Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 272: Line 272:
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2022 ==
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2022 ==


{{edit extended-protected|COVID-19 pandemic|answered=no}}
{{edit extended-protected|COVID-19 pandemic|answered=}}
Change deadliest to deadly pandemic, or other less inflammatory word as you see fit.
Change deadliest to deadly pandemic, or other less inflammatory word as you see fit.
Why because using your numbers the death rate is approximately 1%
Why because using your numbers the death rate is approximately 1%

Revision as of 06:45, 19 January 2022

Template:Vital article

Former good article nomineeCOVID-19 pandemic was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 28, 2020Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 10, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
January 2, 2022Good article nomineeNot listed
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, and March 16, 2020.
Current status: Former good article nominee

    WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
    WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by Lfstevens, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 25 December 2021.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles


    Template:Bad page for beginners

    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 Superseded by #9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 lead's 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)
    02. Superseded by #7
    The infobox should feature a per capita count map most prominently, and a total count by country map secondarily. (RfC March 2020)
    03. Obsolete
    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. Cancelled

    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)

    Subsequently overturned by editing and recognized as obsolete. (July 2024)
    06. Obsolete
    There is a 30 day moratorium on move requests until 26 April 2020. (March 2020)

    07. There is no consensus that 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 section 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. Cancelled

    Supersedes #1. The first several sentences of the lead section's 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. (April 2020)

    Notes

    1. ^ Close contact is defined as 1 metres (3 feet) by the WHO[1] and 2 metres (6 feet) by the CDC.[2]
    2. ^ An uncovered cough can travel up to 8.2 metres (27 feet).[3]
    On 17:16, 6 April 2020, these first several sentences were replaced with an extracted fragment from the coronavirus disease 2019 article, which at the time was last edited at 17:11.

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

    012. Superseded by #19
    The lead section's second sentence should be phrased using the words first identified and 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)
    014. Overturned
    Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article. (RfC May 2020) This result was overturned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, as there is consensus that there is no consensus to include or exclude the lab leak theory. (RfC May 2024)

    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. There is no clear consensus that File:COVID-19 Nurse (cropped).jpg should be that one photograph. (May 2021)

    018. Superseded by #19
    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)

    019. Supersedes #12 and #18. The first sentence is 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. (June 2024)

    Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

    This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 July 2020 and 28 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WilliamWang002.

    Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

    This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marianneostos. Peer reviewers: LawrenceH2020, Egarn005, Taha.A13.

    Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

    This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2021 and 12 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kris7535.

    Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

    This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2021 and 24 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stannous98.

    Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

    This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rishad98.

    Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

    This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lsipling, Svonstein.

    Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

    This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amber MWY.

    Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Should we include a mention of the Corrupted Blood incident, and if so in what way?

    I'm reopening this again as its been about a year and I still feel that this is a relevant piece to the article: the famous (infamous?) Corrupted Blood incident. Prior to the outbreak of COVID-19, the incident had inadvertently become a live fire exercise of a real world pandemic situation, and although not intended to became a model of study of sorts by those in or orbiting the infectious diseases areas as a quasi study of human behavior in a pandemic. Notably, the article for the incident now sports a section titled Corrupted_Blood_incident#Comparison_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic, which is what compels me to once more reopen the debate here: Should this be mentioned in the article, and if so to what extent? I can think of a few ways to address this, but by far me favorite options is to simple add a link (ideally the specific section link since it now exists) to the See Also section so as to preserve the integrity of the COVID-19 article. What does the community think? TomStar81 (Talk) 18:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I think adding a link in the See also section would be perfectly reasonable per how the See also section is intended to be used -- articles on related topics that aren't mentioned within the article. Mentioning it in prose seems like it might be undue weight or fluff, but it's certainly relevant enough for a See also mention. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally think it makes more sense for the Corrupted Blood incident to include a reference to COVID-19 pandemic than the other way around. Corrupted Blood drew a lot of early comparisons to COVID-19, but in the grand scheme of the COVID-19 Pandemic this is just one small epidemiological example that doesn't necessarily merit inclusion relative to other epidemiological examples (in particular, any number of flu epidemics). Bakkster Man (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no opinion on a See also link, but I oppose mentioning the incident in the article body or lead. The sources present at the incident article do not demonstrate that a mention here would be due. Firefangledfeathers 18:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


     Not done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Zhang Jixian pronouns

    As far as I know, Zhang Jixian is a woman. In the article: "A pneumonia cluster was observed on 26 December and treated by Doctor Zhang Jixian. He informed the Wuhan Jianghan CDC on 27 December.". I propose changing "He" to "She". --Antonijn (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

     Done, and thanks. Firefangledfeathers 21:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Global pandemic

    Isn't "global pandemic" redundant? If it weren't global it would be an epidemic, not a pandemic. Nojus R (talk) 05:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    good point...a closer look at [1] indicates some uncertainty as to whether several continents or worldwide....--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While it might be technically correct, I'd say it's better to keep "global" in there to remove any ambiguity, as many people might not know the exact difference between the terms. 9yz (talk) 07:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done

    Individual sub-sections for countries under the "National Responses" section

    Some countries have a sub-section for their country and I note edits like this to add more countries. I'm concerned there's no objective basis to give sub-sections to some countries and exclude others -- almost every country has been massively impacted by the pandemic. It's just going to lead to people adding another country that's missing. Some sections are just stubby and not best covered here. Should we just keep the sub-sections at a continent level instead? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep sub-sections at continent level and remove existing countries. Introducing countries is going to bloat the article really quickly (and I've seen enough of that), and the presence of some would suggest that additions are allowed, which I'm not a fan of. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    keep as is currently some countries like the U.S. , Japan, U.K. and others need their own sub section because of importance during the pandemic--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    …and the rest? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    some countries like those aforementioned (above) should have their own subsection as now, depending on how important they are during the pandemic, other countries could be mentioned in a line or not at all...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    remove national subsections have altered my original opinion and have gone along with other editors on this--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Remove national subsections They are a bit arbitrary and repetitive. It's probably more realistic to have an overview for every continent.--Llewee (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


    {{done}} see article history--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's not done; you removed the headings but left all the content there. Much of it is just cookie-cutter paragraphs and could be added for any country, e.g. On 6 March 2020, the first confirmed case in Peru was announced; a 25-year-old Peruvian living in Lima who had recently returned from travels in France, Spain, and the Czech Republic.[349] Nationwide lockdowns began on 16 March 2020.[350] In June 2021, the Peruvian government increased the official death toll from 69,000 to 187,847 deaths, placing Peru with the highest death rate per capita in the world, according to the Johns Hopkins University.[351][352] As of 14 January 2022, Peru had 2,412,577[325] confirmed cases and 203,157[325] deaths., so this doesn't fix the concern I had about coverage of individual countries. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    so... what else did you have in mind?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We summarise the pandemic on a continent-level, and let people go to the main article to learn about country-level details (per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE etc) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    South America, something like this--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, perfect. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ok, North America--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Europe
    Asia

    Thanks, that's a good start. I still think there's too much content though. e.g. look at the Europe section. The Italian outbreak began on 31 January 2020, when two Chinese tourists tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in Rome.[8] Cases began to rise sharply, which prompted the government to suspend flights to and from China and declare a state of emergency.[9]On 22 February 2020, the Council of Ministers announced a new decree-law to contain the outbreak, including quarantining more than 50,000 people in northern Italy.[10] On 4 March the Italian government ordered schools and universities closed as Italy reached a hundred deaths. Sport was suspended completely for at least one month.[11] On 11 March Conte stopped nearly all commercial activity except supermarkets and pharmacies.[12][13]On 19 March Italy overtook China as the country with the most COVID-19-related deaths.[14][15] On 19 April the first wave ebbed, as 7-day deaths declined to 433.[16] On 13 October, the Italian government again issued restrictive rules to contain the second wave.[17]On 10 November Italy surpassed 1 million confirmed infections.[18] On 23 November, it was reported that the second wave of the virus had led some hospitals to stop accepting patients.[19] This is mostly cookie-cutter content. The fact that the pandemic hit Italy is covered by By 17 March 2020, every country in Europe had confirmed a case,[1] and all have reported at least one death, with the exception of Vatican City. Italy was the first European nation to experience a major outbreak in early 2020, becoming the first country worldwide to introduce a national lockdown.[2] (and that part is good as a high-level summary). Then: On 10 November Italy surpassed 1 million confirmed infections. is just an arbitrary milestone and can be said about many countries, On 23 November, it was reported that the second wave of the virus had led some hospitals to stop accepting patients. can be said for many countries as well, etc, etc. I think the nitty gritty should be kept in COVID-19 pandemic in Europe and the lead there expanded. I'll trim it myself but since people get icky about the removal of content, even if it shouldn't be present, I'm writing it out on the talk page too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    yes I agree with mostly all you trimmed to here[2] :-) Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I left some notes in the wikitext. I don't want to remove content on national response measures without adding more generalised content, but I think we should say something like "In early 2020 many countries and/or provinces in Europe enacted measures such as social distancing, closures of hospitality venues, .... Infected individuals were ordered to quarantine at home. ..." (etc) rather than have a few sentences on what the UK did, then a few sentences on what Germany did, then a few sentences on what France did, etc..., because these sentences are more-or-less the same. I would have to do more research on sources to word it like that though, so haven't done it yet. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    tldr: it's more interesting when countries differed from the standard response (like Sweden) so I think the different approaches are definitely worth noting in the main article. But where the responses are the same, it's not worth repeating it in a dozen different sentences. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    yes your correct on that point--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    "UN Global Coronavirus Fund" listed at Redirects for discussion

    An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect UN Global Coronavirus Fund and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 14#UN Global Coronavirus Fund until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     22:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    As info, a quick scan of the article (1/16/2022) shows over 25 duplicate Wikilinks. TwoScars (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Correct me if I'm wrong @TwoScars, but I thought the guideline actually recommended/allowed for links to be repeated as the first usage in each section of an article, not just at the first usage of an article at all. I know this isn't actually uniformly followed, but that's why I would suspect a lot of dupes exist. I'm trying to remove the ones I can find that are intra-section dupes. A lot of these dupes are "see also" links, which are not just permitted, but recommended. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You may know more about it than I do. I have always been told that the first section (in this case, the four paragraphs before Etymology) "does not count", or is treated separately. However, it should not have duplicate Wikilinks within that section. Then the counts start over from, in this case, Etymology on down. The Tool "Highlight Duplicate Links" follows those rules, although some people ignore it for captions for images. It looks like someone has started cleaning things up. Some of the dups I see are Wuhan, SARS-CoV, coronaviruses, Middle East respiratory syndrome, variant of concern, common cold, acquired immunity phase, Zero-COVID, mass testing, Contact tracing, intensive care, outbreak, GISAID, Pune, World Health Organization -- that's up to North America. This is an important article that has had a lot of work done to it, so don't let someone (like me) using a Tool cause you much heartburn. You do what you think is appropriate. TwoScars (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @TwoScars and Shibbolethink: The guidance is provided at WP:REPEATLINK (wikilinks removed, emphasis mine):

    Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article; e.g. |work=[[The Guardian]].

    That's not to say it's a hard and fast rule; I think it boils down to a question of is it helpful and even necessary for readers to have links to the same page peppered throughout the article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Lab leak theory

    So according to rule 14, you're not allowed to post ANYTHING regarding the lab leak theory in the article? Despite the fact that even scientists who were in contact with Fauci early on thought it a probable origin? [1] Jmajchrz (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    please see COVID-19 lab leak theory--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/11/scientists-believed-covid-leaked-wuhan-lab-feared-debate-could/

    Sources for graphics need updates


    May I have the edit permit, please. Or please fix the source references and add one more graphic: I had to change the source of my graphics from [3] to JHU [4]. ECDC does focus on Europe from 2022 on and has no more current international data, not even for Great Britain after their Brexit. Thanks --Traut (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Traut your at least 'extended confirmed', why would you need anyones permission? (just do it)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any option how to edit this article. So I guessed I was not extended enough. Where do I find the edit option for this protected article? --Traut (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    are you serious?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think so. My guess is that I'm still below 500 edits on en.wikipedia, since I'm more a de.wikipedia user. Edits on commons and de are not counted here. --Traut (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ok, so I add the four graphs on the side/below, will do--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops sorry - I did not describe the task properly. The job was to change the references for the sources, not the text of the images. And the fourth image should be added. But the Variant is named "Omicron", not Omicrone, as named first by me. --Traut (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Done (hopefully)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know how to show the former versions linked here:

    Data

    JHU data

    Data

    JHU data

    Data

    JHU data

    Please add yet another image for the development of the current Omicrone variant, which does cause infections beyond the former scale of the graphics

    latest COVID-19 infections, mainly caused by the Omicrone variant, with data since 2021-10-01

    Failed reference

    What am I missing here? Why is reference #64 [1] being used in COVID-19_pandemic#Signs_and_symptoms? Pabsoluterince (talk)

    References

    1. ^ "COVID-19/csse_covid_19_data/csse_covid_19_time_series at master · CSSEGISandData/COVID-19". GitHub. Retrieved 18 January 2022.

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2022

    Change deadliest to deadly pandemic, or other less inflammatory word as you see fit. Why because using your numbers the death rate is approximately 1% Using https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html data on Spanish flu the death rate was estimated at 10%. 1.132.105.80 (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic&oldid=1066613838"