Talk:COVID-19 pandemic

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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

NOTE: The following is a list of material maintained on grounds that it represents current consensus in the article. In accordance with Wikipedia:General sanctions/COVID-19, ("prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content except when consensus for the edit exists") changes of the material listed below in this article must be discussed first, and repeated offenses against established consensus may result in administrative action. It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as [[Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#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 Superseded by #9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]" (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. (March 2020)

03. The article should not use {{Current}} at the top. (March 2020 (informal))

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. The infobox should feature a confirmed cases count map most prominently, and a deaths count map secondarily. (May 2020 (prevailing)) Consensus is currently unclear on this issue.

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. (April 2020)
09. Superseded as this content is now transcluded from COVID-19

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. (March 2020, April 2020 (informal))

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 title of the article was decided to be "COVID-19 pandemic". It was also decided that the title of related pages should follow this scheme as well. (April 2020, 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. Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article. (May 2020)

015. 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. Incidents of xenophobia and discrimination are considered WP:UNDUE for a full sentence in the lead. (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) and later edits

RFC on current consensus #14

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

Polling

  • 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.

NYT 4-Year Summary of Covid Studies Worth Adding?

QUESTION: Is the Following NYT 4-Year Summary of Covid Studies Worth Adding (here or in some other related Wiki article)?[1] - if interested, my related NYT Comments are published here[2] - Comments Welcome - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC) Drbogdan (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

needless to say it is very well written, however it would have been better had it been published in a journal or scientific-type magazine (in contrast to a newspaper) to introduce into this and other related articles--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done...have added to 'further reading' section,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sheikh, Knvul (March 9, 2024). "Four Years On, the Mysteries of Covid Are Unraveling - Are superdodgers real? Is Covid seasonal? And what's behind its strangest symptoms? Here's what we've learned". The New York Times. Archived from the original on March 18, 2024. Retrieved March 18, 2024.
  2. ^ Bogdan, Dennis (March 9, 2024). "Comment - Four Years On, the Mysteries of Covid Are Unraveling - Are superdodgers real? Is Covid seasonal? And what's behind its strangest symptoms? Here's what we've learned. - Knvul Sheikh". The New York Times. Archived from the original on March 18, 2024. Retrieved March 18, 2024.

Comorbidities

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]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:COVID-19_pandemic"