Talk:List of epidemics and pandemics/Archive 2

Removing Roman Plague of 590
It seems an editor mistook the death toll from the Plague of Justinian with that of the Roman Plague of 590. The latter was specific to the city of Rome itself (which certainly did not have a population anywhere near 100 million). The article for the latter also states in the lead "It followed from the great plague of Justinian that may have killed more than 100 million European" and cites one of the same references for this figure. I'll be removing this plague from the list. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Ranking by absolute numbers
I just wanted to point out that, although it is very interesting, ranking epidemics by death toll in absolute numbers is very misleading.

These epidemics have occured in different times throughout history while the global population has increased manyfold. This vastly overestimates the impact of epidemics in recent times on humankind and greatly undervalues the seriousness of ancient epidemics.

Relative numbers would better reflect the ranking of death toll by epidemics.

I also point out, that while relative numbers for the area in which the epidemic occurred are of great interest, the percentages of the death toll on the global population (even though it did not spread worldwide) is the only means by which you can properly compare different epidemics throughout time and space (occurring in different areas and years), if one is interested in the overall impact of epidemics on mankind.

For epidemics that have occurred over a long time, such as HIV, I would think that using the population of the end/last year would probably be most reflective, since the death toll is/was still counting up to that point.

I added figures for the death toll as % of the global population for the "Top epidemics by death toll" table but most of them were removed. They were rough estimates as accurate numbers for the global population at any given time are not at hand but I believe they were sufficient to make the ranking of epidemics less biased.

I believe figures for the death toll as % of global population should be included in the table because that information is crucial for the understanding of these epidemics. Korktappi (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Or we could make two distinct tables, one ranking by number of deaths (by the way, I reiterate that using the high end estimate to rank the epidemics is rather misleading) and one by population percentage loss.Aiuredy (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Let me clarify three things:


 * 1) The ranking on this page is not based on high-end estimate, but the averages of the range. It is stated clearly above the first table.


 * 2) I do not oppose adding population lost (as percentage). In fact, I created that table. But Wikipedia has polices WP:NOR and WP:NOT that do not allow conducting original research here. Most of the population losses listed in the current table are supported by reliable sources (WP:RELIABLE), and are not original research. In addition, I kept the data for Asian Flu & Hong Kong flu added by user Korktappi, because Worldometer actually provides world population for those years, and thus in this case I don't think it'd be "original" to just add two ratios. So if one can find the data of world population for the exact years when the epidemics/pandemics hit, I'm good with keeping more of the percentages - in this case, I also agree that it is better to keep two separate tables.


 * 3) For HIV and some other pandemics which lasted for decades, it will be original research if we compare the number of deaths with the overall population of certain year that we choose. --Kutu126b (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Ah understood, somehow I missed the text above the table and assumed the death toll was the high-end estimate, sorry about that. But couldn't we just use the population average as well then? (I wouldn't personally list that as original research, that is using one average figure when calculating a percentage). I actually checked the death toll percentage for most of the epidemics for all three population figures; the low-end, average and high-end. All population counts resulted in the same percentage, when using one rounded number, except the ones spanning extensive periods like HIV so for almost all of the epidemics it wouldn't matter anyway. Korktappi (talk) 08:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I think I understand what you are saying, and I appreciate your work of doing the calculations. So if you have those calculations regarding rounding and estimation, together with some reliable sources, could you please show them below so everyone can have a look and judge whether they are proper to be listed on the table? Thanks. And by the way, from your words above, I guess you might be using multiple accounts on this Talk Page, so I'd like to remind you of another Wikipedia policy WP:SOCK so that you don't violate it. ---Kutu126b (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * No, I am not using multiple accounts, sorry why would you think so? (I didn't know I had to sign when I made the comment at the beginning of this thread but I have fixed that now I think). I have only used the account “Korktappi”, the comment by “Aiuredy” is not by me.


 * Now I used population data from https://worldpopulationhistory.org


 * Black Death: Both the population data points for 1346 and 1353 result in the percentages of 21-55% death rate for a death toll of 75-200M.
 * Spanish Flu: % of global population already estimated, see reference 3. Using the data from https://worldpopulationhistory.org results in the same death toll percentage range as reference 3.
 * Plague of Justinian: both the population data points for 541 and 549 result in the percentages of 8-56% death rate.
 * HIV: The 1981 population results in 0.77% death rate but the 2020 population results in 0.45%. We should be able to safely assume the death toll percentage is between 0.45-0.77%.
 * Third plague pandemic: The 1855 population results in 1% death rate but the 1960 population results in 0.4%-0.5%. We should be able to safely assume the death toll percentage is between 0.4-1%.
 * Cocoliztli: Both the population data points for 1545 and 1548 result in the percentages of 1-3% death rate.
 * Antonian Plague: Both the population data points for 165 and 190 result in the percentages of 3-6% death rate.
 * 1520 Mexico smallpox epidemic: Both the population data points for 1519 and 1520 result in the percentages of 1-2% death rate.
 * COVID: Results in 0.03% whether one uses 2019 or 2020 population figures.
 * 1918-1922 Russia typhus epidemic: Both the population data points for 1918 and 1922 result in the percentages of 0.1-0.2% death rate.
 * Asian flu: Both the population data points for 1957 and 1958 result in the percentages of 0.03-0.1% death rate.
 * Hong Kong flu: Both the population data points for 1968 and 1969 result in the percentages of 0.03-0.1% death rate.
 * Cocolitzli epidemic of 1576: Both the population data points for 1576 and 1580 result in the percentages of 0.4-0.5% death rate.
 * 735-737 Japanese smallpox epidemic: Both the population data points for 735 and 737 result in a 1% death rate.
 * 1772-1773 Persian Plague: Both the population data points for 1772 and 1773 result in a 0.2% death rate.
 * Naples Plague: Both the population data points for 1656 and 1658 result in a 0.2% death rate.
 * Third cholera pandemic: Both the population data points for 1846 and 1860 result in a 0.08% death rate.
 * 1629-1631 Italian plague: Both the population data points for 1629 and 1631 result in a 0.2% death rate.
 * 1889-1890 flu pandemic: Both the population data points for 1889 and 1890 result in a 0.07% death rate.


 * Let me know what you think! Korktappi (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The new website you found seems to be more helpful! I'll take a closer look later. Please be patient. Kutu126b (talk) 04:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I've tried to look at the new website, but the data do not always seem consistent with academic estimates. I've provided a Wikipedia article above the table "Estimates of historical world population" for comparison. For HIV and similar epidemics that lasted for decades during which the world population changed significantly, stating "population lost" is not really reasonable, as 35 million+ people died in different years, and I'm afraid it does not make sense in logic to compare it with the global population of a single year or two. Kutu126b (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * All the blanks have been filled in. Some lack accurate data, but I guess it is the best we can do in Wikipedia. Kutu126b (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Well done, you're a pleasure to work with! Happy to be able to help :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korktappi (talk • contribs) 16:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding estimated death toll along with official death toll
The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in the past day or so has released models for COVID deaths over the next few months like they do each week. However, this week they've released the predicted actual death toll. For the Swine flu, we have both the lab-confirmed death toll along with the estimated from the CDC. I am wondering if others believe the IHME model is good enough to put it in the COVID death toll as an estimation along with the confirmed death toll, or whether we should wait till a higher authority like the CDC or WHO gives their estimate further down the line. Keeping in mind the experts at IHME are not fools, and I do recommend everyone who gives input, at least give a modest read of their reasonings as some might find some of their methods controversial. http://www.healthdata.org/special-analysis/estimation-excess-mortality-due-covid-19-and-scalars-reported-covid-19-deaths -AndrewRG10 (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I should point out the CDC is looking into the claim of the US death toll so I would be happy to wait for the CDC to do their analysis. -AndrewRG10 (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Scientific estimates are counted as reliable sources of death tolls. They can be mentioned in the article. But the issue here is that I'm afraid this IHME COVID estimate is a one-time estimate, and is not progressing with time, contrary to the real-time world report updated daily. Kutu126b (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * They do have a rolling estimate (seen here: https://covid19.healthdata.org/global ) which I imagine will get updated each week as their past modelling has done, I think it would be reasonable then to update the estimate in line with IHME every week after an update. -AndrewRG10 (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * That looks good to me. I'll update the page and source. Thanks for the information. Kutu126b (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Definition of Epidemic
The term epidemic literally means a widespread outbreak. Even the dedicated Wiki article states: "An epidemic (from Greek ἐπί epi "upon or above" and δῆμος demos "people") is the rapid spread of disease to a large number of people in a given population within a short period of time."

There are numerous recent entries on the list of '2' or '8' people. That is not an epidemic! Please discuss or I will remove erroneous entries that don't meet a suitable threshold. The exact threshold is open to debate, but I would argue that either the disease needs to be highly infectious/dangerous with any deaths (e.g. Ebola) or low risk and substantial (e.g. flu, but large numbers of abnormal deaths). Due consideration given to widespread geo-political differences in severity and how things affect different countries. Discuss... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stingray Trainer (talk • contribs) 21:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it is worth noting that since the table only shows the number of deaths, we should not forget to put into consideration the number of cases before deciding if a given entry should be removed. That being said, I agree that some of the "epidemics" in the table can be removed, especially if they aren't notable enough to have their own article. --Kzkzb (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Fully back this, a cluster of measles or another disease that is a cluster, not an epidemic, shouldn't be there. I'm also interested in removing endemics that go on for decades or centuries, but that's a discussion for another day. -AndrewRG10 (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * SARS-CoV-2 without background.png
 * quick keep--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Start of the COVID-19 pandemic: 2019 or 2020?
Recently, there has been many edits changing the year of the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., , , , , , , , , etc.). In this new discussion, I'd like to discuss this issue to determine a consensus in order to put an end to this edit war. --Kzkzb (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Useful information: the infobox of the Wikipedia article on the COVID-19 pandemic puts the beginning of the pandemic to December 2019 as I am writing this (as does the infobox of COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory; permalink) and is categorized under the 2019 health disasters and 2010s disease outbreaks categories. The WHO has declared COVID-19 as a pandemic on March 11, 2020. --Kzkzb (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * No pandemic started as a pandemic. It always started as an outbreak/epidemic at one or several places in the world, and then spread widely around the world. And technically, a pandemic is "declared" or "named" as a pandemic by W.H.O or researchers, but an outbreak/epidemic does not always require a formal declaration. So, for COVID-19 pandemic, the logically sensible statement is: the COVID-19 pandemic started as an outbreak of COVID-19 in China in late 2019, and was only declared a "pandemic" by W.H.O. in March 2020. The beginning time is thus 2019. Another argument is that this list is a list of epidemics, not just pandemics, therefore we should not just display the shortened timeline of an epidemic during which it is an pandemic. After all, to avoid confusion, I can add a note next to the year in the list. Kutu126b (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Should HIV still be considered a pandemic?
At what point does it become a disease like many others? Malaria kills lots of people ever hear but we don't show a decades of it as a pandemic. Fdr2001 (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * From Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS: "HIV/AIDS, or human immunodeficiency virus, is considered by some authors a global pandemic. However, the WHO currently uses the term 'global epidemic' to describe HIV." Thus, HIV belongs in an article named "List of epidemics". --Kzkzb (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

So we should call it an epidemic. The WHO is official. I could also call a seasonal flu a pandemic so it is a pandemic. 2001:1C01:39C5:0:4DF8:8CFB:F420:E5D1 (talk)


 * Seasonal flus cannot be classified as pandemics, as the term refers to an annually recurring disease. However, any individual outbreak of a seasonal flu could be classified as a pandemic (e.g. 1889–1890 flu pandemic, 1918 influenza pandemic, 1957–1958 influenza pandemic, and 1968 flu pandemic) if reliable sources say so.
 * You can read more about Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources here and here (the section on medical and scientific organizations is of particular interest in this discussion). --Kzkzb (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Source for Babylonian flu of 1200 BC
The "source" for the 1200 BC flu of Babylon is a 1920 pamphlet that reads as follows. I don't think this would pass the muster for modern academic reasoning. Is there any better source for that event, preferably found in Mesopotamian records?

"''THE PERFECT LANGUAGE. Sanskrit literally means “the perfect language,” from san or sam, with, and krita, perfected or done. It is a mother language, the ancient language of the Hindus, and called the Infallible language, because it is based on infallible rules; and also the language of the Gods. The language contains the root Plu; to flow, to rain, to swim. Now, whether it is the Anglo-Saxon word, flowan to flow; or the Latin words pluo, to rain, and fluo to flow; or the German fliessen, to flow; or the Greek word phleo, to flow; and the Italian word, influente, influo, and hence Influenza; every one of these words is drafted from this Sanskrit root Plu; from 1800 B.C. downwards is the time that the Sanskrit was in use. Plu or Flu is an ancient disease, so the Author of this Booklet believes, and in confirmation thereof, cites the views of native Indian Sanskrit scholars who have found the records of a pestilence, resembling the Flu away back in the mists of antiquity, 1200 B.C. This disease repeatedly ravaged the then centers of dense population, Central Asia, Mesopotamia and Southern Asia, in the reigns of Tiglath Pileser (1120–00) and Nebuchadnezzar (605–562). The sickness affected the citizens of ancient Babylon; and the described features of the epidemics were such as we have today in those of Influenza, cough, headache, fever, pain in the eyeballs, and copious tears and water gushing from the nose, stained with blood or all blood. The Sanskrit historians gave the name “Plu” to the disease, probably from the flowing nasal discharge. It is an uncanny coincidence, that our Hawaiian people, who are descended from the Indian branch of the Indo-European family of nations, use the softer letter p in pronouncing the shortened form of the word Influenza, Plu for Flu. Unknowingly, the Hawaiians are using probably the word that their ancestors used 2,500 years ago in India on the banks of the river Sindhu or Indus.''"

KZebegna (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

World pop estimates and the global population lost column
I very much agree with "Note 1" that world population estimates vary "non-trivially". Then again, so do the epidemic numbers of mortality! For even the present one there's a factor-of-two uncertainty given. Shouldn't this page at least give a big-error-bars estimate for the Black Death, etc and "global population lost"? At present if one sorts on that column, the initial impression is given that the Antonine Plague's is the largest in history, which pretty definitely isn't the case. (And I'm a little surprised if that estimate is any more reliable.) Or is this not so much undoable, as unsourcable? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm the editor behind this specific work. What you said is do-able, but the main reason for omitting these estimates was the risk of violating WP:NOR. Take the Black Death for example, the estimates for global population at the time can be found in Estimates of historical world population (1340 A.D.) and in . They vary significantly: 443 million, 378 million and 367.8 million. To compute the upper limit of population lost, we take 200 million over 367.8 million (54.4%), and to compute the lower limit, we take 75 million over 443 million (16.9%). However, there is a danger of violating the "no original research" policy since there can be other estimates of global population out there we don't know. But it may be achievable by giving a caveat in the note. I'll think about it, and others' input is also welcomed. --Kutu126b (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Further estimates are added. Should look better now. Kutu126b (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That looks perfect -- thanks for looking at that. We might be teetering on the verge of WP:SYNTH here, but certainly we can broaden (or narrow) those estimates if other sources argue for a wider range (or directly make a statement in those terms).  109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

First, Second and Third plaque pandemics in the By death toll section
Why are they considered as 1 pandemic when the First one stretches 8 pandemics over 200 years. The Second also includes the Black Death which is already listed in the "By death toll" section. The Third one stretches over 100 years, isn't it called an endemic when it's that long? We either have to list those epidemics/pandemics individually, or remove the individual ones and just add the First, Second and Third pandemic. Now it's a bit of both which is inconsistent. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 08:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The first pandemic is referring to the plague of justinian 541-549. Third plague did not stop until 1960s, it's peak was between 1890s-1920s. The pandemic did not end though until 1960. TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 07:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Though it does have it up to 8th century the first plague. Half if not most of the deaths happened within the first outbreak 541-549. TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 07:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

List is too long
The list is too long in my opinion. There are a large number of relatively small and recent outbreaks/epidemics included. I think a minimum threshold of inclusion would be beneficial to help keep the list from becoming excessive. A starting point could be only including outbreaks/epidemics with at least 1,000 deaths for the ones that don't have an "unknown" death toll. Some exceptions could exist, such as the 1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak and 2012 MERS since these are historically significant. Velayinosu (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * yes that seems to have been dealt with--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Notes 3 & 7 say the same thing, citing the same source, but contain different numbers.
The range of fatalities from COVID-19 should be the same in both tables, right? But they're not, and the different numbers given are supported by different notes (3 & 7), each similarly worded and supposedly current as of Oct 5, 2021, yet they differ by several thousand. I think there should be one range given for both tables, supported by one note, and that note should be based on the source cited. Does that make sense? Dcs002 (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Why are there two lists?
Is there a reason why there are two lists with the same information in this article? The first one lists epidemics with the highest death tolls but that infornation can be got by sorting the second list differently. It seems like a lot of extra work to keep the same information in two places in the same article. Cauldron bubble (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * yes your right, from a certain point of view--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

COVID-2019
It's placement makes no sense. Shouldn't it be #10 at 0.07%? Also,"HIV/AIDS global epidemic" a near global epidemic should be referred to as a 'pandemic' right? Maximum70 (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * as to the later question that must be taken up at the article in question, as to the former...you may be right?!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The list appears to be ranked by death toll. Wikipedia's tables auto-sort sorts COVID-19 as the 5th worst. So it becomes ranked fifth ranked. -184.56.75.144 (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Covid-19
Could you please explain your stats in the covid death toll as being 5.5 to 22million. 222.153.12.49 (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Covid-19
The third plague is listed as killing 12 million-15million. If it has killed 12mm lion doesn’t that make it more deadlier than Covid-19? 222.153.12.49 (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree the sorting of dead tolls is done in an extremely non-transparent way. If you look at the code someone has decided that it should be sorted on the average between the lower and the upper estimate (which would justify Covid19 scoring slightly higher at 13.7 M). But that average between 2 estimates is in my view an utter irrelevant, arbitrary, and unsourced value as both the lower and the upper estimates are point estimates of the true value. Creating a point estimate by averaging 2 point estimates is original research and in my view not ok. At the very least it should be clearly reported based on what number the data is sorted - which it is not now. (ps where the sorting value of % world population lost in the COVID case come from is unclear even if you look at the code) Arnoutf (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I Agree with this entirely. Averaging two estimates that were arrived at using different methodologies is nonsense. (It gives undue weight to the one that's farthest from the mark and implies there's meaningful information between the two points.) However, if the only consequence is some rank position, I'm not too concerned. But from a standpoint of providing consistently meaningful information, we should consider revising this.Dcs002 (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

COVID death toll
The source is no longer annotated in the box and seems to have stopped being updated since April 16th. 38.145.149.150 (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * currently reads..6.3–25 million (as of 21 May 2022)	--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

✅

Salmonella, Polio and Cholera
Should the 2022 Salmonella outbreak be listed? https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2022-DON369

Also, should the Ukraine Polio and Cholera outbreaks be listed? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * it would depend on the number of fatalities...IMO (not that there is a lower threshold number)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

✅

Edit request
Please de-italicize the 2016 Yemen cholera outbreak, as it is no longer occurring. -184.56.75.144 (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Verifying end of pandemics/outbreaks
I have recently undone this edit as it is an unsourced edit, and I also have seen a contradictory source. This source claims that the NMB outbreak in Italy continued into 2021. -184.56.75.144 (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

"2022 Monkeypox Outbreak"
the cell "2022 monkeypox outbreak" doesn't have source citations. Please kindly add it, thank you! Sarge Da2 (talk) 09:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ive added 4 references which I believe covers the total/deaths--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

✅

COVID footnote
Coming out of the prior discussion (section above), the article has the COVID-19 pandemic as ongoing, but with a note saying that WHO declared the Public Health Emergency of International Concern for COVID-19 over. Having been involved in these editing discussions, I understand what that note is about, but I see it as confusing for the reader. They'll read that and wonder what it means: does that mean the COVID-19 pandemic is (or soon will be) over or not? So, I expanded on the note to explain it. However, reverted that, arguing it was unnecessary.

What do others think? I believe the current note, while accurate, is confusing and potentially misleading. We need something more: doesn't have to be the text I inserted, but something. Bondegezou (talk) 09:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey @Bondegezou,
 * I myself have actually read that discussion. I understand what I did wrong and you are free to revert it. ItsCheck (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The phrase is wide open to a "by whom" tag, and sort of implies the WHO is the one in charge of it. But as noted above and elsewhere, they don't make official declarations of when pandemics end (they have no official category for one or mechanism for formally assessing that), and we shouldn't expect them to or imply here that they will. The main text already calls it pandemic so there isn't a need to state it again in the footnote. I think that together with the text, it is self-explanatory - a pandemic but no longer a PHEIC. Unfortunately there really isn't sourcing to be more specific than that. Crossroads -talk- 23:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Given WHO don't declare when pandemics end and given that the WHO declaration isn't about COVID-19's pandemic status, let's just drop it entirely. It adds more confusion than it clears up. Bondegezou (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

✅ Bon courage (talk) 05:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure how closely you looked at the history, but it was already done by Bondezegou on 30 August. After that there was a series of bad edits by people apparently thinking it was outdated, so I brought it back on 12 September. The idea is so that people recognize it is not outdated and is meant to coexist with the end of the PHEIC. I think it should be brought back because, as I said on the 12th, events show it is clearly needed. Crossroads -talk- 17:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's just confusing, I think the "let's just drop it entirely" proposal is correct and so implemented. Feel free to argue for inclusion ... Bon courage (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added it again, it is still clearly needed because people are still making edits like this. Crossroads -talk- 18:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Bad idea. If bad editors are damaging the page, perhaps we need more page protection. Bon courage (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * agree w/ page protection--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The MSM, without exception, refer to the pandemic in the past tense. It’s over folks. I know a lot of you here are disappointed with the reality, but that can’t be helped. This article should reflect reality, and not the fringe views of a vociferous minority of editors. Can we please amend the article. 2A02:C7C:B430:F300:E0CE:CB39:BEA8:B90C (talk) 11:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Legionnaires' disease, 1965, etc.
1976 Philadelphia Legionnaires' disease outbreak says that this started in 1965, although the 1974 and 1976 episodes are more widely known. It's weird that later versions are covered, but not the original ones. I like to saw logs! (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Major neutrality issue about the Seventh Cholera pandemic, hopefully not controversial and simple to fix
Hi,

In the list of pandemics, the Seventh cholera pandemic is mentioned as being over (with 1975 as the supposed end date), but this is largely disputed (see the article). Some organizations, like the World Health Orgazination, consider it as an ongoing pandemic. See in particular this webpage: https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2023-DON437. This should be mentioned in the article, otherwise it violates Neutral point of view. I can't edit the article myself, as it is protected and I don't have an account.

85.169.195.108 (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

additional problem, There was a smallpox outbreak in Birmingham right before eradication that is missing. I would like people to check it. Minimum death toll of 1, but a couple of other unconfirmed deaths. Please check and fix. I am simply leaving this for something else, don’t want to screw things up, so won’t edit it without permissions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.222.5 (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * will look at both issues, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

COVID 19 pandemic end date
I wanted you to adjust the end year of COVID 19 pandemic from 2023 to present and replace during and after words to words that means we are in a pandemic in a present tense. COVID 19 pandemic is not over and ignoring it does not make Pandemic disappear. Can you please change the end date of COVID 19 pandemic to present in all COVID 19 pages and for COVID 19 pandemic, create a section which is pandemic from March 11th 2020 to present in boldface. Fx3453 (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅. Bon courage (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Coronavirus Deathtoll
Should be 7-33.5 million. And, honestly, the 7 figure itself is kinda ridiculous since we're using estimated deaths for pretty much every other pandemic in that table. It's ridiculous to compare confirmed Coronavirus deaths to estimated deaths for every other major historical pandemic. So using estimated deaths for Coronavirus, it's actually 18-33.5 million. 2.99.95.219 (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Source: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-estimates 2.99.95.219 (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)