Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 49

End of Pandemic
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)
 * really?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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; 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)
 * I see. Thanks! Geekathak (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. Pandemics and their ends are not well-defined, and whether or not one has ended differs according to the definition used. 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)
 * 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)
 * I like the idea of re-writing to avoid is/was language. I think it has several advantages, but the reason that seems most salient to me at the moment is to stop wasting time over arguments about whether the first sentence should say is or was.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you have an article about a pandemic, it is crucial to have the information if the pandemic ended, when have it ended, and why.
 * You are avoiding that questions, because it would raise many uncomfortable questions, and that it not way that any encyclopaedia should be written. If you want, it is rather unscientific.
 * I came to this article for the one purpose only, and it is to read how did pandemic end, as that is interesting information that I never found. You approach amuses me, and you can revert my comment all you want, but that will not solve your inability to write the honest and truthful Wikipedia article. 109.60.7.61 (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As there isn't any scientific agreement over whether, when, or how it ended, we can't really provide that information at this time.
 * One thing that seems to be certain is that the end of the pandemic will only be visible in hindsight. It might well be over – it might have been over for a year already – but it takes time to collect and understand the proof of that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. We are unlikely to ever see a reliable source saying "The pandemic ended on...", or anything similar. The best we can expect to see is a gradual increase in the number of sources writing about it in the past tense. I suspect it's going to be best to avoid any hint of precision at all. HiLo48 (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely nothing being done to contain the pandemic at the moment. Are you seriously questioning if the pandemic ended or not? It obviously ended, it ended about two years ago, and it ended because we decided to not bother anymore. It is more than obvious and we are mocking you guys. 94.253.206.223 (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Sources are better than anecdotes of course  . SmolBrane (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. 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)
 * concur w/ Crossroads--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * "the WHO want this to drag out" &larr; 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 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)
 * 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)


 * I have notified WT:MED of this discussion. Bon courage (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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.” 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. 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Time Magazine is not MEDRS; the WHO is, as are the sources such as this we cite in the Endemic covid article. Bon courage (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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". Interesting. These sources are perfectly reliable at reporting non-BMI like terminology. Crossroads -talk- 18:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And Van Kerkhove's WHO describes COVID as pandemic. Bon courage (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. Did you read them? Crossroads -talk- 17:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 2021 is old for COVID yes. And to repeat, your WP:SYNTH is bad. Bon courage (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * You can't use non-MEDRS sources "about the end of the COVID pandemic". Bon courage (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There's an interesting article here from NG going back to 2021 . 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)
 * So now we have a conspiracy theory in the mix. That's really helpful. Not. HiLo48 (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Side-by-side comparison
Here is a side-by-side comparison, with text in the proposal underlined where it has been changed, added, or moved compared to the original. The two paragraphs that were combined, to keep the lead at four paragraphs, were not marked, since it was simply the removal of a line break. Other lead adjustments may be desirable (for example, Omicron has dominated in terms of variants for years now, and the emergency was lifted because death rates have vastly declined, in turn thanks to vaccination and immunity due to previous infection), but the point is to ask, which is better, as of today? Crossroads -talk- 22:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for modified text in lead
Adopt the text laid out above by Crossroads in the End of Pandemic section, into the lead.


 * Support, with the exception of the 'As of date < > ' clause, which should be changed to the number of deaths at the time the PHEIC was declared over. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  17:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as the author of it. For clarity it is the green text in the 20:40, 3 June 2024 comment by me. No need to alter the "as of" info at this time. More discussion is above, but in a nutshell, the reason to do so is that it is a classic WP:NPOV violation, per the weight of expert opinions that exist on the topic of the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, (e.g. ) for the article to say in WP:Wikivoice the pandemic is still ongoing or refer to it in the present tense. The idea is not to affirmatively claim the pandemic is over, but to clearly show that definitions and expert opinions are varied on this matter as of now. Following the contrary course - using wikivoice and forgoing in-text attribution - has the burden of proof of showing that a supermajority of experts disagree with the sources that have been presented and instead say that the pandemic is ongoing. Crossroads -talk- 21:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I also added a side-by-side comparison directly above. Crossroads -talk- 22:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have changed the formatting a little bit. I hope that it will make it easier to see where the changes are. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That looks better, thank you! Crossroads -talk- 18:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * support --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - I realize that this is perhaps not part of this discussion, but I want it to be very clear early on that this proposal should not be taken to cover the wording of the lede that doesn't pertain to whether the pandemic has ended or not. The specific wording "COVID-19 vaccines were widely deployed in various countries beginning in December 2020." is frankly false. Vaccines were employed at small scale initially, with broader deployment varying to a great extent over Q2 2021 (no country had "wide deployment" in Q1 2021 or in 2020) with a subset of high-income countries having considerable access during Q2, and then ramping up among more HICs during the Q3-Q4 2021. LMICs first saw considerable vaccination as part of COVAX during Q3-Q4 2021, with some never seeing "wide deployment" at all. I think vaccine equity is certainly something that needs to be addressed in the lede of this article, especially when we are getting into summarizing what by now is a considerable event in global history. CFCF (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly good with this; this discussion isn't meant at all to pre-empt changes to other parts of the lead. Crossroads -talk- 18:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as the proposed text summarizes the current situation without using 'is' or 'was' and remains neutral. Similar approach is taken in 2022–2023 mpox outbreak. KapSoule (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support the change per above. Is this a formal RFC or are we just discussing here? Either way, I support. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I implemented it here, per the overwhelming majority above (both in this subsection and beneath the original proposal in green text), which only became larger after posting to WT:MED. Note, too, that the similar idea that the 2022-2023 mpox outbreak is ongoing (which was put forth by me, based on my understanding at the time), based on somewhat similar logic used to argue the Covid pandemic is definitely ongoing, failed. If after all the above anyone thinks that the edit is erroneous and that it could be overturned, they are welcome to pursue other avenues, but as of right now, consensus is obvious. Crossroads -talk- 21:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 June 2024
Please remove the final entry in the Further Reading section. This is merely a link to a comment on a NYT article made by WP editor, and doesn't belong here, for obvious reasons. See here and here for some context. Thanks, 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Done, thank you for spotting this. Endwise (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)