Talk:COVID-19 pandemic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 newsOn this day... 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.
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 30, 2024.
Current status: Good article

Current consensus[edit]

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 Superseded by #9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 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)

References

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference WHO2020QA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c "Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) - Transmission". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 17 March 2020. Retrieved 23 March 2020.

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

03. 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. Include subsections of the "Domestic response" section 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. (March 2020) Include a short subsection on Sweden focusing on the policy controversy. (May 2020)

06. Obsolete
There is a 30 day moratorium on move requests until 26 April 2020. (March 2020)
07. Unclear
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 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. Superseded by transclusion from COVID-19

Supersedes #1. The first few sentences of the 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. (RfC March 2020, April 2020)

Notes

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

References

  1. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference WHO2020QA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference CDCTrans was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Bourouiba, JAMA, 26 March was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference ECDCQA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ "Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: implications for IPC precaution recommendations". World Health Organization. 29 March 2020. Retrieved 3 April 2020. According to current evidence, COVID-19 virus is primarily transmitted between people through respiratory droplets and contact routes.
  6. ^ Organization (WHO), World Health (28 March 2020). "FACT: #COVID19 is NOT airborne. The #coronavirus is mainly transmitted through droplets generated when an infected person coughs, sneezes or speaks.To protect yourself:-keep 1m distance from others-disinfect surfaces frequently-wash/rub your -avoid touching your pic.twitter.com/fpkcpHAJx7". @WHO. Retrieved 3 April 2020. These droplets are too heavy to hang in the air. They quickly fall on floors or sufaces.
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference StableNIH was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

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

012. The second sentence of the lead paragraph should be phrased using the words "first identified" (not "originated") and "December 2019" (not "early 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)

References

  1. ^ Rogers, Katie; Hauser, Christine; Yuhas, Alan; Haberman, Maggie (24 April 2020). "Trump's Suggestion That Disinfectants Could Be Used to Treat Coronavirus Prompts Aggressive Pushback". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 25 April 2020.
014. Superseded by #19
Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article. (RfC May 2020)

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. The exact image in question has no clear consensus. (May 2021)

018. 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) Wording updated (May 2023).

019. Supersedes #14, which was partially overturned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. There is no consensus to include or exclude the lab leak theory. (May 2024)

RFC on current consensus #14[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Result of this RfC is partially overturned per this discussion at WP:AN. There is no consensus to include or exclude the "lab leak" theory, so Consensus 14 is no longer an accurate reflection of the current consensus. The WordsmithTalk to me 03:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been open more than 30 days, nothing beyond polling is occurring at this point, and a request for closure has been registered at WP:CR. I am here to bring you closure.

By straight head counting, six editors support striking down Consensus #14, and three opposite it. By quality head-counting, meaning WP:VAGUEWAVEs are discounted, six editors support striking #14 and two oppose it. In addition, several other editors expressed more ambiguous positions that, while considered, did not meaningfully impact the decision here for reasons too lengthy to get into.

First, several editors in the oppose camp note that consensus can't occur implicitly in this case (the opposite of what we usually observe in WP:EDITCON), since #14 established a clear consensus and the mere presence of content against consensus that may have gone unnoticed doesn't overturn it. This was not sufficiently rebutted and, indeed, I can find no policy, guideline, or precedent that permits the type of "content squatting" being suggested. Based on strength of argument, the oppose camp — though in the numerical minority — is correct on this point that the mere presence of out-of-consensus content for a relatively short period of time does not overturn a clearly enunciated consensus recently arrived at by RfC.

Some in the support camp cited what they said was the the fact that RS now reference the proscribed content as a reason #14 should be overturned. This is essentially an inelegant WP:DUE argument and, despite its lack of elegance, it was unrebutted by the oppose camp which focused almost singularly on arguing against the notion of implicit consensus. That said, since no actual examples of RS were presented by those making this argument -- and considering the fact that the #14 close established the very low standard that any mention in WP:MEDRS would be cause to revisit and possibly overturn #14 -- I don't consider the lack of rebuttal by the oppose camp to be fatal here.

Despite the clear numerical support for striking #14, consensus is WP:NOTAVOTE and I can find no consensus to overturn and, similarly, no consensus to sustain (though, in reality, this means #14 is maintained - just with a low threshold for reopening a new RfC; plus, the question wasn't whether #14 should be overturned or renewed, rather, it was just if it or is not still valid).

However, despite the fact tha #14 remains the default position, it appears to be on perilous ground. Taking notice of sources off-Wiki, it's clear the Support camp could move a sustainable argument to overturn #14. They didn't do so here, and it's not the closer's job to remedy the discursive failures that occurred in this RfC. It's possible another RfC in the near future -- perhaps, even, the very near future -- may not be out of order. And, if given even a modest effort, it seems likely to me such an RfC may pass. Chetsford (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2024 (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.


Is Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Current_consensus #14 still valid?. It says: "Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article. (May 2020)" Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Polling[edit]

  • Strike down #14 consensus: We currently link to the lab leak theory in the article, putting the consensus in conflict with the aritlce. This is obvious as the theory is now mainstream and while controversial, the likely cause of the pandemic according to a large number of RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bold edit that added the link is over six months old [1] and it was never disputed so it enjoys the policy of implicit consensus. This therefore could have been boldly edited to reflect the current stable version. But since you took the formal approach I will support striking down #14 consensus. SmolBrane (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strike down - Look, I'd be all for it if it said not to endorse the theory or treat it as equally plausible with a natural origin. But at this point, going so far as to exclude it entirely from this article, when this article is supposed to be a broad overview of the topic, seems untenable. It makes sense to mention it even if just to say it is mostly rejected, but even if we didn't, there is no need to be bound by this discussion from May 2020, which is practically ancient history by Covid standards and was before many new sources came out about how some scientists did consider it worth investigating (at least for a time). Plus, as noted, mentioning it is already the status quo anyway. Crossroads -talk- 03:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and trout. We had this RfC a few months ago, and it was a process-spinning waste of time then.[2] Repeatedly pressing the same thing is disruptive. Bon courage (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus #14 is not an accurate reflection of the undisputed state of the article though. SmolBrane (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and thus the reason for this RFC and the current consensus of this article is obviously different from the time of the previous RFC. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly opposed to #14 consensus - As an outsider to this topic on Wikipedia, I'm quite surprised to see there was a strict rule established here stating "Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article." This seems like a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED - even if the lab leak theory is completely false it is undisputably due to be mentioned.
That being said, perhaps the consensus/rule should not be striken entirely but mollified to something like "Special care is to be taken not to give undue weight to the lab leak theory" or "The lab leak theory is undue for inclusion in both the lead and background section." These are only approximate suggestions but some sort of softening of the current consensus would likely be better than either keeping the strict rule or abolishing it altogether.
-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe the article should be able to mention lab-related theories when necessary. The other editors from last time should perhaps be notified. Senorangel (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not determined here. Whatever we have should follow the principle of WP:SYNC and mirror what is said (probably in the lede) at Origin of COVID-19. If that changes there, it changes here too. Bon courage (talk) 08:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is your second !vote on this RFC. How about editing your initial vote instead of just appearing to vote again? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep consensus 14, and remove anything in the article that contradicts it. Obviously a consensus established through an RFC is stronger than any implicit consensus; that much is just basic. And while WP:CCC, nobody has actually presented any argument why we ought to overturn it; things haven't actually changed since the last RFC. Sometimes things fall through the cracks even on high-traffic articles, that's all. Recent coverage, to my understanding, has if anything pushed the theory further towards the fringes. --Aquillion (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean it cannot be mentioned at all, even if appropriately qualified? Senorangel (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strike down #14 consensus, it's obvious that the possibility of the lab leak is not impossible anymore, and it is a heavily discussed element of the pandemic whether it's correct or not.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strike down #14 consensus: it is covered semi-regularly in articles about the topic. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 18:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep consensus 14 an RfC 5 months ago really means this RfC is out of process and shouldn't be happening. Arguing that the content has been in the article for a while is putting the cart before the horse. The content ought to have been removed per the previous RfC. There has been no argument presented her for overturning the previous RfC other than the content is in the article which it shouldn't be. So per Aquillion, remove the content also. TarnishedPathtalk 13:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep concensus 14 for now--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2024 (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.
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.

Comorbidities[edit]

The phrase "underlying conditions" is used, but no exact figures are given. The percentage of deaths said to be caused by Covid 19 that are also caused by comorbidities is anything from 90% to 98%. 2A00:23C4:7C90:9700:C867:C400:2EA:9D83 (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

End of Pandemic[edit]

The pandemic has been declared as officially ended, by WHO. It's no longer a pandemic, or technically no longer a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. See also.The article should be updated accordingly. Geekathak (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

really?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That Los Angeles Times article doesn't support that it is still a "pandemic", though. New subvariants and waves will continue indefinitely.
Geekathak, this is addressed in the article under COVID-19 pandemic#Transition to later phases; the WHO does not declare pandemics over and at the time the PHEIC ended over a year ago, they said that they felt it was still a pandemic. Since that time, in March 2024, this article asked various experts (including Maria Van Kerkhove from WHO) and they all expressed either uncertainty it was still a pandemic, or outright said they thought it was not.
there’s no definitive, yes-or-no conclusion about whether that’s the right term to use. “There is no universal, agreed definition of what a pandemic is,” Van Kerkhove says. “If you asked 100 epidemiologists to define what a pandemic is, or, ‘Are we currently in a pandemic?’, you’d get a lot of different answers.” The same pattern is evident in this similar article from the same month here.
The WP:WEIGHT isn't there to say the pandemic is over in WP:Wikivoice, but I think a strong case could be made now that the present-tense in the article should be taken out of wikivoice and instead we should note in the lead that experts disagree/are uncertain as to whether the pandemic phase is over (and, perhaps also add, about how to define "pandemic" in general). Crossroads -talk- 17:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks! Geekathak (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Crossroads, we should change the weight of the present tense. Its a bit too much. I doubt there are much RS out there that support an ongoing pandemic (of course the WHO says its ongoing, but they are a primary source and COI source as they get funding from it being ongoing). Common sense here can be used and we should be following the mainstream sources which have all mostly moved past tense. We are only proposing the pandemic (the historical event that is by very definition time bound) to be ended, not the virus...just saying... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. The world is back to normal and has been for the best part of two years. The pandemic is over. COVID is now endemic and the article should reflect this reality. Interestingly, if you ask the Bing CO-PILOT this very question: "Is COVID endemic?", the answer is (paraphrasing) "COVID is now endemic and the pandemic phase is over". I'm not suggesting this is a RS, but it's highly indicative of current thinking. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one gives a damn what these AI programs say. They have no knowledge, they're just putting words together. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To demonstrate how do-able this is, here's what a revision to the lead to take it out of present tense could look like. Only the first and last paragraphs involve changes; the middle two are unchanged from the current version, except for combining two short paragraphs into one to keep the lead at four paragraphs. (Sources with links are new to the lead; sources without are already in it; wikilinks not included for now):
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. It spread to other areas of Asia, and then worldwide in early 2020. The World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) on 30 January 2020, and assessed the outbreak had become a pandemic on 11 March 2020.[3]
COVID-19 symptoms range from asymptomatic to deadly, but most commonly include fever, sore throat, nocturnal cough, and fatigue. Transmission of the virus is often through airborne particles. Mutations have produced many strains (variants) with varying degrees of infectivity and virulence.[9] COVID-19 vaccines were widely deployed in various countries beginning in December 2020. Treatments include novel antiviral drugs and symptom control. Common mitigation measures during the public health emergency included travel restrictions, lockdowns, business restrictions and closures, workplace hazard controls, mask mandates, quarantines, testing systems, and contact tracing of the infected.
The pandemic caused severe social and economic disruption around the world, including the largest global recession since the Great Depression.[10] Widespread supply shortages, including food shortages, were caused by supply chain disruptions and panic buying. Reduced human activity led to an unprecedented temporary decrease in pollution. Educational institutions and public areas were partially or fully closed in many jurisdictions, and many events were cancelled or postponed during 2020 and 2021. Telework became much more common for white-collar workers as the pandemic evolved. Misinformation circulated through social media and mass media, and political tensions intensified. The pandemic raised issues of racial and geographic discrimination, health equity, and the balance between public health imperatives and individual rights.
The WHO ended the PHEIC on 5 May 2023.[4] COVID-19 continues to circulate, but as of 2024, experts were uncertain as to whether it was still a pandemic.[3][4] Pandemics and their ends are not well-defined, and whether or not one has ended differs according to the definition used.[5][6] As of [date], COVID-19 has caused [number] confirmed deaths.[5] The COVID-19 pandemic ranks as the fifth-deadliest pandemic or epidemic in history.
It is apparent now that stating or implying that it definitely still is a pandemic is not WP:NPOV with regard to expert opinion on that specific question; writing it this way reads naturally (if I may say so myself) and avoids making a POV claim. The content in the final paragraph addresses the issue of COVID-19's current status head-on, which the talk page shows to be a perennial one, and understandably is a big question on readers' minds at this point. Crossroads -talk- 20:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a great suggestion, and it is elegant in that it avoids use of IS and WAS. I think that if we have a larger discussion of this we should avoid the use of the divisive subject 'end of the pandemic' as this leads to some really crazy discussions (from what I have seen here). What is more relevent is if the RS are using IS vs WAS, and if most are no longer using IS, then we need to ends its undue use in the lead of this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just spent two and a half weeks in hospital here in Melbourne, Australia, getting a new knee and commencing rehabilitation. I was tested for COVID three times. I wasn't tested for any other diseases. One of the two hospitals had two positive cases when I left. This is not a past tense pandemic! HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are better than anecdotes of course [7] [8] [9]. SmolBrane (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The disease is now endemic. What's happening today does not even fit with the Wikipedia Pandemic article. I was in Sydney early last year, and although most of the rest of the world had forgotten about COVID for the best part of a year, COVID protocols were still being enacted and testing was still being carried out in various locations; I'm not sure why. Concerning the proposed revision as per the suggestion by Crossroads, I agree with the text. It's an excellent compromise. However, I suggest leaving out the 'As of [date] . . ' material. The data is wildly inaccurate and serves no useful purpose. We should simply give a figure for the point at which the WHO declared the PHEIC over. MidnightBlue (Talk) 10:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear about your hospital stay. I don't think we can yet go so far as to put it in past tense; however, I don't see how that conclusion follows from the existence of testing and cases in hospitals. By that reasoning, previous flu pandemic(s) never ended. Even as far back as December 2022 some experts, such as the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, recommended discontinuing asymptomatic COVID testing of hospital patients. [10] That's also, conversely, not an argument that the pandemic ended in December 2022, because testing policies vary greatly and are a separate issue. Crossroads -talk- 18:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
concur w/ Crossroads--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly is in the past, but your suggested text overcomes the mismatch between reality and Wikipedia. Are we ready to implement it? MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The pandemic is ongoing. The emergency measures have (mostly) ended. The disease is not endemic. WHO seem to think this will be pandemic for decades. Bon courage (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That the pandemic is ongoing is very much a minority view, and I can't think of any emergency measures still in place, at least not in the UK. Of course the WHO want this to drag out for 'decades'. As has been pointed out above, they have a monetary interest in keeping it going. Anyway, I don't want to breach WP:NOTFORUM any more than I have done already. I propose the text laid out by Crossroads be adopted. MidnightBlue (Talk) 08:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"the WHO want this to drag out" ← is screaming conspiracist bollocks, and is no basis for writing an encyclopedia or being here at all. Just because editors desire to say the pandemic is over (presumably for HIV/AIDS too?) and have some crappy non-MEDRS sources does not mean Wikipedia deviates from its requirement to source this properly from authoritative sources. We have an entire article on Endemic COVID-19 which goes into some detail about the popular misconceptions to be avoided in this topic space. Bon courage (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support the proposed text, we need to update the article. The NIH source goes into more detail, supporting what Crossroads and I (and others) have been saying for a long time:
"Analysis of the ends of epidemics illustrates that epidemics are as much social, political, and economic events as they are biological; the “end,” therefore, is as much a process of social and political negotiation as it is biomedical."
It's good to see that editors are not applying conspiracist bollocks to the discussion! SmolBrane (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, they are (specifically, the argument about WHO 'dragging out' pandemics for nefarious purposes). Old articles in low-quality journals are likewise of little use when we have strong and up-to-date sources. This is WP:NOTAVOTE and no amount of POV-pushing from weak sources and conspiracist fantasy is going to change anything. It also seems to be an annual problem with the same editors banging the same POV drum. If in doubt we can ask at WT:MED again. Only a few weeks ago[11] the WHO specifically referred to the "ongoing COVID-19 pandemic". Let us hear no more of this nonsense about it being "over". Bon courage (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Making money is not nefarious; I think the allegations here are more about COI than conspiracy. But it is FORUMing so let's stick to the content! SmolBrane (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out over and over again on this talk page, the WHO has no special authority over what is and is not a pandemic. They do not formally assess such things, they do not classify them, they do not declare them. The opinion of particular WHO officials or article writers is just another expert opinion among many others. Never mind the argument that "the WHO want this to drag out"; I agree that is a poor argument. That said, it is actually in a reliable source that part of their concern with their terminology choices is indeed political and based on trying to influence personal behavior. That may be why public-health experts are so loath to take a firm stance. “I would be worried if the headline of your story is, ‘WHO Says We’re No Longer In a Pandemic,’” Van Kerkhove told me. “That would have a different level of meaning from a political point of view.” [12] This dovetails with what has also been pointed out - that the end of a pandemic has no firm epidemiological or biomedical meaning and is partly social/sociopolitical.
Still on the note of what WHO thinks, because this is apparently a sticking point, note that even when directly asked, Maria Van Kerkhove herself (the WHO's COVID lead) stated in that same link: Even Maria Van Kerkhove, director of epidemic and pandemic prevention and preparedness at the WHO, admitted that the issue is a “confusing” one. The WHO continues to describe COVID-19 as a pandemic on its website. [my note: that same page also is under "emergency", which it definitely isn't, so whether or not some page is updated seems not very weighty.] Van Kerkhove says that’s reasonable given the virus’ continued global presence, even though we are no longer in the crisis state we were in 2020—but, she says, there’s no definitive, yes-or-no conclusion about whether that’s the right term to use. “There is no universal, agreed definition of what a pandemic is,” Van Kerkhove says. “If you asked 100 epidemiologists to define what a pandemic is, or, ‘Are we currently in a pandemic?’, you’d get a lot of different answers.” She did not answer 'it's definitely still a pandemic' the way certain editors here are claiming is the truth; she specifically said that experts disagree on this question.
Other experts in that same article and here demurred with uncertainty or outright said they think it is not a pandemic. Please read them. There are academic papers as well calling the pandemic phase over and saying it is endemic. [13][14] etc. Here are more experts and expert bodies calling it endemic: Here is "one of the most cautious" German virologists calling it over, here is the South Carolina Department of Health calling it endemic and stating that other states and the federal government have done the same, this says a Finnish health official described it as endemic, and the Netherlands' Outbreak Management Team said the pandemic ended and it's endemic.
As of right now, the WP:WEIGHT is not heavily favoring one side or the other; it's certainly not so heavily favoring the "ongoing" side such that we can say in wikivoice that it is present-tense, especially since definitions of "pandemic" vary so heavily and often involve social factors - which is no less valid a definition than ones used by epidemiologists (who also disagree on this question, as noted). It is a classic NPOV violation, per expert opinion on the topic, for the article to say the pandemic is still ongoing or refer to it in the present tense. If you wish to claim that a supermajority of experts (necessitating wikivoice) disagree with the sources I have presented and instead say that the pandemic is ongoing, that is your burden of proof to meet. Crossroads -talk- 17:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Random experts have random opinions on any topic. For biomedicine we don't just rely on the opinion of "experts" when we have strong MEDRS sources reflecting solid scientific consensus. Using Time magazine to undercut such sources is a problem. For endemic COVID we need to be in WP:SYNC with the main article rather than creating a POVFORK. Bon courage (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
when we have strong MEDRS sources reflecting solid scientific consensus - We do? I haven't seen any. Just expert and expert body opinions - of which I have presented sources of equal quality with the opposite view.
For endemic COVID we need to be in WP:SYNC with the main article - obviously one of the two has to be updated first. Updating the latter is easily fixable by you or anyone else, and there is no basis whatsoever in WP:PAG for blocking updates in one article because someone didn't update another at the exact same time. Crossroads -talk- 17:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Time Magazine is not MEDRS; the WHO is, as are the sources such as this[15] we cite in the Endemic covid article. Bon courage (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already addressed the WHO argument, but that source is well over a year old (April 5 2023) and states that it wasn't endemic/over at that time, and that it could take years to decades to become endemic, not that it must. And The form this endemic persistence will take remains to be determined. So expert views from 2024 are relevant to how we write this article here in 2024. Crossroads -talk- 18:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And your more recent MEDRS is what? Contrarians in magazines don't count. You can find that for any whacko view. Bon courage (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So now Maria Van Kerkhove of WHO, Mandy Cohen of CDC, Jonathan D. Quick (author of The End of Epidemics), Michael Osterholm of CIDRAP, Robert Wachter of UCSF, and others are all "contrarians" with a "whacko view". [16][17] Interesting. These sources are perfectly reliable at reporting non-BMI like terminology. Crossroads -talk- 18:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And Van Kerkhove's WHO describes COVID as pandemic. Bon courage (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Regarding this, see WP:NOTBMI: Etymology and definitions: The words that society, groups, or individuals use to indicate a condition, as well as whether they choose to think of a situation as a small part of a large condition or as a separate condition are not, themselves, biomedical information. It's no different than the quote from Hans Kluge from last year or numerous other things in this article. And this is not a neutral notification; you engaged in nutpicking of the arguments presented. Also, the argument for many of us is to neither call the pandemic over or ongoing, but to follow expert disagreement on the matter and not take a side, per the proposed lead above. Crossroads -talk- 17:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to write about the definition of "pandemic" in general that is another matter. This is an article about the COVID-19 pandemic and WP:SYNTH is prohibited. Bon courage (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of the sources I have presented are specifically about the end of the COVID-19 pandemic and only mention others to contextualize the fact that endings are not well-defined. e.g. [18] Did you read them? Crossroads -talk- 17:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a old (2021) non-review in a non-MEDLINE-indexed journal. How would that be relevant when we have recent actual MEDRS? It's not worth looking at in these circumstances. Bon courage (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2021 is old? Seriously? There are no recent actual MEDRS that say that pandemics and endings thereof are well-defined, and we have regular RS quoting relevant experts concurring that they are not well-defined. Nothing has changed. Crossroads -talk- 17:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2021 is old for COVID yes. And to repeat, your WP:SYNTH is bad. Bon courage (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I did not commit SYNTH since all sources I have used are specifically about the end of the COVID pandemic. Crossroads -talk- 18:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't use non-MEDRS sources "about the end of the COVID pandemic". Bon courage (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There's an interesting article here from NG going back to 2021 [19]. I'm not suggesting it could be used as a source - although perhaps it could - but I suggest it's a good read for everyone contributing to the current debate. Especially see the section Who gets to say it’s over?. Incidentally, perhaps no further changes are made to the article until the matter is resolved., or even revert it to the edit before the current discussion commenced. Regarding the WHO 'dragging it out'; of course that what's they are doing. It enables certain employees of the organisation to maintain a high profile in the MSM, it brings in funding, and it supports their case for the international pandemic treaty they are pushing. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic&oldid=1227443976"