Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 47

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49

COVID-19 is from a lab, not bats

According to the U.S. Energy Department. It was leaked from a lab in these sources.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/26/us/politics/china-lab-leak-coronavirus-pandemic.html https://www.cbsnews.com/news/energy-department-covid-19-report-origins-lab-leak-debate/ 89.106.127.106 (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The report itself is marked as classified, but according to the articles, it says "concluded with low confidence", so the authors do not state it is a fact. 2A02:AB04:2C2:E300:37:CA64:F60E:FCBC (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I have to say I do think it belongs in this article. Eruditess (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Not WP:DUE for this article. It belongs in (and you will see it is already mentioned in) COVID-19 lab leak theory and Investigations into the origin of COVID-19.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
There are several High quality WP:RS (CNN,WSJ, LA Times) that cover the mention of the Energy Dept's assessment of the origin being a Lab Leak, which means that it has enough coverage to justify WP:DUE inclusion into the main Covid 19 article. Eruditess (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
That certainly appears to be your opinion. But we barely discuss the lab leak at all in this article. Because it has its own article. You'll notice we don't mention here any of the other seven government agencies' opinions that Biden tasked with evaluating this. Why would we cover this one and not the other seven? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
As noted at COVID-19 lab leak theory, "On February 26, 2023, the US Department of Energy revised its prior assessment from "undecided" to "low confidence" that the pandemic originated with a lab leak.[139][196][197] White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan responded to the report saying there was still "no definitive answer" to the pandemic origins' question. Updating the finding to "low confidence" does NOT mean that it bears mentioning here; indeed, a "low confidence" assessment from a single agency, which is itself not an organization that is a recognized expert agency on virology, or on epidemiology, or on anything medical at all; means it doesn't bear mentioning here in any way. --Jayron32 16:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
DOE is a recognized expert agency on genomics. Many many citations support this (e.g., PMID: 9033165). After WWII, the US government tasked DOE with understanding the biological effects of radiation. Over the next many decades, as a result, much of the US genomic research effort was led by the DOE. The DOE's efforts encompassed (an still do encompass) virology, epidemiology, and many medical topics. Jaredroach (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
and their opinion is disputed by a majority of the intelligence assets asked about it. And by most virologists. I have seen no evidence that virologists were actually consulted at the DOE. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
agree w/ Shibbolethink--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Disagree on inclusion, we split the two articles mentioned above for this reason. This article provides just a brief overview of the origin discussion in order to spend the bulk of the article on the pandemic itself. I'll also note, our above consensus item 14 remains that we do not mention the lab leak idea on this article, so you'd need to get new consensus to change that, which I think will need much stronger evidence to support. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
The latest FBI announcement suggests that the lab leak should now be mentioned here. Pakbelang (talk) 08:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
That's an NBC report on an interview on Fox News. The involvement of the latter triggers major doubts for me. Find a direct link to the FBI report, and maybe then we can discuss it. HiLo48 (talk) 09:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Get consensus for it. This comment seems less notable than their previous official report on the topic, which didn't change the above consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
This is a tertiary comment to a secondary assessment of a primary event about this pandemic. We are now so far removed from the actual pandemic as a topic in an encyclopedic sense, that to include it here simply because "FBI" is in the title would be absurd. A source review ([1] · [2] · [3] · [4]) of all sources about "covid-19 pandemic" will clearly show this is an individual minute moment in an extremely long and drawn out event. It does not rise to the level of mention here, as we have entire articles dedicated to this idea. In a month, this will have very little prominence in the overall conversation among our sources about the pandemic. Hence, WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:RSUW tell us not to mention it here. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
We need to stop trying to play "gotcha" with news bites. This is a medical topic, about a medical condition, and is subject to WP:MEDRS and related policies. An FBI report is not a reliable source of medical information. The FBI does not employ epidemiologists or virologists or any others to write reports about the causes of disease. So no, you're not going to play the HAHA, now THIS news report about this intelligence agency report is the one we needed." It isn't. Stop looking to the news for this. Start looking through the proper medical literature, and when we have actual scientists commenting on the likely source of the virus, then we'll have something. --Jayron32 16:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  • The fact that it is not included in this article is due to Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Current_consensus #14 above. When was the last time #14 was reviewed? Was it 2020? I see Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_46#RFC_on_removal_of_alt-text_related_to_COVID-19_lab_leak_theory we changed some piped text. Seems the US govt position on origin is now in conflict with WHO and #14 should be reconsidered. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
    The link pipe was the last comprehensive discussion, I believe. However, the statement the US govt position on origin is now in conflict with WHO is false. A lab origin is not the US government's official position any more than it's the WHO's official position, just because it's held by a minority of either group.
    I'll note that consensus item 14 was adopted half a year before the Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 article was spun off, precisely to give sufficient detail to the complex topic of the origin (including the potential for a lab origin, again with its own article giving even further detail). I think it's going to be a tough bar to clear to suggest that our 10 sentence Epidemiology Background section should go into this level of detail, instead of leaving it in the main origin article. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Makes sense. Do you agree to remove the " speculation about alternative origins" piped text and use the target text "Investigations into the origin of COVID-19" instead? Like this. I believe the term speculations is a non-neutral term in this instance. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I think that's reasonable. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Shibbolethink At some previous point, the link to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 was aliased in this article as "speculation about alternative origins". I changed this alias to "investigations into the origin of COVID-19". My change resulted in a more accurate description of the linked page. Furthermore, it avoided the problematic word "speculation". All editors would agree that there indeed have been investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Whether all of these investigations are speculative or not is unlikely to be the consensus point of view, and is unlikely to be supported by a majority of high quality references. My change was reverted. I propose reverting it back unless a good rebuttal can be made. If indeed the consensus for this page is that we should use 'speculations' rather than 'investigations', then for consistency, we should also change the name of the linked page from 'Investigations' to 'Speculations'. Jaredroach (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I've edited it to an alternative target within that article, but also removed "speculation" per your NPOV concerns. It now reads:
The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of a zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal.[1][2][3] A minority of scientists, some politicians, and other laypersons have advocated for alternate theories about the origins of the virus.[4][5][6]
Sources

  1. ^ Hu B, Guo H, Zhou P, Shi ZL (March 2021). "Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19". Nature Reviews. Microbiology. 19 (3): 141–154. doi:10.1038/s41579-020-00459-7. PMC 7537588. PMID 33024307.
  2. ^ Multiple sources:

The target of "alternative theories..." is Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Origin scenarios which is precisely what the pipe is saying, and thus does not violate WP:EGG. Does this allay your concerns? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

This is not an improvement, ant continues to push a pov. Just link to the target article and get rid of the piped text. This talk page is further not a venue to move (rename) the target article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
  • In this article just say it's of zoonotic origin like the best RS. The lableak stuff is fringe and doesn't belong here. We don't entertain a discussion about Fort Detrick in the HIV article, even though that 'theory' that it was made there has a significant following.[5] Bon courage (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
    That makes sense to me. We also already reference it several times and link to the article several times. So this sentence probably isn't necessary. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
@Shibbolethink: There certainly isn't consensus to remove the wikilink as you have done here. Do we really need to run an RFC on this? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
We already wikilink it in that exact section in the "Main article" template at the top of the section. Removal of that sentence seemed to me to meet your POV text and EGG concerns while also meeting my concerns about over-emphasizing the lab leak. By keeping that sentence while also having the redundant one after it, it seems we are shoe-horning in or bending over backwards just to have a sentence that contains that link. When we already have that link...
If you disagree with that consensus-via-compromise, then I think an RFC would be fine as a next step, if neutrally worded and contained all the applicable options. I think if it were me I would instead quickly jot down below all the options informally, and then post a short neutral advertisement to WP:FTN and WP:NPOVN instead. Because RFCs are a pain and take a long time. But that's just me. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Removal of the text and link is not a compromise. I have run an RFC below. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Climate change, Deforestation, Wildlife trade increased the likelihood to the emergence of the pandemic.

I think we should add in the paragraph "Epidemiology, Backgrownd" after the sentence "The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of a zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal" the next sentence:

"Several social and environmental factors including climate change, natural ecosystem destruction and wildlife trade increased the likelihood for the emergences of such diseases. One study found climate change increased the likelihood of the pandemic by influencing distribution of bat species"

And in the lead section after the sentence "The novel virus was first identified in an outbreak in the Chinese city of Wuhan in December 2019." add this sentence:

"The virus probably has a zoonotic origin. Climate change probably significantly increased the likelihood of the emergence of the pandemic."

Sources:

Page 233-235 (37-39 by the internet count)from the chapter 2 of the latest IPCC report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter02.pdf

Pages 1067-1070 (27-30 by the internet count) in chapter 7 of the latest IPCC report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter07.pdf

This page on the site of the European Comission:

https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/430229-climate-change-the-culprit-in-the-covid-19-pandemic

User:sadads, User:Chidgk1, User:Femkemilene, User:Clayoquot, User:NewsAndEventsGuy, User:PlanetCare, User:C.J. Griffin, User:Aircorn, User:RCraig09, User:Bluerasberry, User:Arcahaeoindris, User:buidhe, User:Jusdafax, User:Bruce1ee, User:Hanif Al Husaini, User:Jusdafax EMsmile

Thank you in advance. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Support - Well-sourced, but I think some of these linked are probably WP:PRIMARY. Here are some better secondary sources:
— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Undecided: isn't the recent news pointing to evidence that Covid-19 came from an accident at the virus research lab at Wuhan? In that case, that linkage with the wildlife trade might be not very applicable for this particular virus. EMsmile (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
One agency (the DOE) has shifted its assessment from "undecided" to "low confidence" in favor of a lab leak. The FBI has not changed its assessment from "moderate confidence" in favor of a lab leak. Five total intelligence community elements (including the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Intelligence Council) assess with "low confidence" in favor of a zoonotic origin. The Central Intelligence Agency remains undecided. None of the information the DoE used to make its determination swayed any of the other agencies to change their stances. The scientific community remains in a consensus in favor of the lab leak being the most likely. No substantial new evidence has emerged to change the situation since the two papers published in Science which traced back most of the earliest cases of the outbreak directly to the Wuhan Huanan Seafood Market and found evidence of the virus present on animal cages and meat preparation instruments/surfaces. This is why the scientific community remains confident the zoonosis is overwhelmingly the most likely origin scenario.
TL;DR - a very small thing changed, and the news media reported it as a big change. As per usual. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to enter it in the page.

The IPCC sources are good because there are generally considered as reliable, but the secondary sources also should be added.

About laboratory leak: in my opinion even if there is a 30% likelihood the disease is zoonotic this information should appeare on the page because of the importance of the issue.. Only if the scientific community will said, more or less surely: "it is not the case" - only than it should be deleted.

Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I added it as i said, with several very little changes: I mentioned "environmental factors including climate change" in the lead because otherwise it will not be as per sources and putted it before the sentence about first discovery because otherwise it will cut the story line: first about discovery than about spread than about pandemic declaration. After the general description of the virus it is logically to explain how it appears however for the readers it will not change much.

Maybe it will be better to mention wildlife trade in the lead also because it is linked with Wuhan and its wet market.

About sources: I admit that in my opinion the report of the IPCC are the best secondary sources because they are based on thousands study and generally express consensus. About the study of Robert Beyer I found a declaration of the Cambridge University. It is maybe even better than EU comission as the this site can be considered as political in some extent.

However if you want you can add another sources.

It will be interesting to try to add this also in relevant Wikipedia pages in other languages - the most popular languages in Wikipedia. We should think how to do it.

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I see your edit has been reverted. I would have also reverted it, particularly your new sentence in the first para of the lead which I really think didn't belong there. In the main body maybe but even there I would have my doubts: there is a tendency to blame climate change for pretty much everything that is going wrong in this world... I think the link between climate change and Covid-19 is a bit far fetched. Wildlife trade and deforestation I can relate to as causes (if it really did originate from the Wuhan market) but climate change is another additional corner to take. And if it turns out that it originated from a lab accident then the link with climate change is even less clear. So we need to be careful about that. (the statement in question is Several social and environmental factors including climate change, natural ecosystem destruction and wildlife trade increased the likelihood for the emergences of such diseases.). EMsmile (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
If you will read the 2 IPCC sources that I has send you will see that they say explicitly that climate change do increase likelihood to zoonotic diseases emergence not less than natural habitat destruction or wildlife trade. They explain it very decisively.
According to the page itself (section backgrownd): "The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of a zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal."
So if you know that "all seas contain water" and Metirranean sea is a sea" you can conclude that " mediterranean sea contain water". It is one of the law of logics.
But even if it is too far in your opinion, the IPCC in the source that I have send explicitly put this information in link with the COVID-19 pandemic emergence saying:
"Climate change is contributing to the spread of diseases in both wildlife and humans. Increased contact between wildlife and human populations increases disease risk, and climate change is altering where pathogens that cause diseases and the animals that carry them live. Disease risk can often be reduced by improving health care and sanitation systems, training the medical community to recognise and treat potential new diseases in their region, limiting human encroachment into natural areas, limiting wildlife trade and promoting sustainable and equitable socioeconomic development.
"Diseases transmitted between humans and animals are called zoonoses. Zoonoses comprise nearly two-thirds of known human infectious diseases and the majority of newly emerging ones. COVID-19 is the most recent zoonosis and has killed millions of people globally while devastating economies. The risk posed by Emerging Infectious Diseases (EIDs) has increased because of: (1) the movement of wild animals and their parasites into new areas as a result of climate change, global trade and travel; (2) human intrusion in natural areas and the conversion of natural areas for agriculture, livestock, the extraction of industrial/raw materials and housing; (3) increased wildlife trade and consumption; (4) increased human mobility resulting from global trade, war/conflicts and migration, made faster and extending farther due to fossil fuel-powered travel; and (5) widespread antimicrobial use, which can promote antibiotic-resistant infections
it is saying further:
"Climate change further increases risk by altering pathogen and host animal (1) geographic ranges and habitats; (2) survival, growth and development; (3) reproduction and replication; (4) transmission and exposure (5) behaviour; and (6) access to immunologically naïve animals and people who lack resistance to infection. This can lead to novel disease emergence in new places, more frequent and larger outbreaks, and longer or shifted seasons of transmission."
And it continue more about it after.
Page 233-235 (37-39 by the internet count)from the chapter 2 of the latest IPCC report:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter02.pdf
In the second source the IPCC creates a special box about COVID-19 and say:
"The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes COVID-19, emerged in late 2019, halfway through the preparation of the IPCC WGII Sixth Assessment Report. This Cross-Chapter Box assesses how the massive shock of the pandemic and response measures interact with climate-related impacts and risks as well as its significant implications for risk management and climate resilient development.
COVID-19 and environmental connections
Infectious diseases may emerge and spread through multiple climate-related avenues, including direct effects of climatic conditions on disease reproduction and transmission and various indirect effects, often interlinked with ecosystem degradation (high confidence). Climate change is affecting the risk of emerging infectious diseases by contributing to factors that drive the movements of species, including vectors and reservoirs of diseases, into novel human populations and vice versa (high confidence) (Sections 2.4.2.7, 5.2.2.3; Cross-Chapter Box Illness in Chapter 2; IPCC, 2019b; IPBES 2020). The spillover of some emerging infectious diseases from wildlife into humans is associated with live animal–human markets, intensified livestock production and climate-related movements of humans and wild animals into new areas that alter human–animal interactions"
Pages 1067-1070 (27-30 by the internet count) in chapter 7 of the latest IPCC report:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter07.pdf
As the IPCC is a body that represent a scientific consensus (for this I preferred this sources) we can say that a scientific consensus exist about the statment that Covid-19 is most likely a zoonotic disease ans climate change icrease the likelihood for such diseases.
Also in the United Nations Environment Programme (a scientific bodey representing consensus) report "Preventing the next pandemic - Zoonotic diseases and how to break the chain of transmission" in the main findings climate change is explicitly cited as one of the 7 main reasons for increase in zoonozes:
"7. DISEASE DRIVERS Seven human-mediated factors are most likely driving the emergence of zoonotic diseases: 1) increasing human demand for animal protein; 2) unsustainable agricultural intensification; 3) increased use and exploitation of wildlife; 4) unsustainable utilization of natural resources accelerated by urbanization, land use change and extractive industries; 5) increased travel and transportation; 6) changes in food supply; and 7) climate change."
https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/32860/ZPKMEN.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
About other versions (even though they seems to me personally as more politically then scientifically motivated they emerge when there is more tensions between USA and China and decline when they are weaker), I am for including them in the main bodey and the lead any time when there is something seriouse about it.
I think this is our duty to expose all the related information avout COVID-19 and everybody who hide it intentionally bear part of the responsability for the suffering that will follow even if he is just a wikipedia editor.
Therfore if you will enter something seriouse (reliable source, seriouse evidence) about other versions to the main body or to the lead section or to both of them I will not revert it and will even support.
Certainly if we have seriouse suspicions that the disease can be created by more than 1 way we should enter the basical findings about all ways.
So, if for now scientists are thinking that the disease is most likely zoonozis and that climate change, wildlife trade and natural habitat destruction increase the risk for such diseases we should write it, otherwise we will bear part of responsability for the consequences (absence of preventive actions including climate action, more pandemics).
Are you agree with me? Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

End?

For most countries in the world the pandemic has ended, I think it should be mentione. 2A02:3030:813:AEB8:1:0:DC0C:CDDF (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If you can find WP:RS that states something along those lines. Then be WP:BOLD and add it in. Or just drop the link in the talk page I'm sure there's an editor that would add it in. Eruditess (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Main article is still protected, but yes if there are actual reliable sources marking the end, we'll implement them into the article. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
There are a lot of sources for planned end, such as kff, nyt, etc Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Remember that "the end of the public health emergency declaration in the United States" is not equivalent to "the end of the global pandemic". You already know this, no need to complicate it doe someone who doesn't. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Shibbolethink At some previous point, the link to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 was aliased in this article as "speculation about alternative origins". I changed this alias to "investigations into the origin of COVID-19". My change resulted in a more accurate description of the linked page. Furthermore, it avoided the problematic word "speculation". All editors would agree that there indeed have been investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Whether all of these investigations are speculative or not is unlikely to be the consensus point of view, and is unlikely to be supported by a majority of high quality references. My change was reverted. I propose reverting it back unless a good rebuttal can be made. If indeed the consensus for this page is that we should use 'speculations' rather than 'investigations', then for consistency, we should also change the name of the linked page from 'Investigations' to 'Speculations'. Jaredroach (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I've edited it to an alternative target within that article, but also removed "speculation" per your NPOV concerns. It now reads:
The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of a zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal.[1][2][3] A minority of scientists, some politicians, and other laypersons have advocated for alternate theories about the origins of the virus.[4][5][6]
Sources

  1. ^ Hu B, Guo H, Zhou P, Shi ZL (March 2021). "Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19". Nature Reviews. Microbiology. 19 (3): 141–154. doi:10.1038/s41579-020-00459-7. PMC 7537588. PMID 33024307.
  2. ^ Multiple sources:

The target of "alternative theories..." is Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Origin scenarios which is precisely what the pipe is saying, and thus does not violate WP:EGG. Does this allay your concerns? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

This is not an improvement, ant continues to push a pov. Just link to the target article and get rid of the piped text. This talk page is further not a venue to move (rename) the target article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
  • In this article just say it's of zoonotic origin like the best RS. The lableak stuff is fringe and doesn't belong here. We don't entertain a discussion about Fort Detrick in the HIV article, even though that 'theory' that it was made there has a significant following.[6] Bon courage (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
    That makes sense to me. We also already reference it several times and link to the article several times. So this sentence probably isn't necessary. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
@Shibbolethink: There certainly isn't consensus to remove the wikilink as you have done here. Do we really need to run an RFC on this? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
We already wikilink it in that exact section in the "Main article" template at the top of the section. Removal of that sentence seemed to me to meet your POV text and EGG concerns while also meeting my concerns about over-emphasizing the lab leak. By keeping that sentence while also having the redundant one after it, it seems we are shoe-horning in or bending over backwards just to have a sentence that contains that link. When we already have that link...
If you disagree with that consensus-via-compromise, then I think an RFC would be fine as a next step, if neutrally worded and contained all the applicable options. I think if it were me I would instead quickly jot down below all the options informally, and then post a short neutral advertisement to WP:FTN and WP:NPOVN instead. Because RFCs are a pain and take a long time. But that's just me. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Removal of the text and link is not a compromise. I have run an RFC below. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Climate change, Deforestation, Wildlife trade increased the likelihood to the emergence of the pandemic.

I think we should add in the paragraph "Epidemiology, Backgrownd" after the sentence "The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of a zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal" the next sentence:

"Several social and environmental factors including climate change, natural ecosystem destruction and wildlife trade increased the likelihood for the emergences of such diseases. One study found climate change increased the likelihood of the pandemic by influencing distribution of bat species"

And in the lead section after the sentence "The novel virus was first identified in an outbreak in the Chinese city of Wuhan in December 2019." add this sentence:

"The virus probably has a zoonotic origin. Climate change probably significantly increased the likelihood of the emergence of the pandemic."

Sources:

Page 233-235 (37-39 by the internet count)from the chapter 2 of the latest IPCC report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter02.pdf

Pages 1067-1070 (27-30 by the internet count) in chapter 7 of the latest IPCC report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter07.pdf

This page on the site of the European Comission:

https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/430229-climate-change-the-culprit-in-the-covid-19-pandemic

User:sadads, User:Chidgk1, User:Femkemilene, User:Clayoquot, User:NewsAndEventsGuy, User:PlanetCare, User:C.J. Griffin, User:Aircorn, User:RCraig09, User:Bluerasberry, User:Arcahaeoindris, User:buidhe, User:Jusdafax, User:Bruce1ee, User:Hanif Al Husaini, User:Jusdafax EMsmile

Thank you in advance. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Support - Well-sourced, but I think some of these linked are probably WP:PRIMARY. Here are some better secondary sources:
— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Undecided: isn't the recent news pointing to evidence that Covid-19 came from an accident at the virus research lab at Wuhan? In that case, that linkage with the wildlife trade might be not very applicable for this particular virus. EMsmile (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
One agency (the DOE) has shifted its assessment from "undecided" to "low confidence" in favor of a lab leak. The FBI has not changed its assessment from "moderate confidence" in favor of a lab leak. Five total intelligence community elements (including the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Intelligence Council) assess with "low confidence" in favor of a zoonotic origin. The Central Intelligence Agency remains undecided. None of the information the DoE used to make its determination swayed any of the other agencies to change their stances. The scientific community remains in a consensus in favor of the lab leak being the most likely. No substantial new evidence has emerged to change the situation since the two papers published in Science which traced back most of the earliest cases of the outbreak directly to the Wuhan Huanan Seafood Market and found evidence of the virus present on animal cages and meat preparation instruments/surfaces. This is why the scientific community remains confident the zoonosis is overwhelmingly the most likely origin scenario.
TL;DR - a very small thing changed, and the news media reported it as a big change. As per usual. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to enter it in the page.

The IPCC sources are good because there are generally considered as reliable, but the secondary sources also should be added.

About laboratory leak: in my opinion even if there is a 30% likelihood the disease is zoonotic this information should appeare on the page because of the importance of the issue.. Only if the scientific community will said, more or less surely: "it is not the case" - only than it should be deleted.

Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I added it as i said, with several very little changes: I mentioned "environmental factors including climate change" in the lead because otherwise it will not be as per sources and putted it before the sentence about first discovery because otherwise it will cut the story line: first about discovery than about spread than about pandemic declaration. After the general description of the virus it is logically to explain how it appears however for the readers it will not change much.

Maybe it will be better to mention wildlife trade in the lead also because it is linked with Wuhan and its wet market.

About sources: I admit that in my opinion the report of the IPCC are the best secondary sources because they are based on thousands study and generally express consensus. About the study of Robert Beyer I found a declaration of the Cambridge University. It is maybe even better than EU comission as the this site can be considered as political in some extent.

However if you want you can add another sources.

It will be interesting to try to add this also in relevant Wikipedia pages in other languages - the most popular languages in Wikipedia. We should think how to do it.

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I see your edit has been reverted. I would have also reverted it, particularly your new sentence in the first para of the lead which I really think didn't belong there. In the main body maybe but even there I would have my doubts: there is a tendency to blame climate change for pretty much everything that is going wrong in this world... I think the link between climate change and Covid-19 is a bit far fetched. Wildlife trade and deforestation I can relate to as causes (if it really did originate from the Wuhan market) but climate change is another additional corner to take. And if it turns out that it originated from a lab accident then the link with climate change is even less clear. So we need to be careful about that. (the statement in question is Several social and environmental factors including climate change, natural ecosystem destruction and wildlife trade increased the likelihood for the emergences of such diseases.). EMsmile (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
If you will read the 2 IPCC sources that I has send you will see that they say explicitly that climate change do increase likelihood to zoonotic diseases emergence not less than natural habitat destruction or wildlife trade. They explain it very decisively.
According to the page itself (section backgrownd): "The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of a zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal."
So if you know that "all seas contain water" and Metirranean sea is a sea" you can conclude that " mediterranean sea contain water". It is one of the law of logics.
But even if it is too far in your opinion, the IPCC in the source that I have send explicitly put this information in link with the COVID-19 pandemic emergence saying:
"Climate change is contributing to the spread of diseases in both wildlife and humans. Increased contact between wildlife and human populations increases disease risk, and climate change is altering where pathogens that cause diseases and the animals that carry them live. Disease risk can often be reduced by improving health care and sanitation systems, training the medical community to recognise and treat potential new diseases in their region, limiting human encroachment into natural areas, limiting wildlife trade and promoting sustainable and equitable socioeconomic development.
"Diseases transmitted between humans and animals are called zoonoses. Zoonoses comprise nearly two-thirds of known human infectious diseases and the majority of newly emerging ones. COVID-19 is the most recent zoonosis and has killed millions of people globally while devastating economies. The risk posed by Emerging Infectious Diseases (EIDs) has increased because of: (1) the movement of wild animals and their parasites into new areas as a result of climate change, global trade and travel; (2) human intrusion in natural areas and the conversion of natural areas for agriculture, livestock, the extraction of industrial/raw materials and housing; (3) increased wildlife trade and consumption; (4) increased human mobility resulting from global trade, war/conflicts and migration, made faster and extending farther due to fossil fuel-powered travel; and (5) widespread antimicrobial use, which can promote antibiotic-resistant infections
it is saying further:
"Climate change further increases risk by altering pathogen and host animal (1) geographic ranges and habitats; (2) survival, growth and development; (3) reproduction and replication; (4) transmission and exposure (5) behaviour; and (6) access to immunologically naïve animals and people who lack resistance to infection. This can lead to novel disease emergence in new places, more frequent and larger outbreaks, and longer or shifted seasons of transmission."
And it continue more about it after.
Page 233-235 (37-39 by the internet count)from the chapter 2 of the latest IPCC report:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter02.pdf
In the second source the IPCC creates a special box about COVID-19 and say:
"The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes COVID-19, emerged in late 2019, halfway through the preparation of the IPCC WGII Sixth Assessment Report. This Cross-Chapter Box assesses how the massive shock of the pandemic and response measures interact with climate-related impacts and risks as well as its significant implications for risk management and climate resilient development.
COVID-19 and environmental connections
Infectious diseases may emerge and spread through multiple climate-related avenues, including direct effects of climatic conditions on disease reproduction and transmission and various indirect effects, often interlinked with ecosystem degradation (high confidence). Climate change is affecting the risk of emerging infectious diseases by contributing to factors that drive the movements of species, including vectors and reservoirs of diseases, into novel human populations and vice versa (high confidence) (Sections 2.4.2.7, 5.2.2.3; Cross-Chapter Box Illness in Chapter 2; IPCC, 2019b; IPBES 2020). The spillover of some emerging infectious diseases from wildlife into humans is associated with live animal–human markets, intensified livestock production and climate-related movements of humans and wild animals into new areas that alter human–animal interactions"
Pages 1067-1070 (27-30 by the internet count) in chapter 7 of the latest IPCC report:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter07.pdf
As the IPCC is a body that represent a scientific consensus (for this I preferred this sources) we can say that a scientific consensus exist about the statment that Covid-19 is most likely a zoonotic disease ans climate change icrease the likelihood for such diseases.
Also in the United Nations Environment Programme (a scientific bodey representing consensus) report "Preventing the next pandemic - Zoonotic diseases and how to break the chain of transmission" in the main findings climate change is explicitly cited as one of the 7 main reasons for increase in zoonozes:
"7. DISEASE DRIVERS Seven human-mediated factors are most likely driving the emergence of zoonotic diseases: 1) increasing human demand for animal protein; 2) unsustainable agricultural intensification; 3) increased use and exploitation of wildlife; 4) unsustainable utilization of natural resources accelerated by urbanization, land use change and extractive industries; 5) increased travel and transportation; 6) changes in food supply; and 7) climate change."
https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/32860/ZPKMEN.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
About other versions (even though they seems to me personally as more politically then scientifically motivated they emerge when there is more tensions between USA and China and decline when they are weaker), I am for including them in the main bodey and the lead any time when there is something seriouse about it.
I think this is our duty to expose all the related information avout COVID-19 and everybody who hide it intentionally bear part of the responsability for the suffering that will follow even if he is just a wikipedia editor.
Therfore if you will enter something seriouse (reliable source, seriouse evidence) about other versions to the main body or to the lead section or to both of them I will not revert it and will even support.
Certainly if we have seriouse suspicions that the disease can be created by more than 1 way we should enter the basical findings about all ways.
So, if for now scientists are thinking that the disease is most likely zoonozis and that climate change, wildlife trade and natural habitat destruction increase the risk for such diseases we should write it, otherwise we will bear part of responsability for the consequences (absence of preventive actions including climate action, more pandemics).
Are you agree with me? Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

End?

For most countries in the world the pandemic has ended, I think it should be mentione. 2A02:3030:813:AEB8:1:0:DC0C:CDDF (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If you can find WP:RS that states something along those lines. Then be WP:BOLD and add it in. Or just drop the link in the talk page I'm sure there's an editor that would add it in. Eruditess (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Main article is still protected, but yes if there are actual reliable sources marking the end, we'll implement them into the article. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
There are a lot of sources for planned end, such as kff, nyt, etc Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Remember that "the end of the public health emergency declaration in the United States" is not equivalent to "the end of the global pandemic". You already know this, no need to complicate it doe someone who doesn't. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Shibbolethink At some previous point, the link to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 was aliased in this article as "speculation about alternative origins". I changed this alias to "investigations into the origin of COVID-19". My change resulted in a more accurate description of the linked page. Furthermore, it avoided the problematic word "speculation". All editors would agree that there indeed have been investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Whether all of these investigations are speculative or not is unlikely to be the consensus point of view, and is unlikely to be supported by a majority of high quality references. My change was reverted. I propose reverting it back unless a good rebuttal can be made. If indeed the consensus for this page is that we should use 'speculations' rather than 'investigations', then for consistency, we should also change the name of the linked page from 'Investigations' to 'Speculations'. Jaredroach (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I've edited it to an alternative target within that article, but also removed "speculation" per your NPOV concerns. It now reads:
The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of a zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal.[1][2][3] A minority of scientists, some politicians, and other laypersons have advocated for alternate theories about the origins of the virus.[4][5][6]
Sources

  1. ^ Hu B, Guo H, Zhou P, Shi ZL (March 2021). "Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19". Nature Reviews. Microbiology. 19 (3): 141–154. doi:10.1038/s41579-020-00459-7. PMC 7537588. PMID 33024307.
  2. ^ Multiple sources:

The target of "alternative theories..." is Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Origin scenarios which is precisely what the pipe is saying, and thus does not violate WP:EGG. Does this allay your concerns? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

This is not an improvement, ant continues to push a pov. Just link to the target article and get rid of the piped text. This talk page is further not a venue to move (rename) the target article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
  • In this article just say it's of zoonotic origin like the best RS. The lableak stuff is fringe and doesn't belong here. We don't entertain a discussion about Fort Detrick in the HIV article, even though that 'theory' that it was made there has a significant following.[7] Bon courage (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
    That makes sense to me. We also already reference it several times and link to the article several times. So this sentence probably isn't necessary. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
@Shibbolethink: There certainly isn't consensus to remove the wikilink as you have done here. Do we really need to run an RFC on this? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
We already wikilink it in that exact section in the "Main article" template at the top of the section. Removal of that sentence seemed to me to meet your POV text and EGG concerns while also meeting my concerns about over-emphasizing the lab leak. By keeping that sentence while also having the redundant one after it, it seems we are shoe-horning in or bending over backwards just to have a sentence that contains that link. When we already have that link...
If you disagree with that consensus-via-compromise, then I think an RFC would be fine as a next step, if neutrally worded and contained all the applicable options. I think if it were me I would instead quickly jot down below all the options informally, and then post a short neutral advertisement to WP:FTN and WP:NPOVN instead. Because RFCs are a pain and take a long time. But that's just me. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Removal of the text and link is not a compromise. I have run an RFC below. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Climate change, Deforestation, Wildlife trade increased the likelihood to the emergence of the pandemic.

I think we should add in the paragraph "Epidemiology, Backgrownd" after the sentence "The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of a zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal" the next sentence:

"Several social and environmental factors including climate change, natural ecosystem destruction and wildlife trade increased the likelihood for the emergences of such diseases. One study found climate change increased the likelihood of the pandemic by influencing distribution of bat species"

And in the lead section after the sentence "The novel virus was first identified in an outbreak in the Chinese city of Wuhan in December 2019." add this sentence:

"The virus probably has a zoonotic origin. Climate change probably significantly increased the likelihood of the emergence of the pandemic."

Sources:

Page 233-235 (37-39 by the internet count)from the chapter 2 of the latest IPCC report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter02.pdf

Pages 1067-1070 (27-30 by the internet count) in chapter 7 of the latest IPCC report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter07.pdf

This page on the site of the European Comission:

https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/430229-climate-change-the-culprit-in-the-covid-19-pandemic

User:sadads, User:Chidgk1, User:Femkemilene, User:Clayoquot, User:NewsAndEventsGuy, User:PlanetCare, User:C.J. Griffin, User:Aircorn, User:RCraig09, User:Bluerasberry, User:Arcahaeoindris, User:buidhe, User:Jusdafax, User:Bruce1ee, User:Hanif Al Husaini, User:Jusdafax EMsmile

Thank you in advance. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Support - Well-sourced, but I think some of these linked are probably WP:PRIMARY. Here are some better secondary sources:
— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Undecided: isn't the recent news pointing to evidence that Covid-19 came from an accident at the virus research lab at Wuhan? In that case, that linkage with the wildlife trade might be not very applicable for this particular virus. EMsmile (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
One agency (the DOE) has shifted its assessment from "undecided" to "low confidence" in favor of a lab leak. The FBI has not changed its assessment from "moderate confidence" in favor of a lab leak. Five total intelligence community elements (including the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Intelligence Council) assess with "low confidence" in favor of a zoonotic origin. The Central Intelligence Agency remains undecided. None of the information the DoE used to make its determination swayed any of the other agencies to change their stances. The scientific community remains in a consensus in favor of the lab leak being the most likely. No substantial new evidence has emerged to change the situation since the two papers published in Science which traced back most of the earliest cases of the outbreak directly to the Wuhan Huanan Seafood Market and found evidence of the virus present on animal cages and meat preparation instruments/surfaces. This is why the scientific community remains confident the zoonosis is overwhelmingly the most likely origin scenario.
TL;DR - a very small thing changed, and the news media reported it as a big change. As per usual. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to enter it in the page.

The IPCC sources are good because there are generally considered as reliable, but the secondary sources also should be added.

About laboratory leak: in my opinion even if there is a 30% likelihood the disease is zoonotic this information should appeare on the page because of the importance of the issue.. Only if the scientific community will said, more or less surely: "it is not the case" - only than it should be deleted.

Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I added it as i said, with several very little changes: I mentioned "environmental factors including climate change" in the lead because otherwise it will not be as per sources and putted it before the sentence about first discovery because otherwise it will cut the story line: first about discovery than about spread than about pandemic declaration. After the general description of the virus it is logically to explain how it appears however for the readers it will not change much.

Maybe it will be better to mention wildlife trade in the lead also because it is linked with Wuhan and its wet market.

About sources: I admit that in my opinion the report of the IPCC are the best secondary sources because they are based on thousands study and generally express consensus. About the study of Robert Beyer I found a declaration of the Cambridge University. It is maybe even better than EU comission as the this site can be considered as political in some extent.

However if you want you can add another sources.

It will be interesting to try to add this also in relevant Wikipedia pages in other languages - the most popular languages in Wikipedia. We should think how to do it.

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I see your edit has been reverted. I would have also reverted it, particularly your new sentence in the first para of the lead which I really think didn't belong there. In the main body maybe but even there I would have my doubts: there is a tendency to blame climate change for pretty much everything that is going wrong in this world... I think the link between climate change and Covid-19 is a bit far fetched. Wildlife trade and deforestation I can relate to as causes (if it really did originate from the Wuhan market) but climate change is another additional corner to take. And if it turns out that it originated from a lab accident then the link with climate change is even less clear. So we need to be careful about that. (the statement in question is Several social and environmental factors including climate change, natural ecosystem destruction and wildlife trade increased the likelihood for the emergences of such diseases.). EMsmile (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
If you will read the 2 IPCC sources that I has send you will see that they say explicitly that climate change do increase likelihood to zoonotic diseases emergence not less than natural habitat destruction or wildlife trade. They explain it very decisively.
According to the page itself (section backgrownd): "The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of a zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal."
So if you know that "all seas contain water" and Metirranean sea is a sea" you can conclude that " mediterranean sea contain water". It is one of the law of logics.
But even if it is too far in your opinion, the IPCC in the source that I have send explicitly put this information in link with the COVID-19 pandemic emergence saying:
"Climate change is contributing to the spread of diseases in both wildlife and humans. Increased contact between wildlife and human populations increases disease risk, and climate change is altering where pathogens that cause diseases and the animals that carry them live. Disease risk can often be reduced by improving health care and sanitation systems, training the medical community to recognise and treat potential new diseases in their region, limiting human encroachment into natural areas, limiting wildlife trade and promoting sustainable and equitable socioeconomic development.
"Diseases transmitted between humans and animals are called zoonoses. Zoonoses comprise nearly two-thirds of known human infectious diseases and the majority of newly emerging ones. COVID-19 is the most recent zoonosis and has killed millions of people globally while devastating economies. The risk posed by Emerging Infectious Diseases (EIDs) has increased because of: (1) the movement of wild animals and their parasites into new areas as a result of climate change, global trade and travel; (2) human intrusion in natural areas and the conversion of natural areas for agriculture, livestock, the extraction of industrial/raw materials and housing; (3) increased wildlife trade and consumption; (4) increased human mobility resulting from global trade, war/conflicts and migration, made faster and extending farther due to fossil fuel-powered travel; and (5) widespread antimicrobial use, which can promote antibiotic-resistant infections
it is saying further:
"Climate change further increases risk by altering pathogen and host animal (1) geographic ranges and habitats; (2) survival, growth and development; (3) reproduction and replication; (4) transmission and exposure (5) behaviour; and (6) access to immunologically naïve animals and people who lack resistance to infection. This can lead to novel disease emergence in new places, more frequent and larger outbreaks, and longer or shifted seasons of transmission."
And it continue more about it after.
Page 233-235 (37-39 by the internet count)from the chapter 2 of the latest IPCC report:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter02.pdf
In the second source the IPCC creates a special box about COVID-19 and say:
"The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes COVID-19, emerged in late 2019, halfway through the preparation of the IPCC WGII Sixth Assessment Report. This Cross-Chapter Box assesses how the massive shock of the pandemic and response measures interact with climate-related impacts and risks as well as its significant implications for risk management and climate resilient development.
COVID-19 and environmental connections
Infectious diseases may emerge and spread through multiple climate-related avenues, including direct effects of climatic conditions on disease reproduction and transmission and various indirect effects, often interlinked with ecosystem degradation (high confidence). Climate change is affecting the risk of emerging infectious diseases by contributing to factors that drive the movements of species, including vectors and reservoirs of diseases, into novel human populations and vice versa (high confidence) (Sections 2.4.2.7, 5.2.2.3; Cross-Chapter Box Illness in Chapter 2; IPCC, 2019b; IPBES 2020). The spillover of some emerging infectious diseases from wildlife into humans is associated with live animal–human markets, intensified livestock production and climate-related movements of humans and wild animals into new areas that alter human–animal interactions"
Pages 1067-1070 (27-30 by the internet count) in chapter 7 of the latest IPCC report:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter07.pdf
As the IPCC is a body that represent a scientific consensus (for this I preferred this sources) we can say that a scientific consensus exist about the statment that Covid-19 is most likely a zoonotic disease ans climate change icrease the likelihood for such diseases.
Also in the United Nations Environment Programme (a scientific bodey representing consensus) report "Preventing the next pandemic - Zoonotic diseases and how to break the chain of transmission" in the main findings climate change is explicitly cited as one of the 7 main reasons for increase in zoonozes:
"7. DISEASE DRIVERS Seven human-mediated factors are most likely driving the emergence of zoonotic diseases: 1) increasing human demand for animal protein; 2) unsustainable agricultural intensification; 3) increased use and exploitation of wildlife; 4) unsustainable utilization of natural resources accelerated by urbanization, land use change and extractive industries; 5) increased travel and transportation; 6) changes in food supply; and 7) climate change."
https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/32860/ZPKMEN.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
About other versions (even though they seems to me personally as more politically then scientifically motivated they emerge when there is more tensions between USA and China and decline when they are weaker), I am for including them in the main bodey and the lead any time when there is something seriouse about it.
I think this is our duty to expose all the related information avout COVID-19 and everybody who hide it intentionally bear part of the responsability for the suffering that will follow even if he is just a wikipedia editor.
Therfore if you will enter something seriouse (reliable source, seriouse evidence) about other versions to the main body or to the lead section or to both of them I will not revert it and will even support.
Certainly if we have seriouse suspicions that the disease can be created by more than 1 way we should enter the basical findings about all ways.
So, if for now scientists are thinking that the disease is most likely zoonozis and that climate change, wildlife trade and natural habitat destruction increase the risk for such diseases we should write it, otherwise we will bear part of responsability for the consequences (absence of preventive actions including climate action, more pandemics).
Are you agree with me? Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

End?

For most countries in the world the pandemic has ended, I think it should be mentione. 2A02:3030:813:AEB8:1:0:DC0C:CDDF (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If you can find WP:RS that states something along those lines. Then be WP:BOLD and add it in. Or just drop the link in the talk page I'm sure there's an editor that would add it in. Eruditess (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Main article is still protected, but yes if there are actual reliable sources marking the end, we'll implement them into the article. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
There are a lot of sources for planned end, such as kff, nyt, etc Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Remember that "the end of the public health emergency declaration in the United States" is not equivalent to "the end of the global pandemic". You already know this, no need to complicate it doe someone who doesn't. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Shibbolethink At some previous point, the link to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 was aliased in this article as "speculation about alternative origins". I changed this alias to "investigations into the origin of COVID-19". My change resulted in a more accurate description of the linked page. Furthermore, it avoided the problematic word "speculation". All editors would agree that there indeed have been investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Whether all of these investigations are speculative or not is unlikely to be the consensus point of view, and is unlikely to be supported by a majority of high quality references. My change was reverted. I propose reverting it back unless a good rebuttal can be made. If indeed the consensus for this page is that we should use 'speculations' rather than 'investigations', then for consistency, we should also change the name of the linked page from 'Investigations' to 'Speculations'. Jaredroach (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I've edited it to an alternative target within that article, but also removed "speculation" per your NPOV concerns. It now reads:
The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of a zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal.[1][2][3] A minority of scientists, some politicians, and other laypersons have advocated for alternate theories about the origins of the virus.[4][5][6]
Sources

  1. ^ Hu B, Guo H, Zhou P, Shi ZL (March 2021). "Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19". Nature Reviews. Microbiology. 19 (3): 141–154. doi:10.1038/s41579-020-00459-7. PMC 7537588. PMID 33024307.
  2. ^ Multiple sources:

The target of "alternative theories..." is Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Origin scenarios which is precisely what the pipe is saying, and thus does not violate WP:EGG. Does this allay your concerns? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

This is not an improvement, ant continues to push a pov. Just link to the target article and get rid of the piped text. This talk page is further not a venue to move (rename) the target article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
  • In this article just say it's of zoonotic origin like the best RS. The lableak stuff is fringe and doesn't belong here. We don't entertain a discussion about Fort Detrick in the HIV article, even though that 'theory' that it was made there has a significant following.[8] Bon courage (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
    That makes sense to me. We also already reference it several times and link to the article several times. So this sentence probably isn't necessary. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
@Shibbolethink: There certainly isn't consensus to remove the wikilink as you have done here. Do we really need to run an RFC on this? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
We already wikilink it in that exact section in the "Main article" template at the top of the section. Removal of that sentence seemed to me to meet your POV text and EGG concerns while also meeting my concerns about over-emphasizing the lab leak. By keeping that sentence while also having the redundant one after it, it seems we are shoe-horning in or bending over backwards just to have a sentence that contains that link. When we already have that link...
If you disagree with that consensus-via-compromise, then I think an RFC would be fine as a next step, if neutrally worded and contained all the applicable options. I think if it were me I would instead quickly jot down below all the options informally, and then post a short neutral advertisement to WP:FTN and WP:NPOVN instead. Because RFCs are a pain and take a long time. But that's just me. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Removal of the text and link is not a compromise. I have run an RFC below. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Climate change, Deforestation, Wildlife trade increased the likelihood to the emergence of the pandemic.

I think we should add in the paragraph "Epidemiology, Backgrownd" after the sentence "The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of a zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal" the next sentence:

"Several social and environmental factors including climate change, natural ecosystem destruction and wildlife trade increased the likelihood for the emergences of such diseases. One study found climate change increased the likelihood of the pandemic by influencing distribution of bat species"

And in the lead section after the sentence "The novel virus was first identified in an outbreak in the Chinese city of Wuhan in December 2019." add this sentence:

"The virus probably has a zoonotic origin. Climate change probably significantly increased the likelihood of the emergence of the pandemic."

Sources:

Page 233-235 (37-39 by the internet count)from the chapter 2 of the latest IPCC report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter02.pdf

Pages 1067-1070 (27-30 by the internet count) in chapter 7 of the latest IPCC report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter07.pdf

This page on the site of the European Comission:

https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/430229-climate-change-the-culprit-in-the-covid-19-pandemic

User:sadads, User:Chidgk1, User:Femkemilene, User:Clayoquot, User:NewsAndEventsGuy, User:PlanetCare, User:C.J. Griffin, User:Aircorn, User:RCraig09, User:Bluerasberry, User:Arcahaeoindris, User:buidhe, User:Jusdafax, User:Bruce1ee, User:Hanif Al Husaini, User:Jusdafax EMsmile

Thank you in advance. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Support - Well-sourced, but I think some of these linked are probably WP:PRIMARY. Here are some better secondary sources:
— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Undecided: isn't the recent news pointing to evidence that Covid-19 came from an accident at the virus research lab at Wuhan? In that case, that linkage with the wildlife trade might be not very applicable for this particular virus. EMsmile (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
One agency (the DOE) has shifted its assessment from "undecided" to "low confidence" in favor of a lab leak. The FBI has not changed its assessment from "moderate confidence" in favor of a lab leak. Five total intelligence community elements (including the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Intelligence Council) assess with "low confidence" in favor of a zoonotic origin. The Central Intelligence Agency remains undecided. None of the information the DoE used to make its determination swayed any of the other agencies to change their stances. The scientific community remains in a consensus in favor of the lab leak being the most likely. No substantial new evidence has emerged to change the situation since the two papers published in Science which traced back most of the earliest cases of the outbreak directly to the Wuhan Huanan Seafood Market and found evidence of the virus present on animal cages and meat preparation instruments/surfaces. This is why the scientific community remains confident the zoonosis is overwhelmingly the most likely origin scenario.
TL;DR - a very small thing changed, and the news media reported it as a big change. As per usual. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to enter it in the page.

The IPCC sources are good because there are generally considered as reliable, but the secondary sources also should be added.

About laboratory leak: in my opinion even if there is a 30% likelihood the disease is zoonotic this information should appeare on the page because of the importance of the issue.. Only if the scientific community will said, more or less surely: "it is not the case" - only than it should be deleted.

Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I added it as i said, with several very little changes: I mentioned "environmental factors including climate change" in the lead because otherwise it will not be as per sources and putted it before the sentence about first discovery because otherwise it will cut the story line: first about discovery than about spread than about pandemic declaration. After the general description of the virus it is logically to explain how it appears however for the readers it will not change much.

Maybe it will be better to mention wildlife trade in the lead also because it is linked with Wuhan and its wet market.

About sources: I admit that in my opinion the report of the IPCC are the best secondary sources because they are based on thousands study and generally express consensus. About the study of Robert Beyer I found a declaration of the Cambridge University. It is maybe even better than EU comission as the this site can be considered as political in some extent.

However if you want you can add another sources.

It will be interesting to try to add this also in relevant Wikipedia pages in other languages - the most popular languages in Wikipedia. We should think how to do it.

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I see your edit has been reverted. I would have also reverted it, particularly your new sentence in the first para of the lead which I really think didn't belong there. In the main body maybe but even there I would have my doubts: there is a tendency to blame climate change for pretty much everything that is going wrong in this world... I think the link between climate change and Covid-19 is a bit far fetched. Wildlife trade and deforestation I can relate to as causes (if it really did originate from the Wuhan market) but climate change is another additional corner to take. And if it turns out that it originated from a lab accident then the link with climate change is even less clear. So we need to be careful about that. (the statement in question is Several social and environmental factors including climate change, natural ecosystem destruction and wildlife trade increased the likelihood for the emergences of such diseases.). EMsmile (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
If you will read the 2 IPCC sources that I has send you will see that they say explicitly that climate change do increase likelihood to zoonotic diseases emergence not less than natural habitat destruction or wildlife trade. They explain it very decisively.
According to the page itself (section backgrownd): "The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of a zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal."
So if you know that "all seas contain water" and Metirranean sea is a sea" you can conclude that " mediterranean sea contain water". It is one of the law of logics.
But even if it is too far in your opinion, the IPCC in the source that I have send explicitly put this information in link with the COVID-19 pandemic emergence saying:
"Climate change is contributing to the spread of diseases in both wildlife and humans. Increased contact between wildlife and human populations increases disease risk, and climate change is altering where pathogens that cause diseases and the animals that carry them live. Disease risk can often be reduced by improving health care and sanitation systems, training the medical community to recognise and treat potential new diseases in their region, limiting human encroachment into natural areas, limiting wildlife trade and promoting sustainable and equitable socioeconomic development.
"Diseases transmitted between humans and animals are called zoonoses. Zoonoses comprise nearly two-thirds of known human infectious diseases and the majority of newly emerging ones. COVID-19 is the most recent zoonosis and has killed millions of people globally while devastating economies. The risk posed by Emerging Infectious Diseases (EIDs) has increased because of: (1) the movement of wild animals and their parasites into new areas as a result of climate change, global trade and travel; (2) human intrusion in natural areas and the conversion of natural areas for agriculture, livestock, the extraction of industrial/raw materials and housing; (3) increased wildlife trade and consumption; (4) increased human mobility resulting from global trade, war/conflicts and migration, made faster and extending farther due to fossil fuel-powered travel; and (5) widespread antimicrobial use, which can promote antibiotic-resistant infections
it is saying further:
"Climate change further increases risk by altering pathogen and host animal (1) geographic ranges and habitats; (2) survival, growth and development; (3) reproduction and replication; (4) transmission and exposure (5) behaviour; and (6) access to immunologically naïve animals and people who lack resistance to infection. This can lead to novel disease emergence in new places, more frequent and larger outbreaks, and longer or shifted seasons of transmission."
And it continue more about it after.
Page 233-235 (37-39 by the internet count)from the chapter 2 of the latest IPCC report:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter02.pdf
In the second source the IPCC creates a special box about COVID-19 and say:
"The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes COVID-19, emerged in late 2019, halfway through the preparation of the IPCC WGII Sixth Assessment Report. This Cross-Chapter Box assesses how the massive shock of the pandemic and response measures interact with climate-related impacts and risks as well as its significant implications for risk management and climate resilient development.
COVID-19 and environmental connections
Infectious diseases may emerge and spread through multiple climate-related avenues, including direct effects of climatic conditions on disease reproduction and transmission and various indirect effects, often interlinked with ecosystem degradation (high confidence). Climate change is affecting the risk of emerging infectious diseases by contributing to factors that drive the movements of species, including vectors and reservoirs of diseases, into novel human populations and vice versa (high confidence) (Sections 2.4.2.7, 5.2.2.3; Cross-Chapter Box Illness in Chapter 2; IPCC, 2019b; IPBES 2020). The spillover of some emerging infectious diseases from wildlife into humans is associated with live animal–human markets, intensified livestock production and climate-related movements of humans and wild animals into new areas that alter human–animal interactions"
Pages 1067-1070 (27-30 by the internet count) in chapter 7 of the latest IPCC report:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter07.pdf
As the IPCC is a body that represent a scientific consensus (for this I preferred this sources) we can say that a scientific consensus exist about the statment that Covid-19 is most likely a zoonotic disease ans climate change icrease the likelihood for such diseases.
Also in the United Nations Environment Programme (a scientific bodey representing consensus) report "Preventing the next pandemic - Zoonotic diseases and how to break the chain of transmission" in the main findings climate change is explicitly cited as one of the 7 main reasons for increase in zoonozes:
"7. DISEASE DRIVERS Seven human-mediated factors are most likely driving the emergence of zoonotic diseases: 1) increasing human demand for animal protein; 2) unsustainable agricultural intensification; 3) increased use and exploitation of wildlife; 4) unsustainable utilization of natural resources accelerated by urbanization, land use change and extractive industries; 5) increased travel and transportation; 6) changes in food supply; and 7) climate change."
https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/32860/ZPKMEN.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
About other versions (even though they seems to me personally as more politically then scientifically motivated they emerge when there is more tensions between USA and China and decline when they are weaker), I am for including them in the main bodey and the lead any time when there is something seriouse about it.
I think this is our duty to expose all the related information avout COVID-19 and everybody who hide it intentionally bear part of the responsability for the suffering that will follow even if he is just a wikipedia editor.
Therfore if you will enter something seriouse (reliable source, seriouse evidence) about other versions to the main body or to the lead section or to both of them I will not revert it and will even support.
Certainly if we have seriouse suspicions that the disease can be created by more than 1 way we should enter the basical findings about all ways.
So, if for now scientists are thinking that the disease is most likely zoonozis and that climate change, wildlife trade and natural habitat destruction increase the risk for such diseases we should write it, otherwise we will bear part of responsability for the consequences (absence of preventive actions including climate action, more pandemics).
Are you agree with me? Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

End?

For most countries in the world the pandemic has ended, I think it should be mentione. 2A02:3030:813:AEB8:1:0:DC0C:CDDF (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If you can find WP:RS that states something along those lines. Then be WP:BOLD and add it in. Or just drop the link in the talk page I'm sure there's an editor that would add it in. Eruditess (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Main article is still protected, but yes if there are actual reliable sources marking the end, we'll implement them into the article. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
There are a lot of sources for planned end, such as kff, nyt, etc Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Remember that "the end of the public health emergency declaration in the United States" is not equivalent to "the end of the global pandemic". You already know this, no need to complicate it doe someone who doesn't. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Shibbolethink At some previous point, the link to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 was aliased in this article as "speculation about alternative origins". I changed this alias to "investigations into the origin of COVID-19". My change resulted in a more accurate description of the linked page. Furthermore, it avoided the problematic word "speculation". All editors would agree that there indeed have been investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Whether all of these investigations are speculative or not is unlikely to be the consensus point of view, and is unlikely to be supported by a majority of high quality references. My change was reverted. I propose reverting it back unless a good rebuttal can be made. If indeed the consensus for this page is that we should use 'speculations' rather than 'investigations', then for consistency, we should also change the name of the linked page from 'Investigations' to 'Speculations'. Jaredroach (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I've edited it to an alternative target within that article, but also removed "speculation" per your NPOV concerns. It now reads:
The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of a zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal.[1][2][3] A minority of scientists, some politicians, and other laypersons have advocated for alternate theories about the origins of the virus.[4][5][6]
Sources

  1. ^ Hu B, Guo H, Zhou P, Shi ZL (March 2021). "Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19". Nature Reviews. Microbiology. 19 (3): 141–154. doi:10.1038/s41579-020-00459-7. PMC 7537588. PMID 33024307.
  2. ^ Multiple sources:

The target of "alternative theories..." is Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Origin scenarios which is precisely what the pipe is saying, and thus does not violate WP:EGG. Does this allay your concerns? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

This is not an improvement, ant continues to push a pov. Just link to the target article and get rid of the piped text. This talk page is further not a venue to move (rename) the target article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
  • In this article just say it's of zoonotic origin like the best RS. The lableak stuff is fringe and doesn't belong here. We don't entertain a discussion about Fort Detrick in the HIV article, even though that 'theory' that it was made there has a significant following.[9] Bon courage (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
    That makes sense to me. We also already reference it several times and link to the article several times. So this sentence probably isn't necessary. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
@Shibbolethink: There certainly isn't consensus to remove the wikilink as you have done here. Do we really need to run an RFC on this? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
We already wikilink it in that exact section in the "Main article" template at the top of the section. Removal of that sentence seemed to me to meet your POV text and EGG concerns while also meeting my concerns about over-emphasizing the lab leak. By keeping that sentence while also having the redundant one after it, it seems we are shoe-horning in or bending over backwards just to have a sentence that contains that link. When we already have that link...
If you disagree with that consensus-via-compromise, then I think an RFC would be fine as a next step, if neutrally worded and contained all the applicable options. I think if it were me I would instead quickly jot down below all the options informally, and then post a short neutral advertisement to WP:FTN and WP:NPOVN instead. Because RFCs are a pain and take a long time. But that's just me. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Removal of the text and link is not a compromise. I have run an RFC below. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Climate change, Deforestation, Wildlife trade increased the likelihood to the emergence of the pandemic.

I think we should add in the paragraph "Epidemiology, Backgrownd" after the sentence "The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of a zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal" the next sentence:

"Several social and environmental factors including climate change, natural ecosystem destruction and wildlife trade increased the likelihood for the emergences of such diseases. One study found climate change increased the likelihood of the pandemic by influencing distribution of bat species"

And in the lead section after the sentence "The novel virus was first identified in an outbreak in the Chinese city of Wuhan in December 2019." add this sentence:

"The virus probably has a zoonotic origin. Climate change probably significantly increased the likelihood of the emergence of the pandemic."

Sources:

Page 233-235 (37-39 by the internet count)from the chapter 2 of the latest IPCC report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter02.pdf

Pages 1067-1070 (27-30 by the internet count) in chapter 7 of the latest IPCC report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter07.pdf

This page on the site of the European Comission:

https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/430229-climate-change-the-culprit-in-the-covid-19-pandemic

User:sadads, User:Chidgk1, User:Femkemilene, User:Clayoquot, User:NewsAndEventsGuy, User:PlanetCare, User:C.J. Griffin, User:Aircorn, User:RCraig09, User:Bluerasberry, User:Arcahaeoindris, User:buidhe, User:Jusdafax, User:Bruce1ee, User:Hanif Al Husaini, User:Jusdafax EMsmile

Thank you in advance. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Support - Well-sourced, but I think some of these linked are probably WP:PRIMARY. Here are some better secondary sources:
— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Undecided: isn't the recent news pointing to evidence that Covid-19 came from an accident at the virus research lab at Wuhan? In that case, that linkage with the wildlife trade might be not very applicable for this particular virus. EMsmile (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
One agency (the DOE) has shifted its assessment from "undecided" to "low confidence" in favor of a lab leak. The FBI has not changed its assessment from "moderate confidence" in favor of a lab leak. Five total intelligence community elements (including the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Intelligence Council) assess with "low confidence" in favor of a zoonotic origin. The Central Intelligence Agency remains undecided. None of the information the DoE used to make its determination swayed any of the other agencies to change their stances. The scientific community remains in a consensus in favor of the lab leak being the most likely. No substantial new evidence has emerged to change the situation since the two papers published in Science which traced back most of the earliest cases of the outbreak directly to the Wuhan Huanan Seafood Market and found evidence of the virus present on animal cages and meat preparation instruments/surfaces. This is why the scientific community remains confident the zoonosis is overwhelmingly the most likely origin scenario.
TL;DR - a very small thing changed, and the news media reported it as a big change. As per usual. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to enter it in the page.

The IPCC sources are good because there are generally considered as reliable, but the secondary sources also should be added.

About laboratory leak: in my opinion even if there is a 30% likelihood the disease is zoonotic this information should appeare on the page because of the importance of the issue.. Only if the scientific community will said, more or less surely: "it is not the case" - only than it should be deleted.

Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I added it as i said, with several very little changes: I mentioned "environmental factors including climate change" in the lead because otherwise it will not be as per sources and putted it before the sentence about first discovery because otherwise it will cut the story line: first about discovery than about spread than about pandemic declaration. After the general description of the virus it is logically to explain how it appears however for the readers it will not change much.

Maybe it will be better to mention wildlife trade in the lead also because it is linked with Wuhan and its wet market.

About sources: I admit that in my opinion the report of the IPCC are the best secondary sources because they are based on thousands study and generally express consensus. About the study of Robert Beyer I found a declaration of the Cambridge University. It is maybe even better than EU comission as the this site can be considered as political in some extent.

However if you want you can add another sources.

It will be interesting to try to add this also in relevant Wikipedia pages in other languages - the most popular languages in Wikipedia. We should think how to do it.

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I see your edit has been reverted. I would have also reverted it, particularly your new sentence in the first para of the lead which I really think didn't belong there. In the main body maybe but even there I would have my doubts: there is a tendency to blame climate change for pretty much everything that is going wrong in this world... I think the link between climate change and Covid-19 is a bit far fetched. Wildlife trade and deforestation I can relate to as causes (if it really did originate from the Wuhan market) but climate change is another additional corner to take. And if it turns out that it originated from a lab accident then the link with climate change is even less clear. So we need to be careful about that. (the statement in question is Several social and environmental factors including climate change, natural ecosystem destruction and wildlife trade increased the likelihood for the emergences of such diseases.). EMsmile (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
If you will read the 2 IPCC sources that I has send you will see that they say explicitly that climate change do increase likelihood to zoonotic diseases emergence not less than natural habitat destruction or wildlife trade. They explain it very decisively.
According to the page itself (section backgrownd): "The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of a zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal."
So if you know that "all seas contain water" and Metirranean sea is a sea" you can conclude that " mediterranean sea contain water". It is one of the law of logics.
But even if it is too far in your opinion, the IPCC in the source that I have send explicitly put this information in link with the COVID-19 pandemic emergence saying:
"Climate change is contributing to the spread of diseases in both wildlife and humans. Increased contact between wildlife and human populations increases disease risk, and climate change is altering where pathogens that cause diseases and the animals that carry them live. Disease risk can often be reduced by improving health care and sanitation systems, training the medical community to recognise and treat potential new diseases in their region, limiting human encroachment into natural areas, limiting wildlife trade and promoting sustainable and equitable socioeconomic development.
"Diseases transmitted between humans and animals are called zoonoses. Zoonoses comprise nearly two-thirds of known human infectious diseases and the majority of newly emerging ones. COVID-19 is the most recent zoonosis and has killed millions of people globally while devastating economies. The risk posed by Emerging Infectious Diseases (EIDs) has increased because of: (1) the movement of wild animals and their parasites into new areas as a result of climate change, global trade and travel; (2) human intrusion in natural areas and the conversion of natural areas for agriculture, livestock, the extraction of industrial/raw materials and housing; (3) increased wildlife trade and consumption; (4) increased human mobility resulting from global trade, war/conflicts and migration, made faster and extending farther due to fossil fuel-powered travel; and (5) widespread antimicrobial use, which can promote antibiotic-resistant infections
it is saying further:
"Climate change further increases risk by altering pathogen and host animal (1) geographic ranges and habitats; (2) survival, growth and development; (3) reproduction and replication; (4) transmission and exposure (5) behaviour; and (6) access to immunologically naïve animals and people who lack resistance to infection. This can lead to novel disease emergence in new places, more frequent and larger outbreaks, and longer or shifted seasons of transmission."
And it continue more about it after.
Page 233-235 (37-39 by the internet count)from the chapter 2 of the latest IPCC report:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter02.pdf
In the second source the IPCC creates a special box about COVID-19 and say:
"The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes COVID-19, emerged in late 2019, halfway through the preparation of the IPCC WGII Sixth Assessment Report. This Cross-Chapter Box assesses how the massive shock of the pandemic and response measures interact with climate-related impacts and risks as well as its significant implications for risk management and climate resilient development.
COVID-19 and environmental connections
Infectious diseases may emerge and spread through multiple climate-related avenues, including direct effects of climatic conditions on disease reproduction and transmission and various indirect effects, often interlinked with ecosystem degradation (high confidence). Climate change is affecting the risk of emerging infectious diseases by contributing to factors that drive the movements of species, including vectors and reservoirs of diseases, into novel human populations and vice versa (high confidence) (Sections 2.4.2.7, 5.2.2.3; Cross-Chapter Box Illness in Chapter 2; IPCC, 2019b; IPBES 2020). The spillover of some emerging infectious diseases from wildlife into humans is associated with live animal–human markets, intensified livestock production and climate-related movements of humans and wild animals into new areas that alter human–animal interactions"
Pages 1067-1070 (27-30 by the internet count) in chapter 7 of the latest IPCC report:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter07.pdf
As the IPCC is a body that represent a scientific consensus (for this I preferred this sources) we can say that a scientific consensus exist about the statment that Covid-19 is most likely a zoonotic disease ans climate change icrease the likelihood for such diseases.
Also in the United Nations Environment Programme (a scientific bodey representing consensus) report "Preventing the next pandemic - Zoonotic diseases and how to break the chain of transmission" in the main findings climate change is explicitly cited as one of the 7 main reasons for increase in zoonozes:
"7. DISEASE DRIVERS Seven human-mediated factors are most likely driving the emergence of zoonotic diseases: 1) increasing human demand for animal protein; 2) unsustainable agricultural intensification; 3) increased use and exploitation of wildlife; 4) unsustainable utilization of natural resources accelerated by urbanization, land use change and extractive industries; 5) increased travel and transportation; 6) changes in food supply; and 7) climate change."
https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/32860/ZPKMEN.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
About other versions (even though they seems to me personally as more politically then scientifically motivated they emerge when there is more tensions between USA and China and decline when they are weaker), I am for including them in the main bodey and the lead any time when there is something seriouse about it.
I think this is our duty to expose all the related information avout COVID-19 and everybody who hide it intentionally bear part of the responsability for the suffering that will follow even if he is just a wikipedia editor.
Therfore if you will enter something seriouse (reliable source, seriouse evidence) about other versions to the main body or to the lead section or to both of them I will not revert it and will even support.
Certainly if we have seriouse suspicions that the disease can be created by more than 1 way we should enter the basical findings about all ways.
So, if for now scientists are thinking that the disease is most likely zoonozis and that climate change, wildlife trade and natural habitat destruction increase the risk for such diseases we should write it, otherwise we will bear part of responsability for the consequences (absence of preventive actions including climate action, more pandemics).
Are you agree with me? Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC on investigations

Consensus to exclude the proposed sentence.
Perhaps the simplest and most prevalent objection was that it was redundant to the existing {{Main}} link. However even if we set aside that issue, it appears the text would require significant discussion and revision. Alsee (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shall we include or exclude text and wikilink: "Scientists, politicians, and laypersons have advocated for investigations into the origin of COVID-19."[1][2][3] Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Survey

  • This is long standing text and i would like it to be restored without the piped in text. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Exclude: there's a Template:Main link to that article at the top of the section. In context, we've just had a sentence about consensus for zoonotic origin and are just about to read a sentence saying "The origin controversy heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China." The sentence in dispute, between those two, needs to say something about alternative theories. It makes sense to link to the section Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Origin scenarios.
    Also, if we're trying to say something about investigations into COVID's origins, it's too bland to just say that people have advocated for investigations; such an obvious statement violates the Principle of Some Astonishment.
    Furthermore, the target article is also mainly focused on investigations that have occurred or are ongoing. If we feel compelled to include another link to the article in question, it would be more sensible to start the paragraph with something like "After multiple investigations into the origin of COVID-19, the scientific consensus is ...", so I guess that's my second favorite option. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Getting off topic. But I really dislike statements along the lines of "the consensus is" it all speaks of scientism and reaching for certainity where there is little to me: reaching for a consensus in terms of "what random scientists think" versus "what people who have spent some time looking at". My experience in some medical topics is that "consensus focus groups" are right at the bottom of the research hierarchy for when no studies have been done, but at the same time it sounds like "scientific consensus" like you around the thoery of evolution. I'd prefer more context for this of statement. Talpedia (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
      I actually think 'consensus' communicates the opposite of certainty, especially in conjunction with 'most likely'. There's a reason why we use it to qualify the statement, because it's not definitive. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
      I agree (after spent a few years dipping into medical literature). But I would counter WP:CONSENSUS. Talpedia (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
      I think scientific consensus when we're writing article-text really is different, and more like: WP:RS/AC. It's the best expert opinion that we have right now. It's based on those secondary review journal articles which themselves cite lots of primary literature. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
      Agreed. The question is whether the reader knows the difference. Talpedia (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Exclude. Apart from anything else, this is just toe-curlingly bad writing for what is meant to be a serious encyclopedia summarising knowledge. Bon courage (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Exclude as it seems forcing a non-piped link would push the prose to match a title, which seems like the wrong way to go about making prose edits (a good descriptive article title doesn't necessarily make for the best prose). The main article link for the section should already direct readers who want to know more in the right direction, and I think the current sentence indicating the controversial nature is more beneficial to the article than the somewhat tautological statement that there are "investigations into the origin of COVID-19". Bakkster Man (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Exclude per Bakkster Man rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Exclude per Bakkster Man and FFF. It really does seem like shoe-horning an WP:EGG link to investigations, when we already have that at the top of the section. I agree with them also that a piped-link to #Origin scenarios would be fine, but I don't know if I think it's all that necessary. But if we want to keep any sentence there, it should be a sentence with the piped link. It doesn't violate WP:EGG as that section is exactly about "alternative theories", it is actually novel information, and it has small (but worthwhile) encyclopedic value. None of those things are true for the bare "investigations" wikilink sentence. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Exclude per Shibbolethink. Whispyhistory (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, the contentious origin of the virus is of central importance and a big talking point politically. Not sure what is gained by omission of the sentence. Anyways, it should be highlighted that some scientist contend the origin, not all.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to note that consensus item #14 above indicates we do not mention the lab leak theory, which 'highlighting the contention' might be considered to fall afoul of. In either case, this RfC doesn't seem to directly address this recommendation, and is more about whether we link to investigations into the origin of COVID-19 (where this topic is discussed in more depth) once or twice. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
This text in question doesnt mention the lab leak theory thus why would the RFC need to address that? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I think this RfC is fine as written and is along the lines of what consensus item #14 expects from the article.
I'm suggesting the above comment by Ortizesp that the contentious origin of the virus is of central importance and a big talking point politically and we should 'highlight that some scientists contend the origin' doesn't seem to fit within context of the RfC as you've worded it, and may require a more specific RfC that I perceive would be more directly related to #14. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, this RFC doesnt seek any modification to #14. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion


References

  1. ^ Hakim MS (February 2021). "SARS-CoV-2, Covid-19, and the debunking of conspiracy theories". Reviews in Medical Virology. 31 (6): e2222. doi:10.1002/rmv.2222. PMC 7995093. PMID 33586302.
  2. ^ Graham RL, Baric RS (May 2020). "SARS-CoV-2: Combating Coronavirus Emergence". Immunity. 52 (5): 734–736. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2020.04.016. PMC 7207110. PMID 32392464.
  3. ^ Qin A, Wang V, Hakim D (20 November 2020). "How Steve Bannon and a Chinese Billionaire Created a Right-Wing Coronavirus Media Sensation". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 30 April 2021.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

End?

For most countries in the world the pandemic has ended, I think it should be mentioned. 2A02:3030:813:AEB8:1:0:DC0C:CDDF (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If you can find WP:RS that states something along those lines. Then be WP:BOLD and add it in. Or just drop the link in the talk page I'm sure there's an editor that would add it in. Eruditess (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Main article is still protected, but yes if there are actual reliable sources marking the end, we'll implement them into the article. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
There are a lot of sources for planned end, such as kff, nyt, etc Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Remember that "the end of the public health emergency declaration in the United States" is not equivalent to "the end of the global pandemic". You already know this, no need to complicate it doe someone who doesn't. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Source

The John Hopkins source on March 10 stopped (a month ago) https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html, perhaps we should change to Our world In Data ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

"The pandemic" listed at Redirects for discussion

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/2023 April 9 § The pandemic until a consensus is reached. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Because of the potential ambiguity pointed out in the RfD, would the following hatnote be an appropriate addition?
"The pandemic" redirects here. For other uses, see Pandemic (disambiguation).
? DecafPotato (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
possibly, --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Added with additional link to "List of epidemics and pandemics". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_47&oldid=1151066531"