it is small-scale quibbling over wording. And those should continue, even if it becomes a GA. I don't think this stands in the way of the article becoming a GA, given the relative stability, and the overall fact that most such edits do not fall afoul of this criteria.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   I went image-by-image and checked the license and use rationales. To my surprise, I don't think a single file on this page is licensed with anything other than CC or was not already in the public domain. I consider this a massive achievement for an article of this stature, given the long and grueling fight to acquire adequate images on wikipedia without such restrictions. I also could not think of a single image I would add which would have had such restrictions. Bravo on that, Wikipedia editors here. You should be proud.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I went caption-by-caption and suggested a few edits where I felt it was appropriate (see below, <5 such edits). These were succinct, readable, and easily explained what the image depicted. I otherwise saw no issues and thus mark this as a "pass".

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   See the detailed rationales above. I think this handily meets GA criteria, even if one or two are marginal (5 in particular), they are still a "yes" in my assessment.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

References/Citations

@Ozzie10aaaa Reference 6 is a dead link, without an archive. I think the first use of the ref [115] is likely unnecessary, as there is already another ref (ref 7, see below). I see the value of having it in the list for the second use [116] but I think these refs [117][118][119][120] would be just as valuable, but also live/verifiable. I prefer the European one (first in that list) the most, as it is very comprehensive with well-cited evidence. Any of these may need to be archived.

Reference 7 [121] URL is no longer accurate, though. Here's the permalink you can replace it with ([122]). Should probably also add the date.

Thanks! Will add more below as I find them — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

[123] reference has been added (removed other ref) (will continue)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

[124] added European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (answered your question below)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Q: can I just edit these things, or is that poor form if I'm doing the GA review? Seems dumb to just drop them here when it would be just as fast to fix them myself. My understanding of the review guidelines seems to suggest there wouldn't be anything wrong with it, per se. And I'm happy to do that since these are such minor things. As long as there aren't too many, these spot fixes shouldn't impact the review overall. I suppose what this reply is asking is, "is that okay with you?" — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

No problem (however, should it be too much or you just want me to do my fair part, I will)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa Ref 100 ("Cases, Data, and Surveillance") is also a dead link with no archive. It verifies that the D614G mutation is present in many VoC. Which it is! But the other sources in that citation don't really verify the statement about D614G ("Several variants have been named by WHO and labelled as a variant of concern (VoC) or a variant of interest (VoI). They share the more infectious D614G mutation") but this one from NYT does: [125] (currently also used as ref 260 in the next sentence).

I would also either remove ref 101 (citelink) or replace it with the more comprehensive, updated, and useful permalink for Europa: [126].

I would remove ref 102 (citelink) as it doesn't add much and doesn't verify those sentences it's after. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

For Ref 199 [127] I would add the publication or post date (2019-12-30). If it's a web cite right now (didn't check) then I would convert to News or Journal cite templates, because the date etc of a widespread newsletter like this is important. It would be verifiable based on the date or the archive # ([20191230.6864153]) alone. Could, for example, put it as a Journal cite and then put the date as the date and the archive # as the issue #.I say this as someone who has received every promed mail of the last 10 years — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Shibbolethink, again should you need me to do anything let me know (I'll be online today/almost all day ) thank you Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think the section COVID-19 pandemic § Variants needs some minor work.

  It fails to describe the fact that the WHO has downgraded all previously recognized "VoC" as now "previously circulating variants". So now, as of May 25 2023, there actually are no variants of concern. There are only "Variants of interest" and "variants under monitoring". I don't think you need to get into all those subclassifications, but I think you could say "Many of these variants have sharedThey share the more infectious D614G." and add "As of May 2023, the WHO had downgraded all variants of concern to "previously circulating as these were no longer detected in new infections." or something like that. You can then cite the 25 May 2023 WHO report and the 16 March statement from WHO to verify that.

• [128] done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

And re: the table, one of the following probably needs to happen:

• A) make the title "Variants of Concern (past and present)", and then remove the VoIs. Update it to comport with [129] if there are any missing etc. (least onerous)

• This is the best choice, (done)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC) (However did you want me to add those listed at [130]...)

  However did you want me to add those listed at [22]
  Hmm let me see, I think what you can do is say (and sub-variants BA.1 - BA.5) in the omicron "lineage" box. Or the Or something like that. Nothing to acknowledge those is going to be elegant since it makes that box bigger. You could put these as a separate row right below Omicron I guess. And put "various" for detected... It's hard because the WHO and ECDC acknowledged these as all separate VoCs, but it would be crazy to add 5 more omicrons to that list. I do think we should acknowledge them somehow, either in the text or the table. You could also put "Sub-lineages of the Omicron variant (BA.1 - BA.5) were considered separate variants of concern by the WHO until they were downgraded as no longer widely circulating in March 2023. (cite the march statement)." in the text... I leave it totally up to you, but there are a few options. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• [131] done (added text)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• B) change the title of the table to "Previous and current variants" and note which are still current in an additional column, and add the new VoIs (There are I think 4 total VoIs now) (most onerous)
• C) remove the table altogether (I think a tragedy, though). We need this table imo because the greek names etc. are important and obviously very widely reported. But we need to strike a balance between updating this all the time (untenable) and just keeping it the relevant stuff (probably just VoCs, and thus all past variants).

They actually did this VoC reclassification/downgrade starting with the March 2023 report, but it is still true now today in May. Not sure how you want to play that distinction but the above is how I would do it. [132] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Shibbole, you may want to cut and paste all this to the GA4 subpage. Shibbole, you may also want to avoid making direct edits to the article and leave a bulleted list for Ozzie instead. These are the norms typically followed at GA. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

will do! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

---

@Ozzie10aaaa: (there are also minor grammar things mixed in here that I only noticed on my second reading)

• Ref 105 and 103 are identical, should be concatenated into one refname.

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• Ref 106 is not a reliable source and does not verify the content it's attached to (People with the same infection may have different symptoms, and their symptoms may change over time. Three common clusters of symptoms have been identified: one respiratory symptom cluster with cough, sputum, shortness of breath, and fever; a musculoskeletal symptom cluster with muscle and joint pain, headache, and fatigue; a cluster of digestive symptoms with abdominal pain, vomiting, and diarrhoea). These sources could be used instead, as WP:MEDRS: [133][134]

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• Ref 108 is not a MEDRS, is currently attached to MEDRS content, and should be removed.

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• The grammar of The standard methods of testing for presence of SARS-CoV-2 are nucleic acid tests, in COVID-19 pandemic § Diagnosis is weird. I think it should be reworded to: The standard method of testing for presence of SARS-CoV-2 is a nucleic acid test, (minor to moderate)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• Ref 125 is dead, and probably not ideal to use two CDC sources for this, when we do have others. Could replace with [135] from WHO or [136] from European CDC.

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• Similar situation to the above with refs 126 and 127 in COVID-19 pandemic § Prevention except both are still archived. it's still a very US-centric perspective, though.
  • I would change Those diagnosed with COVID-19 or who believe they may be infected are advised by the CDC to Those diagnosed with COVID-19 or who believe they may be infected are advised by healthcare authorities... I would then replace ref 126 (which is not a great MEDRS as a non-technical and broadly outdated site) with [137] (from CDC, but a better MEDRS) and then also replace ref 127 with this from ECDC and this from Public Health England (just to have a slightly more global perspective).

done (all)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• In COVID-19 pandemic § Vaccines, the wording of The initial focus of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines was on preventing symptomatic, often severe illness is a lil weird. I would change to: The initial focus of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines was on preventing symptomatic and severe illness. (minor)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• In that same section, the sentences As of late-December 2021, more than 4.49 billion people had received one or more doses (8+ billion in total) in over 197 countries. The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine was the most widely used could be updated as both refs 132 and 133 have been updated in the years since 2021. The 132 ref was updated in March 2023! The basic ideas there are still true, though, AstraZenica is still the largest group.

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• In that same section (Vaccines), the sentence On 8 November 2022, Novavax's COVID-19 vaccine booster was authorized for use in adults in the United Kingdom. fails to demonstrate what is DUE about this. But it is DUE! What it should probably say, is: On 8 November 2022, the first recombinant protein-based COVID-19 vaccine (Novavax's booster Nuvaxovid) was authorized for use in adults in the United Kingdom. It has subsequently received endorsement/authorization from the WHO, US, European Union, and Australia. (second sentence less necessary, but it is true. Might be too much of a listicle. Could instead say "from the WHO and a number of other countries") The WHO doesn't authorize drugs, of course, but it does endorse drugs in its Emergency Use Listing and countries do pay attention to that. Should also use these MEDRS sources: [138] and [139] (this second one is especially useful as an expert review). I would also make the current next sentence On 12 November 2022, the WHO released its Global Vaccine Market Report... a new paragraph.

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• In that same section (Vaccines), the wikilink for CanSino is really long! Just a stylistic thing but the text should remain the same, but only "CanSino Biologics" needs to be blue.

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Ref 136 is FoxNews, it's AP but it's still Fox's website. I would replace with Reuters or The direct AP article or Nature news and include all the relevant date and authorship info. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Ref 137 has been updated 31 March 2021, see [140], I think it would be prudent to make 31 March 2021 the date on the ref, since that is the most recent bout of peer review. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• I don't love the idea of using WebMD for MEDRS reasons, as in Ref 138.
  • I think for the first use, it could easily be replaced with this excellent CDC page: [141].
  • For the second use, I would just remove it as we have multiple high quality sources already verifying that statement.
  • It's not that WebMD is explicitly NOT a MEDRS (although I would argue it isn't), but more so that we just have better sources available, and don't need to OVERCITE.

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

done(I felt more comfortable repeating the same reference you indicated in both places--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I think there's some confusion in COVID-19 pandemic § Treatment, particularly wrt this sentence: Supportive care includes treatment to relieve symptoms, fluid therapy, oxygen support and prone positioning, and medications or devices to support other affected vital organs. Because all of those things are useful for SEVERE cases, and this immediately comes after a sentence about mild cases. I would just clarify it to: Supportive care in severe cases includes treatment to relieve symptoms, fluid therapy, oxygen support and prone positioning, and medications or devices to support other affected vital organs — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I get what is trying to be said here: Existing drugs such as hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, ivermectin and so-called early treatment are not recommended... with "and so-called early treatment". But I think the phrasing is confusing in context and doesn't add anything. I would just remove "and so-called early treatment" to make it more concise and less confusing. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

This one is very minor, but with that same Treatment section, the sentence: The severity of COVID-19 varies, it may take a mild course with few or no symptoms... is quite long. I think it changes zero meaning but reads better to change the first comma to a period (after "varies") — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't totally see the relevance or how ref 154 fits in... Since it was published in 1975, lol. But I think it would be best to just remove it. Oh I see now, it's actually an error of how the ref info was fetched! That should probably, be fixed. Here's the right URL: [142] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

In COVID-19 pandemic § Strategies, it says: Nature reported in 2021 that 90 per cent of immunologists who responded to a survey "think that the coronavirus will become endemic".[169] but that survey was actually conducted on "Immunologists, infectious-disease researchers, and virologists from 23 countries". As a guy with a PhD in virology, I think it may be unfair to say they were all immunologists . I think "infectious disease researchers" is a better catch-all, but you could also just put "researchers" or "scientists" or even "relevant experts" instead of saying the type. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

In COVID-19 pandemic § Containment, we have the excellent sentence Successful containment or suppression reduces Rt to less than 1. But I think we should probably wikilink "Rt" as a rather technical concept that isn't explained here (and probably shouldn't be to maintain summary style). I think the best destination would be: Basic reproduction number#Effective reproduction number — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

In COVID-19 pandemic § Other measures, I think we could add some wikilinks to point readers in the right direction. But it may require some slight massaging of text to avoid WP:ASTONISH issues. I also added what I thought were the most WP:DUE aspects in the latter two sentences. I would recommend something like this:

More drastic actions, such as quarantining entire populations and strict travel bans have been attempted in various jurisdictions.[175] The Chinese and Australian government approaches have included many lockdowns and are widely considered the most strict. The New Zealand government response included the most severe travel restrictions. As part of it's K-Quarantine program, South Korea introduced mass screening and localised quarantines, and issued alerts on the movements of infected individuals. The Singaporean government's response included so-called "circuit breaker lockdowns" and financial support for those affected while also imposing large fines for those who broke quarantine.

I recognize this is one of my more large-scale recommended changes and will say it is also recommended with a low amount of certainty. I think the section would greatly benefit from this wikilinking, but also that it is probably not completely necessary. I do think it improves the article, though.

I also know we have the COVID-19 pandemic § National responses section, but this is far more specific to lockdowns and the most severe cases, and thus justifies the wikilinks. Plus the wikilink practice is typically to wikilink first mention in a top-level section, which would still be true here. And these are much less ASTONISH than many of the wikilinks in that section. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

In COVID-19 pandemic § Improvised manufacturing, the first clause Due to capacity supply chains limitations is a little strangely worded. Why not change it to: Due to supply chain capacity limitations? Is this a UK-ism that I'm not aware of maybe? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

done...Not that I'm aware of, I think the U.K. 'lingo' is very similar to the U.S....I did want to take a moment to thank you for your ongoing comments/suggestions as they have been most helpful in the improvement of this article, Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

In COVID-19 pandemic § 2019, we say A pneumonia cluster was observed on 26 December and treated by Doctor Zhang Jixian. but I think per MOS:DOCTOR, we should probably instead say: A pneumonia cluster was observed on 26 December and treated by pulmonologist Zhang Jixian. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

In that same section, we also say: Vision Medicals reported the discovery of a novel coronavirus to the China CDC (CCDC) on 28 December.[194][195] but this doesn't give the proper context as to what "Vision Medicals" is, so I think it's a bit confusing in retrospect. We should maybe say: After analyzing pneumonia patient samples, a genetic sequencing company named Vision Medicals reported the discovery of a novel coronavirus to the China CDC (CCDC) on 28 December.[194][195] or something similar. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

In that same section, we also say: Eight of those doctors, including Li Wenliang (who was also punished on 3 January),[196] were later admonished by the police for spreading false rumours; and Ai Fen was reprimanded but this doesn't give the reasoning why Ai Fen's mention is WP:DUE. It's also a bit of a mouthful in sentence structure. I suggest either A) deleting the Ai Fen mention, or B) changing to: Eight of those doctors, including Li Wenliang (who was also punished on 3 January),[196] were later admonished by the police for spreading false rumours. Director of the Emergency Department at the Central Hospital of Wuhan, Ai Fen, was also reprimanded. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

done changed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

In that same section, we say On 31 December, the WHO office in China was informed of cases of the pneumonia cases. This doesn't make much sense, so why don't we edit to: On 31 December, the WHO office in China was notified about the cluster of unknown pneumonia cases. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

We also say However, in May 2020, CCDC director George Gao indicated the market was not the origin (animal samples had tested negative).[204] which is kind of funny in retrospect, since most scientists now believe the market probably was the origin. So why don't we change it to: In May 2020, CCDC director George Gao initially ruled out the market as a possible origin, as animal samples collected there had tested negative.[204] I don't think it would be proper to put anything else in there about the current state of the science (in this section anyway). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

In COVID-19 pandemic § 2020, we say: A 24 January report indicated human transmission, recommended personal protective equipment for health workers, and advocated testing, given the outbreak's "pandemic potential". but this is somewhat awkward as a list given the hanging "human transmission." That's a pretty technical use of the language, so I would make it more standard for encyclopedia writing: A 24 January report indicated human transmission was likely occurring, and recommended personal protective equipment for health workers. It also advocated testing, given the outbreak's "pandemic potential". — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

In that same section, I suggest we clear up some jargon/non-standard phrasing: On 9 November, Pfizer released trial results for a candidate vaccine, showing a 90 per cent effectiveness against infection.[223] That day, Novavax entered an FDA Fast Track application for their vaccine. ---> On 9 November, Pfizer released trial results for a candidate vaccine, showing a 90 per cent effectiveness in preventing infection.[223] That day, Novavax submitted an FDA Fast Track application for their vaccine. (we actually say things like "effectiveness against infection" in papers all the time, but it's very WP:jargon-y in my opinion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

In that same section, we say: The variant, later named Alpha, showed changes to the spike protein that could be more infectious which is awkward because the changes aren't becoming more infectious, the virus is. I suggest we change it to: The variant, later named Alpha, showed changes to the spike protein that could make the virus more infectious — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

we also say in that same paragraph: As of 13 December, 1,108 infections had been confirmed. But we should probably say: As of 13 December, 1,108 infections had been confirmed in the UK. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Last thing in 2020: Ref 226 is a WP:PRIMARY source, but I think this is probably DUE. So we should add on this secondary news source: CNBC. But since we are including that source, we should also include the pertinent DUE info from that source, so I would edit to: On 4 February 2020, US Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar waived liability for vaccine manufacturers in all cases except those involving "willful misconduct".[226] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Ref 227 needs a publication date. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Ref 225 is also PRIMARY, so I would suggest adding this secondary news source to it: New Scientist — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Ref 221 should have the author listed (Adam Beam). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Ref 215 should have the author listed (Chiara Severgnini) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Refs 213 and 214 are PRIMARY, so we should add this secondary source: Vox. I think it's probably fine to leave 213 and 214, they do both add something in terms of verifiability. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

213 and 214 are both WHO?...how can they be primary via MEDRS?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The WHO is PRIMARY for what it does about things in the same way the CDC is PRIMARY about what it does. Their /guidance/ is a MEDRS, and secondary about the disease etc., but when the WHO says "I am declaring X" we prefer secondary coverage that WHO said X in addition to the actual statement of X. MEDRS doesn't really apply here because it isn't BMI. It's a historical event that WHO did X thing. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

This is one of those situations where the PRIMARY source is permitted, but not preferred, if you get my meaning, per WP:PRIMARY. It would just be better to include a secondary source, and it also shows the content is DUE inclusion. I also think we can absolutely keep the primary source there. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The analogous situation would be, Joe Biden or Donald Trump says at a white house press conference, "COVID is a bad thing, I am declaring a national emergency!" It's clearly important that we cover that.

But we wouldn't source it to the White House press release, since press releases aren't independent sources from the event and therefore are PRIMARY. We would use the Washington Post article where they say "Today, Donald Trump/Joe Biden said COVID is a bad thing." The WaPo coverage also would demonstrate the content is DUE. We need someone to be there to hear the tree falling in the forest, if you get my meaning. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

done I see your point--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The same is true for 211 and 212, so we should add this secondary scholarly source: Lancet Inf Dis — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

211 and 212 are both WHO?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC) discussed above

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

In COVID-19 pandemic § 2021, we should wikilink the first section-level mention of CoronaVac in The CoronaVac vaccine was reported to be 50.4 per cent effective in a Brazil clinical trial. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Same with Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine in On 12 March, several countries stopped using the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine due to blood clotting problems, specifically cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST). It should also properly use the endash (–) in the mention. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

In that same section, the sentence On 20 March, the WHO and European Medicines Agency found no link to thrombus, leading several countries to resume the vaccine misuses the terminology and is a lil awkward. It should read: On 20 March, the WHO and European Medicines Agency found no link to thrombosis, leading several countries to resume administering the vaccine. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I think maybe this is a bit too creative of a use of the language: the variant was first detected in the UK and two months later it had metastasized into a third wave there and is not encyclopedic in tone. I would maybe alter it slightly to: the variant was first detected in the UK and two months later it had become a full-fledged third wave in the countrythere. Viruses don't metastasize, cancers do :P — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

We should probably add some DUE context to: On 10 November, Germany advised against the Moderna vaccine for people under 30 by adding the following: On 10 November, Germany advised against the Moderna vaccine for people under 30, due to a possible association with myocarditis. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

On 10 November, Germany advised against the Moderna vaccine for people under 30
We should also wikilink "Moderna vaccine" to Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, as the first section-level mention. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

done (see above edit)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

In COVID-19 pandemic § 2022, Ref 239 is dead. I would replace it with: this BMJ piece. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

In this section, we have the sentence: Later that month on 14 January, the World Health Organization recommended two new treatments, Baricitinib, and Sotrovimab (although conditionally). I find this to be too little information to give context, and overemphasizing dates. I would alter to: Later that month on 14 January, the WHO recommended the rheumatoid arthritis drug Baricitinib for severe or critical patients. It also recommended the monoclonal antibody Sotrovimab in patients with non-severe disease, but only those who are at highest risk of hospitalization. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Similarly, the sentence Later on 24 January, it was reported that about 57% of the world had been infected by COVID-19, per the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation Model is awkwardly worded/phrased. I would change to: On 24 January, The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation estimated that about 57% of the world's population had been infected by COVID-19. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I would also change the paragraph-delineation and organization of this section to group related info, perhaps to something like (also putting in some minor style edits to WP:ASSERT facts):

.... Later that month, the WHO recommended the rheumatoid arthritis drug Baricitinib for severe or critical patients. It also recommended the monoclonal antibody Sotrovimab in patients with non-severe disease, but only those who are at highest risk of hospitalization.

On 24 January, The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation estimated that about 57% of the world's population had been infected by COVID-19. OnBy 6 March, reported that the total worldwide death count had surpassed 6 million people since the start of the pandemic.[244] Some time later, onBy 6 July, it was reported that Omicron subvariants BA.4 and BA.5 had spread worldwide.[245] WHO Director-General Ghebreyesus of the WHO stated on 14 September 2022, that "[The world has] never been in a better position to end the pandemic", citing the lowest number of weekly reported deaths since March 2020. He continued, "We are not there yet. But the end is in sight—we can see the finish line." (inserted here from the following paragraph)

On 21 October, the United States surpassed 99 million cases of COVID-19, the most cases of any country.[246] OnBy 30 October, it was reported that the worldwide daily death toll was 424 occurred due to the virus, the lowest since 385 deaths were reported on 12 March 2020.[247] 17 November marked the three-year anniversary since health officials in China first detected COVID-19.[248]

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

And then for the following paragraphs (November and December):

On 11 November, the WHOWorld Health Organization reported that deaths since the month of February hadhave dropped 90 percent. Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said this was "cause for optimism".[253] On 3 December, the WHOWorld Health Organization indicated that, "at least 90% of the world's population has some level of immunity to Sars-CoV-2".[254] On 21In early December, China began lifting some of its most stringent lockdown measures. Subsequent data from China's health authorities revealed that 248 million people, nearly 18 percent of its population, had been infected inwithin just the first 20 days of that monthDecember, as China abruptly halted its stringent lockdown measures.[255] (make same paragraph) On 29 December, the USU.S. joined Italy, Japan, Taiwan and India in requiring negative COVID-19 test results from all people traveling from China due to the new surge in cases., while tThe EU refused similar measures, stating that the BF7 omicron variant had already spread throughout Europe without becoming dominant.[256][257] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

In COVID-19 pandemic § 2023, I would make the following edits (pare down one too detailed sentence, fix style issues):

On 4 January 2023, the World Health Organization indicated thatsaid the information being shared by China during its latestthe recent virus surge in infections lacksed data, such as hospitalization rates.[258] On 10 January, the World Health OrganizationWHO’s Europe office indicated thatsaid the recent viral surge in China posed "no immediate threat."there was no current threat from China's recent viral surge for the aforementioned region.[259] On 16 January, the WHO recommended that China,"the monitoring of excess mortality, which provides us with a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of COVID-19", in regards to the current surge in China. monitor excess mortality, to provide "a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of COVID-19."

I know these few sentences have been subject to a lot of debate on the talk page and elsewhere, but it honestly shows in how stilted those sentences are! I think we should clean it up and provide only the most important info. These edits above don't change the substance of the content, but they do remove a lot of extraneous verbiage which actually distracts from the point imo. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Next paragraph:

On 2730 January,the 3 year anniversary of the original declaration, the World Health Organization met to decide if COVID-19determined that COVID-19 still met the criteria of a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC).[261] Its decision was announced on 30 January, exactly 3 years to the day when it was first declared;[262] it was decided it was still a PHEIC.[263] On 8 February, it was reported that a recent study aimed at China's case surge indicated no new COVID-19 variants have emerged as a result.[264][265]

I cut the last sentence here as it is clearly a nothingburger with no related content here, and therefore likely UNDUE for this summary-style overview. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Ref 259 is dead, should be replaced with: the original AP report — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Ref 260 needs the authors listed: Gabrielle Tétrault-Farber, Jennifer Rigby, and Emma Farge — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Ref 261 (Quartz) needs the authors listed: Diego Lasarte and Sofia Lotto Persio — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Third paragraph:

On 19 March, WHO dDirector-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus indicated that he was "confident" the COVID-19 pandemic would cease to be a public health emergency thatby the end of the year.[266] On 5 May, the WHO downgraded COVID-19 from being a global health emergency, though it continued to refer to it as a pandemic.[267] The WHO does not make official declarations of when pandemics end.[268][269] This decision came after Ghebreyesus convened with the International Health Regulations Emergency Committee, wherein the Committee noted that due to the decrease in deaths and hospitalisations, and the prevalence of vaccinations and the level of general immunity, it was time to remove the emergency designation and "transition to long-term management".[270] Ghebreyesus agreed, reducing the classification to an "established and ongoing health issue".[270]

I know I'm making a lot of edits in this section, but I think that makes sense as it was the most recently introduced content and thus likely to be the least polished. Overall I still think the section is really good. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Last sentence:

By May 2023, in most countries everyday life had returned to how it was before the pandemic due to improvement in the pandemic's situation.

I would just smooth this out/make it more readable/less of a mouthful as:

By May 2023, most countries had returned to everyday life as it was before the pandemic.

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

In COVID-19 pandemic § Asia, it currently reads: However, cumulatively they had experienced only half the world average. I think we should clarify this as: However, cumulatively they had experienced only half of the global average in cases. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk)

We also say "inflicting" in China opted for containment, inflicting strict lockdowns to eliminate viral spread. which I think is probably not very encyclopedic. How about "instituting" instead? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The rest of the China paragraph in that section is really good, no edits from a style/wording/due viewpoint. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

India paragraph: Let's wikilink "Aarogya Setu". — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I would also pare down that sentence/mention a bit, from Post-lockdown, the Government of India introduced a contact tracking app called Arogya Setu to help authorities manage contact tracing. Later this app was also used for a vaccination management program. to Post-lockdown, the Government of India introduced an app called Arogya Setu to help authorities manage contact tracing and vaccine distribution. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Further edits to that paragraph: India's vaccination program was considered to be the world's largest and the most successful with over 90% of citizens getting the first dose and another 65% getting the second dose. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Iran paragraph edits to make it sound more natural and get closer to the cited source: Early measures included the cancellation/closure of concerts and other cultural events,[306] Friday prayers,[307] and education shutdownsschool and university campuses. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

We have the caption Disinfection of Tehran Metro trains against COVID-19 transmission. Similar measures have also been taken in other countries. which sounds kind of weird. Let's edit slightly to: Disinfection of Tehran Metro trains to prevent COVID-19 transmission. Similar measures have also been taken in other countries. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The rest of the Asia section looks really good from a style/wording/due perspective! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Edits to COVID-19 pandemic § Europe: By 17 March 2020, every country in Europe had confirmed a case,[323] and all havehad reported at least one death, with the exception of Vatican City. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

We wikilink COVID-19 pandemic in Italy to "Italy" in the first paragraph here, but I think this probably raises MOS:SEAOFBLUE and WP:ASTONISH concerns. Why don't we shift it down to "The Italian outbreak" at the start of the next paragraph instead? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Minor stylistic change: On 22 February 2020, the Council of Ministers announced a new decree-law to contain the outbreak, including quarantining more than 50,000 people in northern Italy to On 22 February 2020, the Council of Ministers announced a new decree-law to contain the outbreak, which quarantined more than 50,000 people in northern Italy — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

To help make this sentence make sense: On 11 March Conte stopped nearly all commercial activity except supermarkets and pharmacies

Lets edit to: On 11 March, Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte closed down nearly all commercial activity except supermarkets and pharmacies. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Several other places in that Italy paragraph need commas added, such as after On 19 March and On 19 April and On 10 November. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

done (On 4 March)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The syntax of a German tourist tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in La Gomera, Canary Islands is a little strange, I think it would be more appropriate to say: a German tourist tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on La Gomera in the Canary Islands — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I would remove entirely the clause while also being one of the countries more in favour of vaccines against COVID-19 (nearly 94% of its population were already vaccinated or wanted to be). I don't think it adds much and it's pretty confusing given the numbers we just read in the preceeding sentence. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I would also remove However, as of 21 January 2022, this figure had only increased to 80.6%. Nevertheless, Spain leads Europe for per-capita full-vaccination rates. for similar reasons. It just muddies the waters and is poor summary-style. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we should capitalize the C in Swedish Constitution. Given that it actually has a proper name that is not that: Basic Laws of Sweden. But we should wikilink it so: the Swedish constitution. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

In the second paragraph of COVID-19 pandemic § North America all instances of "U.S." should be changed to: US. per MOS:US — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

done (via several edits over entire article)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The sentence In the United States, COVID-19 vaccines became available in December 2020, under emergency use, beginning the national vaccination program, with the first vaccine officially approved by the Food and Drug Administration on 23 August 2021 is pretty confusing. Perhaps a better formulation: In the United States, COVID-19 vaccines became available under emergency use in December 2020, beginning the national vaccination program. The first COVID-19 vaccine was officially approved by the Food and Drug Administration on 23 August 2021. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

We should change the tense of this to past tense: On 18 November 2022, while cases in the U.S. have declined, COVID variants BQ.1/BQ.1.1 have become dominant in the country so: By 18 November 2022, while cases in the U.S. had declined, COVID variants BQ.1/BQ.1.1 had become dominant in the country. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Similarly for: Provinces and territories have, to varying degrees, implemented school and daycare closures, prohibitions on gatherings, closures of non-essential businesses and restrictions on entry. we should change to: Provinces and territories have, to varying degrees, implemented school and daycare closures, prohibitions on gatherings, closures of non-essential businesses and restrictions on entry. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Similarly: Canada is facing a surge in influenza, while COVID-19 is expected to rise during winter > Canadian health authorities saw a surge in influenza, while COVID-19 was expected to rise during winter — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

In COVID-19 pandemic § South America, Ref 386 should have its author listed: Sophia Ankel — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Ditto for Ref 388: Elida Oliveira and Brenda Ortiz — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

This ref (388) should be listed after the content it verifies, namely "tested positive for the virus" — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

In COVID-19 pandemic § Africa, the sentence Many preventive measures have been implemented should be made past-tense, as in: Many preventive measures were implemented — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, moved into the new house and my partner is taking a post-move nap so great time to wiki a bit

Last sentence in this section could be shortened and made tighter: it was reported by the World Health Organization that most countries on the African continent will miss the goal of 70 percent of their population being vaccinated by the end of 2022

to In October 2022, WHO reported that most countries on the African continent will miss the goal of 70 percent vaccination by the end of 2022. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

done... glad to here it, Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Cite 399 should have its author listed: Lisa Schlein — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Cite 389 should be reformatted. 14 February 2020 is the pub date, and the archive date appears to be 15 February 2020 with a retrieval date of 24 March 2020, as far as I can tell. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Cite 395 needs its authors listed: Stephanie Busari and Bukola Adebayo — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Cite 396 needs its author listed as well: Jason Burke — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

In COVID-19 pandemic § Oceania, we could also tighten this sentence: By early March, with cases exceeding 1000 a day Western Australia conceded defeat in its eradication strategy and opened the borders after previously delaying the re-opening due to the omicron variant

to: By early March 2022, with cases exceeding 1,000 a day,[<--See commas] Western Australia conceded defeat in its eradication strategy and opened its borders. after previously delaying the re-opening due to the omicron variant

I would also add the year 2022 after: Despite record cases, Australian jurisdictions slowly removed restrictions such as close contact isolation, mask wearing and density limits by April

as in: Despite record cases, Australian jurisdictions slowly removed restrictions such as close contact isolation, mask wearing and density limits by April 2022. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

done and done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Some edits to the next paragraph to shorten/simplify:

On 9 September 2022 restrictions were significantly relaxed. The aircraft mask mandate on aircraft was scrapped nationwide and daily reporting transitioned to weekly reporting.[413] 9 September was also the last day cases were reported daily in Australia as the country transitioned to weekly reporting instead.[414] On 14 September, COVID-19 disaster payment for isolating personspeople who had to isolate due to COVID-19 was extended for mandatory isolationso long as isolating was mandated by the government.[415] By 22 September,[<---See comma] all states had ended mask mandates on public transport including in Victoria where the mandate had lasted some 800 days.[416] On 30 September 2022, all Australian leaders declared the emergency response finished and announced the end of isolation requirementsthe requirement for people to isolate from 14 October if they have COVID-19. These changes were due in part to high levels of 'hybrid immunity' and very low case numbers.[417]

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

This clause: and daily reporting transitioned to weekly reporting also needs a secondary source in addition to its current one, e.g.: [143] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

This part reached Oceania on 25 January 2020, with the first confirmed case reported in Melbourne, Australia might benefit from a secondary source in addition to the primary australian govt PR source. E.g. Brisbane Times or The Guardian — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

That Brisbane Times source would also be good to add to the next sentence: It has since spread elsewhere in the region as a secondary source in addition to the dashboard — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Ref 407 should also have its author added: Isabel Dayman — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Ditto with Ref 408: author is Rhiannon Lewin — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Ditto with Ref 409: Alexandra Humphries — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Ditto with Ref 410: Maani Truu — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Ditto with Ref 411: Phil Mercer — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Ditto with Ref 415: Andrew Brown — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Ditto with Ref 416: Hayley Taylor — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

In COVID-19 pandemic § Antarctica, this sentence should be simplified: Due to its remoteness and sparse population, Antarctica was the last continent to have confirmed cases of COVID-19 and was one of the last regions of the world affected directly by the pandemic

to: Due to its remoteness and sparse population, Antarctica was the last continent to have confirmed cases of COVID-19 and was one of the last regions of the world affected directly by the pandemic — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

This sentence should be made past tense and simplified: At least 36 people are confirmed to have been infected

As in: At least 36 people have been confirmed to have been infected — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The ref (421) for this sentence is also not very high quality (Infobae?) so I would replace with one or more of these: [144][145][146] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

In COVID-19 pandemic § United Nations, I actually think this sentence should be removed: In June 2020, the Secretary-General of the United Nations launched the UN Comprehensive Response to COVID-19.

I tried really hard to find independent non-UN reliable sources that cover this to make the argument that it is DUE inclusion, and I could not find a single one that mentions the issuance of the document or the document at all. The current source is non-independent as it's from the news branch of the UN. Of course they think it's significant, their head honcho issued the thing! But apparently nobody else considers this very significant, by WP:RSUW standards.

Probably UNDUE for a top level article like this. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I think this section is missing some content about criticisms, particularly with regards to these sources: NYT, Journal article, Journal article 2,book, Reuters

And some content about good things the UN has done regarding attempts to render aid and requests for more money, wrt these sources: Reuters, Reuters 2, Reuters 3, CFR

I think it probably just needs two additional sentences. I couldn't find much else that would be DUE for something as top level as this, but I would not be opposed to more. I just think this is the minimum — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

done and done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I would add this article as a secondary source for the WHO section of Other Responses. I think the remainder of the Other Responses section is good. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

in COVID-19 pandemic § Restrictions, the oxford comma before "Latin America" in The pandemic shook the world's economy, with especially severe economic damage in the United States, Europe, and Latin America should be removed, since we do not use it in the rest of the article. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I would also add this as a good secondary source for that statement: [147] (IMF is secondary but scholarship is better) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Also in this section, Ref 431 is primary and not the best for this content. I would replace it with these ones from Reuters and CNN: [148][149] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The sentence One study found that travel restrictions only modestly affected the initial spread, unless combined with other infection prevention and control measures also needs a secondary source, here's a good one: [150] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The sentence Several countries repatriated their citizens and diplomatic staff from Wuhan and surroundings is somewhat awkward, I would edit to: Several countries repatriated their citizens and diplomatic staff from Wuhan and surrounding areas — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest removing the oxford comma before Thailand in Germany, and Thailand, to comply with the rest of the article and the MOS. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I would remove the wikilink from "cruise ship" in On 15 February, the US announced it would evacuate Americans aboard the Diamond Princess cruise ship, for both A) WP:SEAOFBLUE concerns and B) because it's a pretty common thing that doesn't need to be wikilinked. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I would remove ref 437 altogether as unnecessary, PRIMARY, and not verifying the content. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

In COVID-19 pandemic § Impact, ref 453 is not an independent RS. I would replace it with: this Axios source — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Ref 457 needs its author listed: Ned Temko — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Ditto for Ref 459: Anjali Sundaram — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I did want to say though, that the Impact section is very well written, especially the Economics subsection. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The sentence The outbreak was blamed for panic buying, emptying groceries of essentials such as food, toilet paper, and bottled water has it backwards, I think. I would suggest mirroring the caption of the image in that section, and editing to: Pandemic fears led to panic buying, emptying groceries of essentials such as food, toilet paper, and bottled water — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

In this section, I would change the non-standard According to WHO's Adhanom to According to WHO Secretary-General Tedros Ghebreyesus to be consistent — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I would add these sources: [151] [152] to PPE stocks were exhausted everywhere since its such a broad statement, and broad statements are well-served by broad sourcing. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I would make In September 2021, the World Bank reported that food prices remain generally stable and the supply outlook remains positive past tense, as in:

In September 2021, the World Bank reported that food prices remained generally stable and the supply outlook remained positive — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

We need an independent source for: September 2021, the World Bank reported that food prices remain generally stable and the supply outlook remains positive. However, the poorest countries witnessed a sharp increase in food prices, reaching the highest level since the pandemic began.

here are some potential ones, that at least verify the poorest countries witnessed a sharp increase in food prices, reaching the highest level since the pandemic began:

• Policy Brief from Expert at the Brookings Institution: [153]
• Global Finance mag: [154] (perfect for this)
• journal article review: [155] (verifies that food prices went up but not so much the world bank part given this was from April 2021)

For The Agricultural Commodity Price Index stabilized in the third quarter but remained 17% higher than in January 2021 here are some good secondary sources:

• Research Group (Industry Arc): [156]
• Polish Bank policy council: [157] (page 23)

I would just add one or more of these to the primary source that's already there. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

done and done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Ref 470 needs its author listed: Alexander Smith — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The link for Ref 471 is wrong, it goes to the NBC article. I would either remove it (forbes contributor, I think? But also forbes staff writer so not sure). Anyway the link should be: [158] and it should have its author listed if its gonna stay: Christopher Helman — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

removed (see above edit)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

In COVID-19 pandemic § Culture, Ref 472 needs its authors listed: HANNAH MCGIVERN and NANCY KENNEY — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The tense of the sentence The performing arts and cultural heritage sectors have been profoundly affected by the pandemic, impacting organisations' operations as well as individuals – both employed and independent – globally. is also weird. I would change to:

The performing arts and cultural heritage sectors have been profoundly affected by the pandemic. Both organisations' and individual's operations have been impacted globally. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I would also change By March 2020, across the world and to varying degrees, museums, libraries, performance venues, and other cultural institutions had been indefinitely closed with their exhibitions, events and performances cancelled or postponed.

to: By March 2020, across the world and to varying degrees, museums, libraries, performance venues, and other cultural institutions werehad been indefinitely closed with theirexhibitions, events and performances cancelled or postponed. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I would add "2021" to A UNESCO report estimated ten million job losses worldwide in the culture and creative industries as in:

A 2021 UNESCO report estimated ten million job losses worldwide in the culture and creative industries. and add one of these secondary sources: [159] [160] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The sentence On 23 March 2020, United Nations Secretary-General António Manuel de Oliveira Guterres appealed for a global ceasefire;[483][484] 172 UN member states and observers signed a non-binding supporting statement in June,[485] and the UN Security Council passed a resolution supporting it in July.[486][487] from COVID-19 pandemic § Politics should be moved to COVID-19 pandemic § United Nations (under Other Responses) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

In COVID-19 pandemic § China, we should probably have "(CCP)" after the "Chinese Communist Party" mention, since it is a widespread abbreviation in some parts of the world but not everywhere. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Ref 500 needs its author listed: Julian E. Barnes — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Ref 501 is great, but it should probably be paired with this open access one: [161] from Reuters — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Ref 495 needs its author listed: Helen Davidson — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Ref 493 is unnecessary and likely not considered an independent RS. Everything it verifies is also verified by the Guardian source. So it should be removed. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Ref 496 should have its author listed: Daniel Boffey — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Ditto with 497: Elisabeth Braw — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

And 498: Matthew Karnitschnig — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

In COVID-19 pandemic § Italy, "and Ursula von der Leyen offered an official apology to the country" should be edited slightly to give context to:

and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen offered an official apology to the country — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

In COVID-19 pandemic § United States, the sentence Beginning in mid-April 2020, protestors objected to government-imposed business closures and restricted personal movement and association is a lil awkward. We should revise it to:

Beginning in mid-April 2020, protestors objected to government-imposed business closures and restrictions on personal movement and assembly. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The next sentence Simultaneously, essential workers protested in the form of a brief general strike needs a bit more context from the cited source. Let's revise to:

Simultaneously, essential workers protested unsafe conditions and low wages by participating in a brief general strike. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Ref 510 needs its author listed: Michael A. Cohen — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The sentence The Kaiser Family Foundation estimated the cost of preventable hospitalizations (of unvaccinated people) for COVID-19 in the United States between June and November 2021 at US$13.8 billion could be simplified to:

The Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that preventable hospitalizations of unvaccinated Americans in the second half of 2021 cost US$13.8 billion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The sentence There were also protest in regards to vaccine mandates in the United States. should have its own ref. Here are some good ones: [162][163][164] Relatedly, the ref from Fox News 513 should probably be removed as not very reliable for this content. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

done(both)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The sentence One matter that was taken before the Supreme court which had to do with enforcing said mandates on private companies, resulted in OSHA losing the case needs some work re: style, content, and description. We could revise to:

In January 2022, the US Supreme Court struck down an OSHA rule that mandated vaccination or a testing regimen for all companies with greater than 100 employees. And the current ref 512 from The Hill (and 513 from Fox as described above) should be replaced with this more updated one after the decision: from CNBC and this excellent summary from SCOTUS blog: [165] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I would add [166] as another scholarly source to: The pandemic disrupted food systems worldwide in COVID-19 pandemic § food systems — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I would add [167] similarly to Food access fell – driven by falling incomes, lost remittances, and disruptions to food production — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Similarly, I would add [168] to The pandemic and its accompanying lockdowns and travel restrictions slowed movement of food aid. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I say this because while the FAO and WHO are worthy resources, wiki in general prefers scholarly sources and so these can be added secondarily to verify — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Hospital visits fell in COVID-19 pandemic § Health should get a ref. Here are some suggestions: [169] [170][171] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Similarly, People with strokes and appendicitis were less likely to seek treatment needs a MEDRS. Here are some suggestions: [172][173] (appys) [174][175] (strokes). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

done(both)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think "Northern Hemisphere" should be capitalized — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The sentence In late 2022, during the first Northern Hemisphere autumn and winter seasons following the widespread relaxation of global public health measures, North America and Europe experienced a surge in respiratory viruses and coinfections in both adults and children needs a MEDRS.

Here are some suggestions: [176][177][178] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The sentence In the United Kingdom, pediatric infections also began to spike beyond pre-pandemic levels, albeit with different illnesses, such as Group A streptococcal infection and resultant scarlet fever also needs a MEDRS. Here are some ideas:

Scholarly: [179][180][181]

WHO WHO Europe PHE — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The sentence Planned air travel and vehicle transportation declined in COVID-19 pandemic § Environment probably needs its own source. Here are some ideas: [182][183][184] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

done...however I placed this source at the end of the paragraph, together with the prior source--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Likewise for A wide variety of largely mammalian species, both captive and wild, have been shown to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, with some encountering particularly fatal outcomes, this probably needs a source. Here are some ideas: [185] [186] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Per MOS:JOBTITLES, the following letters need to be capitalized (see bold):

• Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen) in the image caption under COVID-19 pandemic § Non-pharmaceutical interventions
• Russian president Vladimir Putin in COVID-19 pandemic § Italy
• European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen in COVID-19 pandemic § Italy
• CCP general secretary Xi Jinping in COVID-19 pandemic § China
• prime minister Viktor Orbán in COVID-19 pandemic § Other countries

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

[187] [188] [189] [190] [191] done (all five)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

In COVID-19 pandemic § Discrimination and prejudice, there needs to be a space between the cite and "Reports" in this part: world.[569][570]Reports — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

There's also a word missing that would help clarify in US President Donald Trump was criticised for referring to SARS-CoV-2 as the "Chinese Virus" and "Kung Flu", which were condemned as being racist and xenophobic, so I would edit to:

US President Donald Trump was criticised for referring to SARS-CoV-2 as the "Chinese Virus" and "Kung Flu", terms which were condemned as being racist and xenophobic — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I would attribute and simplify the sentence: Correspondence published in The Lancet on 20 November 2021, suggested the "inappropriate stigmatisation of unvaccinated people, who include our patients, colleagues, and other fellow citizens", noting vaccinated individuals' high rates of infection, high viral loads, and therefore their relevant role in transmission

so my suggestion is to edit to: In a correspondence published in The Lancet in 2021, German epidemiologist Günter Kampf described the harmful effects of "inappropriate stigmatisation of unvaccinated people, who include our patients, colleagues, and other fellow citizens", noting the evidence that vaccinated individuals play a large role in transmission. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I also think we probably need to add the other prominent correspondence which responded to Kampf for FRINGE, parity and completeness, so I would add:

American bioethicist Arthur Caplan responded to Kampf, writing "Criticising [the unvaccinated] who... wind up in hospitals and morgues in huge numbers, put stress on finite resources, and prolong the pandemic... is not stigmatising, it is deserved moral condemnation." [192] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

In COVID-19 pandemic § Lifestyle changes, we have cultural changes in the job market but that isn't really the best summary of the content. I think cultural changes in the workplace is more precise given what is detailed in this section. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Some content to add to COVID-19 pandemic § Historiography for completeness:

Many comparisons were made between the COVID-19 and 1918 influenza pandemics,[193][194] including the development of anti-mask movements,[195][196] the widespread promotion of misinformation[197][198] and the impact of socioeconomic disparities.[199] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

done (completely)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The section COVID-19 pandemic § Religion needs some adjustments to comport with WP:ASSERT and WP:FRINGE.

It currently reads: According to the Pew Research Center, amid the COVID-19 pandemic some religious groups defied public health measures and stated "the rules [during COVID-19] were a violation of religious freedom".

I would rewrite to: In some areas, religious groups exacerbated the spread of the virus, through large gatherings and the dissemination of misinformation.[200][201][202] Some religious leaders decried what they saw as violations of religious freedom.[203] In other cases, religious identity was a beneficial factor for health, increasing compliance with public health measures and protecting against the negative effects of isolation on mental wellbeing.[204][205][206] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

In COVID-19 pandemic § Information dissemination, I would add the following sentence: Many scientific publishers provided pandemic-related journal articles to the public free of charge as part of the National Institutes of Health's COVID-19 Public Health Emergency Initiative.

I would add this after the sentence "Some news organizations removed their online paywalls for some or all of their pandemic-related articles and posts."

I would then remove Some scientific publishers made pandemic-related papers available with open access. and Research is indexed and searchable in the NIH COVID-19 Portfolio.[597] (Keep ref 594, remove 595 and 597)

I would then also add: According to one estimate from researchers at the University of Rome, 89.5% of COVID-19-related papers were open access, compared to an average of 48.8% for the ten most deadly human diseases. [207]

So altogether, those changes would make the section read as:

Some news organizations removed their online paywalls for some or all of their pandemic-related articles and posts.[593] Many scientific publishers provided pandemic-related journal articles to the public free of charge as part of the National Institutes of Health's COVID-19 Public Health Emergency Initiative.[594] According to one estimate from researchers at the University of Rome, 89.5% of COVID-19-related papers were open access, compared to an average of 48.8% for the ten most deadly human diseases.[208] The share of papers published on preprint servers prior to peer review increased dramatically.[596]

Sources

It is undeniably a big deal when the Chief Scientific Advisors of 12 countries ask for a private industry to do anything (in this case, form the COVID-19 public health emergency collection). So I think we need to highlight it a bit more, hence these edits. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

We should remove the second wikilink of "conspiracy theories" in COVID-19 pandemic § Misinformation. I.e. conspiracy beliefs

We should add a wikilink to cognitive biases.

I would also remove "jumping to conclusions and" from that sentence, as it doesn't add much. If we want to highlight another bias, could use selective perception or motivated reasoning. Up to you. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

In COVID-19 pandemic § Transition to endemic phase, I would make These include past tense. As in These included. I also think we should change "as of November 2022" to "As of May 2023" since that's the most recent citation there, for Croatia. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I would edit to clarify for: On 10 April 2023, US President Joe Biden signed a House bill to immediately end the COVID-19 national emergency,[614] ending the Public Health Emergency on 11 May.[615]

to On 10 April 2023, US President Joe Biden signed a house bill ending the COVID-19 national emergency.[614] The separate HHS-led "public health emergency" ended 11 May.[615] (also neither of these "emergencies" should be capitalized per our MOS.) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

In section COVID-19 pandemic § Culture and society....For concision, I would remove "some" in It has been included in the narratives of ongoing pre-pandemic television series and become a central narrative in some new ones, with mixed results

For grammar, we should add a verb to: The pandemic has driven some people to seek peaceful escapism in media, while others towards fictional pandemics...

as in: The pandemic has driven some people to seek peaceful escapism in media, while others were drawn towards fictional pandemics...

I think for WP:RSUW and DUE reasons, we should add the following at the end of that short paragraph (after "Common themes have included..."): Many drew comparisons to the fictional movie Contagion from 2011,[209][210] praising the film's accuracies while noting some differences,[211] such as the lack of an orderly vaccine rollout.[212][213]

I say this because there are literally dozens and dozens of articles about comparisons of the film and the pandemic, and pandemic/ID experts almost universally praise the film as the most accurate "disease thriller" out there. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The grammar of As people turned to music to relieve emotions evoked by the pandemic, Spotify listenership showed that Classical, Ambient, and Children's genres grew, while it remained relatively the same for Pop, Country, and Dance.[621][622] needs adjusting:

to: As people turned to music to relieve emotions evoked by the pandemic, Spotify listenership showed that Classical, Ambient and Children's genres grew, while Pop, Country and Dance remained relatively stable. (rearranging second clause and removing oxford commas) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:15, 9 June 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

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.

The result of the discussion is: no consensus to strike Point #14 on the Current consensus for the COVID-19 pandemic article. Point #14 was formed in May 2020, precluding mention of the lab leak theory in this article on the basis that it lacked WP:MEDRS, was WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and could lead to a WP:FALSEBALANCE.

Editors supporting the proposal to strike the Point #14 have argued that Point #14 violated WP:CENSORSHIP, that the lab leak theory was not or was no longer WP:FRINGE, and that WP:MEDRS does not apply because mentioning the lab leak theory does not constitute a biomedical claim.

Arguments that Point #14 violates WP:CENSORED are based on a misconception of WP:CENSORED and hold no weight; I have discarded !votes that relied exclusively on this argument. Appeals restricted to public opinion on lab leak theory were similarly given less weight as they fail to substantially grasp WP:FRINGE, WP:DUE, and WP:MEDRS.

Editors in opposition argued that the proposal would, as Bon courage put it, "open the door for undue/fringe nonsense in a serious article." With roughly half of participating editors opposing the proposal, I find no consensus to strike Point #14.

Combefere ★ Talk 01:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

---

This RFC proposes to strike Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Current consensus #14 that was formed in 2020 (consensus bans mention of COVID-19 lab leak theory). See diff. For purposes of avoidance of doubt, this RFC does not propose an alternative wording for any text on the article, it is limited to striking the current consensus. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC) Editors have requested some clarity on proposed wording, so an option is offered here in this diff, to be clear I am not proposing any mention in the LEDE, and not proposing any piped in text. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• COVID-19 lab leak theory has been subject of widespread coverage in the media including government opinions, whether right or wrong or a conspiracy theory or not, WP:NOTCENSORED applies. Consensus that bans article linking to another article is absurd. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC) Editors have subsequently asked what is the purpose of this narrow RFC, thus per WP:RFCBRIEF this proposal enables a wikilink to COVID-19 lab leak theory (without any piped in text) in an article location TBD that other editors mutually agree on when WP:DUE. With the current consensus/censorship, this link is prohibited, and I can see no wikipedia policy that would support this other than this local consensus. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC) There have been repeated requests to provide an example of text, which I offer here. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Weak support. While this theory is controversial and very unlikely, I do not think it should be censored and banned outright. I believe there should be a section or a mention (with link to the page) on the main COVID-19 article. I don't believe a lab leak occurred, but I had a look at the COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory page and it was very detailed. It gave concise details on how it was likely and how it was not likely. With that said, I support a quick mention of this on the main COVID-19 article with a link. JenM5595 (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not deeply familiar with the lab leak theory article, but the word "fringe" only appears once, in a heading, nowhere in the body or in the lead(a strange arrangement--fringe should be observed in the body first, no?). The lead describes the theory as 'highly controversial'. On what basis is this omission not an elementary (and forbidden) WP:POVFORK? WP:SUMMARY says that 'The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it.' GA status would be better suited if the article complied with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. SmolBrane (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Polling

Strong Oppose/needs clarification: Where would you want to mention it? This is an article about the pandemic, not about the virus or the disease. Epidemiology->Background mentions its origin briefly but doesn't go into any detail so I think discussing conspiracy theories would be undue. COVID-19 already mentions the lab leak claim in the history section. As long as there is no plausible place to discuss it I don't see a reason to change #14. --mfb (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

This RFC intentionally doesn't specify where it might be put and that is not the subject of this RFC, thus it doesn't need clarification. The scope of this RFC is intentionally limited so as not to meander off into the far ranging speculation. In response to your other claims: First the target COVID-19 lab leak theory doesnt refer to it as a conspiracy theory in wikivoice as you suggest it might be (maybe it is one based on your OR). As for this pandemic article goes over the sociological impacts of this disease, and the political positions and accusations are WP:DUE as part of that. One government accusing another government of a coverup is sociopolitical or historical content, not medical content, and thus might belong on this pandemic article. The issue here is if we keep the censorship or we remove it. IFF it is removed, then editors like yourself could debate if and where it might be due to put it, rather than relying on a censorship ban to exclude the content (convenient maybe, but not wikipedia-like). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

You clearly want to change the article if this RFC passes, otherwise the RFC is pointless. You should not make an RFC with a hidden goal, or a pointless RFC if you want to keep denying having that hidden goal. I'm now opposing the RFC both based on its content and based on the chosen procedure. Deciding to not cover some topic in an article is not censorship. The alternative to that would be merging all of Wikipedia into a single article... --mfb (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no hidden goal here, this discussion is limited to removing a mechanism of censorship from this article on a specific subject. This censorship would have been enabled by a similar RFC and the process to remove it would be the same. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

strong oppose per Mfb rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

• This seems like a silly RfC to me. Feels like process for the sake of process. If you want to add something to the article, let's discuss that. Then the talk page FAQ can be changed if applicable based on the result of that discussion. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I propose that the article allow a link to the COVID-19 lab leak theory in a location that other editors agree on (to be determined if WP:DUE applies) without any piped in text and not subject to #14 restriction. As you point out the proposal is narrow and maybe procedural, but WP:RFCBRIEF encourages that. The current consensus will disallow any link to that article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Agreed with Mx Granger. We should discuss this question when we have an actual wording proposed. Otherwise it could be seen as an attempt to avoid more input on what the wording on this controversial topic will be. Oppose what is not censorship, but rather a prior consensus on this page. I would be happy to entertain possible wordings, and my gut feeling is that this is likely WP:DUE in some sort of mention. I think I might want to see a good tertiary or strong secondary source review, but that is my gut feeling based on reading the material. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

You need a tertiary or secondary source to add a wikilink? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

you need to demonstrate that a contested statement about a controversial topic is WP:DUE inclusion, yes. If nobody cared about it, it would be a WP:BRD move and wouldn't require discussion. But clearly people in the past cared about it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

again, is it your position that a "tertiary or secondary source" is required for it to be WP:DUE? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

That is certainly the most common (and most persuasive) way to demonstrate that something is DUE inclusion, in my experience. I don't know about "required". Nothing on this site is really "required." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I support the way User:Jtbobwaysf did this RfC. The fact is, Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Current consensus represents a de facto policy. If there's a policy that precludes some appropriate material, you fix the policy then you add the content. Yes we need to propose language, but fix the policy first. NickCT (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Weak Support - I understand the reasoning for leaving this out in the past, but don't see why this should be flat out prohibited from being added to the article. This story is one the continues to evolve and yes it's a process, but one that probably needs to happen since the current consensus is to exclude. I will echo that this would be easier to move along if an example of how this would be added to the article was provided. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support on principle, I'm not a fan of censorship especially since the discourse evolves and changes as we get more information.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The idea that the current consensus constitutes "censorship" is, frankly, silly. Deeming a particular topic unsuitable for a particular encyclopedia article is just part of the necessary work of writing and organizing an encyclopedia, not "censorship". XOR'easter (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The topic is both social and scientific, but WP:FRINGE is given precedence in science articles. It should be excluded unless there is consensus that the theory is valid in prominent peer-reviewed research. The void century 00:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Do major government agencies usually support fringe theories? NickCT (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  From your link-- neither agency has released evidence or information backing their determinations. We could document that China has stonewalled a more thorough investigation, but fringe is fringe. The same argument applied to then-President Trump suggesting we inject disinfectant. The void century 14:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Do major government agencies usually support fringe theories?

  Unfortunately, they do from time to time. E.g.

• CIA supported hypnosis research during the Cold War 2 and LSD Mind Control (among other BS) through MK Ultra
• Congressional panels in the present day support UFO theories promoted by Pentagon officials23
• Trump's interior department made official climate change denial and certainly many congresspersons agree.
• among many other such instances.

There is a reason that scholarly research (not necessarily science, but scholarship from academic sources) is placed as the highest possible quality of source in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Not government opinion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Generally when poeple say "rely on scholarly research", they mean, rely on the scholars who agree with my opinion. I think this is context in which you mean it.

Who exactly do you think works at the DOE? You think they asked some rando janitor what he thought of the theory and chose to publish that opinion?

Fact is, WP:FRINGE is a function of who believes what, rather than what is believed. If we all started believing that we were being probed by aliens, alien-probing would cease to be a fringe theory. Enough people have come out at this point and said they either believe lab leak happened, or at least believe that it's not in the realm of conspiracy, that we're outside of WP:FRINGE. NickCT (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

perhaps, NickCT you should take a look [214] at the reason this is an important point from 2020 (as important as it is now...IMO)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: - Thanks. I did actually read that. That RfC was cited by the nom. Frankly, had I participated in that RfC, I think I too would have opposed. I think at that time, this idea was more fringe than it is now. NickCT (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

it's still too FRINGE-y ...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

So, in relation to the lab leak theory; the DOE called it "most likely". FBI called it "most likely". WHO called it "extermely unlinkely". CCDC said "Don't rule out anything". Hoetz (the pseudoscience debunker) called "unlikely but plausible". What none of them call it is a fringe conspiracy theory.

I guess we Wikipedians are smarter than those guys, huh? NickCT (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed research and scientific consensus are smarter. For the same reason, we don't include Creationism in the article Life, even though it's notable enough to have its own article and there are many proponents. Government officials don't supersede science. The void century 19:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

well said--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

See my comment above about what "rely on scholarly research" means. I'm surprised you guys feel you're in a position to interpret the "scholarly research" better than the sources I've cited.

Nice strawman with the creation myth. Tell me, which sources comparable to the ones I've cited support creation myth? NickCT (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised you guys feel you're in a position to interpret the "scholarly research" better than the sources I've cited.

Actually we rely on secondary narrative reviews which tend not to mention it in broad overviews of the pandemic. Such as the many linked above in the GAR. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

MEDRS, Science, and FRINGE are often deployed as WP:STONEWALL techniques on this article. However, the plain fact is large parts of this article are not at all science related, they are historical. X happened on this day, Y happened on that day, etc. This article is the history of a medical event, but is not a medical article. History is not biomedical information. See Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Biomedical_v._general_information. Editors often goes into the false notion that medical sources are needed to present historical facts and figures. It is clearly not a fact that the lab leak theory is provably true nor untrue, but it is a also a clear fact that the theory exists and is presented as possible/likely by large government and media organizations and thus WP:DUE. In no way can it be construed as FRINGE and the assertion is in fact absurd. Is it due for the lead at this time? Probably not. Is there a valid justification for excluding a wikilink, also none. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I would say, propose inserting just that wikilink (thereby overturning 14), as in the edit you linked, and I will support. I would not support any language to lend the theory legitimacy in the scientific community, since the community doesn't support it in high quality reviews. I disagree with your reasoning for why it is DUE but agree it probably is DUE for such a short mention. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I feel like we're pretty close to consensus on this topic. I also don't think we should use any language to lend the theory legitimacy. We should mention the theory exists alongside several other origin theories that have received significant coverage (e.g. raccoon dog). NickCT (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

That is exactly the proposal above, please click the link and see it. Here it is again. In fact I added it to the existing content about controversies, which it exactly is. There is no scientific consensus on this as you accurately point out and I dont see any reason why this wikilink would contradict that. The reason I didnt add a specific suggestion in the RFC initially is I am indifferent where it is added as long as piped in text isn't added to it that might seek to misrepresent the target article's subject or dumb it down. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The reason I don't love the way this RFC is constructed is that it leaves the window open to insert something wildly different. I want to vote on supporting that specific proposal, not removing the consensus so anything can be inserted. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

It's very unlikely that anything wild will be added to this article(and not reverted) anytime soon. SmolBrane (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• No action - There seems to be no direct proposal, only an argument based on a false premise of censorship. WP:MNA may also be useful. —PaleoNeonate – 07:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

There is (and was at the time of your comment, maybe you missed it?) a direct proposal listed above. 07:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Bizarre to have a blanket rule banning mention of it when it's widely discussed in RSes and on other Wikipedia pages. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Support - For the record, I think the whole lab leak theory is fairly unlikely but it's clear me that it's pretty notable and obviously verifiable in the context of the pandemic. Agree with User:PieLover3141592654 that banning mention really seems bizzare and borders on WP:CENSORSHIP. There should probably be an "orgins" subsection under "History" that mentions earlier coronavirus outbreaks (e.g. MERS, SARS-CoV-1) and several of the proposed origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory. NickCT (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose - From WP:RSUW "the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority"

  Of course the lab leak is not a minority review among the public, but it definitely is amongst scientific consensus. There is already two (1, 2) articles which go greatly in depth into the entire topic. The only mention of lab leak I'd support is in a single sentence listing off all the possible origins with a link to the other articles. And unless we can get an idea and a consensus on what that small mention will be, I think it's best to keep the ban on to prevent this article getting out of control. AndrewRG10 (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Appreciate your comment as someone finally admits what is going on at this article. You state it is not a minority view among the public (ruling out FRINGE), you state you would support a basic vanilla link (probably like I have suggested), but you still go on to support continuing the censorship out of "it getting out of control". Censorship is a very blunt tool used for the purpose of control, and in this case is being used openly as one in direct defiance of WP:5P. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  You state it is not a minority view among the public (ruling out FRINGE)
  I think the scholars' view of the topic is what determines FRINGE, not the public's. A large % of the public also believes JFK's assassination was part of a conspiracy plot, but it doesn't make the idea any less FRINGE. I also am not sure where the >50% figure comes from re: public belief in the lab leak. I've only ever seen 30-40% as the highest polling data. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  Great point, and to clarify (which you seem to already recognize in your mentioning of polling) we are not talking about what the scientific community thinks here. Read this WP:FRINGENOT, and essay which makes it clear this doesn't apply to non-scientific claims. If in your view 30-40% of regular (non-scientific) people poll as believing this theory (I had no idea the number was so high) then it certainly is DUE and if you feel my proposed text that lumps it under a political tensions sentence is not good, then you should feel free to propose something else. Your OSE mention of JFK, you would also note that Assassination of John F. Kennedy does mention the conspiracy theories in a wikilink in the LEDE, thus there is no ban on mention of that concept in that OSE example. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  Read this WP:FRINGENOT, and essay which makes it clear this doesn't apply to non-scientific claims.
  This is a common hobby horse in these arguments, that the lab leak idea is not strictly scientific. But that's not really what I'm getting at. SCHOLARSHIP is what matters, and that includes scholarship about biodefense, history, international relations, security, espionage, etc. THAT stuff is what is the most important set of secondary sources on this topic, in addition to scientific sources about the actual virus itself. You can't wiggle out of FRINGE just because it's not strictly BMI (or science). FRINGE still applies to pseudohistory and other pseudoscholarship.

  FRINGE still applies to minority viewpoints, it just treats them slightly differently. But FRINGE as a guideline applies to all these non-mainstream ideas. As long as they are non-mainstream in the relevant scholarly literature, regardless of their acceptance in the public's opinion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  Should wikipedia censor "all these non-mainstream ideas"? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  No, and no one is advocating that it should. The guidelines simply say that non-mainstream ideas should not be overemphasized in mainstream articles, and should be most completely described in detail in the corresponding non-mainstream articles (e.g. COVID-19 lab leak theory and Investigations into the origin of COVID-19) in the context of the mainstream view. As I said, I would be in support of the specific restricted wikilink brief mention described in the OP, but I would want that to be the new consensus, not simply removing any consensus on what it should say. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  You literally said "all these non-mainstream ideas", I was quoting you. I am going to stop the banter with you at this point. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support per NickCT and others - even if the lab leak theory is fairly unlikely, it is not verifiably disproven, nor near universally, dismissed. It has a great deal more currency and plausability than flat-earth or creationism, both of which - with even a minimal knowledge of science - can be rejected as inherently unscientific. It does a disservice to the reader to excise it completely from the article, since it is part of the history of the topic, even if largely rejected as part of the science. As PieLover records it's bizarre to have a blanket rule banning mention of it when it's widely discussed in RSes and on other Wikipedia pages. Pincrete (talk) 06:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
• I support including a sentence with wikilink for the purposes of this RfC, and the overturning of consensus #14. But since this hypothesis(a better word than 'theory' here) doesn't have fringe/misinformation/conspiracy/pseudoscience templates or categories on the mainspace, and there's no fringe/misinformation/pseudoscience templates on the talk page, we should actually defer to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and include a summarized section covering this controversy. The pursuit of FA status will require compliance with summary style. Our readers would undoubtedly appreciate our neutral discretion on this issue. SmolBrane (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support overturning that 3+ year old RfC, as the sourcing has changed dramatically since then. This does not mean we have to mention it, nor does it control how it is done, but it should be a matter for normal discussion rather than hamstrung forever based on the fog-of-war in May 2020. It is no longer considered a pure conspiracy theory, though it is not the mainstream viewpoint either. It can certainly be mentioned alongside the criticism or lack of acceptance it faces, in line with what other Wikipedia articles do. Or it might be decided to leave it off, but in any case we need to decide that based on the situation now and in the future. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support Even though I do not believe the theory, it is notable and relevant to the page. I used to consider it to be a conspiracy theory along the lines of 5G or vaccines causing autism. Evidence has came out since then that changes my perception of it. It hasn't been ruled out--I wouldn't even say "fairly unlikely", just "not probable". Plus, it is such a small mention. Chamaemelum (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Seems to be a processological attempt to open the door for undue/fringe nonsense in a serious article. Also WP:CGTW#12 as a side serving. Bon courage (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support, but I would want any actual text mentioning the lab-leak theory to be discussed on the talk page before being added to the article. Nevertheless, enough reliable sources have now noted the possibility of the lab-leak theory (although they all take care to mention that it's unlikely, and that the lack of access to information makes it impossible to know). And this isn't a minority of scientist in the same way that a minority of scientists doubt climate change – it's a lot of RS saying, "we simply can't know for sure." I personally find it implausible, and I know that a lot of people who trumpet the theory do so for a whole range of distasteful political reasons. But we should follow the reliable sources, and they're no longer anything close to unanimous in their rejection of it. --Tserton (talk) 21:03, 12 July 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.

Present tense

The World Health Organisation has declared the pandemic to be over, therefore this article should refer to it in the past tense. Actualjc (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done See above: The WHO ended its declaration of COVID-19 being a global health emergency on 5 May 2023, but continued to refer to it as a pandemic — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The WHO does not declare pandemics over. We will need to see in the coming months (or even years) how sources refer to it, whether in present or past tense, and follow WP:Due weight. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

According to the article 2009 swine flu pandemic, the WHO did in fact declare the H1N1 pandemic officially over on 10 August 2010. https://web.archive.org/web/20110527172258/http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/communicable-diseases/influenza/news2/news/2010/08/who-director-general-declares-h1n1-pandemic-over Michael7604 (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• The WHO is not the sole source of truth on this matter. We do have 5M results using "was" with many of them being other RS such as CDC and Lancet. I think at this point in time WP:OBVIOUS would lean towards WAS and we need RS to continue use of IS. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and mostly we cover the past, and this is a case of the present becoming the past. According to an author on webmd, as it transitions to endemic it is no longer a pandemic, seems the two terms are mutually exclusive. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  It is true that if in the future we lack sources for present-tense it will need to be changed to past tense, since "is" would fail verifiability from MEDRS, or could be undue if it was just a smattering of random obscure papers that used it rather than a reputable source. I don't see in those links where those bodies actually said specifically that it is past tense, though. If they did, please share.

  I'm curious if any journalists (e.g. at a press conference) will ask the WHO what they are specifically looking for to drop the "pandemic" term. I'd be curious to see what they say. Perhaps they won't ever say much on it, unfortunately, and it quietly disappears someday. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed this article refers to the pandemic and not the virus, so I suppose as you say the point that agencies refer to the pandemic as over, then we would move to was. It would not necessarily have to be the WHO, I dont think there is any consensus here at wikipedia that we will follow WHO and ignore other agencies. We are not an echo chamber to put what WHO says in wikivoice and ignore what others says. But we certainly would need rough consensus among those sources (which would probably be agencies). Say China, US, EU, Brazil, India, and a couple others say it is over, then it is probably over in terms of the pandemic label (even the virus might be continuing in one way or another in some regions), regardless of whatever the WHO says about it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah the WHO isn't the end-all be-all and as I've noted before, they don't make official declarations that pandemics end. Even so, they are international and influential, so I would hope at some point they get asked what specifically they would want to see before saying "endemic" or not saying "pandemic" any more. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree, we should change it to past tense. It is true that the WHO is not the sole source of truth on this matter. But then, when are you going to change it? The virus itself is going to stay with us forever. But the new variants are much less dangerous and we can see that the mortality has been reduced. Most countries remove the demand for isolation.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmorredKnight (talk • contribs) 10:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The distinction between a "pandemic/epidemic" and "endemic" is essentially predictability or consistency in infection. COVID-19 is still characterized by unpredictable surges in infections throughout the year. COVID-19 is still much more widespread and with greater surges than HIV, which is generally referred to as an ongoing epidemic. Per Wikipedia, HIV "is becoming endemic in sub-Saharan Africa" after forty years; there's no reason to think COVID-19 will be endemic any time soon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endemic_(epidemiology)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_HIV/AIDS MarkHaversham (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 to HIV / AIDS is very "apples to oranges" since they are completely different diseases with completely different characteristics. COVID-19 is (first and foremost) an acute disease that takes roughly one to six weeks (around two weeks on average) to resolve. As the article mentions, it may sometimes chronify, but it's unknown how much if any active viral replication is contributing to the chronification and how much is, for example, due to autoimmunity induced by exposing the immune system to new antigens. Critically, with COVID-19, you definitely become "non-infectious" after a few days so the "Long COVID" things seem to be a different entity distinct from "active / acute COVID-19". HIV, on the other hand, causes a lifelong infection that is never cleared by the immune system and, after a latency period of many years to decades, causes the immune system to deteriorate and the infected to die. The process can be "stopped" by antiviral therapy, which also prevents transmission, but even that does not clear the virus. As soon as the therapy is stopped, disease progress continues. SARS-CoV-2 is a respiratory infection that spreads quickly via droplets and aerosol, while HIV is a sexually transmitted infection and therefore spreads very slowly and can be "stopped" by avoiding contact with a few bodily fluids, especially through "safer sex" methods. In essence, HIV spreads and progresses slowly, but without therapy is almost certainly lethal, while SARS-CoV-2 spreads rapidly within a population, but, especially outside the typical risk groups for most "common" diseases (older people or people with medical preconditions), predominantly causes acute and self-limiting disease that clears within a few weeks. Of course, the "endemic levels" of both diseases will look very different. With SARS-CoV-2, there's a lot of transmission, but most cases will resolve on their own and will not require medical attention. On the other hand, with HIV, there is little transmission, but basically every case is a medical emergency that requires lifelong treatment. Since COVID-19 is (at least very predominantly) a respiratory infection / illness, it makes much more sense to compare it with other respiratory illnesses like Influenza A / B, the "common cold" (which is sometimes also caused by endemic coronaviruses) or RSV infection. 2001:9E8:F06:DE00:9995:E2CB:2D5:1D40 (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Like COVID, HIV has an immediate acute phase with flu-like symptoms which precedes the chronic phase. Aside from that I don't see how any differences between the virus are relevant to the definition of endemic/pandemic.

I agree that it is atypical for respiratory infections to produce decades-long pandemics but that by itself does not disprove that COVID is one. Declaring that COVID is endemic should rest on scientific observations; as long as it is characterized by unpredictable global infection surges due to novel immune-escaping mutations, COVID is still pandemic. MarkHaversham (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The subject of this article is the historical event surrounding the virus. You are discussing the virus and that has a separate article(s) for example COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree, even if the WHO characterises Covid as a pandemic for 30+ years, the event that is the pandemic is definitely over. But that shouldn't be an editorial position. Thankfully the reliable news outlets like AP, CNN, BBC are using terms like post-pandemic world, or talk about pandemic in past tense. Even if you turn your nightly news on and find a rare story about covid recovery, they use words like 'now the pandemic is over.'

I notice also deaths and cases are getting updated less regularly, and that's very true for this article. Reporting ever growing less reliable numbers means we're gonna have an issue of the pandemic seeming to be less impactful as 7 million deaths over 30 years is different to 7 million over 3 years. 49.177.188.175 (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I propose a change to the lead paragraph to the following should others concur with the media reporting of the event that was called the pandemic is over:

"The COVID-19 pandemic, also known as the coronavirus pandemic was a global disease outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 COVID-1,9 often characterised as a pandemic between 2020-2023. The pandemic was caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 SARS-CoV-2. The novel virus was first identified in an outbreak in the Chinese city of Wuhan in December 2019. Attempts to contain it there failed, allowing the virus to spread to other areas of Asia and later worldwide. Between 30 January 202 and May 5 2023 the World Health Organization (WHO) classified the outbreak a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC). During this time the WHO reported 766,540,065 cases and 6,935,106 deaths although it and other health bodies have estimated deaths to be between 20-25 million making it one of the deadliest in history."

On top of other tense changes, in line with most dashboards like the famous John Hopkins one stopping reporting in mid 2023, we should also refer deaths and cases throughout the article to a set date. 49.177.188.175 (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC) 49.177.188.175 (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the initial reaction the pandemic is over, perhaps you could say that reporting on the pandemic is largely over, or that mitigation is over, but to say the pandemic itself is over without scientific basis is simply repeating political propaganda. MarkHaversham (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty unhappy with the trend of this discussion. The position seems to have become "the WHO is not the sole source of truth on this matter, but we are". I have seen more cases of COVID among people I know in the past two months than at any time before. We need very solid, GLOBAL sources to declare the pandemic over. HiLo48 (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

These discussions go haywire, now you are refuting something with WP:OR. Wikipedia follows sources, not the sole source that is the WHO... no more than it follows your OR. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Glad you noticed my own deliberate use of OR there. But I can't tell what your point is. Sorry. HiLo48 (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting a lot of the prior discussion in this section and in archived discussions. Yes the main consensus here is that the WHO's is not the sole source of truth. But no one is saying that wikipedia should therefore do some original research and make up its own conclusion. People here are stating instead to reference others, such as health experts from major populous countries like China, Germany, Indonesia and the United States. In that regard I push my own position that that has already happened. 49.177.188.175 (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, there is something cryptic about your style of writing that makes it difficult for me to see precisely what you point is. Unless OTHERS say "The pandemic is over", we can't. Interpreting other words to mean that is not valid.

If citing sources is counted as original research, then this entire article has a huge problem and likely cannot survive once we remove all the "original research."

Whilst I'm happy to say that the consensus here is that we should wait for news and medical articles to refer to it as over, there seem to be no consensus on what said sources are themselves saying. Hopefully this may convince some that the reputable sources are no longer referring to the pandemic as on-going:

Searching COVID and Pandemic on google, then clicking all the recent articles, I find these articles from reputable news sites either clearly referring to the as over by using words like the famous was, and post-pandemic, or just using it in past tense [215] [216] [217] [218][219] [220] or at least alluding to it being in the past. [221].

Here is even a medical source referring to it as being over [222] [223]

Of course there are some articles that refer to it as on-going, but it took me a while to find them. They were opinion pieces and we're really clutching straws here if we try to go around and using them as the sole evidence to keep referring to the pandemic as ongoing. 49.177.188.175 (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Some more recent articles referring to the pandemic in past tense. [224] (<- less reputable) [225] [226] Here's the kind of articles referring to the pandemic as ongoing [227][228]

And finally to make my point really clear that we're really clutching straws to refer to the pandemic as ongoing, some more academic articles referring to the pandemic as over: [229] [230] (of course we can't use these as they're primary research but this is more for the talk page trying to prove a point) 49.177.188.175 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm gonna throw my support behind this. Seems like a complete failure on our behalf if we continue to ignore the overwhelming amount of news sites referring to the pandemic in past-tense. It is however our duty to make sure we add a section about how media, population and public health experts started referring to the pandemic as over even though the WHO will continue to call it a pandemic for 30+ years. The only dates we should mention are the PHEIC dates. We may want to mention a general time frame of when it was stopped being referred to as a pandemic. AndrewRG10 (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I wonder if the WHO ever states it is over, and why would we wait for them. If the RS trend to was then we need to follow the RS. We dont need MEDRS to trend towards was from is. This is an article about the pandemic, and not the disease. Even isolated hotspots would no longer meet the criteria of a pandemic which states "multiple continents or worldwide, affecting a substantial number of individuals." At this point in time that probably no longer describes the evolution of the disease. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I would be interested to hear from @Crossroads (who's stated the same consensus about waiting for sources to refer to it in past tense) whether they also concur sources are now referring to the pandemic in past tense. But even then have been some other great contributions from non-users which all-in all makes me happy, barring any mass objections in the next few days, to make the changes and 'supersede' consensus 17 (which I notice already isn't being followed). AndrewRG10 (talk) 06:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty unconfident that the sources named so far will fulfill WP:DUE to the extent necessary to convince enough editors that it should be in the past tense. The WHO referred to it as present earlier this very month, so we would need similarly weighty bodies referring to it in the past tense, endemic, or over to overrule that. I would really strongly encourage editors who want to see it changed to past tense to keep an eye out and periodically recheck Google Scholar and News (for declarations made by expert bodies and reported on in the media) for relevant keywords as more sources are likely to gradually come in over time.

I'll admit it's kind of frustrating to me that WHO seems to have made no indication of what they would consider to constitute an end of the pandemic itself, even while talking about the end of the "emergency" in terms very much like one would have expected to talk about an end of a pandemic and transition to endemic, while avoiding those terms. Perhaps it'll be a lagging indicator made after the fact when things have proved very stable. Or maybe we'll find ourselves having this same debate for years to come. Hopefully not.

Incidentally, also keep in mind that present tense will also always need support from recent sources - if these are lacking in the future, then that will also be a strong argument for past tense. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you that we need quite strong weight to counter the WHO claim. But I do believe the weight does exist with virtually all news articles referring to the pandemic in past tense.

While it's not a bad idea to keep an eye on Google Scholar (which I would argue it is roughly a 50/50 split between was and is), we can't exactly use these as sources as it would probably count as primary research. And too be honest quite a lot are not exactly great articles (but there are great ones like this which refer to the pandemic as ongoing).

Medical articles are far more reputable than the bulk of stuff getting on scholar and looking through the Lancet's, BMJ and other reputable publishers, while some have old banners about their Covid section being dedicated to helping end the pandemic, their articles can be split into two groups. Ones that refer to the pandemic as over, and ones that have nothing to do with Covid's pandemic status and are looking at the disease itself.

I personally am willing to wait for a few more rounds of articles to get published and a few more countries to declare the pandemic over in their own right, but I'm not sure how long we can keep kicking the can down the road. AndrewRG10 (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as I said on the talk page, the pandemic is in fact over, experts who drag it out is ludicous as cases, deaths and infections declined over the last 2 years. SCPdude629 (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

While your input is definitely appreciated, the main point of discussion is currently surrounding whether enough media sources refer to the pandemic as over to counter the weight of those saying it isn't. While I completely agree with you that the pandemic is over for the reasons you listed, a little more sustenance will be needed before we can make said changes. AndrewRG10 (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Notes

Fatality rate in infobox: Change to range from literature

I replaced the nonsensical official global government case data (via JHU) fatality rate with the range of the case fatality rates given in the body of this article. @Ozzie10aaaa would like a reference and reverted [231]. As there are many ranges given in different studies for different countries, there's not a single reference I can give. Should I just list all of them that are used in generating that range? Probably best to agree here first before we edit. AncientWalrus (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

yes,I think it would be best that it have a reference like the current version --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I also think from a scientific perspective, a range is probably most appropriate — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to request a ref, but also it would make sense to have a literature review-based number rather than JHU dashboard. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Yep, from a scientific perspective the figure currently given is very suboptimal to say the least. Is it ok to use a range compiled from multiple sources? The actual CFR depends so heavily on age (even in naive population, where immunity is equal because none) that it varies a lot by country. Everything but a broad range is misleading. AncientWalrus (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I would do a range where the lower end is cited to one high quality source and the upper end cited to another. That would still be okay per WP:SYNTH. We would want both to be secondary lit reviews ideally. And I would suggest CFRs from different times in the pandemic imo, more helpful than different age groups for a broad overview. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm lacking some knowledge of precedent on this, but I'd like to push back on the idea of creating a range like that, per WP:SYNTH. While showing two different sources (both high quality) with two different values would probably be alright, wouldn't creating a whole new range with results of different sources as extremes require an analysis that would be original research? "Source X says A, source Y says B" is not the same as "the results are between A (X) and B (Y)". Sto0pinismo (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Multiple questions here:

1. At which time point? Naive or as recent as possible

2. In which country or countries, countries are very important as they differ by age composition so fatality rate can differ by factor of at least 2

3.IFR or CFR? I would say IFR, as cases are very unreliable and differ based on time point and geography, whereas IFR is the intrinsic thing (at least per age bracket and immunity status)

It may be best to remove the whole thing if there is no good answer to the above and just refer to the relevant section

I guess AncientWalrus (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Question(s): Are we sure the Hopkins fatality rate is global? I saw we had a range here yesterday. I see a lot of countries at the Hopkins data that are higher (eg Peru) and many that are much lower. Should we also use the term "case fatality" rather than fatality? Is that too much jargon? It does make it clear there isnt a 1% change of dying, only 1% of a subset of those that contract it. I also wonder if the fatality rate has changed over time. I am no expert on this, just asking questions. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Anything that needs to be resolved yet to do this? Crossroads ^-talk- 00:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not clear what the range should be, from which study and with which footnotes. AncientWalrus (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Lab leak theory

Has there been an RFC since the last one in 2020 on the lab leak theory and Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Current_consensus #14. Regardless of the validity of the theory, there has been a lot of coverage since 2020. I looked through archives and didnt see another RFC since then, maybe a more frequent editor of this article remembers? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The science has gotten only more in favor of zoonosis, given Worobey and Pekar et al in 2021. Reviews after summer 2021 are more in the line of "The most likely is zoonosis, but no confirmation". I don't know if an RFC is necessary tbh, but that's what I would want at least one option to be. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The consensus #14 I understood to ban mention of the lab leak theory? How does your proposed text relate to the ban? To clarify, I am not proposing new text, I am only proposing as discussion if the #14 ban be reviewed in light of substantial coverage of that theory since then. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I ran the RFC below, the RFC does not propose any revised wording, that can be addressed later once restrictions are removed. I see no point to propose alternative wording if a words ban is in place (when the words ban doesnt reflect current RS coverage). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

So, the following conclusions from this year that were reported in the Wall Street Journal and The Guardian have since been disproven, then?

From the Guardian:

"Covid-19 likely came from lab leak, says news report citing US energy department

The virus that drove the Covid-19 pandemic most likely emerged from a laboratory leak but not as part of a weapons program, according to an updated and classified 2021 US energy department study provided to the White House and senior American lawmakers, the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday.

The department’s finding – a departure from previous studies on how the virus emerged – came in an update to a document from the office of national intelligence director, Avril Haines, the WSJ reported. It follows a finding reportedly issued with “moderate confidence” by the FBI that the virus spread after leaking out of a Chinese laboratory." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/26/covid-virus-likely-laboratory-leak-us-energy-department

And the (locked) article in the Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a

Okama-San (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

These were never the prevailing consensus among scientists, or even the prevailing consensus in the intelligence community. see: [232] You also left out: Updated finding comes with ‘low confidence’ and is a departure from previous studies on how virus emerged from that Guardian article. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

This page needs to be broken up

I opened it and my browser crashed. Serendi^podous 13:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I've never had any issues with it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

If my understanding how archiving is correct here, it should've been archived about three weeks ago. However, there was a long-term discussion taking place that ended about a week ago. My browser does not crash; but I do agree that this talk page has gotten long and needs to get archived. Not sure if it's done automatically or manually. Jenna M. (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I had a crash too on this article. Maybe the GA review needs to archive. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

archived both closed topics[233],[234]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry; I meant the article. I could only load it with the images crashed. Serendi^podous 00:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I've never had a problem with the article --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I meant the talk page. I have had crashes or slow downs on talk pages, but not on the article. I also have had slow downs or crashes on articles when editing, not sure what causes that. I have a pretty high spec computer, but not crazy high. I would note that there are now new and old wikipedia editors (I think some sort of button we click in wikipedia when in brower, there is a button called Beta). I use the older one, I was not really able to use the new one. I would suggest editing a section rather than the whole article, if you have issues. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

When you accessed the article, were any other browser tabs or windows open? ObserveOwl (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Pinging OP: @Serendipodous. ObserveOwl (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Serendi^podous 08:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Alright; maybe these other tabs/windows were taking space from the RAM. If you close everything else and the problem still arises, try restarting the browser's settings, the device or the router. ObserveOwl (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• I now face this issue on a number of talk pages, such as Julian Assange as well. Seems the talk pages that are very busy and a lot of notes, it crashes my browser. I have a relatively new PC and plenty of ram. I guess just very large page data. I suppose this should probably be discussed at Village Pump, as it is not limited to just this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
  • The problem is on your end, not here. Your RAM is too busy with other stuff. We don't change Wikipedia based on your problem. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps relevant: There's a known bug with Wikipedia on Chrome-based browsers, that for some people (not everyone) memory usage grows exponentially if you have multiple Wikipedia tabs open. Note that these days most browsers are Chrome based. Try Firefox, maybe? MrOllie (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you. Yes, I am using chrome and I do have a lot of tabs. Maybe caused if i have two wikipedia tabs open. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• My cellphone manages it fine. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Ozzie10aaaa, you wrote Done, but what did you do? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

it means this has been answered by several editors, however it can be removed (I had answered the OP above too)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 July 2023

For this paragraph:

"The pandemic has triggered severe social and economic disruption around the world, including the largest global recession since the Great Depression. Widespread supply shortages, including food shortages, were caused by supply chain disruptions and panic buying. Reduced human activity led to an unprecedented decrease in pollution. Educational institutions and public areas were partially or fully closed in many jurisdictions, and events were cancelled or postponed during 2020 and 2021. Many white-collar workers began working from home. Misinformation has circulated through social media and mass media, and political tensions have intensified. The pandemic has raised issues of racial and geographic discrimination, health equity, and the balance between public health imperatives and individual rights."

Does this last paragraph on the lead section need additional citations for the information to be cited with references? I think that this paragraph needs more than one source to be included. ^PlantGrowth2023 (talk) (con) 18:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. In addition, please read WP:CITELEAD. This is an extensive article, and pretty much every sentence of this paragraph has a full-fledged section dedicated to it. If readers wish to verify claims made, they can easily navigate to the table of contents and find well-sourced information there. Heart ^(talk) 01:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 August 2023

For 2023, are you planning to add further information about the COVID-19 coverage? If some think it’s over, then add a source. Plus there is still news media reporting a portion of a great current event. Here I just something found about the booster shot: [[235]]

This is a source I requested you to add, it is an about vaccine. On the other hand, there is more needed detail about the latest news covered as of mid-2023. Is there latest coverage about variants and mutations? If so, add it to the timelines. So, thank you for that and those who had reply it to me. 2600:1010:B193:5833:5562:8F8E:D5C5:AAF4 (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Error in first case dating

The side box indicates the first case on 17 November 2019, and the main text repeats this, citing an article by the South China Morning Post. The main text reports first symptoms from a case on 1 December 2019. These dates to not represent the current consensus, which puts the first confirmed symptomatic case as having symptom onset possibly on 8 December, more likely on 15-16 December. See Michael Worobey,mDissecting the early COVID-19 cases in Wuhan.Science374,1202-1204(2021).DOI:10.1126/science.abm4454 Gtuckerkellogg (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I think we should probably note both dates in the article, as the SCMP date is notable as part of a later denied leak. But for infobox we should probably use the consensus number. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Or maybe omit it from the infobox, because that's generally the right choice for complicated or contested content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree, lets remove it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2023

Change this:

“The pandemic triggered severe social and economic disruption around the world, including the largest global recession since the Great Depression.”

To this:

“This pandemic has actually caused severe social and economic turmoil around the globe, including the deepest global recession since the Great Depression in 1930s.”

This is my rephrase of the sentence. 2600:1010:B193:5833:D57A:88E0:EF64:685A (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that "caused" is better than "triggered, but I would drop the words "has actually" from your suggestion. They don't seem necessary to me. HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with HiLo48. I have made this change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It's over!!!

As previously stated, the pandemic is over, idk why the WHO drags it out, at this point it's fear mongering just to get anti-vaxer's shots into their arms. WHO has no right trying to implement such a false claim of stating the pandemic continues when it clearly does not. I'm so sick and tired of how organizations dummy things down or overexaggerate.

IDK why I get notified for this crap, my opinion doesn't matter anyway. SCPdude629 (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

your opinion counts(every opinion counts)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Though opinions on what Wikipedia should say that are not backed by sources, and pretty much worthless. Bon courage (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

If you're struggling with notifications, you may want to change the settings in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. I know one editor who hates the red/blue notifications at the top of the page, switched everything to e-mail, and is very happy. For myself, I go pretty much the opposite direction. You should set yours to do what you want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Current situation for COVID 19

Since WHO still does not consider Pandmeic it’s self over, can you please change the dates section for COVID 19 to 2019-present? Fx3453 (talk) 09:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

should you be referring to the infobox dates , those are per PHEIC (WHO)...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic deaths and cases

This is a discussion for the entirety of the COVID-19 Wiki.

I'm proposing that the main reference to cases and deaths on all COVID-19 pages should be the estimates from reliable sources. This is because official counts are a vast underestimate, many countries have stopped reporting, many databases have stopped collecting and most importantly to maintain consistency with how we count deaths for every other pandemic on wiki. I think in the rare cases they are used we should count them only to May 5 2023. I hate using hard dates for the pandemic which is why utilizing the current and future estimates from WHO and other medical sources is what I'm proposing should be the sole way forward. AndrewRG10 (talk) 08:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

We might want both. "Ruritania claims a mere 17 deaths as their official count, but outside experts estimate that COVID-19 accounted for 300,000 excess deaths in that country during the first three years of the pandemic." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this needs to be fixed. The whole ongoing shtick of "as of current day, Y cases and Z deaths have occurred" is clearly false precision nowadays. There are probably much better sources estimating things like what percentage of the world has been infected, what percentage infected multiple times, and how many have died, all of which are higher than the "precise" numbers. Even if those estimates are somewhat older than the day by day stuff, the fact they take into account more than just official tests and such suggests they are more likely to be correct. There may also be competing estimates by different research groups which should be taken into account to create a range. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you people sure that COVID-19 is gone?

I have a friend of mine who gets the confusing with this news about COVID-19 is gone, but in some of countries still wearing a masks.

Please contact to this topic. If the COVID-19 is still ongoing. 2001:FB1:31:6275:F126:3D2C:7DA8:7653 (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Perhaps the article doesn't explain this well enough.

COVID-19 (the infection) will likely exist for the rest of our lives. But – you know that certain diseases are more common during certain times of year? For example, in warm climates, there is more malaria and dengue when it's been raining (because there are more mosquitoes), and in Europe, influenza mostly happens in the winter. People get these diseases year-round, but they mostly happen at one time. It's kind of the same thing with the COVID-19 pandemic: A lot more people were sick in 2020 and 2021. A lot fewer people are sick now. It's still around, but it's not as bad. This means that the disease still exists (=some people get sick) but the pandemic (=many people worldwide get sick) might not still exist.

You could compare it to an Influenza pandemic: some years, influenza is a big pandemic. Some years influenza is the normal amount. COVID-19 started as a huge pandemic. Maybe it is settling into a normal amount.

As for the masks, they protect against a lot of diseases. Some people wore them even before COVID-19 existed, so of course those people still wear them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

well...New variant EG.5...Covid-19 cases and hospitalizations go up...US, Ireland, France, the UK, Japan and China--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

COVID pandemic is officially over in the U.S., excess-deaths data show

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/covid-pandemic-is-officially-over-in-the-u-s-data-on-excess-deaths-show-96331698 Fewer Americans died in March than would be expected in a normal year ArmorredKnight (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Neither you nor that journalist seem to know what "officially" means. HiLo48 (talk) 05:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Is it over?

To continue what must be several sections, above and archived, concerning this point: I note that the most recent two attempts to introduce reality to this article have both been reverted. Who, precisely, is still claiming the pandemic isn't over? The WHO do not declare any pandemic to be 'over', so we'd be waiting a long time for that one. The MSM, almost to a man, now refer to the pandemic using the past tense; here's an example from today [236]. In the UK, even the BBC and Guardian acknowledge it's over. I believe both the US and Germany have officially declared it over. I think now, if anyone claims it isn't over, they should bring forward reputable sources to support the claim. Perhaps there are some sources - I'm mostly just familiar with UK sources - that state it's continuing, so let's see them. If there are such sources, then all well and good, but they would need to be highly influential publications to overcome the vast majority of sources that now consider it over. Also, are MSM sources more relevant than medical stuff in this particular article? I would suggest so. Pikemaster (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

yes this has been the source of many discussions--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed I think there are multiple reliable sources indicating the pandemic is over. Another one: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/17/briefing/covid.html "But the excess-deaths milestone suggests that it’s true now: The pandemic is finally over." The WHO has terminated the PHEIC, which is as far as I know the only 'official' step they can take regarding making the 'end' official, although at the time there was a reasonable argument that ending the PHEIC was not the same as declaring the pandemic being over. Now we have plenty of reliable sources. If it isn't over now, what set of facts or sources would it take for it us to list it as in the past? TocMan (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Why so keen to declare it over? I know several people who caught COVID for the first time this year. One of them died. HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

People still catch and die from H1N1 influenza, but that does not mean the swine flu pandemic is active. I think we should follow the preponderance of sources. TocMan (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Where? HiLo48 (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The majority - I would go so far as to say the vast majority - of sources now talk of the pandemic using the past tense. Wikipedia is now an exception, and that in itself is not good. In the Pandemic article we have this statement: The World Health Organization (WHO) nearest equivalent of "pandemic" is the Public Health Emergency of International Concern, defined as “an extraordinary event which is determined to constitute a public health risk to other States through the international spread of disease and to potentially require a coordinated international response”. The WHO have declared the PHEIC as being over, so that's as close as they're ever going to get to acknowledging that the pandemic is over. I contend that's it's time for Wikipedia to move on, and also regard the pandemic as being over. Pikemaster (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Why do we need to declare anything? Or "regard" anything? Surely we can simply write what you have above. HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it's about whether or not the article should refer to the pandemic as an event that happened in the past, rather than one that's ongoing. Currently it's the latter, as confirmed by the first sentence of the article: "The COVID-19 pandemic, also known as the coronavirus pandemic, is a global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 ...."

Would you want to keep that sentence unchanged for the next 20 years? We wouldn't write in this tense about the Spanish Flu pandemic that ended over 100 years ago. An indeed we don't: "The 1918 flu pandemic, also known as the Great Influenza epidemic or by the common misnomer of the Spanish flu, was an exceptionally deadly global influenza pandemic" Olaf Klischat (talk) 23:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with the past tense for various reasons mentioned above. WHO does not officially declare end of pandemics, so there will not be an official end declared by WHO. 2009 swine flu pandemic would be the only exception as far as I know.

The 2009 swine flu pandemic officially ended at the same time as PHEIC. WHO declared it officially over based on known influenza seasonal patterns, which in contrast are not known for the COVID. Previous pandemics in the history did not have an official declared end to my knowledge. They basically ended when public considered it over, and people stopped with a pandemic behaviour, which I believe is a case with vast majority regarding the COVID, not to mention many sources referring to it in the past tense and post-pandemic.

Another reason would be behaviour of virus itself. It seems like hospitalisations and deaths remain stable and at lower levels with a small upticks and downticks rather than big pandemic waves as seen nearly 2 years ago.

As for post-pandemic section, I think it is a good idea, and information mentioned in this and previous posts could be noted there to provide wider understanding regarding post pandemic period. KapSoule (talk) 10:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Interestingly for the Swine Flu pandemic, WHO actually did put out a statement declaring the pandemic over but I'm unsure if that was before, after, or concomitant with the PHEIC ending. TocMan (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Pikemaster here. If a preponderance of sources now refer to the pandemic in past tense, this is enough precedent to switch the article to past tense(due weight). I don't have the time to verify if this is the case. If the word 'was' is inserted into the lead('was a global pandemic'), perhaps a footnote would be the best way to address this given we don't have explicit sourcing to state the end of the pandemic. This may warrant a wider 'current consensus' discussion/note at the top of this talk page, with the rest of the numbered consensus items. SmolBrane (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

OK. Let's do it. Our article on the Spanish flu has a significant section titled Post-pandemic. Given the complex situation surrounding the "Is it over?" question, as soon as we start using past tense in the article, we need a similar section here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• I think we can do a post-pandemic section. There should be plenty of RS for this. I think there is not consensus (yet) to change the past tense in the LEAD. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I also support the use of past tense. It seems to follow the WP:WEIGHT of sources, and a pandemic is in significant part a social phenomenon. As noted above, the WHO does not make declarations of when pandemics end, [237][238] and the closest they have to that as an official declaration is the PHEIC, which did end. Pretty much the only decent source from after that time supporting the pandemic as ongoing is the comment by Maria Van Kerkhove from the June 2 press conference, and that seems more offhand than authoritative. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the immediately making a post-pandemic section, not just in this article but in all country specific ones too. I've already got edits in works for the Australian one. I'm also gonna make a new section here for changing consensus #18 to was. AndrewRG10 (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Given that LEAD summarizes, shouldnt we create a section first? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. It will obviously evolve over time, but it's essential to have some detail of how the world has changed, again. HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Time to make a post-pandemic article?

Thanks to AndrewRG10 for crafting the section. It already looks a bit large for this article. Might be time to produce a spinoff article, which the endemic material could be merged into. Some discussion is going on at Talk:Endemic COVID-19. SmolBrane (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I think making such a section and twisting weak sources into saying what they didn't actually say was unwise. The WHO may not make official formal "declarations" about pandemics starting or ending, but they certainly say otherwise whether they are ongoing, and are our best source for that. I have added their comments. Bon courage (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

By "they" you mean individual WHO officials. The WHO as a body cannot call something a pandemic, since, as noted previously, they do not have any official classification for such. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I oppose this, currently the medical consensus is that Covid-19 is still an active pandemic. It also should be noted that endemic does not mean the opposite of pandemic, it just means it is found in a location. Groble (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Add waste water data and long-covid estimates.

Add public data relating to https://data.cdc.gov/Public-Health-Surveillance/NWSS-Public-SARS-CoV-2-Wastewater-Metric-Data/2ew6-ywp6 in the infobox. Preferrably a graph based on this data, is there a compilation of non-us centric public wastewater data somewhere? Groble (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Sounds encyclopedic. Also great if some sort of other country. Would be great to zoom out and maybe do a graph with monthly, rather than daily. I am not skilled to make these graphs. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Full Fact and Science Based Medicine

Firstly, the dialogue between WHO and Full Fact seems undue since the following sentence acknowledges that WHO doesn't declare pandemics over. So why would we include the comment?

The Full Fact article content states that “this led several media outlets to incorrectly report that this meant the pandemic was "over"”, but three days later on May 8. Japan did change the legal status of COVID to common infectious diseases. Further, Steven Novella, the executive editor of Science Based Medicine wrote an editorial [239] published two days later that stated that [The end of the PHEIC] “brings to an end a more than 3 year global pandemic” and “COVID is now more of an endemic infection, like the flu, which is exactly what most experts predicted would happen (once it became established). We are now living with COVID rather than trying to live through COVID.” Joe Biden said that the pandemic was over last September “We still have a problem with Covid. We’re still doing a lot of work on it. But the pandemic is over.” [240]

I think this section could use a more neutral POV, and editors can discuss whether Full Fact has enough reliability to be sourced here instead of a more robust source like SBM. SmolBrane (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Full Fact is just clarifying the WHO's POV, not making a declaration of their own. SBM's view could add a bit of weight I suppose to the viewpoint that it is over, but in general it isn't a huge authority on this topic. There are more authoritative epidemiologists and bodies mentioned above, but most seem to not be commenting on it. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Full Fact does not meet WP:MEDRS. Full Fact draws on sources that don't meet WP:MEDRS. SBM does not meet WP:MEDRS. We should focus on WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Bondegezou (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed SBM is a golden source for fringe stuff and quackery (when MEDRS typically aren't available), but it isn't WP:MEDRS. This is set out at WP:SBM. Bon courage (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, but Novella did consider the end of the PHEIC to be the end of the pandemic(see above quote) and we might need reason to presume that his editorial is part of the incorrect reporting. SmolBrane (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

No. It's not a MEDRS source so the views therein are of no relevance in this matter. Bon courage (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Full Fact has even less provenance--check the noticeboard--I did. SmolBrane (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

That's not MEDRS either, though it's often good for fact-check content. Bon courage (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Postscript: looks like Steve changed his view on this anyway[241] ("Does that mean the pandemic is over? Not really, it just means we are entering another phase"). But SBM is not a suitable source for this, whatever it says. Bon courage (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

And yet he states that "We might think of this as the tail end of the pandemic, or we can think of it as a transition to endemic COVID" and the last paragraph really doesn't suggest anything pandemic-like going on here ("The bottom line is that we are living in a world awash in infectious diseases"). Sad to see that another otherwise decent source can't seem to tell if we are in a pandemic or not. Very frustrating for editors. As for Full Fact, it looks like we agree it's a poor source--I'm surprised to see you were the one who added it--would you object to its removal? SmolBrane (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

We don't agree it's a poor source. For something like how journalists got confused (between PHEIC and pandemic) it is in fact (ha!) a very good source. Bon courage (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Still a pandemic? Sources

Given recent discussion about whether COVID-19 is still a pandemic, I note the following 2023 journal papers, as I previously shared at the Endemic COVID-19 Talk page:

• doi:10.1111/inr.12823 PMC 9880758 (lengthy discussion of how COVID-19 still pandemic)
• doi:10.1016/j.jemep.2023.100901 (COVID-19 still pandemic as a background comment)
• doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1120470 (COVID-19 still pandemic as a background comment)
• doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2022.111368 (discusses an endemic status as a future situation)
• doi:10.1136/medhum-2022-012433 (medical humanities paper discussing how people have used "endemic" in the context of COVID-19) Bondegezou (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem with papers on the topic is that even if they appear to be 2023 journal papers, they are often quite old. For example, the first ("Are we there yet?") was published on 26 December 2022 and it's clear from the access date on the web sources that it was written on 29th August 2022. That's a year ago. The second was published 4th April 2023 but is clearly examining data "end of August 2022". Again, a year ago. Not sure the monkeypox article is relevant. It was received by the publisher 10 December 2022. Again it appears to be examining data till end August 2022. The "COVID-19 endgame" article may have an official publication date of 21 February 2023 but was first published online at 24 November 2022 and actually received by the publisher on 16 May 2022. The endemic language paper was published in 2023 but they "examine the emerging meanings, images and social representations of the term ’endemic’ in English language news between 1 March 2020 and 18 January 2022".

Per the discussion above, I think we need authorities agreeing that experts consider the pandemic over or agree on some new phrase for this phase. And I'm also reluctant to pick up on tense or side-remarks in papers that aren't necessarily written by native English writers, unless those writers are very clearly arguing that the pandemic is over. -- Colin°^Talk 15:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

There will be some lag in publication. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a newspaper. We accept that there will be some lag. There's tons of cutting-edge medical research news that we don't cover.

I think we should stick to WP:MEDRS and not re-write policy on the go. MEDRS does allow for sources that have less publication lag. If MEDRS-compliant sources say the pandemic is over, we say it's over. If MEDRS-compliant sources say the pandemic is ongoing, we say it's ongoing. Bondegezou (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

A very important point and it goes to show that even if the pandemic did/does end mid-2023, sources written about that may not appear until well into 2024. To say nothing of even later end dates. I'd suggest keeping an eye out the whole time regardless but there's definitely a lag there. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the pandemic has not been called off. Cwater1 (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

An interesting article here https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2023.2195918 (How does the pandemic end? Losing control of the COVID-19 pandemic illness narrative) SmolBrane (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Consensus #18 is no longer accurate

@Bon courage: I would encourage you to self-revert [242] since your edit is not compliant with the note at the top of the consensus section--WP:EDITCON applies here. #18 has to reflect the current actual first sentence. SmolBrane (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Happy to make it align with the current text (not that it counts for anything, policy-wise). But certainly not to revert that falsity in about 'implicit concensus' (whatever that is supposed to mean). Bon courage (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. I'm surprised you're not familiar. SmolBrane (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

John Ioannidis article in lede

Ozzie10aaaa, I don't think that article should be in the lede because it's not summarizing anything in the body, and also precisely because it is a John Ioannidis article, which is a red flag for anything contentious wrt COVID. Bon courage (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

should you see it that way...fine--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with removing it from the article entirely. I don't see that what he says in that article is contentious according to reliable sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Why not use those "reliable sources" then? Bon courage (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

It was you who called the material in the source "contentious", and hence has the burden of demonstrating a reliable source is WP:UNDUE. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not a (MEDRS) reliable source, it's a commentary piece. Bon courage (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

What makes you say this? It looks like a standard secondary source in a medical journal. Am I missing something? (convenience link) Crossroads ^-talk- 02:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes: WP:MEDRS. Wikipedia wants secondary sources for bio/science (e.g. review articles). A 'commentary' piece setting out a novel argument is not that. Bon courage (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

What makes it a commentary piece rather than a review article? Does it say "commentary" on there and I just am not seeing it? Crossroads ^-talk- 02:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Err, the fact that it says "Commentary" on it, and it is not classified as a review article by the publisher/CROSSREF. Bon courage (talk) 02:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I see why I missed it, the PubMed copy doesn't say anything about Commentary but the journal's website does. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Yet here you restored two commentary pieces even though the section has peer-reviewed papers. Either such pieces are worthwhile on the topic of Covid or they aren't. Doesn't seem consistent. "Seems apt" is not a WP:PAG-based argument. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Consistency with this is critical, and the Ioannidis material is far more dispassionate in tone as well. SmolBrane (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Commentaries are great for things like historical word use and politicians getting their knickers in a twist over words. For biomedicine, not so much. This is the whole point of WP:BMI and WP:NOTBMI and why we need WP:MEDRS sources for epidemiology. Bon courage (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

"largest global recession since the Great Depression"

this has to be tweaked. a recession and a depression are not the same thing. 24.187.46.97 (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

will look, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I see that it is still there. Any update? 24.187.46.97 (talk) 08:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Why is that a problem? It's also the largest global recession since the second world war, but a recession and a war are not the same thing. It's the largest global recession since the start if the third millennium, but a recession and tge start of a millennium are not the same thing. JBW (talk) 08:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

it fits the same logic of a square being a rectangle, but a rectangle not being a square. my argument is that a depression can be a recession, but a recession can't be a depression. don't know why you're brining wars up, as that is not my point. 24.187.46.97 (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Source consolidation

Does anyone think it would be reasonably possible to replace some of the unusually large number of sources in this article with a few bigger sources? There's not much point in trying to reduce from 679 to 677, but if we could replace a hundred or so sources with a single book (or major journal article, etc.), that might be desirable for sourcing and make the page load faster. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

the problem is that the text in many sections are specific to a source like PMC/medline/and so on (or a news item at the time it occurred during the pandemic), sure with time there could be a book or a very good review that looks back at all of this and helps to source several areas of the article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Suggested Article Updates

As intimated in my post above, the article appears troubling out-of-date – the revision log-jam presumably due to wilful dupes who approve of the politicisation of science. Otherwise, for example: why have none of the substantiated facts in Muddy Waters: The Origins Of Covid-19 Report [243] not been incorporated, even though it was issued back in April?! The Times article above should also be culled for facts, and Katherine Eban's June article in Vanity Fair.[244] I can't devote more time to it, but suggest, to start with, two statements from a 2021 Dept of State Fact Sheet are deserving of being added to the article.

1. In the section titled '2019': "The U.S. government believes that several researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology contracted COVID-19 in the autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak." (Citation: 'Fact Sheet: Activity at the Wuhan Institute of Virology', U.S. Department Of State, 15 July 2021; [245]) As the head of the House Hearing on the Origins of COVID-19 stated, the signature importance of this point is: "While this doesn't prove COVID-19 came from the lab, it is a data point suggesting so."[246]

2. In the section titled '2021': "In January 2021, the U.S. Department Of State issued a statement that for more than year, and after the deaths of over two million people, the Chinese Government had "systematically prevented a transparent and thorough investigation of the COVID-19 pandemic’s origin, choosing instead to devote enormous resources to deceit and disinformation." Same citation as above.

I suggest a further statement be added from John Ratcliffe, former United States Director of National Intelligence (i.e. the head of 18 intelligence agencies): "My informed assessment...has been and continues to be that a lab leak is the only explanation credibly supported by our intelligence, by science and by common sense." (Citation: Testimony of John Radcliffe, House Hearing on the Origins of COVID-19, Transcript: [247]; Video: C-Span, 18 April 2024, 16.37mins [248])

Some of Radcliffe's scalding commments about the Chinese attempts at coverup, from the same testimony, might also be quoted or summarised (see the linked transcript). Since that testimony, Radcliffe has further confirmed his stance, while Dr. Robert Kadlec, formerly Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services (Preparedness and Response), and technically Dr Anthony Fauci's superior, has not only admitted they deliberately decided to downplay the lab leak theory, but that the National Institute of Health had poor oversight of what was occurring at the Wuhan Institute of Virology with its money. Given it was undertaking reckless gain-of-function work (see point 2 of the fact sheet linked above), that's a shocking admission from someone so high up, and if a better cite occurs, should also be included. [249]) MisterWizzy (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Is this John Ratcliffe (American politician)? The one whose Wikipedia article says "during his tenure as DNI, Ratcliffe was regarded as using the position to score political points for Trump. Ratcliffe made public assertions that contradicted the intelligence community's own assessments, and sidelined career officials in the intelligence community", who held that office for almost eight (8) months, and who has had no access to confidential information for almost three years now? I don't see why the world should care what he says. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

On the origin of Covid-19, there continues to be a spectrum of views amongst the divisions he represents. (Refer to: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI): The Potential Links Between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Origin of the COVID-19 Pandemic, 23 June 2023 [250] His views on China's suppression of truth align with those of the U.S. Department of State. (Refer to: US Department of State, Fact Sheet: Activity at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, 15 July 2021, [251] MisterWizzy (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

WHO defines (or perhaps someday will define ) what was the root cause of the pandemic...IMO --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we must never allow internal US politics to even influence what is in our article here. And unfortunately, that country probably politicised the pandemic more than almost any other. HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Dr Robert Kadlec statements

Dr Robert Kadlec, formerly a top mandarin at the US Department of Health, has given another interview, this time with Sky News Australia. Kadlec had earlier given an interview with C-Span detailing an investigation he made into Covid-19. That interview is here: [252]

In the new Sky interview, Kadlec states that his investigation revealed a Chinese military scientist Zhou Yusen was creating a vaccine for Covid-19 in October 2019. Zhou Yusen died sometime in May 2020, three months after he lodged a patent for the vaccine. Asked if Yusen was in any way responsible for subsequent events, Kadlec replied: “It's certainly possible, we considered that as a plausible possibility, however, we had no evidence to make that assessment.”

These events of October 2019 precede the earliest mention of Covid in the Wikipedia article History section, which only begins in November 2019. Would suggest therefore some mention be made of them, and in the Timeline article. Kadlec worked under the Trump administration, but so did Fauci and others, so that should surely not discount the seriousness of the contentions.

The information about Yusen, and other serious allegations, was published by The Times as far back as June 2023. (Citation is: Jonathan Calvert, George Arbuthnott, 'What really went on inside the Wuhan lab weeks before Covid erupted', The Times, 10 June 2023 [253]) Why was it not incorporated into the article then? That it was behind a paywall is a poor excuse.

Citation for the Sky New interview is: Sharri Markson, 'US Department of Health official who conspired with Anthony Fauci to downplay COVID lab-leak theory reveals 'agonising' over his actions', Sky News, 27 November 2023 [254] MisterWizzy (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (=the page where we document frequently discussed sources): "The talk shows for Sky News Australia engage in disinformation and should be considered generally unreliable. The majority of articles labeled as "news" contain short blurbs and video segments, which should similarly be considered unreliable." WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Contentious sources are, as far as I'm aware, still considered permissable on Wikipedia for citation if the information they are detailing is coming from a source considered reliable, or unable to be sourced elsewhere. Otherwise it would be a case of shooting the messenger. To my knowledge, no one has suggested Dr. Kadlec is an unreliable source. In any case, there is his C-Span interview that is linked to, and more importantly, ''The Times'' investigative article. As previously stated, it seems exceedingly odd that the remarkable revelations it printed, over five months ago, have not found their way into the article. MisterWizzy (talk) 06:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Not a reliable source, and WP:ECREE. The idea that China had a COVID-19 vaccine ready before the pandemic is a conspiracy theory. Bon courage (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Sky News is Rupert Murdoch's version of Fox News in Australia. Ignore. HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Bon courage, that's not the claim. The stated claim is that a patent was filed months after the WHO declared an emergency, and the unstated claim is that speaker doesn't know how patent applications work. You "invent" a vaccine by thinking up what you would do, if you were going to do it. You don't have to actually have produced it or tested it or anything like that. You just have to have a plausible description, and you don't even have to have that for a Provisional application, because you can change everything later and still claim your priority date. If anything, it's strange that this patent was filed so late in the game. You can literally invent a vaccine the minute you know what the virus is. "I've found a new virus, which I'm going to call the _____ – I've just had a great idea! Let's have a vaccine against that new virus! It'll use, um, ah, a key antigen to produce an immune response. Let me get out my boilerplate patent application form and fill in the name of the new virus..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking of the OP's statement "Kadlec states that his investigation revealed a Chinese military scientist Zhou Yusen was creating a vaccine for Covid-19 in October 2019." But if "creating" just means hypothesizing vaccines for hypothetical diseases then yeah - NBD! Bon courage (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

An unreliable news outlet can be expected to misrepresent the people they quote and cut what they say in a misleading way. Therefore it does not matter how reliable or unreliable Kadlec is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Though the contents of Robert Kadlec suggest that they might not have had far to go to make him look bad. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Minor nit: "Yusen" is the given name, "Zhou" is the family name. In East Asia, the family name comes first, and family names in China usually have one syllable. Did you never wonder why Mao Zedong is called Mao for short and not Zedong? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Clearly any matter that appears on Sky News is not going appear in Wikipedia. Fine. What of the statements made in ''The Times'' article, and C-Span interview? Is there an authorative source contradicting their statements, such as of the Covid vaccine patent application by Yusen? To suggest that ''The Times'' and a former Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the US Department of Health are peddling conspiracy theories would be a provocative claim at the least. Surely the remarkable statements they make should be included in the article, with of course, opposing information from authoritative sources, if it exists. MisterWizzy (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

If it's an important subject, then it'll turn up in a lot of sources (and better ones). So far, it hasn't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Article contains a factual inaccuracy?

In the section on 2023, the article claims "By May 2023, most countries had returned to daily life as it was before the pandemic." I challenge this claim. Before the pandemic, daily life did not involve people passing Covid-19 around. Therefore, people who are now transmitting Covid, behaving as if it is before the pandemic, have not returned to daily life as it was before the pandemic because, before the pandemic, daily life did not involve transmitting Covid-19 or causing people later down the line still to die from this disease. Nowhere in the world has therefore returned to daily life as it was before the pandemic because, every day, that is daily life, someone somewhere is passing Covid to someone else. I have put this on the talk page rather than amend the article because I don't want to amend when an amendment might be controversial, even if I think the article is factually incorrect and therefore, regardless of what anyone else believes, the facts and truth apply and the article is in error as the facts and reality are therefore most countries haven't returned to daily life as before the pandemic, indeed nowhere has. It is impossible to return to daily life as before the pandemic until Covid-19 is removed which there appears no prospect of being the case. aspaa (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

By the same argument, daily life in 2019 was not as in 2018 because different flu strains were circulating in the population, because we wrote different years in forms, and other minor differences that don't really change what we call daily life.--mfb (talk) 08:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Fails WP:V, so removed. Reminder: the WP:ONUS to achieve consensus is on those seeking inclusion of disputed content. Bon courage (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The second reference includes "this trend has allowed most countries to return to life as we knew it before COVID-19" as literal quote from the WHO director general. How is that fiction? The content was in the article since May, you have made many edits to the article since then without changing it. And now suddenly it's so critical that you need to break BRD for it? --mfb (talk) 09:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Probably didn't notice it (it's a long article). BRD is just an essay, but NPOV is policy. So while there may be a case for relaying what Tedros said at the time, asserting in wikivoice that it's the then-and-continuing truth is a problem. Anyway, I've added this as a quotation. See what you think. Hopefully this answers the OP's concerns too. Bon courage (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

It's the third sentence in an article of reasonable length. You removed referenced content with a nonsensical reason. You got reverted, pointing out that the material is referenced. You ignored that, calling it unreferenced, still without actually reading the references. Bonus points for "greeting" a long-term contributor with a standard template. I think your new version with the direct quote is good and don't strongly mind either way concerning that sentence, but I strongly disagree with your initial approach here. New users would be reported on AIV for that. --mfb (talk) 09:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

If a new user was reported to AIV that would be inappropriate and any admin who blocked them frankly at a minimum needs to take a long hard read of WP:Vandalism or just give up the tools voluntarily since it seems to clearly be a good faith edit even if mistaken and not vandalism. At most it could be reported to ANEW and blocked as edit warring. Frankly though anyone reporting a new editor to any board over this needs to take a long hard look at themselves. If an editor is clearly confused and mistaken about something, especially a new editor, the appropriate solution is to first try education. And I don't mean a template but instead talking to the editor and saying, hey you said this is unsourced but actually this source clearly says "xyz". If even after that the editor continues to remove it claiming it is unsourced and fails to explain why they feel the source is unsufficient, then only should a report be considered. Nil Einne (talk) 11:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

BTW, AFAICT the only template used is the contentious topics one. [255] Per WP:CONT, editors need to be aware of that contentious topics restrictions apply to the specific area before any sanctions can be considered. It doesn't matter how long they've been active. Any editor familiar with contentious topics does not give a damn how long an editor has been active because it's completely irrelevant. A new editor can be aware if they meet the awareness requirements. An old editor will be considered unaware if they don't. While arbcom has significantly relaxed the requirements, in particularly in removing the need for yearly notifications, an editor still needs to become aware of CT for the area somehow. Note in particular while with the changes when CT replaced DS I think make it more likely a simple non templated message that area X is a CT area will be accepted as evidence of awareness, in practice the nature of CT means using the templates is still far preferable, it's actually arguably the only area where you should nearly always use the templates, perhaps with additional comments if you feel it's worthwhile. For starters, if someone just gives a simple message, there very little chance that this is going to be found by someone else in the future. (And in a few months even the editor who gave the message may forget they did so.) So a future editor is just as likely to given an alert potentially annoying this editor more than if only one alert was given. And if an editor or admin does feel that sanctions are justified they're probably going to miss this message and instead decide the editor is unaware so just give new alert delaying the process. If the editor complains that they were already aware, then this may be taken further but this still demonstrates the problems with such an approach. Instead by giving an alert via the templates so it is properly recorded in the editor's talk page history and in the edit filter log, it's trivial to find and further any editor should refrain from giving further alerts for that area if they're following the template guidance. I would give an alert to Jimbo Wales for any area I found no evidence they were aware if I thought it was needed. And I'm not going to spent a great amount of time looking in to it, I will check whether the editor has ever been given an alert for the area before, and I will check if they've participated in discussions at ARE in the area as the template tells me to. If I don't find anything, I will give an alert. Note also that COVID-19 only became a discretionary sanctions area in June 2021 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19 so it's inherently impossible for any editor to be aware it was a DS/CT area prior to that so an editor's activity before June 2021 is irrelevant. If you're not happy with the awareness requirements, I suggest you take that up with WP:ARBCOM not us as we're only following what they've required of us. Alternatively, if you just don't want to be given alerts, you can add the template so say you're aware for the areas you haven't already been given alerts, or maybe just all areas you're aware. That can be all areas currently covered under CT if you wish. If you don't do that and arbcom doesn't change their awareness requirements, you should expect to be given alerts if you edit an area covered by CT if there isn't other obvious evidence you're aware. And again, even if you're still editing 30 years from now, if our CT system is still the same then yes no one is going to care that you've been editing for 50 years or whatever. Nil Einne (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources, especially Tedros Ghebreyesus, are obviously well aware that Covid continues to circulate. What is clearly being talked about are all the changes to daily life that typically accompanied Covid for the preceding 3 years, which had indeed largely disappeared by May 2023. Wikipedia documented (often in great detail) when these closures, mandates, etc. were put in place, and we therefore are to document when these things cease; the same quality sources cover both. Factually describing how society reacts as the pandemic evolves is a major part of the topic. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Only thing that changed, really, is people's delusion that it magically disappeared. I guess if the belief was widespread enough the flat earth article would also say it's true... 92.10.157.151 (talk) 09:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Meanwhile, in Australia.[256] Bon courage (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

So? Are you saying this, and similar overreactions, means that everyday life is not back to normal? I've just been shopping and I saw no evidence of the pandemic whatsoever, apart from the odd dilapidated sign urging people to 'keep apart' - obviously outdated. Everyday life IS back to normal, but there are people on here who don't want to accept it. This article should state categorically that things are now back to normal and have been for well over a year. On reading the first line of this article, which proclaims the pandemic as current, most readers will come to the conclusion that it's out-of-date and will perhaps read no further; they are right. The tone of this article is completely at odds with reality. 31.52.164.55 (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Since this source doesn't mention a pandemic, it doesn't meet the WP:BURDEN for inclusion here, sorry. SmolBrane (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The pandemic is the context and this is not an article about narrow epidemiology, but rather the hub article for everything to do with COVID-19 using the WP:COMMONNAME for the title. If you adopt the rule that the word "pandemic" nears to appear in all sources here, most of the article needs to be deleted (most notably in the several months before the pandemic was so declared). Bon courage (talk) 05:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not the same issue. The emergence of COVID-19 is relevant to the emergence of the pandemic, but the sustenance of pandemic-related commentary will require demonstrated DUEness to prevent WP:OR, and since Tedros' comments "in most countries, life has returned to “normal”." [257] Material regarding COVID-19 generally can be added to the COVID-19 article where DUE. SmolBrane (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

You're arguing that assessments from the WHO on COVID-19 are not due here? Seriously? (Note the COVID-19 article is focused on the disease itself, not its epidemiology. I think that's wrong, but the community consensus is against me.) Bon courage (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

You are mistaken--we are discussing the commentary from Australia about masks. This is not about the WHO. Please pay attention to the subject matter if you are going to be acting boldly. SmolBrane (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

You removed material from the WHO, and (oddly) WP:BURDEN. There is nothing about Australian masks in the article, yet anyway. Bon courage (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I removed the material from the WHO on a utilitarian DUEness argument; it tells the reader nothing and this article is too large. You should have initiated discussion after I reverted: WP:ONUS. Your articles about the Australian mask mandate and the UK mask mandate fail WP:V, a policy you cited in this very section. SmolBrane (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The UK stuff satisfied WP:V very well. There is nothing about Australian masks in the article, yet anyway. (Add: meanwhile, in Poland.[258]) Bon courage (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Stuff from a single country about masks coming back in some hospitals that does not even mention the word "pandemic" doesn't belong in the general historical overview or in this article at all. Perhaps in articles about those countries, though. Here, it is WP:OR (since pandemic status is not mentioned and is not stated by the source to be relevant). A few jurisdictions have stated their intention to bring back masks in at least some healthcare settings every winter going forward, on the partial grounds of flu and RSV transmission (i.e. clearly non-pandemic viruses), so such a mandate is not in itself sufficiently relevant. I don't agree that this is "the hub article for everything to do with COVID-19"; that should be COVID-19, while this is an article about a very specific historical period that may or may not be over, or over soon. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but COVID-19 is an article narrowly about the disease itself. So this is the hub article. I wish it were otherwise. Bon courage (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

this is the hub article please substantiate this statement with demonstrated consensus; it currently appears to be your personal opinion. SmolBrane (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

This source [259] also doesn't mention a pandemic and is therefore undue for the article. This article is already 382 kB, if it gets much larger it'll get short of breath! SmolBrane (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It's obvious. There's an entire (huge) section on the disease and its various attributes itself, for example. Asking for proof of "consensus" on obvious things is obtuse. Bon courage (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Asking for proof of "consensus" on obvious things is obtuse. Yikes. Don't forget this is a contentious topic! Did you know there are no prior mentions of treatment in the history timeline section? Seems like a weird time to start adding it in late 2023. SmolBrane (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

How does the figure for current total infections work?

I was just curious about this, because it's such an exact number, down to the first digit. But, not all cases are tracked so closely any longer. I'm curious how exactly they even track it these days. If they only document severe cases, or how that works.

I got COVID a few days and tried calling the local health unit to report it, here in Canada, and they didn't care in the slightest. So, they're clearly done tracking every aingle case like they used to.

Anyway, it was just a curious though I had. VoidHalo (talk) 09:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I look forward to hearing what you find. VoidHalo (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Add date in the infobox

In the infobox, it has the emergency health of concern (January 30, 2020 - May 5, 2023). Should the date of pandemic (March 11, 2020 - present) be added? Cwater1 (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe that point has been discussed already--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Here's one discussion: link.

As for the pandemic as a broader term, it's not likely there will be an identifiable specific day when sources agree it ended, but a gradual transition to past-tense. Even saying it started March 11, 2020 is not accurate - that is the day someone from the WHO first called it such, but as noted in the article here, the WHO does not actually make official declarations of that nature. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that it may be possible to get the pandemic's dates (using the technical/mathematical definition) down to a month (e.g., "March 2020", rather than "March 11, 2020"), but we'll know whether my guess is right when the experts publish their peer-reviewed papers on the subject. Wikipedia:I am not a reliable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

#18

I do apologize. I did not see that we were required to consult with others on the talk page before certain edits. However, the structure of the first sentence — as stated consensus 18 — is misaligned with the status of the pandemic. The covid19 crisis is no longer a pandemic and speaking in the article about it in the present tense is simply not accurate. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

see prior comments above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

is pandemic a is or was

is the pandemic present or past tense? Jatanea (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Present. Bon courage (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

past WP:OBVIOUS thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Present. HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

What??? ItsCheck (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Assuming they're asking if the pandemic is over. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

It's put as present tense due to the lack of sources presented so far as evidence that the WP:Due weight of sources now favor past tense. We're all busy people and maybe there has been a shift, and even if not yet there will be at some point, so it would be immensely helpful if recent sources were presented as evidence any time this comes up. Without that, we're stuck with 'is' as the status quo and because there is no central authority over whether it is a "pandemic" or not. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jatanea, what does the word pandemic mean to you? I find that a lot of people are unfamiliar with the technical definition, so they think "Oh, we've gotten used to it, so it's not a pandemic any longer".

There's a famous speech in US political history called If by whiskey. It addresses the same problem that we have here: If by whiskey, you mean something that causes alcoholism and the social evils, then the young politician was against it, but if by whiskey, you mean a pleasant experience, then he was all in favor of it. In this case, we say: If by pandemic, you mean that schools are closed, that hospitals are overwhelmed, that every month brings a new restriction to slow transmission and protect public health, then the pandemic is over, but if by pandemic, you mean that the rate of infection has stabilized at a predictable rate, then the pandemic is not over (or, if it recently ended, they haven't yet finished the calculations to prove that it's over). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

agree , it's not going away--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Quite. While the masses might use "pandemic" or "covid" in an informal way (e.g. "COVID's over!") Wikipedia has a more formal and professional way with words. Sometimes it align with conspiracist thinking, for example the belief that COVID never existed. Bon courage (talk) 14:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Not declared over by WHO Cwater1 (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

And they probably never will, because that is not something they do. [260] Other sources must be relied on for that. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

USA Today is a poor source for this, but this source is discussing new variants, not whether or not there is an ongoing pandemic. This article actually implies the the pandemic ended some time ago, as we are no longer in the wake of the pandemic either:

"New and ongoing COVID hospital admissions, COVID diagnoses in emergency rooms, and the percentage of test results positive for COVID, have risen steadily since November through the week ending Dec. 16. But they remain below that seen in the wake of and during the pandemic, according to the CDC."

When I google "is the pandemic over", I get excerpted boilerplate from westernu.ca about the end of the PHEIC. My opinion otherwise has not changed [261]. This is just a NOTNEWS issue at this point. Colloquially there doesn't seem to be a pandemic to observe, but sources will probably have to be backward looking to find the end of the pandemic. SmolBrane (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Objective meaning should be kept out of any article regarding a STEM topic. VoidHalo (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

What? The WHO declared the pandemic over. That is when the tense needs changing. How can the article have beginning and end dates of the pandemic while still referring to it in the present tense? Messy editing. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

"The WHO declared the pandemic over" ← wrong. Bon courage (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2024

Change the sentence "The WHO ended the PHEIC on 5 May 2023." to "The WHO ended the PHEIC on 5 May 2023, but not the pandemic status". This change will make the fact that the pandemic has not ended more clear.

Source: https://www.statnews.com/2023/05/05/who-declares-end-to-covid-global-health-emergency/ 91.140.28.92 (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

the source you indicate does not state the exact same words your requesting to change--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

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 [262] 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.[263] 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[264] 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. [265] 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 [266][267][268][269]). The Lancet described the pandemic as "far from over" in a January editorial [270] and does not appear to have changed that stance since. For example, an item published in May [271] 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 [272]). 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. [273]) 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[274] 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[275] also, as do quality MEDRS sources.[276][277]. 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.[278] 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.

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. [279][280] 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[281] 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)

NYT 4-Year Summary of Covid Studies Worth Adding?

QUESTION: Is the Following NYT 4-Year Summary of Covid Studies Worth Adding (here or in some other related Wiki article)? - if interested, my related NYT Comments are published here - Comments Welcome - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC) Drbogdan (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

needless to say it is very well written, however it would have been better had it been published in a journal or scientific-type magazine (in contrast to a newspaper) to introduce into this and other related articles--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done...have added to 'further reading' section,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Broken hyperlink on reference 152: "Post-COVID Conditions"

Link redirects to CDC 404. I believe this is the updated document: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects/ Highac3s (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_pandemic&diff=prev&oldid=1226139114 thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done

Comorbidities

The phrase "underlying conditions" is used, but no exact figures are given. The percentage of deaths said to be caused by Covid 19 that are also caused by comorbidities is anything from 90% to 98%. 2A00:23C4:7C90:9700:C867:C400:2EA:9D83 (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

RFC on current consensus #14

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Result of this RfC is partially overturned per this discussion at WP:AN. There is no consensus to include or exclude the "lab leak" theory, so Consensus 14 is no longer an accurate reflection of the current consensus. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

---

The following discussion 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.

---

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 [282] 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.[283] 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)

Does that mean it cannot be mentioned at all, even if appropriately qualified? Senorangel (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• Strike down #14 consensus, it's obvious that the possibility of the lab leak is not impossible anymore, and it is a heavily discussed element of the pandemic whether it's correct or not.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Strike down #14 consensus: it is covered semi-regularly in articles about the topic. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 18:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keep consensus 14 an RfC 5 months ago really means this RfC is out of process and shouldn't be happening. Arguing that the content has been in the article for a while is putting the cart before the horse. The content ought to have been removed per the previous RfC. There has been no argument presented her for overturning the previous RfC other than the content is in the article which it shouldn't be. So per Aquillion, remove the content also. TarnishedPath^talk 13:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
• keep concensus 14 for now--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2024 (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.

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.