Talk:List of epidemics and pandemics/Archive 1

Death needs to become two columns: one for global percentage and one for absolute number

Currently death estimates are all messed up in the one column, and should be separated so that it is easy to identify absolute numbers or percentage of global population

Fact Checking Hooray!

I've removed this item: Europe 1400 BC killed 90% of the population plague 3,400-year-old epidemic still plagues humans today: study. The given link is on a the site "Signs of the Times: Something Wicked This Way Comes" and references a 2009 publication in Nature Genetics by A. Stewart which I found and is called "Genetics of coronary artery disease: Results from the CARDIoGRAM meta-analysis". Gotta love science journalism. -Craig Pemberton 03:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS

Should not AIDS on the African continent be included here as an epidemic? I'm not adding it myself as I'm not sure the best way of portraying it or dating it.

More Fact-checking

Um, this reference, (no. 16, "The Fight to Eradicate a Global Scourge" used as a citation for 1617-19 in the Mass Bay Area needs attention. There were no European/English settlements in the area until 10 years later. The epidemic occurred, among the native Americans in the area, was probably a result of a brief landing by one of the exploratory or fishing groups that came to the area and left again. So "Mass Bay Colony" needs to be amended to something like "eastern shore of the area inhabited by the Massachusett, Wampanoag, Algonquian and other populations." It wasn't the Bay Colony until 1629/30.198.176.188.201 (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courtland 03:16, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

Has since been added to the sublist of pandemics. -- Beland 06:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, no evidence that it meets the classification of a pandemic offered in support at this time. - MSTCrow 19:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-added--not trying to start an edit war, but to leave it out baffles me. The wikipedia entry on AIDS identifies it as a pandemic, citing UNAIDS literature. If 38.6 million people around the world infected with an incurable disease does not qualify as a pandemic, what does?

Food for thought - AIDS shouldn't be listed under Africa, since AIDS is not a regional pandemic, but worldwide. The organization of the page seems to be worldwide, then regional, so worldwide pandemics shouldn't be listed in the regional sections. 69.7.41.230 (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solved the problem, listed it under Africa but made reference to it as a global disease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.220.24.15 (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to list all the notable hotspots and subsets of each pandemic we would quickly be swamped in data and research. Such details imply a higher quality of data for the article as a whole than it currently has. I do not see any clear reason why AIDS needs a separate listing for Africa since it is a global pandemic like 64.7.41.230 says. Yes, HIV/AIDS in Africa has a page, but so do HIV/AIDS in Asia, HIV/AIDS in Europe, HIV/AIDS in North America and HIV/AIDS in South America. Each epidemic should be listed once and only once. -Craig Pemberton 23:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet Fever

What about the 1928 scarlet Fever epidemic in the US? Didn't a ton of people dies in that? 75.48.13.248 (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you could provide a citation or a link to a page on Wikipedia then feel free to add it or I can add it for you. -Craig Pemberton 23:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List Organization

This partial list has only two sections / sorted by different criteria. I have some good reference material to add. I've been thinking of a more expansive list but what would be the best way to divide it up?

1) by date? good for historians. (i.e. divided into ancient history, medieval history, early modern history and modern day??)

2) by causal agent? good for medical readers. (i.e. smallpox, typhus, bubonic plague, unidentified agent etc??)

3) by geographic area -- (probably by continent??) good for epidemiologists and people interested in histories of individual countries. (but would cause duplication for most of the pandemics, and some epidemics in border regions.)

A few of us are knocking these things around on the discussion page of a (possibly temporary) page just called Plague. Your comments would be appreciated. WBardwin 05:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Efforts in this area are now found on List of historical plagues. A merge may be in our future. Please take a look. Comments? WBardwin 03:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics request

This list would be even better if it had statistics on number of people affected or killed. I have made other such lists into sortable tables, which allows readers to rank the list by different columns, dynamically. List of natural disasters by death toll has a start. -- Beland 06:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too! I think it would be useful to have a list of epidemics sorted by Body Count. Albmont (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe by body count - Ice-T is probably a bit busy these days. (Sorry!) --NellieBly (talk) 05:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've made the table sortable and looking at similar lists such as those on the list of disasters, adding a death toll would make this page more consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. Also I think it would put the epidemics in clearer context. If anybody would like to help me with gathering the data that would be great. -Craig Pemberton 23:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swine flu

Should this really be listed as an epidemic? Is it worse in any way then the yearly flu? CoNaan (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Some very small outbreaks are currently included, and as many people consider it an epidemic and will look for it here, I am leaving it in for now. You'll be glad to know, however, that it is now listed once instead of four separate times. -Craig Pemberton 00:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Deaths

Maybe we should list the total number of deaths for each epidemic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.149.242 (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have some more information on the deaths, forgive me for being new. I do not know how to format yet.

1832 cholera epidemic --

Paris, France (Up until April 7th, 1832) - 912

Fredrick, MD (For the day of September 22nd, 1832) - 7

Hagerstown, MD (For the day of September 20th, 1832) - 1

Baltimore, MD (For the day of September 22nd, 1832) - 6

New York, NY (Up until August 4th, 1832) - 1,982

Southbridge, Mass. (On the day of Sept. 14, 1832) - 1

Philadelphia, PA (For the week of August 3rd-8th) - 244

Albany, NY (For the 3rd-6th of August only) - 30

Boston, Mass. (on the day of Sept. 14th, 1832) - 3

This puts the total of deaths to at least 3,186 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.146.112.215 (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Human Epidemics

This 'List of Epidemics' refers only to human-related epidemics, which is not the general use of epidemic. Epidemics refer, generally, to the spread of disease in any host, including animals and plants. Some of the most important epidemics in history have been of plants, resulting in indirect effects of starvation and malnutrition in humans, such as the Irish potato famine, and should either be listed here or the title of the page altered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.155.96.6 (talk) 10:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not an expert, but epi- meaning "upon or above" and demic- meaning "people". Epidemics deal with disease in human, epizootic deal with disease animal. I'm not sure what the plant one is called. --Muhandes (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just remembered, epiphytotics. --Muhandes (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typhus

The dates on the early Typhus epidemics seem a mess and possibly incorrect when compared to the fairly comprehensive source of Hirsch Someone who knows more should take a look. -Craig Pemberton 07:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plague inconsistency

Table shows bubonic plague as a possible cause of Egypt epidemic of 1400BC. However, the Pandemic article states that the Plague of Justinian was the first recorded outbreak of bubonic plague. Issues:

Neither item is sourced.
If plague was the source of the Egyptian epidemic, how was that not an "outbreak"? (That is, does "outbreak", as used here, refer to some specific technical characteristic?)

Jmacwiki (talk) 03:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably justifiable to strike unsourced plagues from the list... there are plenty in the sources given that haven't even been put into the article yet. Craig Pemberton (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stumbled upon missing polio epidemics

Wikipedia's Poliomyelitis page says the following about some polio epidemics:

"Small localized paralytic polio epidemics began to appear in Europe and the United States around 1900. Outbreaks reached pandemic proportions in Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand during the first half of the 20th century."

I was really only interested in that specific piece of information, which I couldn't find on this page. Therefore I'm sure there are more polio epidemics stated by other articles, which all may very well qualify to be added to this page.

I can only be a messenger, I don't have the ambition right now to take on such work.

Keep up the good work for this great list!

--C.stadegaart (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on List of epidemics

Cyberbot II has detected links on List of epidemics which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.thehealthsite.com/news/swine-flu-in-india-2035-succumb-to-the-h1n1-virus/
Triggered by \bthehealthsite\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on List of epidemics

Cyberbot II has detected links on List of epidemics which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.thehealthsite.com/news/swine-flu-in-india-2035-succumb-to-the-h1n1-virus/
Triggered by \bthehealthsite\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

bold per era

Gorthian my though was

to bold in each era the epidemic that was most historically significant (due to death toll) ....we could put a note to clarify to the reader?

or

[1] while your correct we don't have enough information on all, we could compromise (references would be easy to find for the Black death[2] in its era, the Spanish influenza[3] in its era and the recent 2009 flu pandemic[4] and West Africa ebola[5]?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ozzie10aaaa. I'd rather leave the list entries un-emphasized. According to MOS:BOLD, boldface and italic text is specific only to certain uses in articles. Stylistically, I've not seen this sort of emphasis in list/table articles before. Is there one that you know of?

Also, "Historically significant" and "deadliest" are not necessarily the same thing. Deciding which epidemic to emphasize in each table borders on original research, partly because there are so many blank entries in the "death toll" column, and partly because the time periods are rather arbitrarily cut up by the tables. Finding similar comparisons in reliable sources would be unlikely.

Readers can sort each table by the death toll to come to their own conclusions: the numbers speak for themselves. — Gorthian (talk) 06:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

references

have added references to other epidemics on the list that are missing--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of epidemics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130607104352/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Plague to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Plague

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of epidemics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article vs city

A lot of the entries in the fourth column "Article" are actually just links to the general article on the region where the outbreak occurred, whether or not the article linked actually has any corroborating information on the outbreak. This is rather confusing. Pseudomonas_(talk) 20:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yes this is true--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So "Location" is supposed to be location of outbreak, not location where the whole epidemic occurred? The article doesn't say. It's confusing as some entries' Location column seems to denote the affected regions (sometimes continents), and then for HIV/AIDS it says ">30,000,000 Congo Basin" as if 30 million people had died in the Congo Basin. Maybe have two columns or at least define what location means?--92.214.199.65 (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

well, some(like HIV/AIDS) one can click to the article page for a better understanding, but not all entries have an article for that particular epidemic--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gene sequence evidence for 16th century Mexico City Epidemics

Genetic sequencing evidence: possible cause of the 1545-1548 and 1576 Mexico City Epidemics.

Salmonella enterica, the bacterium responsible for enteric fever, may be the long-debated cause of the 1545-1550 AD “cocoliztli” epidemic in Oaxaca, Mexico that heavily affected the native population.

"Possible cause of early colonial-era Mexican epidemic identified". Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. Retrieved 16 January 2018.
"Salmonella enterica genomes from victims of a major 16th century epidemic in Mexico". Nature Ecology and Evolution. 15 January 2018. doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0446-6. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)

Regards, --Catrachos (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[6]paywalled--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, we're stuck with the summaries for now. Initial research, so it probably shouldn't replace current content, not yet, but we can keep an eye on it. --Catrachos (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"London Flu" of 1972-1973

Someone with scholarly knowledge should add information about this influenza. Because the List of Epidemics is extensive and contains important information, clarity needs to come to this 72-23 variant. Searches for the "London Flu" are problematic, probably because it was considered to be the England Variant Influenza A of the Hong Kong flu. I say probably, not being a scholar in this myself.

Here is one article: http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM197312132892402

I'm sure there are many others.

KSRolph (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

London flu which is currently a redirect does not seem to have enough 'material'(sources[7]) to warrant an article...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arrangement of table

This seems backward: rather than being arranged by date, as it is a list of known epidemics; or place, or disease, all of which seem to make more sense in terms of "placing" an event in history, the first column is total death. Is there some public health convention for this? Otherwise, it should be changed to make it more logical for readers.Parkwells (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

so which specific column would you go w/ first?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plague or Pestis Flava?

The causes of the British plagues of the 7th century need clarifying. Yersinia or Borrelia? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_of_664 Vince Calegon (talk) 10:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Democratic Republic of the Congo Ebola virus outbreak

waiting to see what WHO declares, to therefore add above article to this list...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

is under control[8][9]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

second outbreak

second outbreak in North Kivu DRC has yielded 169 cases/144 deaths^[1], therefore will observe for possible listing in this article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

new 741 total cases/374 deaths have added to list^[2]
epidemic?

ref

^ "EBOLA RDC - Evolution de la riposte contre l'épidémie d'Ebola dans les provinces du Nord Kivu et de l'Ituri au Jeudi 18 octobre 2018". mailchi.mp. Retrieved 18 October 2018.
^ "EBOLA RDC - Evolution de la riposte contre l'épidémie d'Ebola dans les provinces du Nord Kivu et de l'Ituri au Samedi 5 janvier 2019". us13.campaign-archive.com. Retrieved 6 January 2019.

My edit was removed

Can anybody tell me why my addition of the "1998-1999 Malaysia Nipah Virus outbreak" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998%E2%80%9399_Malaysia_Nipah_virus_outbreak) was removed? If no reason is provided I will add it back again.(please sign post)

sign your post and please indicate which edit, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qualification to be listed

Shouldn't there be some criteria that needs to be met to show up on this list? For example, on the Epidemic page it states that an outbreak is considered an epidemic if the attack rate in excess of 15 cases per 100,000 people for two consecutive weeks.

Some of these listing don't meet that standard. For example:

17 deaths in India in 2018 from Nipah virus
1 death in Mozambique in 2019 from Cholera
The current coronavirus at 26 deaths. (The population of Wuhan China is 11.08 million)

These, and others listed, are not epidemics and should be removed. Jared.h.wood (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you have a point, however it may take more editor opinions to realize a lower numerical limit--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for article improvement

I think this article could be improved by making the following changes:

Rename article to "List of notable epidemics" and restrict to epidemics that either have a Wikipedia article already, or would be considered notable enough to have one should someone take the time to create one;
Add death toll estimates to all rows (this should be easier once the change above has been made);
Make death toll estimate formats more consistent;
Rename the column called "Article" to something like "Name" or "Commonly known as", and add a name to the column even if the epidemic does not have a Wikipedia article.

I'm going to make a small start on this now, but as I won't have time to get through the whole article I'm logging my thoughts here.

ToastedLion (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the problem with your suggestion(theory) is that there would need to be consensus as to what makes an epidemic notable. Certainly the 'Black Death', the 'Spanish Flu' or "West Africa Ebola' would be easy to agree. However the recent coronavirus in China has a low CFR, yet isn't it notable?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with you that defining notability is challenging, but there are existing guidelines at least: WP:EVENT ToastedLion (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I went with "Event" for the name column. ToastedLion (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coronavirus

This is epidermic is from China, Just like sars. The statistics show that infection levels are far more concentrated in China than other regions with very limited countries having any kind of outbreak.

>99% of infections and >99% deaths have occurred in China. Why would this be classified as a "worldwide" epidemic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.251.146 (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes per [10], however given time it could evolve given suspected cases (in other countries) that begin to become 'confirmed cases'...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

notability?

epidemic or pandemic or just endemic? A lot of these seem to be outbreaks that are NOT epidemics, but just show an endemic disease e.g. Mumps in the 2000s that is ongoing. Also where is HPV - which has clearly been present and killed many more people through cancer over the last 50years than some here? The article needs better definitions to be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemic should be merged with this article OR at least the list from that article moved to here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the later suggestion would be best--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

H1N1

Just wondering, but why isn't H1N1 on the list? 2620:101:F000:2C01:0:0:0:1D8 (talk) 05:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish flu and 2009 flu pandemic are there. Whispyhistory (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is polio prior to 1971?

In the U.S.A. alone, for example: in 1916 over 7,000 deaths occurred and 27,363 cases were reported; in 1949 2,720 deaths occurred from polio, and 42,173 cases were reported; in 1952 polio killed 3,300; 57,628 cases reported, according to archived InfoPlease web site.Curious405 (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great point and speaks to the spottiness of some of the entries in the list. I think we can do a lot better. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I updated the page for polio in the USA for the individual years 1916, 1946, 1949, and 1952. However, the reference I used for this information shows that from the years 1910 through 1960, polio killed over 59,100 people in the USA, and from the years 1961 through 1983 it killed an additional 388 people in the USA. (The vaccine was introduced in the USA on a wide scale in 1954.) I'm not sure how to incorporate this more complete death information into the list.Curious405 (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

estimated death toll for 2009 flu pandemic

The column for deaths in this article states that the numbers given are estimates; for many epidemics, these are ranges (which reflect the uncertainty). The CDC source is an appropriate secondary reference and explicitly states "The study, co-authored by 9 members of the CDC Influenza Division, used an improved modeling approach which resulted in an estimated range of deaths from between 151,700 and 575,400." In keeping with the global estimates given throughout the article, this seems to be appropriate range of numbers to give in the "Death toll (estimate)" column. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, folks seem insistent on changing this to the WHO's ~18,000 official tally. The WHO itself has this to say about that: "The number of pandemic deaths reported to WHO by its member states during the influenza A(H1N1) pandemic of 2009/10 is based on laboratory confirmation and is widely considered a gross underestimate for a number of reasons... WHO is currently working with two teams, one from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (USCDC) and a second from the Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), to produce independent estimates of the influenza deaths that occurred during the global pandemic using two distinct methodologies. The process has been overseen by a committee of technical experts from around the world which has periodically reviewed the progress of the groups and provided critical advice for improvement..." The CDC's global estimate *is* WHO's estimate. It's appropriate to use this estimate just as it's appropriate to use estimated death tolls (where available) for the other epidemics listed. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this only broken down by century? Why can't I sort for all time?

Why is this only broken down by century? This makes it very difficult for someone to quickly get information such as a list of the deadliest outbreaks. Ikjbagl (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely open to that. The list is pretty inaccurate, spotty, incomplete, and subjective regarding how an epidemic is categorized and what time period it's added to (eg HIV, Smallpox). On the other hand, categorizing by time period may allow for better apples-to-apples comparisons; eg smallpox killed 500 million between 1877-1977, more than twice the high estimate for the Black Death, but the latter happened across a much smaller population and across a shorter time period (20 years vs 100 years), killing a greater relative proportion. That said, I'm open to doing away with the time period categories. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried it out in a sandbox here. It was really easy to do the merging; I'll actually merge it if I get another couple people in agreement, or if I get no dissent in a reasonable period of time. Ikjbagl (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

oppose... time periods are very important(they establish a historical line back to the Plague of Athens and right up to the present)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your input, but the entries would still be ordered by date and would be sortable by date, so I don't really agree that information would be lost.Ikjbagl (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

no worries, Im fairly familiar w/ the article[11] --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

agree (tentative) for the record. I honestly don't see a problem with it, but I'm open to arguments against. Looks like many will need sort values adjusted/added, but that's no big deal. As far as a historical timeline, we'll still have the date column, and AFAIK, the tables are already set to sort by date, so I don't think that's a problem. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree (my own proposal) (agreeing for the record). Ikjbagl (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree A simple bolding of the first event of a century would make it easy to spot. I like easy sorting options instead of having to cut and paste several tables into my own spreadsheet. Dcs002

Seeing no significant dissent, I am going to make the change now. Thank you for comments. Ikjbagl (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the list being broken down by century was important for human comparison. If you sort all epidemics by deaths, that makes some epidemics looks "smaller" out of their historical context, people these days are spreading misinformation by comparing Covid 19 with Spanish flu, Black Death and other epidemics from centuries ago. AndreAugusto2 (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2017-18 flu season was an epidemic according to the CDC

The word "flu" or "influenza" appears 44 times in the article. It is the causative agent for many of the epidemics and pandemics listed. Some of the deadliest epidemics and pandemics listed in this article were caused by the flu. The CDC classifies flu as an "epidemic" if the death toll crosses a particular threshold; this is outlined in this comprehensive CDC article, "An increase in mortality typically accompanies an influenza epidemic. Increased mortality results not only from influenza and pneumonia but also from cardiopulmonary and other chronic diseases that can be exacerbated by influenza. ... The cost of a severe epidemic has been estimated to be $12 billion. ... The epidemic threshold for influenza seasons is generally estimated at 1.645 standard deviations above observed P and I deaths for the previous 5-year period excluding periods during influenza outbreaks." According to the CDC, the 2017-18 flu season, which resulted in over 80,000 deaths in the US alone, "was at or above the epidemic threshold for 16 consecutive weeks." Influenza causes epidemics and the CDC says that it was an epidemic, therefore I see no reason why it shouldn't be on the list. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

if you have a ref/source, then ok--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest one more narrow column to the tables

I think there should be an indicator for each event to indicate whether it was a cluster, outbreak, epidemic, pandemic, or unknown, at least for the 20th & 21st centuries. Is that language standardized in the article? Dcs002 (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

some events already indicate what your describing--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No best to leave it alone, it helps to study which epidemics had the most impact on each century also no need to create one giant billboard of deadlist epidemics.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem necessary given the current coverage. Ikjbagl (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible column for case numbers?

Since this is a list of epidemics surely there should be a column for the number (estimates or officially confirmed) of cases like we already have number of deaths? Also if I have done this wrong it is because this is my first time using the talk page, thanks. Sezalilly (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

soft Oppose: Only the most recent diseases will have accurate counts of this information. I agree that it would be useful if we had this information, but unless you can show that a meaningful number of rows of this table will have entries for your new column, I don't think it should be added. As a rough initial guess, I think you should be prepared to provide numbers for 30-40% of the cases on this page if you are going to suggest a useful new column. Ikjbagl (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article name change

The current name is incorrect as this page has always been for specifically the number of deaths cause by different epidemics as can be seen above the page’s image that says ‘List of deaths caused by infectious disease’. Which explains my earlier post as to why there is no column for total cases for each epidemic. This change will help to give clarity that has previously been confusing as to the purpose of the list, thanks. Sezalilly (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose: I don't know what you're talking about here. This is a list of epidemics and has many data values for each epidemic, such as location, number of deaths, time period, etc. It's not just a list of numbers of deaths. I don't see any reason to change the article name.Ikjbagl (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I might have been mistaken but the description of the article used to say it is a list of deaths and as I said previously above the image used it also still states this. Honestly I am not sure how to explain this but I do remember originally finding this article as just a list for number of deaths as a link from another article (if it was for epidemics overall there would have been a list of case number too surely?) which is why I brought this up. I see how it would be a list of just epidemics but the caption above the image would make no sense then as far as I can tell as well as the previous description. Sezalilly (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

> or + ?

What's the common usage for "more than", > or +? I see they're both used in this article. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in the case of the West Africa Ebola epidemic, it has always been indicated via media and journals, that the actual 'dead count' is much, much higher than the 11,000 that has been cited. The problem is many were dead and buried before being tested for the virus and many died that were not even counted as cases, therefore we place ">" to indicate a number greater than,,,,we know its a lot more, we simply do not know how much more--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But what's the standard Wikipedia rule for this? ">" or "+"? Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1915-1926 Encephalitis lethargica pandemic reference

There is currently no internal reference for that particular pandemic. While there is no specific page on the subject, a link could be pointed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalitis_lethargica#The_encephalitis_lethargica_pandemic_of_1915%E2%80%931926

1978-1979 Disseminated Histoplasmosis outbreak in Indianapolis

From 1978 to 1979, during a large urban Disseminated Histoplasmosis outbreak of 100,000 victims in Indianapolis, victims had pericarditis, rheumatological syndromes, esophageal and vocal cord ulcers, parotitis, adrenal insufficiency, uveitis, fibrosing mediastinitis, interstitial nephritis, intestinal lymphangiectasia, and epididymitis.

From 1938 to 2013, a total of 105 U.S. outbreaks of Disseminated Histoplasmosis were reported in 26 states and the territory of Puerto Rico.

will look at both--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2020

This edit request to List of epidemics has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Update corona virus death toll to 182,992 Editorman322892 (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2020

This edit request to List of epidemics has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Update Corona death toll to 217,183 Editorman322892 (talk) 05:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Editorman322892:

Done - updated to 218,564 per https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 GoingBatty (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please help! Edit-warring and the upper limit for the 2017–2018 United States flu season

An IP user is constantly editing the upper limit for the death toll in this article and in 2017–2018 United States flu season; the cited CDC references show a range of 46,000-95,000. The individual is constantly editing this and I'm worried about an edit war per WP:EW. Note that I've posted in the talk section for that article as well. The IP editor doesn't seem to seeing the edit history (where I've mentioned the cited ref explicitly). I've messaged the IP user via their talk page but I don't think that will be of any help. I'm unsure of what to do since the guidelines don't seem mention what to do regarding the potential for edit warring with IP editors. I'm confident that the user won't see because they won't bother to look at the talk page either. Can anyone offer help or guidance? Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

report to ANI/or administrator--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that the IP editor who'd been insisting on an upper limit of "80,000" might be misled by this text in the CDC's archived page for the 2017-18 flu epidemic: "CDC estimates that influenza was associated with more than 48.8 million illnesses, more than 22.7 million medical visits, 959,000 hospitalizations, and 79,400 deaths during the 2017–2018 influenza season." If I'm not mistaken, we previously discussed this in the talk. This was the CDC's original point estimate for the death toll (not the upper limit of the range). This is why the cited news articles state "over 80,000" died. The CDC revised the estimate downward to 61,000, with a range of 46,404-94,987, corroborated by the second CDC reference here. There's no CDC source I'm aware of that states the upper limit as 80,000. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same issues with them, but I know where they are coming from. You originally posted it at just 80,000 now you wanna change it to 95,000? Also why not go by the two offical numbers 61,000 and 79,400? 95,000 is crazy high that would be on the level of Hong Kong Flu and asian flu.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"You originally posted it at just 80,000 now you wanna change it to 95,000?" Check the edit history. The 80,000+ was from news media articles (such as this one). Later, I noticed that someone (I don't know who) added a CDC reference, a sort value, and a range; I checked the CDC reference and, strangely, it had a completely different range and point estimate than the one the person added. You can see that here. All that happened was that I looked in the reference the person added and adjusted the numbers accordingly. As far as going by official numbers, the official range is 46,000 to 95,000 (as can be seen in the two CDC references); 79,400 was the original (now incorrect) point estimate. 61,000 is the current point estimate, but since the uncertainty is on the order of 10s of thousands, it's best to convey the range (especially since that's what we have for every other epidemic). As far as whether it's "crazy" or not, the CDC originally thought it was much higher than this, as several major news outlets reported. BTW, I don't think personal incredulity is a valid argument here; the CDC's 95% confidence interval goes up to 95,000 (shrug). If there were another reference from a reliable source that said this is "too high" or "unlikely," that would be one thing, but to my knowledge no reliable source disputes the CDC's estimates on this, so I don't think it's appropriate for us to adjudicate the science when the CDC has already done so. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well ask the CDC why didnt they have it listed as a level 2 on the Pandemic severity index thats the same rate as the Hong Flu and Asian Flu that killed 100,000 and 116,00 americans respectively. Also we have the confirmed deaths for the coronavirus, not the projected. If we go by projected it could be a lot higher (factoring in the people that died at home) or lower (if it wasnt the leading cause) list just one number as confirmed.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the issue (that is the CDC range of 46,000-95,000). Since you mention it, there are 130 million more people in the US than in 1968, meaning that the 2017-18 flu had nearly half the mortality rate (per population) as the Hong Kong flu. The coronavirus is a complete and total non-sequitur. BTW, worth mentioning that it seems the IP user is back and not interested in the Talk page. My only position is that the range should be listed as in the CDC references. According to the CDC, "An influenza pandemic is a global outbreak of a new influenza A virus that is very different from current and recently circulating human seasonal influenza A viruses." I'm not aware of any reference claiming this was the case for the 2017-18 flu (so again, no idea why you bring it up). The 2017-18 flu was however an influenza "epidemic" (remember the name of our article here). As I said previously in this Talk page: The CDC classifies flu as an "epidemic" if the death toll crosses a particular threshold; this is outlined in this comprehensive CDC article, "An increase in mortality typically accompanies an influenza epidemic. Increased mortality results not only from influenza and pneumonia but also from cardiopulmonary and other chronic diseases that can be exacerbated by influenza. ... The cost of a severe epidemic has been estimated to be $12 billion. ... The epidemic threshold for influenza seasons is generally estimated at 1.645 standard deviations above observed P and I deaths for the previous 5-year period excluding periods during influenza outbreaks." According to the CDC, the 2017-18 flu season "was at or above the epidemic threshold for 16 consecutive weeks." This is veering into forum style discussion. The CDC is obviously WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, so what's the problem? Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an issue I was pointing out why the IPs were changing it. They think you are buffering it up to compare it with the severity of the coronavirus. Also, it's not a nonsequitur because its like buying something and someone telling you its either 46 or 95 dollars. Well which is it? Other Flus just have a single number listed when it comes to US death tolls. But if you want to keep iy you should go by the official numbers (46,404 – 94,987) It wasn't quite 95k deaths.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The uncertainty is on the order of 10s of thousands, so it makes sense to round per MOS:UNCERTAINTY and significant figures; I round the lower limit down and upper limit up per the rounding rules in those two articles. As far as wanting to "buffer it up," I am arguing for a point estimate that is 20,000 deaths lower than the one the IP users were insisting on (61,000 vs 80,000). The 80,000 number is simply not the CDC's point estimate anymore, period (corroborated by politifact here). The point estimate is 61,000 and the uncertainty is between 46,000 and 95,000. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endemics

The 1877–1977 smallpox pandemic that took 500 million lives is listed as one event. Since this lasted 100 years, shouldn't it be called an Endemic? Same could be said about the HIV/AIDS pandemic. And in that case it should be noted in the article's intro. And if endemics are to be added, tuberculosis should be on the list as well. In fact it took the most lives of anything else, over a billion in total. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it would depend what sources call it endemic as opposed to epidemic--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I'm the one who added smallpox, but I don't disagree with you at all. I think the naming conventions (what's an epidemic and how long does it last) are very fuzzy, and I'm honestly not sure small pox and HIV should be on the list (despite the fact that both have been called epidemics and pandemics). I have a feeling organizations like WHO often use the term more to draw public attention and awareness. Believe it or not, according to the WHO, we could put obesity on this list. That doesn't make sense to me. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What we could do is make a new section with the endemics, so they're still on the page, but more accurately displayed. Tuberculosis, HIV, Smallpox and maybe even malaria endemics that spread out over ages could be listed there. Agree? Obesity is not an infectious disease so it shouldn't be on this page, though I agree it's weird some call it an "epidemic". Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I definitely support this idea. Might be hard to disentangle endemic infectious disease from epidemics and pandemics though (many epidemics are of viruses that are already endemic, eg flu). Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

prior to this please do a RfC (or I can post for more opinions at talk/wikiproject Medicine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzie10aaaa I didn't really plan to go this deep into editing on Wikipedia, I have no clue what Rfc is and how to use it. Checked it out but I'm not familiar with all this. But I guess this is a pretty vague subject so maybe there needs to be consensus about this before an endemic table is to be made. It's always good to have more people have their two cents thrown in. The same "issue" also occurs here and I've already sought help at its talk page. I'd be glad if you or anyone else picks this up to find a resolution. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aquatic Ambiance then be familiar, particularly with WP:RS and WP:NOR. Please do not go doing disruptive editing on Wikipedia without reading and understanding the policies. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so an endemic is by definition bound to a particular geographical region, according to the page itself and vocabulary.com. "A disease that is endemic is found in a certain geographic region or in a specific race of people. Malaria is endemic to parts of Africa because it's hot and skeeters love it. Tay-Sachs is a genetic disease endemic to Jews and French Canadians. On the brighter side, a plant or animal can also be described as endemic to a region. If it's in the system, it's endemic." Meaning this will rule out the smallpox epidemic that killed 500 million, and HIV because they were/are worldwide. Only malaria and tuberculosis could be mentioned separate. But maybe just a few lines of text would be better than a table? With that said, I'm not sure if when epidemics last 100 years, we can still call it 1 epidemic. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good contribution. FWIW, I support removing Smallpox and HIV/AIDS on these grounds so long as we also remove Malaria and TB (since those fit the same definition as well). Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, "endemic" is an adjective, not a noun, and it has nothing to do with whether a disease breaks out and to what extent. Second, we shouldn't exclude relevant and due content just because of a minor semantic disagreement.[12] If HIV/AIDS, Smallpox or anything else is described as an "epidemic" or a "pandemic", then it should be listed here regardless of how long it went on. François Robere (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, they have been removed based purely on WP:NOR, without complying to WP:RS and based solely on the views of two users without reaching a consensus. I have no intention of adding them back however, the article is a mess regardless. However as long as WP:RS cites them epidemics they are indeed epidemics, and the personal WP:NOR violating views of two users do not count. Years do not matter in case of epedemic, whether they last 1 year or 100 years, epidemics are epidemics. And no one is saying Tuberculosis shouldn't be added, and many WP:RS calls it an epidemic too. There should have been a consensus before such removal, but I will let it go. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding swine flu exact number

What is the 284,000 based on? that number does not appear anywhere in the cited source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.117.13.53 (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And what did you find out? Because the numbers in the table are still unchanged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.117.13.53 (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP please look at WP:Be Bold--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

O rly? When i tried the same edit before, this was the response on my talk page: "Quit messing with the swine flu numbers, thank you--Fruitloop11 (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)"

2013-19 avian influenza epidemic

The term "China influenza" has 12,200 search results; the term "Avian influenza" has nearly 4,700,000. This title for the epidemic isn't merited. François Robere (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

actually agree w/ Aquatic Ambiance--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

A Google Scholar search for "China flu" (delimited to 2013-2019) returns 39 results; "Avian flu" - 10,700. François Robere (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

we can do a RfC--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Any particular board, or just here? François Robere (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

here--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Titling the 2013-19 influenza epidemic

(Non-admin closure)Option 1 has been determined to be best choice by a very large amount of vote(unanimous), thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Regarding these edits:[13][14][15][16] Should the 2013-19 influenza be titled:

2013–19 Avian influenza epidemic
2013–19 China influenza epidemic
2013–19 China avian influenza epidemic
Something else (please state what)

If #2, then should the term "avian influenza" be mentioned elsewhere (eg. the "disease" column [17])? 10:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Option #1, alternatively option #3. Searching "Google" and "Google Scholar" for the period of 2013-2019, the term "China influenza" returns 1,990 and 39 results respectively, while the term "Avian influenza" returns 323,000 and 10,700 results. The latter is clearly much more well known. François Robere (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
option #1, alternatively option #3 after giving this much though I'll go w/ François Robere--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already fixed this on the page, it should be uniform with the rest, as it is now. That's #2. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not every epidemic is known by a placename. François Robere (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Option #1 since there's less likely to be controversy with that title. (Summoned by bot) I dream of horses (talk page) (Contribs) Remember to notify me after replying off my talk page. 08:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option #1 for reasons stated above. If not that, then Option 3 if other editors must have a place name in there. LiPollis (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option #1 per other editors' comments. I don't like option #3, but if a place name is necessary for clarity, I'd also support something like "2013-2019 Avian influenza epidemic in China" Arathald (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 per I dream of horsesThe creeper2007^Talk! 22:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 due to this referring to a specific strain of the virus. WHO also have a policy of no longer naming illnesses after regions - this both stigmatizing the region and is inaccurate because diseases do not respect political / regional boundaries. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2020

This edit request to List of epidemics has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Include HIV/AIDS 2602:304:CDAC:E9C0:BD45:8B03:951F:C22E (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was removed a few weeks ago with this edit by User:Fdr2001. I'm fairly surprised at their removal from this list honestly, but I'm not an expert in this area at all. Leaving this request open for further comment. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 00:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ElHef, They never gave a valid reason for revert, the ES is confusing, I think the edits should be reverted. If he cites sources or gives a valid reason for removal, they can revert back their edits Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Reason in edit summary. Thanks Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really an epidemic if it spans decades? Fdr2001 (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Small pox 1877-1977. Should be placed in the 19th century. Since it started in that century.

It was placed the year that it ended in 1977. TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a list of the biggest known epidemics (including pandemics) caused by an infectious disease." The list then goes on to include "epidemics" with as few as two human deaths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.116.101 (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two Australian Epidemics that are not included on this list

In 1900 there was a bubonic plague outbreak in Sydney https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/bubonic-plague-sydney-how-a-city-survived-the-black-death-in-1900/news-story/f36b9184eba49c72ae9791c574f7b826

In 1937 there was a polio outbreak in Australia https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/remembering-australia-s-polio-scourge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombie1212 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Be Bold--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1 mistake

In 1937 polio epidemic Australia (death toll) box it is left blank. There is nothing inside it. Please either put the number of people died if you know and if you do not know then put unknown in the box. It has been left empty.

Thank You, Raymachine24 (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for pointing this out--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kivu Ebola epidemic

Is it better to remove the 2020 Democratic Republic of the Congo Ebola outbreak since it's part of the already listed Kivu Ebola epidemic? Cheers Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Including percentage of population

I don't know how viable this would be, but it would be useful to have the percentage of the population killed as a column. This would give the ability to see which pandemics have killed a greater share of the population at that time. The biggest challenge would obviously be working out what the population was at that time, especially where the pandemic goes for a long time, e.g., HIV/AIDS.

(It probably would have to be share of the world's population, rather than just the affected region, since a lot of pandemics don't have clear boundaries, so determining population would be hard.)

Any thoughts on whether that's worth doing and, if so, how? El T (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

how(what source) is the most important point--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raw estimate and OR

@Aquatic Ambiance:, hi! Please read WP:OR and my explanation here: "nothing like this in the source (for example, for tuberculosis the number is ill people, not dead people), and moreover this source is not reliable, and while it gives sources, they provide only separate numbers, so it kind of OR". The source is some newspaper and thus not WP:RS. It provides other sources, which are RS, but they do not have your statement, it is OR. Wikisaurus (talk) 12:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my "own research". I provided a link, that cites a source from the World Health Organization. The source says "Research suggests that as many as 1 billion people have lost their lives to TB over the past two centuries..", and it's probably even more about now. So it's clearly not ill people, but deaths. And they are raw estimates. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wikisaurus, a vote is usually needed before a source can be determined as reliable or not. if you think 1 out of every 2 people in recorded history has died of malaria then I have some Snake Oil I would like to sell you.--2601:3C5:8200:97E0:D890:682A:8B87:13D9 (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

malaria 50 billion is bullsh&#

The 50 billion from malaria is the most silliest thing I have ever heard. even the article adds a question mark at the end. There have been 108 billion people who have lived on this earth you are telling me half died from malaria. impossible--2601:3C5:8200:97E0:D890:682A:8B87:13D9 (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and I linked 2 trustworthy sources while you've linked zero for your claim, I even linked Nature which is one of the most trust worthy sources and you still deny it, while giving no evidence for your claim.- User:Garmin21, 2 October

What proof do you have it's bullshit? There's a link provided that gives all the info you need. Malaria kills 1.2 million each year and it's been around for centuries. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absent a valid WP:MEDRS, we should not be citing popular magazines for extravagant figures such as 50 billion deaths from malaria. I just did a small amount of digging through Google Scholar, and could not find anything even close to approximating the claim that malaria killed half of all humans. Obviously, our main article malaria does not mention this claim, either. While not an acceptable MEDRS, one of Garmin21's own sources, "Has Malaria Really Killed Half of Everyone Who Ever Lived?" from RealClearScience (affiliated with RealClearPolitics) cites Professor Brian Faragher as stating that (extrapolating from limited data) the real number is probably less than a tenth of that.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The sourcing here is terrible. The main source used is a non-WP:MEDRS, and the rest is a passing speculative remark in Nature that doesn't even remotely pass WP:RSCONTEXT along with two non-WP:MEDRS. The only source which actually supports the 50 billion figure is this one which isn't a WP:MEDRS and which outright notes that the figure is questionable, whereas this one from Nature only says "Malaria may have killed half of all the people that ever lived" (i.e. nothing about 50 billion), this one makes the case that the figure is probably way too high, and this one only verifies that one can get malaria more than once. As a result, the way this paragraph is currently written is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, with the text arguing with itself and the sources being used improperly in an argumentative way. If you still think this is proper sourcing for this material, you could try asking WP:RSN or WT:MED, but I would recommend against it in the interest of not wasting everybody's time.

All of that is not even getting into the fact that the cumulative death tolls of infectious diseases throughout all of human existence is not even remotely within the scope of an article about epidemics. This is reason enough to remove the entire paragraph. TompaDompa (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer kills way more a year than malaria. For malaria to have a death toll at 50 billion that would mean everyone who ever lived would have had to have it and the fatality rate at 50+ percent. Also its already been debunked. I mean just use logic and simple math [18]--Fruitloop11 (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your article doesn't debunk anything Fruitloop11, it says it close to true and we don't know the real numbers. Though my guess would be somewhere in the ball park of 20 billion death from malaria in human history. there is no research papers showing the cumulated death toll of malaria in human history, or at least that I could find ,so I think we should state the nature article toll but we say its speculation next to it. Sorta like this "the world wide death toll from malaria is speculated to be at 50 billion, but the real toll remains unknown." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garmin21 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we had proper WP:MEDRS sourcing for that—which we don't—this still isn't the correct article for information about the cumulative death toll of an infectious disease throughout all of human existence. TompaDompa (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fruitloop11's source is clearly unreliable and he should not have cited it, but that's orthogonal to the point that the 50 billion figure is dubious and lacks grounding in the highest-quality reliable sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The guy who wrote it Thomas DeMichele has a degree in microbiology and it is well researched. Using the math he gave it would indeed be impossible for malaria to be at 50 billion deaths. Garmin21 might wanna work on your reading comprehension he said "Malaria would have needed to kill an average of about 5 ½ million people a year to kill half of everyone who ever lived" --Fruitloop11 (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Text formatting?

I noticed that some pandemics are in boldface; what's the significance? I'm assuming that they represent ongoing pandemics, but that should probably be explained in the body of the article as well. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and added it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Title of article is Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS

I tried to change the name on the page here to the correct name, but a user keeps reverting me to change it to a redirect. Enigma^msg 19:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enigmaman, I believe the reason is to fit the same convention that other outbreaks, epidemics, and pandemics are given here. For example, further down the list is Mweka ebola epidemic. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 21:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the smallpox number go?

I think they should be included. I realize smallpox was a long lasting epidemic/pandemic so counting it as a single event may be difficult, but since its eradication the number of deaths has not increased. Would it be possible to add a total number of people killed by it throughout history? In "history of smallpox" the number is 300-500 million. Why not add it here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.157.148.184 (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was an endemic, not an epidemic. This is a list of epidemics (and pandemics), not a list of most deathly diseases. Tuberculosis has killed over a billion, and there are claims that malaria killed over 500 billion. But it's only speculation, and these are not single epidemics. Then why is HIV on this list you might ask? It's because the WHO calls it a "global pandemic". I guess Wikipedia can only go with what authorities say, and it's understandableAquatic Ambiance (talk) 10:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While true, smallpox mostly killed in outbreaks (some of them are even listed here), so why not include the total amount as well? And as far as "endemic" is concerned, wikipedia itself states: "Endemism is the state of a species being native to a single defined geographic location". Smallpox was all over the world - a "global endemic" is not a thing, it is then "cosmopolitan distribution" - a total opposite. And regarding HIV, it was never endemic, because the exact origin of it was never pinpointed. It is only assumed it started in west Africa. even on wikipedia itself there are claims that say it was actually central Africa (Congo).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.157.148.184 (talk • contribs)

Smallpox was introduced to the Americas, from the Old World, by European colonizers. It killed millions on both continents - up to 90% of the Native Americans, specifically because it was NOT endemic and they had never encountered the disease before. I can't see any justification for ignoring this. IS there any reason to ignore it, other than racism? Plenty of other plagues with unknown death tolls and vastly smaller geographic spreads are listed, but you ignore the single biggest killer of Native Americans. 2601:441:4400:1740:E1D7:E6E8:88F:2579 (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you have read the list carefully. The smallpox in Mexico is already listed, as "1520 Mexico smallpox epidemic". Two other epidemics "Cocoliztli Epidemic of 1545–1548" and "Cocoliztli epidemic of 1576" are also listed. Kutu126b (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The list includes the small, localized epidemics for smaller areas, single Native nations, and later in the 1600s. I'm talking about the huge first wave of North America (north of Mexico). It came after the European landing at ?Plymouth? and spread across all of eastern North America. It preceeded the "first thanksgiving" and (for example) apparently wiped out the entire Native population of Pennsylvania, to the point that there is no record of any language or nation names from that whole area, because everyone was dead before Europeans explored Penn. It also appears to have caused the collapse of the complex settled societies in the Southeast. The fact that so few white people have even heard of it is a serious problem. Most history books don't admit it happened. 2601:441:4400:1740:983A:385E:141:61F3 (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I learned about it in college but it's very hard to find information. I can't even recall if there was a separate wave of smallpox spreading from Russian contacts in the Pacific northwest. 2601:441:4400:1740:983A:385E:141:61F3 (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 ranking (15/01/2021)

As of January 15th, 2021 based on current prevalent information, COVID-19 is ranked the 13th deadliest outbreak in recorded history recently surpassing the Persian Plague 1772-73 and a deadly smallpox outbreak in Japan around 8th century. If death trends continue with higher daily deaths then around spring 2021 COVID-19 would be likely in the top 10 deadliest outbreaks in recorded history having reached 2.7M - 2.8M deaths. Asian Flu and Hong Kong Flu would be still deadlier considering they owned 1M to 4M lives in mid 20th century.

In terms of infected people, not confirmed cases but ESTIMATES! COVID-19 would be the second largest outbreak with nearly 1 billion infections worldwide (multiply the confirmed cases currently with number 10) being only ahead to surpass the 2009 flu pandemic which infected up to 1.4 billion people.

14:04 UTC AustroHungarian1867 — Preceding undated comment added 14:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

so your point is...?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just wasted 3 minutes of my life reading this. Please don't leave meaningless messages again. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What a load of BS. Firstly, covid has already caused far more victims than both the Asian flu and the Hong Kong flu; secondly, it has not infected one billion people, unless there are 7-8 million unrecorded deaths. Aiuredy (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tuberculosis

I've found multiple sources that name Tuberculosis, as a whole, a "worldwide epidemic", National Institutes of Health (last paragraph), PubMed (first sentence), and TB Alliance. "In the past 200 years, TB claimed the lives of more than 1 billion people". This could make it eligible to add as a single epidemic or pandemic to this list, same as with HIV/AIDS. What do you guys think? Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think listing Tuberculosis (TB) as a single pandemic/epidemic may not be a good idea.

1. Medical journal [19] states that "Tuberculosis has been labelled a pandemic many times over the past three centuries, whereas this is the first COVID-19 pandemic." Therefore, TB is similar to plague or cholera which has many outbreaks in the past (some have been labelled as pandemics/epidemics). For example, according to [20], "In the 19th century pandemic tuberculosis killed about 1/4th of the adult population of Europe". The past TB epidemics can be added to the list, if they are not there.

2. Moreover, according to WHO [21] there is a TB epidemic going on currently, killing 1.4 million people in 2019, and it looks like the United Nations wishes to end this epidemic by 2030. This current epidemic could be added to the list, but we need to find sources to determine when this epidemic began.

3. Finally, there is also an ambiguity because TB deaths are sometimes linked with HIV/AIDS deaths [22]. So the number of TB deaths may be overlapped with those of HIV/AIDS. Obviously, they now call it "TB/HIV syndemic" [23][24]. --Kutu126b (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just wrote a new section about TB: History of tuberculosis#Epidemic tuberculosis. It is very tricky, because at the time TB was like flu [25], which means there was a seasonal pattern, mostly in Europe and North America. I have not found a source that clearly states a particular TB epidemic/pandemic and lists its death toll. And, the only death toll record I could find was "Between 1851 and 1910 in England and Wales four million died from tuberculosis" [26], which possibly consisted of many TB epidemic seasons (like many flu seasons) and obviously started (and peaked) much earlier than 1851. --Kutu126b (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, Second and Third plague pandemic

It seems that the Third plague pandemic is listed as a single entry, but not the first and second. Any explanation why that is? Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the person who set it this way. But I guess it is reasonable, because the first and the second pandemics lasted for centuries, which are different from most other epidemics in the list. And I've never seen an academic or other reliable source that estimates the total number of deaths for the entire first/second pandemic. For instance, historians usually study the individual outbreaks of the 2nd pandemic such as the Black Death, the Persian Plague, and the Naples Plague, but never (as far as I know) combine the death tolls of all the outbreaks. As for the third plague, however, it is more recent and lasted around a century long, and most academic sources do have a death toll estimate (10-15 million) for the entire pandemic. A typical source is [27]. --Kutu126b (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The table is only useful if it lists percentages of population lost, rather than crude numbers, which are pointless

Given the crazy range of some of those percentages, like "25-60%", it would be useful to subdivide the table into severity sections, such as ">30% lethality" as both the European Bubonic plagues are generally agreed to be; 20-30%, 10-20% of population, 1-10% of population (Spanish flu), and less than 1% of population, and less then 0.1% of population. Otherwise all sense of proportions is lost.

Also, single country data should be its own section. Plus, Mexico as a single country, has three entries all within a few years, which seems disproportionate with the rest of the worldly information, not to claim it's false information, but that the representation is overstated in the big picture. --Tallard (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we wish to present readers, in a straightforward matter, with the most significant epidemics/pandemics (in terms of total death toll or death rate), a possible way is to create a separate table at the beginning of this article to show the pandemics with the highest death tolls (1 million threshold, say) or death rates.Kutu126b (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this what you're looking for: List of natural disasters by death toll#Ten deadliest pandemics / epidemics. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good to me! But is there a good way, in this article, that we can re-direct the readers to that list? Or simply create an extended version of the table on this page? I believe the concern raised above for this page is justified. Kutu126b (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the epidemics

It seems that these epidemics are ordered by the high end estimates, which seems rather questionable. The Asian and Hong Kong flu epidemics, for instance, are both rated higher than covid, despite most sources (including the CDC) estimating one million deaths. Aiuredy (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

what would you suggest...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mean value? Aiuredy (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is already the average/mean. Not the high-end. --Kutu126b (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

new Ebola outbreak?

this just happened[28]...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

another in Guinea[29] which Ive added (I dont believe this is a coincidence as deforestation has been rampant on that continent[30])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed them since the article is getting too large and they're just small ones. We don't have to list every epidemic. Just the more important ones. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 09:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5 May WHO statement

On 5 May 2023, the World Health Organization released a statement saying that "COVID-19 is now an established and ongoing health issue which no longer constitutes a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC)."

The New York Times: "But W.H.O. officials warned that the decision to lift the emergency does not signal an end to the pandemic, and cautioned countries not take this as reason to dismantle Covid response systems."
Reuters: "The WHO does not declare the beginning or end of pandemics, although it did start using the term for COVID in March 2020."

As at COVID-19 pandemic, I think far more discussion and consensus is needed before declaring the COVID-19 pandemic "over". Generally, I think we should be referring to discussion at the main page, COVID-19 pandemic. Wracking ^💬 04:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Bon courage you removed WHO source that the pandemic was declared over [31] and its pure Wp:OR statement to say the pandemic is ongoing after May 5, 2023 without any source, I used a source to provide evidence, you kinda reverted it based on W:ORR but as you are a senior editor I will respect your decision. I reverted this time but won't again, but I think its WP:OR to call it a pandemic now, as by using WP:RS we can state it ended. Dilbaggg (talk) 10:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Aurexify please see Wp:RS and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Dilbaggg (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed "monkeypox" to "mpox". What is your problem? Auror (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The PHEIC may have ended by the WHO is quite explicit the the pandemic has not. Therefore saying otherwise fails WP:V and is original research. Dilbaggg has been alerted this is a WP:CTOP. Bon courage (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bon courage I think we should reach a consensus before engaging, there aren't WP:RS saying that it is still a pandemic, and many even acknowledges it as an endemic, TB was a pandemic back in the 19th Century, presently every year millions still die from it but it is considered an endemic rather than a pandemic now, but anyway if WP:RS calls it a pandemic still, then its fine. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WHO call it a pandemic. Don't get stronger WP:MEDRS than that. Bon courage (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dilbaggg: I feel that you are deliberately ignoring the point. Similar discussion is happening at COVID-19 pandemic, and currently, no consensus (on Wikipedia or in the literature) indicates that COVID-19 should no longer be referred to as a pandemic or an ongoing event.

If you still believe that Wikipedia should communicate that the COVID-19 pandemic has ended, I urge you to take your arguments, with sources (preferably WP:MEDRS), to Talk:COVID-19 pandemic, where a broader conversation is ongoing. Wracking ^💬 18:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That user is right there is no reason to still have it listed as a pandemic. If we took a vote right now more people would agree to mark its end as May 5, 2023. I support the change. Fruitloop11 (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAVOTE. Wikipedia is bound to follow reliable sources. Bon courage (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is an essay.

“This page is intended to provide additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

its not a guideline. Voting has been used in the past to solve disputes such as only having Heavy Metal listed on Black Sabbath page. Either way I dont care to get involve with editing Fruitloop11 (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the essay is a useful Dummies' Guide to the policy, which is WP:CONSENSUS which explicitly says consensus is not the result of a vote. Just because some (even a majority of) editors don't like what reliable sources say, that's not going to get overturned by a vote in favour of their POV. Bon courage (talk) 11:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

trying to add epidemic and it keeps getting reverted

I'm trying to add 580 dysentery epidemic in Gaul to this list, but each time I've attempted to do so, it has been reverted. Can anyone explain what's wrong with this entry on the list? Reesorville (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the article in question has not been reviewed[32]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it has been reviewedReesorville (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

COVID 19 pandemic status

Hello everyone, I'm putting a comprehensive request to completely change COVID 19 pandemic status from 2019-2023 to 2019-present in bold format because this pandemic is not over unless we come up with comprehensive way to clean the air with comprehensive iqAir system that filters out coronavirus particles, far uvc 222 air disinfection indoors and crowded areas outdoors, and find new ways to prevent near field transmission via upgrades to infrastructure for example smart devices that use AI that sensors and kills germs from being spread via close contact.

We have seen anti-maskers posting repeated changes of this wikipedia link for COVID 19 pandemic from 2019-present to 2019-2023 which absolutely does not make the COVID 19 pandemic disappear because saying its over does not make it over.

World Health Organization. (2023). Coronavirus disease (covid-19) pandemic. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/europe/emergencies/situations/covid-19 Fx3453 (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I hope you are well. People changing the pandemic status to "2019–2023" are not being "anti-vaxxers", but rather following the sources. As it says on the COVID-19 pandemic page, the WHO declared the pandemic as not being a Public health emergency of international concern earlier this year, so that's primarily what they are basing the duration of. Determining when a pandemic ends results on many factors and sources and people disagree. You are very welcome of course to start a discussion about the duration but remember to use sources as otherwise it is WP:OR. I hope this helps!DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the WHO has repeatedly stated that the pandemic is not over, and that ending the public health emergency is an entirely different matter, qv: https://www.who.int/news/item/30-01-2023-statement-on-the-fourteenth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic

You can read the WHO definition of PHEIC to see how it differs from the actual pandemic: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/emergencies-international-health-regulations-and-emergency-committees/

The WHO still recommends that people take preventative precautions to avoid spreading SARS-CoV-2, because the risk to public health is still quite high, with large amounts of new variants of the virus still in circulation.

The CDC tracks the rise of new variants of concern here (note that this tracks proportions, not prevalence): https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#variant-proportions

Municipal health departments in most states in the USA are tracking waste water coronavirus concentration levels, which in the case of San Jose haven't been low for a solid sixteen months now, implying that there are still a large number of people infected by the coronavirus: https://covid19.sccgov.org/dashboard-wastewater

The evidence clearly indicates that the pandemic is ongoing, and the official missives of the WHO corroborate that. TTK (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Woah. I never said whether or not the pandemic is over or not. I just said that a *discussion* is needed, which has been ongoing and monghs, and that sources and consensus are needed. No need go start telling me off. That is unfair. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never told you off, just stating the facts and citing sources, which I thought was the point of this discussion. TTK (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/05/1136367#:~:text=WHO%20chief%20declares%20end%20to%20COVID%2D19%20as%20a%20global%20health%20emergency,-5%20May%202023&text=The%20head%20of%20the%20UN,no%20longer%20a%20global%20threat. Mixxtmc (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WHO never declared the pandemic over. The declaration that the PHEIC is over doesn't mean that the pandemic is also over. They are different things. The COVID-19 pandemic is still active, according to the WHO, so the correct status of the pandemic is "2019-present". Teliozis001 (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

concur with Fx3453--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree with the opinion above that is completely valid! But it needs to be discussed and sourced - just saying one's personal opinion is not enough as otherwise that is WP:OR. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already have sourced it from WHO which clearly states that the Pandemic is not over, we know that Pandemic is still not over by WHO and I believe that we have to take this threat very seriously. Covid 19 is still disabling everyone regardless of lifestyle and I have already had one source provided from who still saying the Pandemic is still not over.

Families need to be able to know that it’s okay to mask up and saying Pandemic is over doesn’t make the problem go away.

World Health Organization. (2023, June 12). With the international public health emergency ending, who/Europe launches its transition plan for covid-19. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/12-06-2023-with-the-international-public-health-emergency-ending--who-europe-launches-its-transition-plan-for-covid-19 Fx3453 (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% that people should take the pandemic seriously. But wikipedia is not a guide on what to do. It is information. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. The point is that the pandemic is currently mislabeled as having ended, and that should be rectified. TTK (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should either change the dates for AIDS, put an end date around when we invented antivirals, or you should remove the end date for covid. At the moment those two are inconstant, and that's a problem.

Maybe we should add a third column for how the pandemic/epidemic ended, where we can note pathogens that became endemic verses pathogens that are no longer in circulation. For covid-19 we could list an endemic date around 2023, and somewhere in the 90s for AIDS. 79.140.114.236 (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Covid 19 is not endemic, it’s still a Pandemic as per World Health Organization. 2605:B100:137:565E:55A1:67F5:7C0E:211D (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please update chronology section of Covid 19 Pandemic to 2020-present like what has been updated in major pandemic sections? Can you update the major pandemics and chronology sections of Covid 19 pandemic to be boldface? Fx3453 (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be "2019–present", not 2020. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 2019-present and bold face to reflect ongoing pandemic situation Fx3453 (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main article on the pandemic hasn't landed on saying it's over yet so it's understandable if that isn't done here, but there's a lot of red herrings above. The end of the pandemic is in no way dependent on eradication or the installation of high-tech ventilation everywhere; previous pandemics ended with an endemic virus and without any such things. Monitoring of wastewater and variants also in and of itself indicates nothing, as does what the Santa Clara County health department arbitrarily labels as "low" (for a contrast, the CDC, a much weightier organization, labels 98% of US counties as "low" hospital admissions, indicating little severe disease). Prevention measures, likewise, will always be options for individuals according to their circumstances and desires, as the virus is still around, same as flu prevention existed before 2020. But the mandatory measures have clearly been ended by public health agencies the world over.

The WHO also does not have an official category for pandemics or declare when they end. [33][34] They have no mechanism to officially declare it over, that's not what they do. It will be (is being?) a very gradual shift in how sources refer to the topic. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2023

This edit request to List of epidemics and pandemics has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to update the list of epidemics and pandemics. Please change the suspected COVID-19 deaths from 36.6 Million to 40 million.216.246.128.156 (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor! Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, I noticed that you set "answered" parameter to yes before anyone had a chance to answer to your edit request. All unanswered edit requests go to this category which experienced editors regularly check, and setting the "answered" parameter to "yes" removes the edit request from the table. Luckily, I visited this page before you set the parameter to yes. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 Death Toll

There is no citation for the 7-36.6 million figure in the COVID-19 death toll. The COVID-19 Wikipedia page itself states 6.99 million. The 36.6 million is number of cases, not deaths. Can someone explain why the numbers do not match across the pages? AzureWizard (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

will look, thank you for bringing this up--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added two reliable citations (UN and WHO). Both report a death toll of 7 million, but in the UN video we hear "the actual true number is at least three times higher" (see 20:15 in the video). So I think a range of 7–21 million is appropriate for this entry. Wjfox2005 (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[ebo04-1] "EBOLA RDC - Evolution de la riposte contre l'épidémie d'Ebola dans les provinces du Nord Kivu et de l'Ituri au Jeudi 18 octobre 2018". mailchi.mp. Retrieved 18 October 2018.

[2] "EBOLA RDC - Evolution de la riposte contre l'épidémie d'Ebola dans les provinces du Nord Kivu et de l'Ituri au Samedi 5 janvier 2019". us13.campaign-archive.com. Retrieved 6 January 2019.

[1]

[2]