Talk:COVID-19 pandemic

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
[[Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

01. Superseded by #9

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

02. Superseded by #7

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

03. Obsolete

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

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

05. Cancelled

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

Subsequently overturned by editing and recognized as obsolete. (July 2024)

06. Obsolete

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

07. There is no consensus that the infobox should feature a confirmed cases count map most prominently, and a deaths count map secondarily. (May 2020)

08. Superseded by #16

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

09. Cancelled

Supersedes #1. The first several sentences of the lead section's second paragraph should state The virus is mainly spread during close contact and by small droplets produced when those infected cough, sneeze or talk. These droplets may also be produced during breathing; however, they rapidly fall to the ground or surfaces and are not generally spread through the air over large distances. People may also become infected by touching a contaminated surface and then their face. The virus can survive on surfaces for up to 72 hours. Coronavirus is most contagious during the first three days after onset of symptoms, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear and in later stages of the disease. (April 2020)

Notes

On 17:16, 6 April 2020, these first several sentences were replaced with an extracted fragment from the coronavirus disease 2019 article, which at the time was last edited at 17:11.

010. The article title is COVID-19 pandemic. The title of related pages should follow this scheme as well. (RM April 2020, RM August 2020)

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

012. Superseded by #19

The lead section's second sentence should be phrased using the words first identified and December 2019. (May 2020)

013. Superseded by #15

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

014. Overturned

Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article. (RfC May 2020) This result was overturned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, as there is consensus that there is no consensus to include or exclude the lab leak theory. (RfC May 2024)

015. Supersedes #13. File:President Donald Trump suggests measures to treat COVID-19 during Coronavirus Task Force press briefing.webm should not be used as the visual element of the misinformation section. (RfC November 2020)

016. Supersedes #8. Incidents of xenophobia and discrimination are considered WP:UNDUE for a full sentence in the lead. (RfC January 2021)

017. Only include one photograph in the infobox. There is no clear consensus that File:COVID-19 Nurse (cropped).jpg should be that one photograph. (May 2021)

018. Superseded by #19

The first sentence is The COVID-19 pandemic, also known as the coronavirus pandemic, is a global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). (August 2021, RfC October 2023)

019. Supersedes #12 and #18. The first sentence is The global COVID-19 pandemic (also known as the coronavirus pandemic), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), began with an outbreak in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. (June 2024)

"Transition to endemic phase" as a level-2 section

Two months ago, SmolBrane added a new level-2 section, "Transition to endemic phase", linking to an article they had recently created. When I checked in on this article yesterday, I noticed it and attempted to merge it into the history section. My rationale is that this information is just an aspect of the recent history of the pandemic, and as such it should go in the history section. (And indeed, it's a much better way to talk about recent history than the current proseline in that section.) SmolBrane reverted me, restoring the section. Could others weigh in? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I think we could probably merge into history, and if the user wants a name, we could add 1-2 word names for each of the history periods

*2019 China

*2020 Spread

*2021 Global

*2022 Endemic

If we cannot agree on the one word summaries (seems unlikely) then maybe just add it to 2022. I dont agree that it must have its own section. Its pretty wp:obvious to everyone that the pandemic is more or less finished. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Its pretty wp:obvious to everyone that the pandemic is more or less finished. This is a pretty egregious misapplication of the MOS. The style guide doesn't trump WP:NOR, which "it's obvious to me the pandemic is over" is. If anything, WP:OBVIOUS tells us we should explicitly state that the WHO considers the pandemic to be ongoing, since it's not necessarily obvious to the reader. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

If the WHO drags their feet too much with regard to other jurisdictions, we may have to essentially de-prioritize their commentary. We aren't there yet, but it's important to discuss steelmen. I can imagine a circumstance where a majority of non-MEDRS sources could consider COVID endemic based on political or sociological or economic decisions, and it would be our job(likely) to defer to that observation. SmolBrane (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that being endemic in some locations and globally recognized as a pandemic are not mutually exclusive things. See Smallpox#Eradication for a similar example where it was nationally eradicated, but endemic elsewhere.

But my real concern is with the misuse of the style guide to suggest content decisions are allowed to be based on original research. That's the kind of thing that makes collaborative editing impossible, and potentially leads to sanctions. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you elaborate please? Where is the misuse of the style guide, and where is the OR? SmolBrane (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The comment by Jtbobwaysf above linked to the Manual of Style explanatory essay WP:OBVIOUS, in an apparent attempt to misrepresent it as supporting the WP:OR claim that "everyone" knows "the pandemic is more or less finished". As my above comment indicates, WP:OBVIOUS actually recommends that we may need to reiterate that the pandemic is indeed ongoing according to the WHO, because the avoidance of doubt through providing this context is more important than leaving the context unstated in an attempt to use less prose. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed; apologies--my brain is extra small today. What 'everyone knows' is anecdotal and OR for sure, I guess my point was simply that if those anecdotes aggregate into political decisions and coverage in secondary sources, we may have to change our tone. SmolBrane (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure there's a discussion of notability and due weight to be had, but WP:OBVIOUS is very much not it. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

It's obvious it is ongoing in an endemic fashion. It seems the WHO seems to dispute that, but given the coverage on both sides we can include the controversy. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, that's not what WP:OBVIOUS is about. I think you're possibly looking for WP:BLUESKY, but even there if there's a "controversy" than referring to it in terms of 'obviousness' is counterproductive. Again, this gives the impression of WP:OR (Its pretty wp:obvious to everyone that the pandemic is more or less finished apparently elevates personal opinion over the global public health organization in charge of such a declaration), instead of pointing to reliable sources which dispute the WHO's categorization and how we describe that dispute in a WP:DUE manner.

To be clear, I welcome any clarification on what you mean, but the above reference to WP:OBVIOUS remains troubling to me. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure History is the right spot for something bordering on speculation for future policies (E.g. the Human Genomics article).

There's already a Living with COVID-19 subsection, and these two topics are so overlapping that it seems to be a bit odd to have both in separate sections. I get that it's two distinct topics - one on the epidemiology of the disease, the other public health strategies - but the latter stems from the former. I'd like to see us try and combine the two with either a short bit of prose, or with transclusion from the two articles so we're not having to maintain both. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Living with COVID is a policy in the UK and has a fair bit of sourcing; it was the article I spun the endemic phase article off of. I had previously suggested renaming that article to make it a subset of endemicity, essentially, which may still be the right choice(edit--that is to say--living with covid is a subset of endemicity). Endemicity broadly construed is not historical and its dueness and significance warrants a section; regardless--both endemic phase of COVID 19 and Living with COVID-19 would constitute a POV fork if they are not correctly summarized on this article as per WP:SUMMARY. Just expanding my thoughts here, not trying to make a point for/against bakkster man's comments here. I get the impression from a variety of COVID articles that it's kind of difficult to separate the timelines from the sections and how to contrain such timelines and sections. SmolBrane (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this is part of the root issue: is Living With COVID actually a subset of endemicity, or an orthogonal idea? Depending on which part of the concept you look it, it could be both. I wonder how much of this is just a result of trying to do too much with current (and politically charged) events, and could use a bit of WP:TENYEARTEST applied. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Noting here that Living with COVID-19 and Endemic phase of COVID-19 have been boldly merged. SmolBrane (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Crystal issue

Suggestions on how to deal with this sentence COVID-19_pandemic#Transition_to_endemic_phase: "While the COVID-19 pandemic is still considered ongoing by the World Health Organization, it may become endemic in the future" This sentence is a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Maybe we need to restate it that some scientists consider it already endemic? Or some other suggestion? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I have made a change, please comment if anyone wants. The intent was to keep the meaning intact, if I didnt please feel free to change it. I also got rid of the one sentence breaks, we dont need one sentence paragraphs...Lets be brief on a long article like this. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I reverted, I don't see a WP:CRYSTAL concern. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced... Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. I would like to reiterate my concern from above, about your incorrectly citing policy when justifying edits. I strongly suggest you voluntarily seek consensus for such edits prior to making them in the future (for the avoidance of doubt, 4.5 hours is insufficient to presume agreement through lack of comment). Bakkster Man (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

A couple things—firstly I see no issue with bold edits; this article has enough protection preventing collaboration as it is. Secondly, Living with COVID-19 was merged without dispute into Endemic phase of COVID-19 which I believe means that any de facto statements surround 'new normal', 'here to stay' and sentiments of this nature demonstrate endemicity unless editors can prove otherwise in a way that warrants exclusion. I have therefore added the recent clearly DUE comments by Tedros repeated in reliable secondary sources. If we are in a good position to “end the pandemic”, this is a statement suggesting endemicity for our purposes. The statement that COVID “may become endemic in the future” is not stated in the Al Jazeera source cited and it is CRYSTAL. If the WHO wants to POV fork with itself, then we can just quote them. SmolBrane (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I see no issue with bold edits, and neither do I in general. My concern is what I feel was the apparent continued misinterpretation of the WP:PAG being cited, alongside bold edits or not.

this article has enough protection preventing collaboration as it is. Page protection typically makes consensus building easier by allowing editors to focus on that, rather than fixing vandalism. I'm confused why you think page protection makes collaboration any more difficult here.

Secondly, Living with COVID-19 was merged without dispute into Endemic phase of COVID-19 which I believe means that any de facto statements surround 'new normal', 'here to stay' and sentiments of this nature demonstrate endemicity unless editors can prove otherwise in a way that warrants exclusion. This is a weak WP:OTHERCONTENT argument. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Page protection disables editing and it's not apparent to me that marginalizing editors with arbitrary edit counts is better than the risks of vandalism. I very deeply value the collaborative nature of wiki.

(OTHERCONTENT)If Tedros makes very DUE comments around the "end in sight", we need to put those comments somewhere. There is no space right now--that exists between pandemic and endemicity which was confirmed with the deletion of Living with COVID-19. This is not an othercontent argument; it is an observation that DUE comments like this need to be explicitly categorized by us, since experts seem unwilling to use epidemiological terms. SmolBrane (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

If you really think page protection should be removed, that should be another discussion to get consensus to ask the admins to lift it. Having been editing here during the worst parts of disruption that caused the original semi-protect and upgrade to ECP, I think you may be underestimating how draining the vandalism was, and how much it interfered with consensus building. I'll also note, this Talk page is not protected (like several of the most disrupted COVID pages) in order to permit this kind of consensus building on Talk. Any brand new IP can participate in this discussion.

If Tedros makes very DUE comments around the "end in sight", we need to put those comments somewhere. I very much agree, the comments added are notable, and I agree with their being in the article in the current location. I'm only opposed to the idea that another page's merge means 'de facto endemicity'. Especially since the original dispute was over how we paraphrased a comments. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

This edit reverted and re-added WP:CRYSTAL. Please fix the crystal issue. Whatever localconsensus is reached on this page does not over-ride the crystal issue. Find another way to state it. You have two editors here noting the issue, maybe some others will chime in with support for your position, but if not, be prepared to fix it. Or we can run an RFC. What do you prefer? As for me, I dont have a specific position on how it is stated, as long as it matches the source and is not a future speculation, which it is now. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it got cleaned up. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I again don't think WP:CRYSTAL is what you mean to cite. The claim that we are in a "position to end the pandemic" is just as inapplicable to CRYSTAL as it "may become endemic in the future" is. CRYSTAL is concerned with our own predictions of the future, not with "reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field" making notable predictions or forecasts.

In an attempt to move things forward, I think your root concern is better described as looking for a better source with a closer portrayal in the article (WP:V, and WP:RS). I thought the previous prose was a reasonable paraphrase, but the new source is better, and has fewer questions around whether our prose matches the source with the quote. I agree, it's an improvement. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

"May become endemic in the future" was our words though, it didn't appear in the source, in a "position to end the pandemic" is a quote from Tedros. Isn't that the difference? SmolBrane (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm saying our dispute is probably more about whether a direct quote or a paraphrase were better, as in MOS:QUOTE, and whether our paraphrase was accurate to the source or needed rewording. Either way, the more recent source is better than the previous one for directly addressing the topic. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Refocus

There's been some good discussion here, but I'd like to refocus and get some further input on the opening question. To me, developments in the course of an event, even if recent/ongoing, belong in the history section of that event's article. And a transition to a new phase of the pandemic is by definition such an event. Do others support nesting this content under the level-2 history section? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Which content are you proposing nesting under history? Because the transition we're talking about is not recent or ongoing, it's expected to happen in the future. Until it actually happens, I don't think it's appropriate wholesale in the History section. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

For content that's merely speculating, even if it's sourced and thus not fully crystal, I think it's due for only a sentence or few, not a full section. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree it's due, which is why it's in the section it's currently in, and has a dedicated article where more detail can be given. I'm just not sure it's History yet. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm all for agreement, but if I think it's due for a sentence and you think it's due for four paragraphs and an image (the current length of the section), then we're not exactly on the same page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I would find a more specific proposal easier to comment on. Right now, I think the two sentences in Transition to endemic phase with the link to the main article Endemic phase of COVID-19 is appropriate quantity and placement. There are only five sentences in the History > 2020 section currently, and even as just 1 of 6 sentences I worry this unofficial speculation (I'd have a very different opinion to an official WHO recategorization) would be UNDUE in the recap of the entire year (think WP:10YT). The current section discusses the European Omicron death toll, two new WHO recommended treatments, an updated estimate of global infections, an update to the global death toll, and the B.4 and B.5 sub-variants. I don't see the above sources and discussion fitting better in the History section, it's just not nearly as notable as the other topics of discussion, and I'd suggest not even close enough to have a reasonable argument supporting it. Maybe I've missed something, please let me know. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

This was the edit I made that was reverted, and that I came to talk here seeking consensus to restore. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

In that case, I stand by what I said above. That's significantly more weight than I think is appropriate in this context. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with anything from zero weight up to a modest amount. The main thing I care about is that we not introduce a new level-2 section for something that's fundamentally not a level-2 aspect of the pandemic. Just looking at the table of contents, it seems clear to me that "History," "Etymology," "Disease," and "Impact" are broad, high-level subtopics. "Transition to endemic phase" is not. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that the threshold for a heading is to be as broad as the examples you give. "Transition to endemic phase" feels similarly as broad as "Information dissemination", the section immediately above.

I remain unconvinced we need to move this under a level 2 heading, but in the interest of consensus building I'd recommend one of them further down the page so we don't give WP:UNDUE prominence of placement. Other Responses and Impact being the two options, and it feels to me like the bottom section remains the best option. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

agree w/ Bakkster Man--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I oppose minimizing the effective end of the pandemic to below level 2... at the moment this means the Endemic phase section. It's a bit clunky but until sources commenting on the end of the pandemic have a clear home other than 'endemic phase' I think it's best to keep it the way it is. The section has seen three significant additions in four days(Tedros' remarkable statements which probably has dozens of citations, the image, and the Indonesian development). SmolBrane (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The bigger issue--the end of the pandemic

Is there going to be an article on the end of the pandemic? I can see how endemicity might be too specific here, but the end of the pandemic is approaching and there should be a level 2 heading for this. I'm sure many sources will emerge regarding this and many may not use the word endemic. SmolBrane (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

When the pandemic indeed ends, maybe, if it's not part of this article (see: Spanish flu#End of the pandemic). But it hasn't ended, not yet. Not according to the WHO which we followed as the only entity with authority to declare it as such (pandemics being, by definition, global).

When we talk about WP:CRYSTAL, this kind of speculation is what we're really meant to avoid. Endemic management methods, and the locations engaging in them, is a current event that seems to justify its own article. The end of this pandemic doesn't yet in my view. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Its not crystal to discuss notable references to the end of the pandemic. For example 'Biden said the pandemic is over' on Sept 15, 2022. But as you noted we would not state that in wikivoice. There is an increasing stream of policy changes and statements, and certainly we can cover them here and on other articles. But it does seem that this article serves to summarize other articles Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, where CRYSTAL would apply in my view is creating an article titled End of the COVID-19 Pandemic prior to said end. With the notable local changes in how the outbreak is managed and notable forecasting of the end mentioned in our current section. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

It won't take many countries' statements about the end of the pandemic to generate DUEness on the creation of an article. I'm hoping to pre-empt this to avoid a POV split(with endemic phase) and the related time wasting of editors. As I said further up the page, the WHO dragging their feet won't affect commentary in secondary sources--or indeed the comments by someone like Joe Biden. The WHO doesn't have veto power against all the other sources, broadly construed. SmolBrane (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

When all the other sources, broadly construed are in agreement, then we'll have something to deal with. Right now you're just arguing hypotheticals. It's too soon. MrOllie (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm just saying--once the sources emerge, an article can be created and it likely won't be even nominated for deletion, like my creation of the Endemic phase of COVID-19. We can be proactive here--the situation went from "end is in sight" - WHO to "the pandemic is over" - Biden awfully quickly. SmolBrane (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

We can be proactive here... Not necessarily. See: WP:NOTLEAD Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. What we do is find neutral ways of presenting them.

I don't understand the concern that the endemic phase article would become a POV fork. If the article is clearly focused on local public policy and behavior, then it's entirely consistent with this article's deference to the authoritative declarations of the WHO regarding the international status of the disease. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no such "all the sources" requirement. It only needs to meet WP:DUE and of course there is nothing in DUE that says all the sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

It's a question of what the WP:BESTSOURCES say and to meet the threshold for an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. And WP:MEDRS of course. It'll be obvious when it happens. Bon courage (talk) 07:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Do any other pandemics in history have an "end of ..." article? There's not much to say. Currently for COVID-19 it's a fringe notion and all we can say is that various people (mostly politicians) have asserted the pandemic "over", while actual scientists have snorted contemptuously at such fatuousness. If and when the WHO/CDC/etc declare the pandemic "over" we could just record that alongside reaction which was noteworthy. Having an article before that would be WP:PROFRINGE (/WP:CRYSTAL) almost by definition. My concern is any such article now would look like trying to bounce Wikipedia into a fringe stance while implying that the WHO is "dragging its feet"; this is completely arse-about-face – Wikipedia reflects the WP:BESTSOURCES on global health (i.e. the WHO) and puts minority/fringe/unreliable views in that context, not the other way round. Bon courage (talk) 06:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  Do any other pandemics in history have an "end of ..." article? Not that I can see. In addition to my mention of Spanish flu#End of the pandemic, it seems nearly every pandemic article simply covers the end within the article. Even one of the most notable examples I can think of is a subsection rather than its own article: Smallpox#Eradication, which is also covered in a sub-section of Eradication of infectious diseases. There appears to be no precedent for such an article, let alone a preemptive one. Unless SmolBrane can provide such precedent, or a much stronger argument for why it's absolutely necessary to abide by WP:PAGs, I don't see a reason to discuss further Bakkster Man (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

COVID 19

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 novel virus was first identified from an outbreak in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. Attempts to contain it there failed, allowing the virus to spread to other areas of China and later worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak a public health emergency of international concern on 30 January 2020 and 2409:4051:4E9E:A23B:A381:37B7:444C:56D7 (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

N is there a specific request (edit)...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Herd immunity and Great Barrington Declaration

@MrOllie and others please, my linking was reverted; how is this link SYNTH? The Great Barrington Declaration has the most content regarding herd immunity, these articles should be linked. Not as an endorsement, just to unify content for the benefit of our readers. The severe deprecation of herd immunity on the GBD article warrants some direction from this article. SmolBrane (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Failed at my ping @MrOllie:. SmolBrane (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The section is about efforts in 2021 and onward to reach herd immunity through vaccination. This is not the same thing as the Great Barrington Declaration, which was a proposal to simply drop restrictions before vaccinations were available so as to reach herd immunity though infections. But you should know this, we have been discussing it at Talk:Great Barrington Declaration. MrOllie (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll add that notability isn't necessarily a two-way street. An obvious example is fringe topics, where the fringe belief requires reference to the mainstream to put it into context, but the mainstream topic article may not include any mention of the small fringe. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

N

The page explaining this is WP:ONEWAY. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

This is helpful thanks. SmolBrane (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Biden pandemic is over

President of U.S. said on 09/19/2022 that pandemic is over. Change from present to 09/19/2022. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/19/biden-pandemic-over-covid-team-response-00057649 64.53.212.155 (talk) 04:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

the CDC or WHO would be a better source--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Right, same as before, the US president (nor any national public health body) is not the authority on categorizations that are by definition global in nature. Might be notable for Endemic phase of COVID-19#United_States. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

N