Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 49

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#Transition to later phases; 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" ← 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)

This edit request to COVID-19 pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 Drbogdan, 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)

Located in COVID-19_pandemic#Background I propose we remove this statement "(lab leak theories)...these are not supported by evidence."^[1] Justification is the RS is outdated, and does not accurately summarize the lead of the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. Furthermore the present NIH source has a couple of issues: first NIH has a COI with Wuhan lab (it funded the lab) so we should be skeptical of this source in wikivoice as well as the fact if editors believe the source, it is now outdated being from 2021. Is there a more recent source or we just drop the statement? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

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

What source do you propose we use to refute that (and the plethora of other sources that can be found and provided when I’m not on mobile) it isn’t considered a scientifically valid theory? There are many more recent sources. Regardless, the source for that statement, which you link here, is not from the NIH - in fact, I glanced through the long list of authors and none of them appear to have any NIH affiliation whatsoever. And even if they did, that is not a conflict of interest - NIH provides grants for research and the teams that do that aren’t suddenly conflicted on something because they funded a lab in question. Put another way - if I said the virus may have leaked from the CDC labs in Georgia, would you say that the CDC was instantly unreliable for all things COVID? You wouldn’t, because that’s absurd. An absurd claim that it may have leaked, with absurd evidence, does not mean any organization attached becomes unable to refute the evidence.

To summarize - what sources do you propose replacing it with, and why do you think that the sources you propose replacing that with are a good representation of scientific consensus? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not how it works, I dont need to provide sources to refute. The existing source is COI and/or WP:PRIMARY, is outdated (would need an AS-OF statement), and is not a good summary of the target page. Plenty of justification to remove it. You stated you had some other sources you wanted to use instead. Please list those sources. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

What makes you say it is an NIH source? Simply being in the NIH's Library of Medicine is not the same thing as being from the NIH; every biomedical journal is there. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

P. S.: in any case, we could use the reviews cited in this note in the lab leak article. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Oops regarding the library, thanks! Do we have any recent sources or are these all 2021? When I looked in this note list seemed to be all 2020-2021 timeframe. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, but that may be an artifact of how fewer editors are working on COVID-19 since 2020-2021. If there has been a shift in scientific opinion of that question, that needs new sources of equal weight. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I just added an as-of date then, seems there are no recent sources or at least none that you are aware of. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

This isn't the sort of thing that is expected to change with time, though. It might, but it's not the sort of thing where that is expected. We wouldn't say "as of 2021, the Solar System had eight planets" even though Planet Nine might be discovered in the future, because it may not exist. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Currently the last paragraph in the lead states "COVID-19 continues to circulate, but as of 2024, experts were uncertain as to whether it was still a pandemic. Pandemics and their ends are not well-defined, and whether or not one has ended differs according to the definition used." COVID-19 is a disease affecting the body, SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that is continuing to mutate and circulate. But rather than change the term, I would advise outright removing this text from the lead. Wikipedia is here spending more words on the semantics of what constitutes a pandemic (39 words) than the opening text in the paragraph on the immediate crisis ("The pandemic caused severe social and economic disruption around the world...") (35 words). Way, way, way undue weight given to the semantics of pandemics. I'd also add that most people reading probably don't care about the status of COVID as a pandemic or not, but care more about whether they actually have it or not, so if you indeed have the space for adding extra words, Wikipedia could replace the text of pandemic classification to instead note Long COVID and continuing societal ramifications like economy, increased anti-science sentiments, supply chain issues, decrease/collapse in educational levels, how even mild infections have shown long-term issues, etc. There's a lot of material to pick from, so semantics of pandemic declaration seems a little silly to me. 2001:2042:6A0F:100:461:E697:9DEF:15B0 (talk) 10:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

COVID-19 is a disease affecting the body, SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that is continuing to mutate and circulate. An infectious disease can accurately be described as circulating as well.

Wikipedia is here spending more words on the semantics of what constitutes a pandemic (39 words) than the opening text in the paragraph on the immediate crisis - The equivalent comparator is the total text (on the topic in the lead), not just the opening phrase of a paragraph. That paragraph is 115 words.

I'd also add that most people reading probably don't care about the status of COVID as a pandemic or not - this has not been borne out by the editing and talk page activity for the last year and a half; at this point in time it is a significant aspect. Remember that this article is about a specific historical event (even if it may not have definitely ended quite yet); if people are interested in "whether they have it or not", they should primarily be looking at our comprehensive article on COVID-19, the disease itself.

All that said, there is of course the possibility to improve or even possibly expand briefly on other aspects of the topic in the lead. Such changes, though, still need to be WP:Verifiable, and the lead should only reflect what is in the body of the article, which can itself be improved first if needed. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The virus is continuing to mutate and circulate is WP:CRYSTAL and not needed. We can cover it after it mutates into something notable enough to be WP:DUE. We are not a directory for every new mutated name that some health organization comes up with. We also wikilink to virus generally as well as other general topics and those articles can state that viruses in general mutate. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to COVID-19 pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Lifestyle changes" section in "Impact" chapter: As the new last line I suggest to add: However, among the impacts of COVID-19, an increase in awareness among managers and the business community of the importance of sustainability was also reported: COVID-19 acted as a catalyst and inspiration. (citing this scientific article: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SAMPJ-08-2022-0403/full/html) RikyToro (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Just some primary research; no sign of significance. Bon courage (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I request mentioning the 2020 Danish mink cull somewhere in this article. COVID-19 pandemic and animals calls it the largest COVID incident involving animals, and I belive it merits a mention. This already used in this article refers to it.--94.189.43.2 (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

please make edit request with appropriate template,thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I quote in the article: COVID-19 symptoms range from asymptomatic to deadly, but most commonly include fever, sore throat, nocturnal cough, and fatigue.

According to the latest CARI community surveillance study whose link is given below, the most common covid-19 symptoms are cough, fatigue, runny / blocked nose, sore throat. This outdated list of symptoms from the early variants is misleading.

https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/23330/cari-surveillance-in-primary-care-english-november2023.pdf 172.98.151.219 (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Detail about the disease would be in the disease article. which is COVID-19. Bon courage (talk) 04:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we clean up some of the entries in Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Current consensus by formally considering them obsolete (or cancelled, or whatever term) by talk page discussion. They are outdated and not in line with the current WP:GA version of the article, being artifacts of the very early pandemic. Namely:

• 2. The infobox should feature a per capita count map most prominently, and a total count by country map secondarily. (RfC March 2020) This has not been done in ages, and seems to be contradicted by point 7 anyway. Case counts have not been anywhere close to accurate, or even tracked all that much, for years now.
• 3. The article should not use {{Current}} at the top. (March 2020) Pointless visual clutter that is an artifact of those fast-moving days of March 2020; no one is going to add such a template now, and I bet no one has tried for years.
• 5. Include subsections covering the domestic responses of Italy, China, Iran, the United States, and South Korea. Do not include individual subsections for France, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia and Japan. (RfC March 2020) Include a short subsection on Sweden focusing on the policy controversy. (May 2020) This hasn't been an accurate description of the article for ages; the Responses section has subsections for each continent, not for countries, and given the pandemic's global spread since March 2020 it doesn't make any sense to regulate which countries are mentioned like this anyway (for example, Australia is covered now). Sweden has a short paragraph under Europe, which is all it needs, not a subsection.
• 7. There is no consensus that the infobox should feature a confirmed cases count map most prominently, and a deaths count map secondarily. (May 2020) Again, a case count map would be inaccurate now anyway, and a "no consensus" entry is an odd thing to have on a list of consensuses.

Are we agreeable that some or all of these can be collapsed and marked as obsolete? 2 and 5 are especially an issue since they are at odds with the article's state, but 3 and 7 also seem outdated in their own ways. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• I support removal of the consensus topics listed above. I dont see a big need for these as the article is not so much current afairs anymore and of much less interest. As it becomes more of a historical article, it is quite easier to find quality sources and much less is controversial today. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support for marking 2 and 7 as obsolete. Perhaps 5 could be marked as cancelled, as individual domestic responses of some countries especially those in 5 are not included in the main article, and have their respective articles outside of the main article. As for 3, it could be kept just for clarity. KapSoule (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support removal in accordance with the arguments outlined by the proposer. SmolBrane (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose removal: I think it is too broad to remove this many points of consensus at once. CFCF (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  Which ones would you support? It wasn't my intention to make them all stand or fall together. Some can be marked and not others. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think what I oppose is the assumptions attached to 5., that Sweden should have a short paragraph under Europe. I realize I may be biased, and perhaps am overinterpreting that this discussion may lead to a new strong consensus on what should or should not be in this article. However, I think whether or not it, or any other country response, merits mention beyond the specific continent-section is something that could be discussed without precedent elsewhere. So if you want to reinterpret that to Support - it would be fine by me. CFCF (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• I support not listing/enforcing/claiming to enforce these specific items, but I think that we should retire the whole thing. There are still parts we agree on (e.g., that the lead should not compare it against WWII), but at this point, I think the "Current consensus" should be that normal editing rules apply to everything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• support per WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

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

The first paragraph MUST contain the year when life retuned to normal in most countries, as does the infobox (as a heading plus inside). It's history already, and people come here looking for the basic "from-till" info of any historical event - concisely and well visible. The details interest less and less users, they're yesterday's news.

To preempt conradiction: China kept strict rules for longer, the WHO had its own criteria, but historically and in practical terms, most people returned to normal life in 2022, the criteria being - pls. mentally add the phrase "in most countries" to every line:

• very low rate of severe illness and fatalities
• no mass closures, isolation, quaranteen, curfew, Zoom schooling etc.
• no mandatory mask wearing, social distancing, extreme hygene rules
• high vaccination and mass immunity rate

Please, don't fall back into pedantic arguments. Compare with Spanish flu pandemic etc.: deadly between X and Y, lingering for Z more years/months, period. All else is of interest only for epidemiologists and other specialists, i.e. here maybe worth keeping outside the intro (lead), but definitely not within. Thanks. Arminden (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The lead already says "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." - which of course means these things were not common outside of the period of the public health emergency. The last paragraph of the lead also touches on this, and the infobox has the PHEIC dates. That said, I wouldn't mind adding something in the prose similar to or based on what Tedros Ghebreyesus said here, about how life in most countries returned to how it was before the pandemic by May 2023. I certainly agree that such social aspects and the 'return to normal' are a huge part of this as a historical event, and that the topic is not purely about a technical epidemiological definition (although even in that field there is not a singular, specific definition of "pandemic"). Crossroads ^-talk- 02:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The first paragraph MUST contain the year when life retuned to normal in most countries, as does the infobox (as a heading plus inside). It's history already, and people come here looking for the basic "from-till" info of any historical event - concisely and well visible. The details interest less and less users, they're yesterday's news.

To preempt conradiction: China kept strict rules for longer, the WHO had its own criteria, but historically and in practical terms, most people returned to normal life in 2022, the criteria being - pls. mentally add the phrase "in most countries" to every line:

• very low rate of severe illness and fatalities
• no mass closures, isolation, quaranteen, curfew, Zoom schooling etc.
• no mandatory mask wearing, social distancing, extreme hygene rules
• high vaccination and mass immunity rate

Please, don't fall back into pedantic arguments. Compare with Spanish flu pandemic etc.: deadly between X and Y, lingering for Z more years/months, period. All else is of interest only for epidemiologists and other specialists, i.e. here maybe worth keeping outside the intro (lead), but definitely not within. Thanks. Arminden (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The lead already says "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." - which of course means these things were not common outside of the period of the public health emergency. The last paragraph of the lead also touches on this, and the infobox has the PHEIC dates. That said, I wouldn't mind adding something in the prose similar to or based on what Tedros Ghebreyesus said here, about how life in most countries returned to how it was before the pandemic by May 2023. I certainly agree that such social aspects and the 'return to normal' are a huge part of this as a historical event, and that the topic is not purely about a technical epidemiological definition (although even in that field there is not a singular, specific definition of "pandemic"). Crossroads ^-talk- 02:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The redirect The pandemic has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 25 § The pandemic until a consensus is reached. Mondtaler (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

There’s a draft with great potential here: Draft:Humor during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thriley (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

that needs to go to AFC (and would seem, even if accepted, not appropriate for this article) IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I posted it here to get any interested editors attention. Thriley (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

An update to the article has recently been made that is concerned with the article using past tense, changing parts of it to use present tense as it "Is still 2024". I am unable to edit this article myself but this edit seems misguided. This is a historial event, not a biography of a living person or a timeless concept. It introduces inconsistent tense and will become inaccurate when it is no longer 2024. 90.193.239.212 (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I made this edit addressing that before seeing this. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It is disputed that the pandemic is a historical event. The article itself says there is no expert consensus. Unfortunately you won't have known how profoundly I dispute this as the pandemic is my ever-present reality and inflicts moral injury onto me to deny it.

There are articles from time to time that contain inconsistent due to not being amended fully. The answer is to amend the articles to be consistent throughout.

This appears to be a concern to amend a future potential inaccuracy that doesn't exist at present and is actually making the article inaccurate. I probably didn't explain my amendment enough - a failure of mine for not wanting to appear to be giving too much detail. What appeared in the reason for the edit was therefore about half of what I originally wrote; the rest didn't appear. It added that if it was now were, then it is no longer are and would mean the experts are again not uncertain anymore and we therefore now would have consensus about whether the pandemic has ended or has not. It isn't being suggested this is the case that we have expert consensus however. I am not even sure the World Health Organization thinks the pandemic is ongoing anymore. Its Covid-19 technical lead did a few months ago but I am not completely sure that this is still the position as there seemed some about-turn in which I keep hearing things that weren't disclosed to me before and some revisionist attempt to end the pandemic it sometimes seems, for example by then saying it depends on which definition is used, something that wasn't disclosed at the start in 2020 when it didn't seem to rely on using another definition or attempt to redefine the pandemic away. It seems to be part of the cultural struggle we are now having as described in the article referenced about the assertion that it is a social phenomenon as much as a biological one.

It then seems to be "not going to be declared over in the near future" https://fullfact.org/health/who-covid-pandemic-over is still the case now as it is still near future from when that was written only last year. We have just had a Covid wave in my country that has been worse than the spring Covid wave - deaths in a number of weeks in it have been twice those in parts of the spring wave that did not reach anything like what we now have and the repeated waves and the fact the virus is out of control as of a couple of weeks ago (10% test positivity) would be arguments on the side of the pandemic being ongoing (as we now have sides in a debate given the lack of expert consensus, even if it still seems the formed view from the outcome of the WHO is it is ongoing).

aspaa (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

A few weeks ago, someone at the US CDC said COVID-19 is "The best way to describe COVID right now is as endemic but with these periodic epidemics" ...and that we were in one of those "periodic epidemics", which appear (on the basis of a very small sample size) to be happening twice a year for a few months at a time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: The following had already been written but not published before the above [Now edited as heading has appeared very large] If we all ignore it, it doesn't exist? Like a lesion we fail to get checked out

"This means that it is possible for the pandemic to have ended according to one definition (e.g., according to a definition based on how people behave)". This seems significant amount of people are trying to define the pandemic out of existence because it is uncomfortable and inconvenient. However, doing so does not change reality of what actually exists. In addition, the words "can be considered" a social phenomenon are weasel words that tell me nothing. The earth can be considered to be flat. This is factually true that it can be considered to be this way because, indeed, it *is* true that it is considered to be flat - by flat Earth believers. As I don't consider the pandemic to be a social phenomenon, therefore it is also true to say the pandemic can't be considered to be a social phenomenon - because it can't, namely by me. It is therefore misleading part-truth to put only one side and not the also true opposite viewpoint. Anything "can be considered" to be anything anyone wants to consider anything to be, and regardless of whether or not it is actually is what someone considers it to be.

However, as it is possible for a pandemic to have ended regardless of reality, now anything is possible at all and any Wikipedia article is now open to amendment on any truth, untruth, truthiness or post-truth on the basis it is "possible" because any human being may think it is. It is possible the statement in the article is nonsense. It's also possible it isn't, so again seems to mean nothing because anything can be "possible" on the basis of redefinition including any to suit any "facts" or opinion anyone wants. It is indeed possible that the earth is flat. I can simply define the word "flat" to mean something other than what flat is and, using such a definition, the earth can now be flat if I define "flat" as meaning the earth's actual shape.

Can be considered? By whom?

"Instead, the disease simply disappears from his narrative." This appears to be truth-as-narrative rather than truth-as-fact. And the problem is that truth defined by a narrative can be demolished by the facts, whereas truth in the form of fact and reality is a matter of fact and doesn't follow narratives that are false: the disease did not actually disappear, only from his narrative, a narrative that paints a false picture in which the disease is omitted when it is not omitted by reality and factual existence and therefore is subject to that challenge that shows the narrative to be factually wrong. In other words, to accept such a narrative, we have now disappeared into a world in which reality no longer matters and Wikipedia can now be based on fiction.

aspaa (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if you've spent much time thinking about the problem of definitions, but it's pretty important for understanding the difficulties here. So let me remind you of the If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? question. Sound, as you know, can be validly defined in two important ways:

1. The physical vibration of molecules – in which case, a falling tree makes a sound regardless of whether anyone hears it, and
2. The perception of that vibration in the brain – in which case, if no one hears it, there's no sound.

The response to that question needs to be: Which definition of sound are you using?

We have a similar problem with pandemic. If lots of people are getting sick and high-risk people are dying, but schools and restaurants are still open, is the pandemic over? There's a lay-person definition that says yes. There's a mathematical definition that says (maybe) no. (See the note about "cure" on my user page for a similar situation.) But there isn't a single yes or a single no that correctly answers the question for all common definitions of the word pandemic. So, like the tree falling in the forest, the response needs to be: Which definition of pandemic are you using? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia should be using the correct term. If we look at recent MEDRS like PMID:39205196 is makes the explicit point the pandemic is not over, so our article is looking odd is recording some previous wobbles about that. Bon courage (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't necessarily consider there is such a lay-person definition and this is because schools and restaurants have still been open for quite some time by November 2023 in which (Great Britain) public opinion polling still indicated 59% of the representative adults surveyed thought the pandemic was not yet at an end. Therefore the lay person was not in fact saying yes at a time when both had been open for quite some time already. By March 2024, the percentages were 44% saying pandemic not at an end, 45% saying at an end, therefore within margin of error and no consensus in public. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/health/survey-results/daily/2024/03/22/bf4bb/1 Lay people overall were not saying resounding yes it is over, they were in fact divided. In fact looking at the more detailed figures, around two-thirds of people aged 65 or over were saying not ended. In March 2024, all this despite many months/a couple of years even of schools restaurants open.

However, I don't think all this discussion is actually necessary. It seems my edit has been reverted, so I am reluctant to go back and amend it again. After going to a Wikipedia page on 'weasel words' however, I noticed it leads to a section on the As of template. It therefore seems the solution is to use the "As of" template which makes clear the information is time-limited (still having nearly three months to run) and will need amending in the future. Inaccuracy is a future issue on this and shouldn't be made inaccurate as it now currently is. It is the case experts are, and not were, because there isn't a suggestion there is a consensus in the experts in the article referenced. Or maybe it is best to use the month and year of the article and then past tense would be correct. The article about the differences between experts on whether the pandemic has ended. The month this year that that was first published is in the past. 2024 isn't and it isn't being suggested the lack of expert consensus made clear by the article has changed since.

I think the "As of" template is intended to deal with this situation:

"Usage guidelines

Usually "as of" is used only in cases where an article is intended to provide the most current information available and will need a future update. It should not be used for historical information that will not change."

It is possible that the information from the time the article was published a few months ago might change, for example if experts came to a consensus that the pandemic has ended.

Therefore, the As of template regarding 2024 and present tense as this is still the current position that there is the lack of expert consensus, as far as I am aware, even if the WHO seems to be it is ongoing, and "Update after" template of 31 December 2024.

It is the precise situation in my view, on these templates, what they are supposed to be here for and should therefore be used in this case. Aspaa (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The point is people use 'pandemic' in a slang sense to mean 'the emergency measures (that affect me personally)'. Medically speaking, the pandemic means an unpredictable/uncontrolled pattern of worldwide viral infection. We're in that situation. Bon courage (talk) 04:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Some definitions of "pandemic" require that the disease be new, i.e. one to which the population has no immunity, which clearly does not apply anymore. Regardless, COVID-19 is neither unpredictable nor uncontrolled. It has a winter and a summer wave, whose relative intensities vary somewhat (as do flu seasons), but it has been repeatedly correctly predicted by health agencies and experts that these waves will be low (relative to the PHEIC) in severe disease and deaths, which continue to decline on average. It is controlled by widespread deployment/availability of vaccines, other medical countermeasures, ventilation improvements, and PPE, and this control is again seen in the far lower rates of severe disease and death. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Seeing a source entitled "Why is COVID-19 surging again ... ?" to claim COVID-19 is "controlled" gets the day of to a classic Wikipedian start, I must say! Bon courage (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The PMID cited above is from an MDPI journal, and hence of fairly low weight. It remains the case that, per reliable sources (in Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_49#Proposal_for_modified_text_in_lead and in the recent one cited above by WhatamIdoing), a great many medical experts either are ambivalent, or outright say the pandemic is over/that it is endemic. This ambivalence includes the WHO's COVID lead Maria Van Kerkhove as well; the WHO itself as a body has no mechanism for assessing whether something is a pandemic. The term really does have no specific epidemiological definition beyond vague generalities, and in and of itself has no impact on medical treatment of patients or on public policy (for which the PHEIC or more precise stats like hospitalization numbers are more relevant), so it isn't surprising that nailing down the transition time isn't a common topic of research papers.

Even aside from that, I very much support the idea that epidemiology is not the only relevant field regarding whether something is a pandemic. A pandemic is as much a social phenomenon as a biomedical one.

For the lead text overall, the consensus here is quite clear. I'm not hugely against it if people want to have the 2024 sentence be in present tense, or have it say "March 2024" instead of just 2024, or use the "as of" template. But I don't see the point either. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the relevant conception of NPOV for this subject is to "Imagine a world in which the other person is not wrong". So, you believe that a pandemic is a social phenomenon? Okay. I don't personally have that relationship with that word, but that doesn't mean you are wrong (a generic 'you', not any specific editor, though if that's the most salient definition to you, then actually you!). I'm sure there's a lot to be said for that concept of pandemicity.

Maintaining a neutral POV on this subject IMO means providing people with factual information that lets them see:

• There is more than one valid definition of pandemic.
• Here are the facts that allow you to determine whether it's a pandemic according to the various definitions.
• We could be in a pandemic according to Definition #1 and not in a pandemic according to Definition #2, so whatever your (or your neighbor's) preferred definition is, you are not wrong.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Please see this talk page thread about unused COVID data templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Dff 217.95.69.110 (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

It didn't HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Nobody knows. Ask ten years from now, when maybe they'll have a good answer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

this may help...(more in the section below)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

After a 2-year investigation, the US Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic has confirmed what the conspiracy theorists determined FIVE years ago: EVERYTHING about the COVID pandemic was fraudulent. https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/12.04.2024-SSCP-FINAL-REPORT.pdf 95.25.133.157 (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Just political silliness, of no relevance to Wikipedia (until/unless some decent sources analyse it). Bon courage (talk) 07:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The existence of this report is in fact relevant to WP, and the analyzation of the findings of it are in the report itself. Might want to give it a read. Past that - any further commentary regarding it in here violates WP:NOTFORUM --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 14:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

We have plenty of high-quality sources on the lab leak nonsense. This is more of the nonsense. In time the WP:BESTSOURCES might cover it. Bon courage (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

And why would we care about the claims of ignorant politicians? They are are not experts on the topic, they have no reputation for fact-checking, and they have a tendency to make self-serving claims. Dimadick (talk) 08:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

report criticizing public health response to the pandemic, but you have to jump to conclusions that this report PROVES that EVERYTHING "THEY" were LYING about. Right? IP from Russia. YBSOne (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

A substantial report, not one reasonably considered silly or nonsense, that's for sure! CNN, ABC, Al Jazeera have articles but I'm mobile right now. SmolBrane (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

COVID-19 has no unique symptom. While loss of taste or smell was frequently reported in the early days of the SARS CoV 2 outbreak, these symptoms are not unique and are often also caused by common cold infections. In fact, there isn't a single tell tale symptom of COVID-19. Therefore, it should be renamed SARS CoV 2 pandemic 172.98.157.31 (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

would not be consistent with https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=covid+19+pandemic the term Pubmed has the most results for, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

While this won't change the ambiguity of the end of the pandemic, a journal which may be a RS (Science) has an article which purports that the pandemic was still ongoing as of late last year: "The COVID-19 pandemic, as best as we can tell, took more than 20 million lives, cost $16 trillion, kept 1.6 billion children out of school, and pushed some 130 million people into poverty. And it's not over: Figures from October 2024 showed at least 1000 people died from COVID-19 each week, 75% of them in the United States, and that's relying only on data from the 34 countries that still report deaths to the World Health Organization (WHO).". [emphasis mine; title "COVID 5 years later: Learning from a pandemic many are forgetting", 2025-01-02] This may be taken as opinion by the author, and I do note the word "took", but I wanted to make a note this in case it could be used in the article. Mapsax (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

it may be a good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

This is from their news section by a correspondent, not peer-reviewed research, and is somewhat vaguely written: note that the very first phrase says "took", not "has taken". Past tense is used further down as well, and the article doesn't really discuss the question of whether or not it is "over". In any case, agreed that this doesn't change the ambiguity, but I don't think making much of phrasing in a news article is really noteworthy in our article. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Crossroads, it's a fairly passing comment and we will need a more substantial discussion to state in wikivoice that a pandemic is still ongoing, in accordance with WP:V. SmolBrane (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe that, the first sentence, currently in this state:

The COVID-19 pandemic (also known as the coronavirus pandemic and COVID pandemic) [...].

Should be addened with this:

The COVID-19 pandemic (also known as the coronavirus pandemic, COVID pandemic, or simply the pandemic) [...].

"The pandemic" is widely used to this day to refer to the COVID-19 pandemic, including by the press. Here are a couple of very recent examples:

The pandemic hit pupils hardest in America’s Democrat-leaning states by The Economist

Science Amid Chaos: What Worked During the Pandemic? What Failed? by The New York Times

The Pandemic Ruined High School for Them. They're Learning to Live Again. by The New York Times

The Literature of the Pandemic by The Atlantic

Five years since the pandemic began, covid may now be endemic, experts say by The Washington Post

The defining photos of the pandemic — and the stories behind them by CNN

Lessons from the Pandemic on Leading Through Disruption by Harvard Business Review

I'm sure there are many more sources for the use of this term if you look for even a bit more than I did. Luxtaythe2nd (_{Talk to me...}) 17:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Seems needlessly vague drawing on inexpert sources. Oppose. Bon courage (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Inexpert sources? As per WP:UCRN shouldn't names that are commonly used (even if they're not used by official/academic sources) also be included? Luxtaythe2nd (_{Talk to me...}) 19:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

oppose as well--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

The sources only call it "the pandemic" because right now it is the pandemic in the public mind. That doesn't make it a different name, rather just a short hand used right now. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 15:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Right. Plenty of sources refer to "the country", as in "the government's latest actions will impact stakeholders across the country." That doesn't make "the country" an alternative name for any given country. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I have noticed over the course of the past 5 years that there has been a lot of debate surrounding when on this page to switch the tense in regard to the pandemic, whether it was still taking place or if it had concluded. Unfortunately, the argument was as heated as it was due to the politicalization of the encyclopedia, and I really don’t think there is any denying that.

The beginning of this article is still worded in a way that feels unnatural & out of sync with other articles chronicling historic events. People come to Wikipedia to figure out what the event was.

It’s time to replace the compromise that was put in place with wording that aligns with the precedent set by decades of articles. There is no reason to still be in disagreement about this, and the only reason one could say “no, we already compromised and we aren’t going to use ‘was’” is if you are prioritizing your position from years ago, disregarding the fact that time is constantly moving forward, and that as humans we should be happy with this reality. The reality is that the pandemic is over.

Is anyone opposed to rewording the beginning of the article so as not to leave a crucial piece of information out? By not addressing it in the past tense or present tense, it is lacking crucial context. Brickto (talk) 12:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. The pandemic is ongoing according many of the best sources, and will likely be for decades. Bon courage (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

  This is not true. Look at the fact alone that there needs to be compromise that leave the information ambiguous as the telltale sign that this isn’t a matter of what is and isn’t true, but a matter or ego & inability to admit it is over.

  That fundamentally damages the encyclopedia.

  • National Library of Medicine - The COVID-19 Pandemic Is Over, but the Virus Still Lingers
  • CBS News - Quote: "The pandemic may be over, but millions are still dealing with COVID-19's effects."
  • The European Physical Journal B - Why and how did the COVID pandemic end abruptly? Brickto (talk) 10:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment - Now, can you find recent academic writing that explicitly states that the pandemic is still taking place in March 2025? Because academia doesn’t just release entire articles about the end of a pandemic if it hasn’t happened yet, so please explain that Brickto (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

    • Comment - I would like to apologize to Bon courage for having said that the debate was over ego. I started the conversation off on the wrong foot and that’s on me. It’s a shame too, because I think the debate is worth having at this point in time, and I think that there are a lot of valid opinions across the board. Sorry for immediately polarizing the discussion. I am prone to doing that, and I am working on it. Brickto (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

  Bon courage I got back to you and provided sources. Would you mind sharing the sources you were speaking about?

  .. many of the best sources..

  I would like the opportunity to read these. I went looking and cannot seem to find anything. Brickto (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  Junk journals and unreliable sources don't really move the needle. While relevant, top-tier sources like the WHO describe a pandemic, or explicitly say we are still in "transition" to an endemic phase – see PMID:39956089 – then Wikipedia is bound to follow. What would move the needle is a strong epidemiology/virology source or multinational health organisation discussing why the pandemic is "over", which would seem to be an exceptional claim given that SARS-CoV-2 is still infecting people all over the planet. Note the word "pandemic" means different things in an epidemiological sense, and in a lay sense (where it equates to noticeable public health measures), as has been discussed on this Talk page ad nauseam. Bon courage (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  Bon courage… Excuse me? “Junk” journals? The sources I cited are credible and peer-reviewed.

  
  

  The first is published in The European Physical Journal B by Springer Nature—a top global academic publisher. It comes from researchers at Rutgers University and CIMATEC Brazil, and it uses physics-based modeling to explain the decline in COVID severity. Peer-reviewed, data-driven, and published in a real journal.

  
  

  The second is literally titled “The COVID-19 Pandemic Is Over”—published in Diseases, a PubMed-indexed medical journal. It’s archived by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM) and National Institutes of Health (NIH). It plainly states: “The global health emergency officially ended on 11 May 2023.”

  
  

  There’s nothing fringe about this. It’s institutional consensus and scientific analysis, both confirming the same thing: the pandemic is over. Brickto (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  See WP:MEDFAQ#PUBMEDRIGHT. In particular, WP:MDPI is a questionable publisher. (I'd also add for future reference that editorials are generally not peer-reviewed, and the guy penning this one makes the rookie error of confusing the end of the emergency phase with the pandemic itself. This confusion is covered at Endemic COVID-19). Stick to the WP:BESTSOURCES and all shall be well. Bon courage (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  Bon courage, WP:MEDFAQ is a personal essay. This is what you are basing your argument on? The personally essay itself doesn’t even discredit these sources — “not necessarily” — but again, this is a personal essay. Not a policy or even a guideline.

  You are choosing to ignore the peer-reviewed, science-backed confirmation that the pandemic has ended in favor of political ego. That’s on you. You don’t have to grasp at straws in order to defend your indefensible stance. Brickto (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  • Comment- Bon courage, WP:MEDFAQ is not only an essay, but it is one that you have a history of editing. Between June 26, 2015 and August 5, 2024 you have contributed 4,931 bytes, 23 out of 89 total edits (25.84% of the essay’s edits) — of which only 4 were marked as minor. Citing yourself in a personal essay.. again, is not the best defense. Brickto (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

    It just reflects sense and (in the matter of PUBMED) aims to impart some small degree of research competence. Nothing un-obvious from that perspective. Bon courage (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  Do you two even really disagree with each other? COVID-19 isn't over. The global health emergency is. As for the pandemic, well, that depends on your definition of the term. Like the flu, which caused a pandemic 1918, it became endemic. As for the editorial, editorials are opinion pieces. They're opinion pieces by editors, who are typically well-respected and credentialed in their line of work, but are nonetheless still opinions and must be treated as such, with in-text attribution if they're used in a Wikipedia article. Now, you can say that Professor of Gastroenterology at the University Magna Graecia says that the pandemic is over, but Wikipedia can't state someone else's opinion in its own voice. I avoid taking a side in such a dispute between experts, simply stating that it's disputed among experts when or if the pandemic ended, or we would write as if taking what's said by the WHO, that "this does not mean the pandemic itself is over, but the global emergency it caused is – for now", as fact (pending new guidance). I don't appreciate your comments about "political ego, though", Brickto. I bring that up because I see you used the word in two different comments, and I advice you discontinue your hostility to other editors. If anything, you seem to be the one attempting to over­ride consensus for political reasons, and your comment about ego is a borderline personal attack, not to mention a brick thrown in a glass house.

  In conclusion, you can say the emergency is officially over, the virus still lingers, and that, in the opinion of one expert, the pandemic is over, although the WHO never officially announced the end of the pandemic. And no one would bite you for saying it. So why are you biting others for simply not fixing something that isn't broken? Abenavoli says the "The COVID-19 Pandemic Is Over" in the title, yes, but the body references instead "the global health emergency [...] ended". This does not appear to contradict the WHO, which says pretty much the same thing, just a bit more pedantically when it comes to avoiding conflation of global health emergency with pandemic, which I suppose technically have a different meaning. 1101 (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  Talib1101, I appreciate your input. Maybe you are right that we agree, but perhaps are just defining things differently. I also enjoy a good, healthy debate! The global health emergency is synonymous with the pandemic. An epidemic is an outbreak isolated to a specific region. Then, there is the lingering of COVID which we are talking about, and that is known as endemic, and when as disease is endemic it rarely ends. COVID isn’t just “lingering” — it is going to remain a constant globally. WHO has already confirmed this. So, if we are waiting on the end of the endemicity in order to say the pandemic is over, then it will never end. There is a vaccine. There is control over it now. It is just simply something we will have to live with as a species for the rest of our time here on Earth, and perhaps one day even beyond Earth.

  
  

  Once something this infectious spreads all over the world, it can easily become a pandemic, but it lingering all over the world does not mean it remains one. The pandemic by both definition & social interpretation was an event that began at the end of the 2010s, and proceeded to take place and end at the beginning of the 20s.

  
  History is not going to define it as ongoing at the present moment we are living in. It has ended.

  
  This doesn’t even remotely mean that COVID is gone. It will never be. If this is really this much of a debate, perhaps there would be benefits in creating Endemicity of COVID-19 ? I’m gonna ping Bon courage so they see this.

  • Experts say COVID-19 is endemic. What does that mean? - Harvard School of Public Health
  • From Emergence to Endemicity: A Comprehensive Review of COVID-19 - 10.7759/cureus.48046Brickto (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  We already have an article Endemic COVID-19, as I aleady said (and linked). Cureus is an even crappier source than the last one. In general the approach Wikipedia takes to NPOV is to focus on the WP:BESTSOURCES and summarize them, not use search engines to try and get random sources to prop up an editor's prior view. When you say "The global health emergency is synonymous with the pandemic" you are simply wrong (as explained in RS). I don't think this conversation is worth continuing and Brickto you need to drop the stick. This is a WP:CTOP if any of the bad behaviour mentioned by Talib1101 recurs, it is unfortunately likely sanctions will be necessary. Bon courage (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  Bon courage See this is odd. Endemic COVID-19 already exists as an article? There are experts who say it already is endemic. I am just confused as to why you are specifically choosing dated statements from people years ago. There are no current sources saying that the pandemic is ongoing. Almost all experts agree that it has ended.

  I understand you don’t like some of the sources, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t reliable. Harvard School of Public Health? National Institutes of Health? You are just dismissing them entirely? Then what basis do your sources have that make them more credible than some of the most prestigious sources of public health related data? Brickto (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  I understand you don’t like some of the sources ← your daft impertinence has gone too far. WP:CIR. I shall not respond further to this crap. Bon courage (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  Bon courage not here to fight, but to have a discussion if that’s alright. I don’t want to make this into an argument, and I know this isn’t a forum, but the discussion still wasn’t really over truly. There are simply too many reliable sources pointing to it having ended 2 years ago.

  The reason I say Endemic COVID-19 is an odd thing to already exists.. is the fact that an article being created about a hypothesized state of an infectious disease, would surly be a careless thing to include in the encyclopedia as a standalone article. Brickto (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• oppose--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Without sources presented there's really no reason to consider changing this. Wikipedia has quite a few topics, like wars, political trends, and so forth, for which their end is gradual and ambiguous, and can't really be named as such until well after the fact. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Did the pandemic of 1918 continued well into 1923? I'm asking this because if COVID-19 lasts longer than the 1918 Flu, it means it's more dangerous than the 1918 Flu, which most scientists don't agree with.84.54.72.60 (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Length of pandemic does not equate to seriousness, but some pandemics are long (e.g. HIV/AIDS). Anyway, WP:NOTFORUM. Bon courage (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Give Ukraine internationally recognized borders and correct purple colour. 31.129.245.26 (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

this is not a political article, it is about a pandemic that has passed(please post elsewhere)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

This edit request to COVID-19 pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Update on the 5th anniversary of the COVID-19 pandemic. 205.155.225.249 (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)