Talk:COVID-19 pandemic

"not supported by evidence" in wikivoice
Located in COVID-19_pandemic I propose we remove this statement "(lab leak theories)...these are not supported by evidence." Justification is the RS is outdated, and does not accurately summarize the lead of the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. Furthermore the present NIH source has a couple of issues: first NIH has a COI with Wuhan lab (it funded the lab) so we should be skeptical of this source in wikivoice as well as the fact if editors believe the source, it is now outdated being from 2021. Is there a more recent source or we just drop the statement? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * What source do you propose we use to refute that (and the plethora of other sources that can be found and provided when I’m not on mobile) it isn’t considered a scientifically valid theory? There are many more recent sources. Regardless, the source for that statement, which you link here, is not from the NIH - in fact, I glanced through the long list of authors and none of them appear to have any NIH affiliation whatsoever. And even if they did, that is not a conflict of interest - NIH provides grants for research and the teams that do that aren’t suddenly conflicted on something because they funded a lab in question. Put another way - if I said the virus may have leaked from the CDC labs in Georgia, would you say that the CDC was instantly unreliable for all things COVID? You wouldn’t, because that’s absurd. An absurd claim that it may have leaked, with absurd evidence, does not mean any organization attached becomes unable to refute the evidence.
 * To summarize - what sources do you propose replacing it with, and why do you think that the sources you propose replacing that with are a good representation of scientific consensus? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works, I dont need to provide sources to refute. The existing source is COI and/or WP:PRIMARY, is outdated (would need an AS-OF statement), and is not a good summary of the target page. Plenty of justification to remove it. You stated you had some other sources you wanted to use instead. Please list those sources. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What makes you say it is an NIH source? Simply being in the NIH's Library of Medicine is not the same thing as being from the NIH; every biomedical journal is there. Crossroads -talk- 21:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * P. S.: in any case, we could use the reviews cited in this note in the lab leak article. Crossroads -talk- 21:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oops regarding the library, thanks! Do we have any recent sources or are these all 2021? When I looked in this note list seemed to be all 2020-2021 timeframe. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but that may be an artifact of how fewer editors are working on COVID-19 since 2020-2021. If there has been a shift in scientific opinion of that question, that needs new sources of equal weight. Crossroads -talk- 17:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I just added an as-of date then, seems there are no recent sources or at least none that you are aware of. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This isn't the sort of thing that is expected to change with time, though. It might, but it's not the sort of thing where that is expected. We wouldn't say "as of 2021, the Solar System had eight planets" even though Planet Nine might be discovered in the future, because it may not exist. Crossroads -talk- 23:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Wording
Hi! Currently the last paragraph in the lead states "COVID-19 continues to circulate, but as of 2024, experts were uncertain as to whether it was still a pandemic. Pandemics and their ends are not well-defined, and whether or not one has ended differs according to the definition used." COVID-19 is a disease affecting the body, SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that is continuing to mutate and circulate. But rather than change the term, I would advise outright removing this text from the lead. Wikipedia is here spending more words on the semantics of what constitutes a pandemic (39 words) than the opening text in the paragraph on the immediate crisis ("The pandemic caused severe social and economic disruption around the world...") (35 words). Way, way, way undue weight given to the semantics of pandemics. I'd also add that most people reading probably don't care about the status of COVID as a pandemic or not, but care more about whether they actually have it or not, so if you indeed have the space for adding extra words, Wikipedia could replace the text of pandemic classification to instead note Long COVID and continuing societal ramifications like economy, increased anti-science sentiments, supply chain issues, decrease/collapse in educational levels, how even mild infections have shown long-term issues, etc. There's a lot of material to pick from, so semantics of pandemic declaration seems a little silly to me. 2001:2042:6A0F:100:461:E697:9DEF:15B0 (talk) 10:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * COVID-19 is a disease affecting the body, SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that is continuing to mutate and circulate. An infectious disease can accurately be described as circulating as well.
 * Wikipedia is here spending more words on the semantics of what constitutes a pandemic (39 words) than the opening text in the paragraph on the immediate crisis - The equivalent comparator is the total text (on the topic in the lead), not just the opening phrase of a paragraph. That paragraph is 115 words.
 * I'd also add that most people reading probably don't care about the status of COVID as a pandemic or not - this has not been borne out by the editing and talk page activity for the last year and a half; at this point in time it is a significant aspect. Remember that this article is about a specific historical event (even if it may not have definitely ended quite yet); if people are interested in "whether they have it or not", they should primarily be looking at our comprehensive article on COVID-19, the disease itself.
 * All that said, there is of course the possibility to improve or even possibly expand briefly on other aspects of the topic in the lead. Such changes, though, still need to be WP:Verifiable, and the lead should only reflect what is in the body of the article, which can itself be improved first if needed. Crossroads -talk- 17:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The virus is continuing to mutate and circulate is WP:CRYSTAL and not needed. We can cover it after it mutates into something notable enough to be WP:DUE. We are not a directory for every new mutated name that some health organization comes up with. We also wikilink to virus generally as well as other general topics and those articles can state that viruses in general mutate. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to formally mark as obsolete some so-called Current Consensus entries
I suggest we clean up some of the entries in Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Current consensus by formally considering them obsolete (or cancelled, or whatever term) by talk page discussion. They are outdated and not in line with the current WP:GA version of the article, being artifacts of the very early pandemic. Namely: Are we agreeable that some or all of these can be collapsed and marked as obsolete? 2 and 5 are especially an issue since they are at odds with the article's state, but 3 and 7 also seem outdated in their own ways. Crossroads -talk- 17:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 2. The infobox should feature a per capita count map most prominently, and a total count by country map secondarily. (RfC March 2020) This has not been done in ages, and seems to be contradicted by point 7 anyway. Case counts have not been anywhere close to accurate, or even tracked all that much, for years now.
 * 3. The article should not use at the top. (March 2020) Pointless visual clutter that is an artifact of those fast-moving days of March 2020; no one is going to add such a template now, and I bet no one has tried for years.
 * 5. 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) This hasn't been an accurate description of the article for ages; the Responses section has subsections for each continent, not for countries, and given the pandemic's global spread since March 2020 it doesn't make any sense to regulate which countries are mentioned like this anyway (for example, Australia is covered now). Sweden has a short paragraph under Europe, which is all it needs, not a subsection.
 * 7. There is no consensus that the infobox should feature a confirmed cases count map most prominently, and a deaths count map secondarily. (May 2020) Again, a case count map would be inaccurate now anyway, and a "no consensus" entry is an odd thing to have on a list of consensuses.
 * I support removal of the consensus topics listed above. I dont see a big need for these as the article is not so much current afairs anymore and of much less interest. As it becomes more of a historical article, it is quite easier to find quality sources and much less is controversial today. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support for marking 2 and 7 as obsolete. Perhaps 5 could be marked as cancelled, as individual domestic responses of some countries especially those in 5 are not included in the main article, and have their respective articles outside of the main article. As for 3, it could be kept just for clarity. KapSoule (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support removal in accordance with the arguments outlined by the proposer. SmolBrane (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal: I think it is too broad to remove this many points of consensus at once. CFCF (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Which ones would you support? It wasn't my intention to make them all stand or fall together. Some can be marked and not others. Crossroads -talk- 22:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think what I oppose is the assumptions attached to 5., that Sweden should have a short paragraph under Europe. I realize I may be biased, and perhaps am overinterpreting that this discussion may lead to a new strong consensus on what should or should not be in this article. However, I think whether or not it, or any other country response, merits mention beyond the specific continent-section is something that could be discussed without precedent elsewhere. So if you want to reinterpret that to Support - it would be fine by me. CFCF (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I support not listing/enforcing/claiming to enforce these specific items, but I think that we should retire the whole thing. There are still parts we agree on (e.g., that the lead should not compare it against WWII), but at this point, I think the "Current consensus" should be that normal editing rules apply to everything.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * support per WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

So per the agreement above, I've collapsed three of the entries. I left 7 as is, since as a no consensus, I now think it doesn't seem that meaningful to overturn it as though there is consensus, so I just left it for now. I do think the thing overall is useful and should be kept, but outdated entries being removed helps. Crossroads -talk- 01:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)