Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AndrewRG10 (talk | contribs) at 00:21, 27 July 2023 (→RFC on current consensus #18). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleCOVID-19 pandemic has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 28, 2020Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 10, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
January 2, 2022Good article nomineeNot listed
October 27, 2022Good article nomineeNot listed
June 12, 2023Good article nomineeListed
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on January 20, 2020, January 28, 2020, January 31, 2020, February 4, 2020, March 11, 2020, March 16, 2020, and May 6, 2023.
Current status: Good article

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 purge this page.

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 Superseded by #9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.[1][2] Respiratory droplets may be produced during breathing but the virus is not considered airborne.[1] It may also spread when one touches a contaminated surface and then their face.[1][2] It is most contagious when people are symptomatic, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear.[2] (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 Superseded by #7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[a] and by small droplets produced when those infected cough,[b] sneeze or talk.[1][2][4] 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.[1][5][6] People may also become infected by touching a contaminated surface and then their face.[1][2] The virus can survive on surfaces for up to 72 hours.[7] 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

  1. ^ Close contact is defined as 1 metres (3 feet) by the WHO[1] and 2 metres (6 feet) by the CDC.[2]
  2. ^ An uncovered cough can travel up to 8.2 metres (27 feet).[3]
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] (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)

Lab leak theory

Has there been an RFC since the last one in 2020 on the lab leak theory and Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Current_consensus #14. Regardless of the validity of the theory, there has been a lot of coverage since 2020. I looked through archives and didnt see another RFC since then, maybe a more frequent editor of this article remembers? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The science has gotten only more in favor of zoonosis, given Worobey and Pekar et al in 2021. Reviews after summer 2021 are more in the line of "The most likely is zoonosis, but no confirmation". I don't know if an RFC is necessary tbh, but that's what I would want at least one option to be. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus #14 I understood to ban mention of the lab leak theory? How does your proposed text relate to the ban? To clarify, I am not proposing new text, I am only proposing as discussion if the #14 ban be reviewed in light of substantial coverage of that theory since then. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I ran the RFC below, the RFC does not propose any revised wording, that can be addressed later once restrictions are removed. I see no point to propose alternative wording if a words ban is in place (when the words ban doesnt reflect current RS coverage). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


So, the following conclusions from this year that were reported in the Wall Street Journal and The Guardian have since been disproven, then?

From the Guardian:

"Covid-19 likely came from lab leak, says news report citing US energy department

The virus that drove the Covid-19 pandemic most likely emerged from a laboratory leak but not as part of a weapons program, according to an updated and classified 2021 US energy department study provided to the White House and senior American lawmakers, the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday.

The department’s finding – a departure from previous studies on how the virus emerged – came in an update to a document from the office of national intelligence director, Avril Haines, the WSJ reported. It follows a finding reportedly issued with “moderate confidence” by the FBI that the virus spread after leaking out of a Chinese laboratory." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/26/covid-virus-likely-laboratory-leak-us-energy-department

And the (locked) article in the Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a

Okama-San (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These were never the prevailing consensus among scientists, or even the prevailing consensus in the intelligence community. see: [1] You also left out: Updated finding comes with ‘low confidence’ and is a departure from previous studies on how virus emerged from that Guardian article. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Error in first case dating

The side box indicates the first case on 17 November 2019, and the main text repeats this, citing an article by the South China Morning Post. The main text reports first symptoms from a case on 1 December 2019. These dates to not represent the current consensus, which puts the first confirmed symptomatic case as having symptom onset possibly on 8 December, more likely on 15-16 December. See Michael Worobey,mDissecting the early COVID-19 cases in Wuhan.Science374,1202-1204(2021).DOI:10.1126/science.abm4454 Gtuckerkellogg (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should probably note both dates in the article, as the SCMP date is notable as part of a later denied leak. But for infobox we should probably use the consensus number. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe omit it from the infobox, because that's generally the right choice for complicated or contested content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, lets remove it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs to be broken up

I opened it and my browser crashed. Serendipodous 13:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've never had any issues with it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If my understanding how archiving is correct here, it should've been archived about three weeks ago. However, there was a long-term discussion taking place that ended about a week ago. My browser does not crash; but I do agree that this talk page has gotten long and needs to get archived. Not sure if it's done automatically or manually. Jenna M. (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had a crash too on this article. Maybe the GA review needs to archive. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
archived both closed topics[2],[3]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; I meant the article. I could only load it with the images crashed. Serendipodous 00:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've never had a problem with the article --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the talk page. I have had crashes or slow downs on talk pages, but not on the article. I also have had slow downs or crashes on articles when editing, not sure what causes that. I have a pretty high spec computer, but not crazy high. I would note that there are now new and old wikipedia editors (I think some sort of button we click in wikipedia when in brower, there is a button called Beta). I use the older one, I was not really able to use the new one. I would suggest editing a section rather than the whole article, if you have issues. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you accessed the article, were any other browser tabs or windows open? ObserveOwl (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging OP: @Serendipodous. ObserveOwl (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Serendipodous 08:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright; maybe these other tabs/windows were taking space from the RAM. If you close everything else and the problem still arises, try restarting the browser's settings, the device or the router. ObserveOwl (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I now face this issue on a number of talk pages, such as Julian Assange as well. Seems the talk pages that are very busy and a lot of notes, it crashes my browser. I have a relatively new PC and plenty of ram. I guess just very large page data. I suppose this should probably be discussed at Village Pump, as it is not limited to just this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps relevant: There's a known bug with Wikipedia on Chrome-based browsers, that for some people (not everyone) memory usage grows exponentially if you have multiple Wikipedia tabs open. Note that these days most browsers are Chrome based. Try Firefox, maybe? MrOllie (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thank you. Yes, I am using chrome and I do have a lot of tabs. Maybe caused if i have two wikipedia tabs open. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ozzie10aaaa, you wrote Done, but what did you do? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it means this has been answered by several editors, however it can be removed (I had answered the OP above too)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it over?

To continue what must be several sections, above and archived, concerning this point: I note that the most recent two attempts to introduce reality to this article have both been reverted. Who, precisely, is still claiming the pandemic isn't over? The WHO do not declare any pandemic to be 'over', so we'd be waiting a long time for that one. The MSM, almost to a man, now refer to the pandemic using the past tense; here's an example from today [4]. In the UK, even the BBC and Guardian acknowledge it's over. I believe both the US and Germany have officially declared it over. I think now, if anyone claims it isn't over, they should bring forward reputable sources to support the claim. Perhaps there are some sources - I'm mostly just familiar with UK sources - that state it's continuing, so let's see them. If there are such sources, then all well and good, but they would need to be highly influential publications to overcome the vast majority of sources that now consider it over. Also, are MSM sources more relevant than medical stuff in this particular article? I would suggest so. Pikemaster (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yes this has been the source of many discussions--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I think there are multiple reliable sources indicating the pandemic is over. Another one: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/17/briefing/covid.html "But the excess-deaths milestone suggests that it’s true now: The pandemic is finally over." The WHO has terminated the PHEIC, which is as far as I know the only 'official' step they can take regarding making the 'end' official, although at the time there was a reasonable argument that ending the PHEIC was not the same as declaring the pandemic being over. Now we have plenty of reliable sources. If it isn't over now, what set of facts or sources would it take for it us to list it as in the past? TocMan (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why so keen to declare it over? I know several people who caught COVID for the first time this year. One of them died. HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People still catch and die from H1N1 influenza, but that does not mean the swine flu pandemic is active. I think we should follow the preponderance of sources. TocMan (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where? HiLo48 (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The majority - I would go so far as to say the vast majority - of sources now talk of the pandemic using the past tense. Wikipedia is now an exception, and that in itself is not good. In the Pandemic article we have this statement: The World Health Organization (WHO) nearest equivalent of "pandemic" is the Public Health Emergency of International Concern, defined as “an extraordinary event which is determined to constitute a public health risk to other States through the international spread of disease and to potentially require a coordinated international response”. The WHO have declared the PHEIC as being over, so that's as close as they're ever going to get to acknowledging that the pandemic is over. I contend that's it's time for Wikipedia to move on, and also regard the pandemic as being over. Pikemaster (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need to declare anything? Or "regard" anything? Surely we can simply write what you have above. HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly for the Swine Flu pandemic, WHO actually did put out a statement declaring the pandemic over but I'm unsure if that was before, after, or concomitant with the PHEIC ending. TocMan (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Pikemaster here. If a preponderance of sources now refer to the pandemic in past tense, this is enough precedent to switch the article to past tense(due weight). I don't have the time to verify if this is the case. If the word 'was' is inserted into the lead('was a global pandemic'), perhaps a footnote would be the best way to address this given we don't have explicit sourcing to state the end of the pandemic. This may warrant a wider 'current consensus' discussion/note at the top of this talk page, with the rest of the numbered consensus items. SmolBrane (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let's do it. Our article on the Spanish flu has a significant section titled Post-pandemic. Given the complex situation surrounding the "Is it over?" question, as soon as we start using past tense in the article, we need a similar section here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also support the use of past tense. It seems to follow the WP:WEIGHT of sources, and a pandemic is in significant part a social phenomenon. As noted above, the WHO does not make declarations of when pandemics end, [5][6] and the closest they have to that as an official declaration is the PHEIC, which did end. Pretty much the only decent source from after that time supporting the pandemic as ongoing is the comment by Maria Van Kerkhove from the June 2 press conference, and that seems more offhand than authoritative. Crossroads -talk- 22:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the immediately making a post-pandemic section, not just in this article but in all country specific ones too. I've already got edits in works for the Australian one. I'm also gonna make a new section here for changing consensus #18 to was. AndrewRG10 (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on current consensus #18

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

Discussion

  • Support Striking Down I don't imagine there is going to be a lot of edit wars going between was and is. There may be a rouge vandal every few months who insists on it being present tense but I imagine the discussion in the section above will be enough to create a new consensus that the entire article is to refer to it as was, there is no need for the first line to have its own specific consensus. -AndrewRG10 (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic&oldid=1167307496"