Talk:COVID-19 pandemic

Current consensus

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 .

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 Superseded by #9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. Respiratory droplets may be produced during breathing but the virus is not considered airborne. It may also spread when one touches a contaminated surface and then their face. It is most contagious when people are symptomatic, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear. (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 Superseded by #7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 Superseded by #16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 and by small droplets produced when those infected cough, sneeze or talk. 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. People may also become infected by touching a contaminated surface and then their face. The virus can survive on surfaces for up to 72 hours. 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

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. (1:05 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)

Should be renamed SARS CoV 2 pandemic

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)

Pandemic status, late 2024

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)

Add "the pandemic" as a name (albeit colloquial) of the COVID-19 pandemic

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)

5 Years Later.. Time For The Past Tense

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)
• 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)