Talk:COVID-19 pandemic

Topic code	Area of conflict	Decision linked to
{{COVID-19 pandemic|topic=aa}}	politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan
{{COVID-19 pandemic|topic=crypto}}	blockchain and cryptocurrencies	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
{{COVID-19 pandemic|topic=kurd}}	Kurds and Kurdistan	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan
{{COVID-19 pandemic|topic=mj}}	Michael Jackson	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson
{{COVID-19 pandemic|topic=pw}}	professional wrestling	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling
{{COVID-19 pandemic|topic=rusukr}}	the Russo-Ukrainian War	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War
{{COVID-19 pandemic|topic=sasg}}	South Asian social groups	Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
{{COVID-19 pandemic|topic=syria}}	the Syrian Civil War and ISIL	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
{{COVID-19 pandemic|topic=uku}}	measurement units in the United Kingdom	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
{{COVID-19 pandemic|topic=uyghur}}	Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghurs

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
[[Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

01. Superseded by #9

The first few sentences of the lead's second paragraph should state The virus is typically spread during close contact and via respiratory droplets produced when people cough or sneeze. Respiratory droplets may be produced during breathing but the virus is not considered airborne. It may also spread when one touches a contaminated surface and then their face. It is most contagious when people are symptomatic, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear. (RfC March 2020)

02. Superseded by #7

The infobox should feature a per capita count map most prominently, and a total count by country map secondarily. (RfC March 2020)

03. Obsolete

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

04. Do not include a sentence in the lead section noting comparisons to World War II. (March 2020)

05. Cancelled

Include subsections covering the domestic responses of Italy, China, Iran, the United States, and South Korea. Do not include individual subsections for France, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia and Japan. (RfC March 2020) Include a short subsection on Sweden focusing on the policy controversy. (May 2020)

Subsequently overturned by editing and recognized as obsolete. (July 2024)

06. Obsolete

There is a 30 day moratorium on move requests until 26 April 2020. (March 2020)

07. There is no consensus that the infobox should feature a confirmed cases count map most prominently, and a deaths count map secondarily. (May 2020)

08. Superseded by #16

The clause on xenophobia in the lead section should read ...and there have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people and against those perceived as being Chinese or as being from areas with high infection rates. (RfC April 2020)

09. Cancelled

Supersedes #1. The first several sentences of the lead section's second paragraph should state The virus is mainly spread during close contact and by small droplets produced when those infected cough, sneeze or talk. These droplets may also be produced during breathing; however, they rapidly fall to the ground or surfaces and are not generally spread through the air over large distances. People may also become infected by touching a contaminated surface and then their face. The virus can survive on surfaces for up to 72 hours. Coronavirus is most contagious during the first three days after onset of symptoms, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear and in later stages of the disease. (April 2020)

Notes

On 17:16, 6 April 2020, these first several sentences were replaced with an extracted fragment from the coronavirus disease 2019 article, which at the time was last edited at 17:11.

010. The article title is COVID-19 pandemic. The title of related pages should follow this scheme as well. (RM April 2020, RM August 2020)

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

012. Superseded by #19

The lead section's second sentence should be phrased using the words first identified and December 2019. (May 2020)

013. Superseded by #15

File:President Donald Trump suggests measures to treat COVID-19 during Coronavirus Task Force press briefing.webm should be used as the visual element of the misinformation section, with the caption U.S. president Donald Trump suggested at a press briefing on 23 April that disinfectant injections or exposure to ultraviolet light might help treat COVID-19. There is no evidence that either could be a viable method. (1:05 min) (May 2020, June 2020)

014. Overturned

Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article. (RfC May 2020) This result was overturned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, as there is consensus that there is no consensus to include or exclude the lab leak theory. (RfC May 2024)

015. Supersedes #13. File:President Donald Trump suggests measures to treat COVID-19 during Coronavirus Task Force press briefing.webm should not be used as the visual element of the misinformation section. (RfC November 2020)

016. Supersedes #8. Incidents of xenophobia and discrimination are considered WP:UNDUE for a full sentence in the lead. (RfC January 2021)

017. Only include one photograph in the infobox. There is no clear consensus that File:COVID-19 Nurse (cropped).jpg should be that one photograph. (May 2021)

018. Superseded by #19

The first sentence is The COVID-19 pandemic, also known as the coronavirus pandemic, is a global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). (August 2021, RfC October 2023)

019. Supersedes #12 and #18. The first sentence is The global COVID-19 pandemic (also known as the coronavirus pandemic), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), began with an outbreak in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. (June 2024)

Airborne Transmission

Most scientists agree that airborne transmission is the primary way of transmission. The WHO recently updated their guidelines. The intro to the article makes it sound like airborne transmission is only sometimes possible, but it is the reason we have superspreader events and is the main way of transmission. It is misleading and could be dangerous. -Solid Reign (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree Solid Reign, the phrase used in the article is a bit vague. It stated that "it is sometimes possible". I would support changing the statement in the article so long as we cite to sources that support that airborne transmission is the primary transmission method. I would be interested in hearing why you believe that this is dangerous, though I agree 100% that the statement is misleading. Jurisdicta (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

People who want to find out about COVID could look at the Wikipedia article and focus on the wrong activities. Spending a long time in an unventilated unpacked space with correct social distancing and disinfecting surfaces is much more dangerous than spending time at a crowded restaurant sitting outside without disinfecting anything. This isn't obvious or intuitive, until it is explained. Having an article that reinforces the previous way of thinking could lead to more contagion. -Solid Reign (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

agree w/ above two editors--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Airborne transmission the main method, or just as an important method. Now they finally all state what has been bleedingly obvious the whole time https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covid-spreads.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/sars-cov-2-transmission.html https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-how-is-it-transmitted please change it --202.53.51.164 (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Please change this
Transmission of COVID-19 occurs mainly when an infected person is in close contact[b} with another person. Small droplets containing the virus leave an infected person as they breathe, cough, sneeze, or speak and enter another person via their mouth, nose, or eyes. Airborne transmission can also occur, with smaller infected droplets lingering in the air for minutes to hours within enclosed spaces that have inadequate ventilation. Less commonly, the virus may spread via contaminated surfaces.
to
COVID-19 transmits when people breathe in air contaminated by droplets and small airborne particles. The risk of breathing these in is highest when people are in close proximity, but can also over longer distances, particularly indoors. It can also occur if splashed or sprayed with contaminated fluids, and rarely via contaminated surfaces. --202.53.51.164 (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

References

@Doc James: You've made some changes to the lead of the article about this very subject. Mind giving your opinion on the above? The sources seem fine as far as our usual criteria are concerned. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that 202.53.51.164 wording is an improvement. The literature has come around to supporting airborne transmission as one of the primary, if not the primary method of spread. Maybe change "small aerosol particles" to "small airborne particles"... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

 Erledigt In that case, with the suggested improevment (adjusted the ref formatting). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Have changed "and" to "or" to make it clear that it can be one or the other. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Droplets are airborne

Almaty to clarify the latest revert: Respiratory droplets can be airborne as they vary in size. As you can read on the linked article: Droplet sizes range from < 1 µm to 1000 µm,[1][2] and in typical breath there are around 100 droplets per litre of breath. and As these droplets are suspended in air, they are all by definition aerosols.. The current transmission section on the lead is mostly based on the most recent CDC guidance you can find here: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/sars-cov-2-transmission.html that states directly: The principal mode by which people are infected with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) is through exposure to respiratory fluids carrying infectious virus. Exposure occurs in three principal ways: (1) inhalation of very fine respiratory droplets and aerosol particles. To give emphasis and clear up what they mean by respiratory fluid (a synonym of droplet of any size) they specify very fine respiratory droplets and aerosol particles. I've maintained the same text in the copy to ensure we follow the source. I think in its entirety the lead is pretty clear that airborne transmission occurs. Unfortunately the usual problem remains that this is not the appropriate place to discuss this. This text is condensed from Transmission of COVID-19 and is a duplication of that content. We should work on that article first and then condense it here. Also the same paragraph is basically duplicated in the main COVID-19 page and should be kept aligned at all times. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Confusion exists on the term "Droplet": in the article regarding Airborne transmission we state Airborne transmission is distinct from transmission by respiratory droplets. which is unsourced and in direct contradiction with the above mentioned article on Respiratory droplets). I've therefore followed an idea by Doc James in a discussion above in which he proposed using the term "small airborne particles". I think that clarifies things up so I have removed the use of droplets and substituted it with airborne particles (with a link to airborne transmission) when appropriate. See:[1]. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto and Almaty: See the discussion directly above for the why and how of the new wording, in case you are not already aware of it. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

This wording is very long. None of the sources state "for a long time" or equivalent. I will try to summarize again using some of your words, but it can be said in 2 or 3 sentences in the lead. --Almaty (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Also it is not really "confusion" about airborne and droplet, essentially the CDC has acquiesced to scientific evidence that has overturned nearly a century of textbook dogma on the traditional distinction between "aerosols" and "droplets". I think if one were to attempt this, we need to find high quality secondary sources to rewrite "respiratory droplet" and "airborne transmission" - I would combine the two into one "respiratory route" --Almaty (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Almaty: Yes I agree that would probably make sense. "Respiratory route" sounds good to me. Regarding the lead: I agree it was too long. I've used your suggestions to condense it even more. I've removed the "for a long time" (although it was correct: the risk is higher if you stay in close proximity for a long time) and I've merged a couple of sentences. I've removed "splashed or sprayed with contaminated fluids" as it sounds like kids playing with water cannons and is not very practical and tried sticking to the CDC guidance by saying "Those particles may be inhaled or may reach the mouth, nose, or eyes of a person through touching or direct deposition (i.e. being coughed on)." Here it is: [2] suggestions welcome if we can improve this further. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Gtoffoletto you misunderstand "touching and direct deposition" in your words - they're not the same thing, direct and indirect contact are virtually non existent. this is not the same as being "coughed on" either. You also didn't summarize at all, if you want to expand use the body. --Almaty (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Almaty: The CDC source [3] states: Infectious exposures to respiratory fluids carrying SARS-CoV-2 occur in three principal ways (not mutually exclusive): • Inhalation of air carrying very small fine droplets and aerosol particles that contain infectious virus. Risk of transmission is greatest within three to six feet of an infectious source where the concentration of these very fine droplets and particles is greatest. • Deposition of virus carried in exhaled droplets and particles onto exposed mucous membranes (i.e., “splashes and sprays”, such as being coughed on). Risk of transmission is likewise greatest close to an infectious source where the concentration of these exhaled droplets and particles is greatest. • Touching mucous membranes with hands soiled by exhaled respiratory fluids containing virus or from touching inanimate surfaces contaminated with virus.. That's what I'm summarising and I don't think I'm misunderstanding it. Also, they are not virtually non existent according to the source. The length of my wording compared to yours is the same in terms of characters but we can tighten it up even more while following the source more closely ("splashed or sprayed with contaminated fluids" for example is incorrect. If you got sprayed with contaminated saliva on your foot you would not get infected. The role of mucous membranes (eyes, mouth, nose) must be described.). Here is another try: Transmission of COVID-19 occurs when people are exposed to virus-containing respiratory droplets and airborne particles exhaled by an infected person. Those particles may be inhaled or may reach the mouth, nose, or eyes of a person through direct deposition (i.e. being coughed on) or after touching a contaminated surface or object. The risk of infection is highest when people are in close proximity, but particles can travel long distances and remain suspended in the air for minutes to hours, particularly indoors in poorly ventilated and crowded spaces. People remain contagious for up to 20 days, and can spread the virus even if they do not develop any symptoms. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The CDC have 3 methods in their brief, very clearly. So I think we use just three summarized sentences like I've writen with a combination of our words. Your first sentence does the first method (which used to effectively be two methods). Your second sentence combines both method one, two and three. Your third sentence then goes back to combine method one and two. Third opinion welcome but we already had one above before this discussion. :) --18:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The CDC guidance states "Having these small droplets and particles that contain virus land on the eyes, nose, or mouth, especially through splashes and sprays like a cough or sneeze." - this isn't being touched or "directly deposited", have a think about that exact wording, it struck me as odd too, but how else do you explain it in plain English succintly? They are trying to say that you inhale all "redefined airborne" things, but if you are coughed on with little droplets that you can feel of spittle - that is their "splash or spray" they repetitively use, I think it is fine. "If infectious respiratory fluids expelled, such as from coughing, land on the eyes nose or mouth" is another option. It isn't really "direct deposition" because that confuses with the technical term "direct contact" --Almaty (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

There are other sources than the CDC, and the CDC state repetitively that touching is not a primary method. You've given it more words than the main method. --Almaty (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Almaty: In the CDC sources above you can see that "splash or spray"="deposited"="cough or sneeze". They are always saying the same thing but with different words. The more practical terms I think are cough or sneeze. Splash or spray give the wrong impression. Deposited is a bit abstract. How about: Those particles may be inhaled or may reach the mouth, nose, or eyes of a person directly (i.e. being coughed on) or, less commonly, indirectly after touching a contaminated surface or object. This way we also say the last method is the least common. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

"If infectious respiratory fluids expelled, such as from coughing, land on the eyes nose or mouth"? Please avoid "directly" as it is a technical term, I think "deposited" makes little sense in this context for a WP:LEAD, "landed" is ok, "splashed or sprayed" is OK. Sneezes do not happen in COVID they are not a symptom. Also, just one sentence per method, not multiple sentences per method I think. It just has to be simple. Aliso CDC do not use the term "crowded" - please see some of their cites as to why, a church here in Sydney comes to mind. We should use "less ventilated" which summarizes that too. --Almaty (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Almaty: Actually, to really stick to the source: Those particles may be inhaled or may reach the mouth, nose, or eyes of a person directly (i.e. being coughed on) or through touching with contaminated hands.. We don't need to specify how the hands got contaminated (e.g. fomites) since that method is the least probable and can go in the body. But the CDC does include touching with contaminated hands as one of the three main ways: COVID-19 is spread in three main ways: • Breathing in air when close to an infected person who is exhaling small droplets and particles that contain the virus. • Having these small droplets and particles that contain virus land on the eyes, nose, or mouth, especially through splashes and sprays like a cough or sneeze. • Touching eyes, nose, or mouth with hands that have the virus on them.[4]. We have the three methods in one simple and practical sentence this way. I don't think in this context directly can cause a lot of confusion. And there is a simple example to clarify. CDC does use crowded and talks about crowds repeatedly: adequate ventilation, and avoidance of crowded indoor spaces -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

No you dont seem to stick to the the source at all. Read the bottom of the brief. It is certainly not a main method. It virtually never happens, please see the Transmission of COVID-19 page which has had a lot of editors, and understand multiple sources before making drastic edits. We should [web.archive.org/web/20210507222748/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covid-spreads.html cite this CDC page more], I think you will understand this table better. They since seem to have removed the table. This is why we shouldn't rely on one source, the CDC seems to retract repetitively, and please see their own brief that states it is uncommmon, ECDC saying no case reports, etc. Please read Transmission of COVID-19 fully, and read multiple sources. --18:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Re crowded, yes I can find the Find feature on a browser too. However they state that as an avoidance measure, not as a transmission mode. It transmits very well in poorly ventilated areas with just one case. Youre just more likely to find more cases in a crowded place. --Almaty (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Almaty: I wrote significant parts of the lead to the Transmission of COVID-19 article :-) I'm glad you like it. The issue here is condensing it into so few sentences which isn't easy. We can do it together and make it work. The bottom of the brief specifies that transmission from contaminated surfaces does not contribute substantially to new infections. But surfaces are not the only way of contaminating hands. A handshake for example will significantly contaminate hands. Spit reaches hands much more easily (they are lower to the ground). Touching or adjusting a contaminated mask or medical tools will contaminate hands. That is why touching of the mouth, nose, eyes with contaminated hands is described by the CDC as one of the three main paths of infection (not specifying how the hands were contaminated!). That's what we should also say. I agree we can remove the "crowded" specification. It may be misleading and give people a false sense of safety in spaces where only one infected person was present. So how about this version (trimmed a couple of other things too to make it shorter): Transmission of COVID-19 commonly occurs when people are exposed to respiratory droplets or small airborne particles exhaled by an infected person. Those particles may be inhaled or may reach the mouth, nose, or eyes of a person directly (i.e. being coughed on) or through touching with contaminated hands. The risk of infection is highest when people are in close proximity, but particles can travel long distances and remain suspended in the air for minutes to hours, particularly indoors in poorly ventilated spaces.. I think it's improving fast and it's pretty accurate and succinct. Agree? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I preferred this version of that article much more, and also it got exceedingly verbose and isn't really readable anymore. But the sources are there for you to read. I would appreciate it if you sought more opinions before making large changes based on one source only. We need third opinion or WP:RFC. You shouldn't combine the three methods in one sentence saying they are all equivalent, that is dangerous, and other agencies do not do that. Please see this from the CDC: "CDC determined that the risk of surface transmission is low, and secondary to the primary routes of virus transmission through direct contact droplets and aerosols". --Almaty (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

They say "Current evidence strongly suggests transmission from contaminated surfaces does not contribute substantially to new infections." right here, so wonder why they they say "three main ways" now on that other page, and removed the table that said common and uncommon. I think they meean "three different types of ways" - also this isn't without precedent, they have retracted and put things in error on their website in regard to this exact issue. The current wording is fine. --Almaty (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Please provide sources to your statements. We are both saying very similar things. I reported what the CDC says in its scientific brief [5]: Current evidence strongly suggests transmission from contaminated surfaces does not contribute substantially to new infections but also states that one of the three principal ways:[...] Touching mucous membranes with hands soiled by exhaled respiratory fluids containing virus or from touching inanimate surfaces contaminated with virus.. This is not a contradiction since hands can be contaminated by other sources (not only surfaces) as I explained above. The WHO also refers to the same three methods of transmission although it is less specific than the CDC. It clearly states: People may also become infected by touching surfaces that have been contaminated by the virus when touching their eyes, nose or mouth without cleaning their hands.[6]. So what you are proposing is to remove entirely the "touching" path for transmission. Which is not supported by the CDC nor the WHO which are two major WP:MEDRS compliant sources. CNN is not WP:MEDRS compliant nor is wsws.org.-- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not proposing that at all I am stating that it is rare. I'm out. Fait accompli. --Almaty (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Your wording states that fomite transmission is common, and you did it with an edit war. --Almaty (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Diffs of edits by one user away from preexisting consensus that fomites or touching contaminated surfaces is rare: [7] [8] [9] [10] --Almaty (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Request for comment

Should COVID-19 Pandemic's Lead state the following when explaining transmission modes.

Option 1 Transmission of COVID-19 commonly occurs when people are exposed to respiratory droplets or small airborne particles exhaled by an infected person. Those particles may be inhaled or may reach the mouth, nose, or eyes of a person directly (i.e. being coughed on) or through touching with contaminated hands.

OR

Option 2 COVID-19 transmits when people breathe in air contaminated by droplets or small airborne particles. Transmission can also occur if splashed or sprayed with contaminated fluids, and uncommonly via contaminated surfaces.

OR

Option 3 COVID-19 transmits when people breathe in air contaminated by droplets or small airborne particles. It can also spread if infectious respiratory fluids, such as from coughing, land on people's eyes nose or mouth, and rarely via surfaces.

OR

Option 4 Please insert

NOTE all options include this sentence "The risk of breathing these in is highest when people are in close proximity, but they can be inhaled over longer distances, particularly indoors." --Almaty (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• Option 2 This faithfully replicates the CDC source. All sources agree that airborne spread (call it that or airborne/droplet spread) is the most important method, but CDC currently state that there are three principle ways, one of these is very uncommon. See [11], here where they state it in their own brief, here where the CDC's Chief of the Waterborne Disease Prevention Branch states that disinfecting "may be used to give people a sense of security that they are being protected from the virus, but this may be a false sense of security," numerous other sources pointing to it to be rare. Also this gives airborne/droplet the prominence it deserves at the start of the lead, and then the less common methods a brief mention. It is also better worded --Almaty (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• For reference, the current text is: Transmission of COVID-19 commonly occurs when people are exposed to respiratory droplets or small airborne particles exhaled by an infected person. Those particles may be inhaled or may reach the mouth, nose, or eyes of a person directly (i.e. being coughed on) or through touching with contaminated hands. If this is not the text that is being proposed to replace I presume I'll be quickly corrected. I agree that "contaminated surfaces" should be given an "uncommonly" or similar descriptor, but I don't agree that "particles into mucous membranes" (ex: "may reach the mouth, nose, or eyes") is as uncommon as touching. I would support a descriptor that adds that contamination of surfaces is a very uncommon mode of transmission, and I could even support just removing that from the lead altogether. But I don't think either of these sentences is an improvement overall. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I jumped the gun, so apologies to Almaty for that - thanks for the clarification and the discussion section. I stand by my opinion that the best thing is likely a combination of these. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• option 2 per Almaty--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 per CDC three main ways exist: [12]: Infectious exposures[...] occur in three principal ways:[...] • Inhalation of air carrying very small fine droplets and aerosol particles that contain infectious virus.[...] • Deposition of virus carried in exhaled droplets and particles onto exposed mucous membranes (i.e., “splashes and sprays”, such as being coughed on).[...] • Touching mucous membranes with hands soiled by exhaled respiratory fluids containing virus or from touching inanimate surfaces contaminated with virus. and the WHO agrees [13]A person can be infected when aerosols or droplets containing the virus are inhaled or come directly into contact with the eyes, nose, or mouth.[...] People may also become infected by touching surfaces that have been contaminated by the virus when touching their eyes, nose or mouth without cleaning their hands. so we must cover: Inhalation, direct deposition and touching according to out main WP:MEDRS sources. Note: Touching is not necessarily touching surfaces. In general hands can put the virus into mucous membranes and cause infection (e.g. touching or adjusting an infected mask for example). -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 as per the comment by Gtoffoletto. I would expound upon their comment and say Option 1 should include a bit more detail. In addition, according to the Mayo Clinic, (https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/expert-answers/sex-and-coronavirus/faq-20486572#:~:text=The%20virus%20spreads%20by%20respiratory,you%20to%20the%20virus.) "The virus spreads by respiratory droplets released when someone with the virus coughs, sneezes or talks. These droplets can be inhaled or land in the mouth or nose of a person nearby. Coming into contact with a person's spit through kissing or other sexual activities could expose you to the virus." This may be worth mentioning as well. Jurisdicta (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• User:Jurisdicta the source that your quote leads more to option 2. All of them are respiratory fluids but via fomites is vanishingly uncommon - you see it isn't even mentioned by mayoclinic. --Almaty (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Almaty, your points are valid and I agree that the article I cited leans more to option 2. Jurisdicta (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 - The explanation given in option one covers fully the various ways that transmission occurs . Also as per comments by Gtoffoletto. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 07:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Current text Looking beyond the agency guidelines (just to broaden the scope a little bit), peer-reviewed MEDRS papers seem to support the text currently in the article. That is, that the virus spreads mostly through respiratory means, but other methods are possible. For ex. a recent review paper suggests both methods, with airborne transmission more prevalent. A slightly less recent (September 2020) paper in Annals of Internal Medicine also suggests that respiratory transmission is dominant, and notes that other forms are also possible/documented but "unusual". I think the current text in the article accurately reflects this, although some improvements could be made. Maybe "Transmission of COVID-19 most commonly occurs via respiratory droplets and airborne particles. Less commonly, infection can occur through other methods of transmission, such as via contact with contaminated surfaces."? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: could you better specify your preferred version? The article has been edited while the RfC was in progress (see discussion below. I just reverted to a non disputed version before the RfC) so "the current text" is ambiguous. Please specify if it is one of the options above or add one yourself. Regarding your comment: I think it's important that we are clear that infection happens when respiratory particles reach the eyes, mouth and nose (in any way) and not just when someone "inhales" them. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

This is what I was referring to, since it accurately reflects the above. The version you reverted to makes it appear that the main reason for transmission is merely being in close contact [by putting that sentence first and putting a period between it and the reasons behind that] (when it is in fact, per the sources, the main cause of transmission is via transmission of viral particles either through droplets or in direct airborne transmission - which, of course, just so happens to be more likely when in close contact). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Unfortunately (see discussion below) Option 1 (which was online when the RfC was initiated) has been disputed and we had to go back to the previous consensus. If you like that version you could add it as option 4. I don't think it is accurate as it doesn't state what you are saying per the sources, the main cause of transmission is via transmission of viral particles either through droplets or in direct airborne transmission. That version states that the virus needs to be inhaled and completely excludes droplets coming into direct contact with the eyes nose and mouth (e.g. through coughs) as the WHO and CDC state. Quoting from the CDC: Although animal studies and epidemiologic investigations indicate that inhalation of virus can cause infection, the relative contributions of inhalation of virus and deposition of virus on mucous membranes remain unquantified and will be difficult to establish[14] We can't give the impression that inhaling is the main transmission method as we don't know that. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 00:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

What User:Gtoffoletto misunderstands is that this deposition on mucous membranes is in fact the same respiratory route that they argue against being the most important method. What they also fail to see is that the "touching" method is in fact fomites, they have no sources to back up the assertions they make, and they are edit warring, with the full knowledge that multiple users do not agree with them. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] --Almaty^✉✎ 05:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Almaty: please stop rambling. I have provided above a MEDRS source that directly contradicts the current text that states COVID-19 transmits when *people breathe in air* contaminated by droplets and small airborne particles.. This is inaccurate and dangerous. The principal mode by which people are infected with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) is through exposure to respiratory fluids carrying infectious virus. Exposure occurs in three principal waysCDC and Current evidence suggests that the virus spreads mainly between people who are in close contact with each other, typically within 1 metre (short-range). A person can be infected when aerosols or droplets containing the virus are inhaled or come directly into contact with the eyes, nose, or mouth.WHO. The current text is gravely incorrect. Several of the votes above agree with this assessment and chose Option 1. Stop personalising this discussion on me and editing the article without any consensus. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

That is not inaccurate at all. Please remove the above personal attack, you have personalised the discussion. I had to point out the edit war. Only one editor agrees with option 1, others changed their vote or vote for a combination, or option 2. To quote the WHO: "A person can be infected when aerosols or droplets containing the virus are inhaled or come directly into contact with the eyes, nose, or mouth." Its exactly the same as the wording agreed to before yourself and I became involved, namely the current text "COVID-19 transmits when *people breathe in air* contaminated by droplets and small airborne particles" followed by "Transmission can also occur if splashed or sprayed with contaminated fluids" - it just points out that surfaces are rare, because that is established consensus, and accurate. --Almaty^✉✎ 15:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

A person can be infected when aerosols or droplets containing the virus are inhaled or come directly into contact with the eyes, nose, or mouth. Where in this WHO text are surfaces mentioned? The point is not about surfaces. The point is Eyes don't breathe. You can still get infected if respiratory fluids reach them. In the current text you report there is no mention of eyes, mouth and nose. This is a problem. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Further extended discussion and restoration of content to previous consensus

• The WHO states that there is one main way - the droplet airborne route. [20] Not saying this in the lead, effectively calling all of them equally important, is very incorrect - the CDC only do it on one page, and if you click through, they say that surfaces "does not contribute substantially to new infections". We cannot give it the same WP:DUE weight, we should use Option 2. If you look further in the literature, you see there are so few infections that it has never been proven conclusively, unlike the other routes. Every other source including ECDC[21], Public Health Agency of Canada [22] and well cited reviews [23] state that it very very rare (or much less prominent). --Almaty (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Australian Guidelines [24] "Indirect transmission via contact with contaminated surfaces and objects may be possible but does not present the same degree of risk as direct close contact with an infected person" --Almaty (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I reverted some edits to this sentence while the RfC is in progress [25]. We should wait for the end of this discussion before making changes (this also affects greatly Transmission of COVID-19. The RfC is not very clear so that's maybe why not a lot of people are participating... but I'll ping a couple of users from the previous discussions to try and close this and figure out the best way of describing transmission: @Berchanhimez: @RandomCanadian: @RandomCanadian: @Solid Reign: @Doc James: -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Please not that this RfC only is for the sentence in the lead in question, not for the body or for other articles. Option 1 overrides preexisting longstanding consensus that airborne/droplet is the main method of spread and that fomites are rare. Please respect that the CDC recognised airborne spread, as dominant for the first time, but based on a linguistic misunderstanding around the word “principle” in the beginning of one CDC page (not the other) [26], and ignoring all other sources, the edits going to Option 1 are misinformed (diffs) [27] [28] [29] [30] Also there are 3 supports to Option 2. The RfC is well worded. Will revert because the prior wording, that fomites or "touching" is rare, reflects preexisting consensus [31], and airborne is the common method all agreed to above. —Almaty (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Almaty: I disagree with your analysis of the sources as I have stated above (and others agree so far). WHO, CDC etc. all state that there are three main ways to be exposed to respiratory fluids. In any case: per WP:RFC the sentences in question should not be changed while the RfC is in progress (I see it was you who changed it to the version you prefer while the RfC was in progress and you have reverted my restoration with a pretty inflammatory edit summary). I would ask you to self revert and await the results of this RfC before further editing those sentences. I've also pinged other experienced users. Be patient and let's see what the community thinks. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, I am reflecting preexisting community consensus. There is only one editor that is Civil POV pushing and WP:edit waring about saying that fomites/touching is a main method, and that is you. I have provided the diffs. If you prefer we can go back to exactly how it was before this started [32] - and just change it to airborne, the part we agree on. But I think the current diff [33] is fair for preexisting community consensus. I think the RfC is fair and we need to let it wait out now, with how it was before we entered this discussion as the starting point. Please let me know if you don't think that is fair, but I think we'll have our answer from the RfC soon enough. There is WP:NODEADLINE, but it is fair to have the page for a protracted RfC to reflect prior consensus while the protracted RfC is being discussed. --Almaty (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

As you can read above in the RfC: For reference, the current text is: Transmission of COVID-19 commonly occurs when people are exposed to respiratory droplets or small airborne particles exhaled by an infected person. Those particles may be inhaled or may reach the mouth, nose, or eyes of a person directly (i.e. being coughed on) or through touching with contaminated hands.. However if you would rather go to this version it is fine for me. It isn't very precise given the new guidance but less misleading than the current version which is clearly different than how the page was and doesn't therefore reflect any preexisting consensus. Also it doesn't reflect the WHO, CDC and other WP:MEDRS sources accurately so it isn't appropriate. Please let's just stick to the content and let the RfC conclude before making other edits on this. There is no need for further discussion. We have both made our points clear. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

There are 2 issues here, one we agree on - that droplet/airborne is A main method. The second issue is whether fomites are common. They are uncommon, as per previous consensus. I am happy with whatever wording so long as it says these two points. You seem to want to replicate the CDC's page saying that fomites are COMMON but in fact it doens't say that, it says that it is ONE of the principle methods. This doesn't mean that it is common at all. All sources state that it is uncommon, CDC, WHO, ECDC if you actually read their briefs - it appears you haven't. --Almaty (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Almaty: That's not what I'm saying at all. All sources are clear that fomites appear to not be common. I've explained myself above several times so I won't do so again. Please revert your last edit to the previous version or to the way it was when you made the RfC. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

by stating that there are three main ways without saying which one is overwhelmingly common, and which is overwhelmingly rare, all of your edits do that by putting it in the same sentence. Perhaps we have a language difficulty here but if you agree that droplet/airborne is the common route and that fomites are uncommon - this is all “touching” which is what the CDC calls it for some reason - all of it is fomites. If you agree with me then why don’t your edits state it??? You haven’t explained yourself at all. If it is uncommon, wp:due requires that we state it —Almaty (talk) 12:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

OK then, I'll try to explain myself one last time: Touching with contaminated hands is not synonymous with fomites (this is the mistake in your reasoning I believe). Hands can be contaminated even without touching surfaces in many different ways (e.g. someone spits while talking and it falls on your hands, or you touch the mouth of an infected person maybe feeding them or you are a doctor/dentist/nurse?). That's why cleaning hands and not touching your eyes/mounth/etc. are major prevention recommendations. This is why the CDC states touching with contaminated hands is a primary path to infection while also stating that fomites are uncommon. Therefore see option 1 above in the RfC to cover this primary (according to the WHO and CDC) path to infection. I hope I was clear this time? Please revert the article to the version we discussed above so that it is clear we are in agreement on that. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

What you have just said constitutes original research and misunderstands the page. Have a look here at the table they used, to simplify it. Also they state at the top of the page, "COVID-19 spreads when an infected person breathes out droplets and very small particles that contain the virus. These droplets and particles can be breathed in by other people or land on their eyes, noses, or mouth. In some circumstances, they may contaminate surfaces they touch." The main method is the respiratory droplet/airborne, as per all of the sources. CDC state that the second method, which is via respiratory fluids may also be contributing - but not via hands, their third method, that is the least common method. TYou're trying to say something it isn't, doing original research. (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

" Touching eyes, nose, or mouth

Touching eyes, nose, or mouth with hands that have the virus on them -

Uncommon - do you understand yet? If not, please think a little harder, read more sources, quote other sources.

Contaminated hands is precisely how fomites can infect, and precisely the thing that is uncommon. Question yourself here, if you are without expertise, just look at what the sources say, and as you realise you might be misunderstanding the CDC source - use other sources!!!.

However it is easier to understand wiki rules than this difficult concept. To avoid WP:OR can you provide a source stating: CDC states touching with contaminated hands is a primary path to infection while also stating that fomites are uncommon., also someone spits while talking and it falls on your hands, or you touch the mouth of an infected person maybe feeding them or you are a doctor/dentist/nurse - if you can't, you are doing original research. Read the table from the CDC again. Have you read ECDC transmission brief? Have you read the literature reviews that I cited? Have you read previous discussions on the issue in these talk pages? Have you read Transmission of COVID-19? I think taking a holistic view of the subject will allow you to perhaps agree with the current wording or option 2. --Almaty (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Almaty: You are citing old versions of those sources that fit your opinion. Those pages are outdated. I disagree and I don't think this discussion is productive anymore. Please restore the page to how it was before the RfC or as we have agreed (or I will do so). We will then see how the RfC progresses.-- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

That is not correct. [34] is the version with consensus, we should not state "airborne transmission is sometimes possible", you haven't read the sources. Stick to the sources and you will be fine, please don't continue your edit war (diffs provided above) or I will consider reporting it. --Almaty^✉✎ 21:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Almaty: I have reverted to the version you identified as previous consensus above: However if you would rather go to this version it is fine for me.[35]. But you edited the article once again while the RfC is still in progress and despite agreeing to something else. That is not constructive and WP:DISRUPTIVE. Please self revert and stop this time waste. If you don't intend to stop this then please file a report before editing further. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 23:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: The version you reverted to is sufficiently incorrect, or at least significantly lacking (as identified in reliable sources given in the RfC above) that I think there are sufficient grounds (especially given this is an actual globally important topic and that this page attracts significant attention because of that) for boldly changing it without getting stuck in the consensus building process. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Support the above edit and the above process. There is only one (very persistent) user @Gtoffoletto: that attempts to misquote and miscontextualise the CDC, by saying that fomites are important. [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] This user should refrain from editing, and we should use the consensus previously established by User:RandomCanadian's edit [41] of the IP editor that was supported by Doc James and others. [42] --Almaty^✉✎ 05:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Also the user says that I agreed on a previous version, however I did not, exactly how it was before this started [32] - and just change it to airborne, the part we agree on As in we needed to come to a consensus which I just noticed already occured, prior to our involvement, with the above edit[43]. --Almaty^✉✎ 05:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry Almaty but at this point I must ignore you. @RandomCanadian: I totally agree the previous text was inaccurate. That is why I edited it in the first place (Option 1 in the RfC above is my edit). However the current version that Almaty keeps editing into the article is also inaccurate and probably more so than the previous versions. It isn't an improvement. It is a step back. See my reply to you above [44] for major WP:MEDRS sources directly contradicting the current text. Let's leave the page be for the moment and try to resolve the RfC as fast as possible in order to reach something that is accurate. Please consider changing your vote above or proposing another version so that we can move towards consensus. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be quoting this CDC page. For the benefit of everyone:

The principal mode by which people are infected with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) is through exposure to respiratory fluids carrying infectious virus. Exposure occurs in three principal ways: (1) inhalation of very fine respiratory droplets and aerosol particles, (2) deposition of respiratory droplets and particles on exposed mucous membranes in the mouth, nose, or eye by direct splashes and sprays, and (3) touching mucous membranes with hands that have been soiled either directly by virus-containing respiratory fluids or indirectly by touching surfaces with virus on them.

The CDC doesn't seem to make an explicit assessment as to which method is more likely amongst these three, although of course the direct routes are presented first (thus have the emphasis of preeminence). Perfectly logical: if all are possible, as an agency whose goal is to minimise the spread of the virus, you don't want efforts about any of the methods to be less intensive because it's "less likely". The WHO page is also similar, although here the transmission via surfaces is more clearly placed after the bullet list of main methods. Health Canada is also similar to the WHO page in that aspect. This is where we can look for other sources in the MEDRS hierarchy and see if they fill out this detail. Review papers (which are also great sources) seem to be mostly saying that airborne transmission is a thing, and that it is prevalent, and that steps should be taken to prevent this. So already in broad agreement with the national guidelines, which as you surely know recommend the usage of face masks, social distancing, et al.

The CDC does make an explicit assessment, if you click through [45] Current evidence strongly suggests transmission from contaminated surfaces does not contribute substantially to new infections. --Almaty^✉✎ 15:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Australian guidelines also make an explicit assessment: Respiratory droplets and secretions expelled by an infectious person can contaminate surfaces and objects (4). Indirect transmission via contact with contaminated surfaces and objects may be possible but does not present the same degree of risk as direct close contact with an infected person. [46] --Almaty^✉✎ 15:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

To potentially help with user's understanding, on how these three methods interrelate, and their relative importance, I have further edited Transmission of COVID-19 to include further explanations of these three methods and their relative importance, as per every source, not just the one simplified CDC source. I think the wording agreed to prior to the long discussion in [47] this edit is an apt summary of the below.--Almaty^✉✎ 16:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The size of the infectious particles is on a continuum, ranging from small airborne particles that remain suspended in the air for long periods, to larger droplets that may remain airborne or fall to the ground. This continuum between droplets and aerosols has redefined the traditional understanding of how respiratory viruses transmit. The largest droplets of respiratory fluid do not travel far, and can be inhaled, or land on mucous membranes on the eyes, nose, or mouth to cause new infection. The fine aerosol particles are in highest concentration when people are in close proximity, leading to the virus transmitting easier when people are physically close. However, airborne transmission does occur at longer distances, mainly in locations that are poorly ventilated (such as restaurants, choirs, gyms, nightclubs, offices, and religious venues). In those conditions small particles can remain suspended in the air for minutes to hours. It is possible that a person might get COVID-19 indirectly by touching a contaminated surface or object before touching their own mouth, nose, or eyes,  though strong evidence suggests this does not contribute substantially to new infections. 
(the bulk my wording, from Transmission of COVID-19, some text quoted verbatim from the CDC's current page under public domain, to assist with understanding the CDC) --Almaty✉✎ 16:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

References

References

COVID-19 Excess Deaths

The Economist has a new article out estimating much higher excess deaths during the pandemic (7m-13m) than currently reported. Seems like something that could be included EagleBoss (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

'the Economist' as a source for global deaths??--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly wrong with the source. Can we] get the full article? They appear to be a secondary [48] --Almaty (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

That is not a WP:MEDRS source. It cannot be used to support that claim. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes but this is actually a secondary source - The Economist citing the John Hopkins school of public health. It can be argued also that this is an economic claim rather than a medical claim, it is possible to put it in. WP:MEDRS is more complex than most people think. --Almaty (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Disclaimer I haven't read the full article because of paywall. --Almaty (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

If we're going to provide an estimate, we should at least use the best estimate available. And that means citing something other than the Economist: either cite Johns Hopkins' calculations directly, or the Economist is WP:SYNTH and we should be careful to use a more reliable source.

The WHO has an estimate. As does the CDC for the US. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

This sums up just about everything to date. https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/ Charles Juvon (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Already discussed multiple times at sub-pages. Wade (a "science" writer known for a book on race and intelligence) getting his controversial statements published by a non-medical journal doesn't sum up or change anything. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with RandomCanadian, the source cited does not conform to reliable sources, see WP:RS. A quick glance at WP:RSPSOURCES also does not include this source. Given these factors, I do not agree with including this source in the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jurisdicta: Just to clarify, inclusion or not at WP:RSP doesn't make a source unreliable (obviously reliable sources, such as Nature or Science, are not included, and obvious troll sites are not either, since they go directly to the blacklist). Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists might actually be reliable for some things in its area of expertise (although even there it is not cited much [per Bulletin_of_the_Atomic_Scientists#Indexing], so not particularly inspiring), but obviously not here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, you are right, by itself, it does not warrant exclusion. I merely included the list as examples of what is reliable and what is not. I should have clarified why I included that point. 力 also makes a strong point which is more focused on the germanane issue and I appreciate their contribution. Jurisdicta (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with everyone above. The Bulletin is a well-known publication with a good reputation, and suggestions it should be dismissed as "unreliable" for all subjects are flailing to keep anything they feel is "pro-lab-leak" out of Wikipedia. That said, it does fail WP:MEDRS spectacularly. In assessing coverage of genomic analysis of the COVID virus, it is remarkable how non-scientific persons make bold claims that there is genomic "proof" there was a lab leak, people with some scientific training make tentative claims suggesting it might suggest evolution in a lab, and virology experts almost universally agree that there is no good genomic evidence for a lab-based origin. This is why we have MEDRS - popular coverage of scientific topics (especially medical ones) is often very low-quality, even in otherwise-reliable sources. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

力, I wanted to write this comment basically but you did it better than I ever could have. I agree - it's not unreliable in general, but the mere fact that this was published doesn't change the scientific consensus. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it is now obvious the lab leak theory is now clearly WP:DUE, and not due as a 'conspiracy theory'. NYMag "COVID-19 MAY 14, 2021, The COVID Lab-Leak Hypothesis Just Got a Big Credibility Boost, By Chas Danner. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

You're essentially using a MEDPOP source which argues that an open letter (i.e. science by press conference) changes something. Entirely ignoring the discussions about it at other talk pages... Entirely ignoring our policies about MEDRS. Entirely ignoring what you have been told multiple times. Stop ignoring and start listening. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Include This source is reliable in my opinion and I think the scientific consensus is shifting somewhat. Also: I don't think WP:MEDRS applies to this topic as the origin of the virus falls under the "general information" category and is not a biomedical claim (see Wikipedia:Biomedical information). Basic WP:RS should suffice and this is one of them. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  No it isn't "general information", it's information which is important in preventing a future outbreak. See the extremely thorough refutation of using poor sources at the bottom of this discussion. Even if we were not to apply MEDRS, then WP:BESTSOURCES brings us to the same point: use the actual papers by the scientists, not exaggerated reports of science by press conference. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  It is not considered biomedical information according to the policy above. Papers are fine of course if we have them (single papers are not WP:MEDRS compliant, only reviews etc.) however I'm not sure this is something you will find in a paper, but rather in an investigative report (and probably published in the press or by the WHO/Governments). For example: the fact this virus passed directly from a bat to a human, or came from a bat virus stored in a lab and infected an employee there cannot be determined through "scientific" means. The virus would be identical. The way it managed to spillover changes and that is something only an investigation would discover. It's not something that necessarily ends up in a paper. This source is a WP:RS and should be used. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  There is a previous discussion that reached the consensus that a potential lab leak should not be mentioned [49]. I don't think the fact this information should not require WP:MEDRS sources has been discussed however. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Whether there is a de-facto or not requirement for MEDRS (there is: this is still a matter of science, it's not something "historical", so we still should stick to the scientific sources), WP:BESTSOURCES leads us to use MEDRS anyway. That discussion explicitly mentioned MEDRS, and the consensus hasn't changed, i.e. the lab leak is still so WP:FRINGE that any specific mention of it here would be WP:UNDUE. The lab leak is a "possibility", which so far has no direct evidence and very little in the way of circumstantial evidence, according to the best (MEDRS) sources. We don't mention it here, since this is a big-picture overview and since the topic can be better covered at other sub-pages. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  WP:MEDRS does not relate to "science" but to biomedical claims alone. Please review it fully before editing medical pages as it is very important to understand the difference between the WP:RS standard and WP:MEDRS used only in medical topics. In a nutshell: Ideal sources for biomedical material include literature reviews or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources (such as reputable medical journals), recognised standard textbooks by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies.. Single papers (even if from WP:RS) are not sufficient for biomedical claims. This is not a biomedical claim so a WP:RS is sufficient. In this case some are disputing this is a RS. But MEDRS has nothing to do with this general (not medical) claim. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  What claim? The article is full of biomedical ones (as you'd expect from a piece which boasts "By the end of this article, you may have learned a lot about the molecular biology of viruses"). This is a really weak source but may be okay for some veyr weak/mundane claim. So what claim are is being proposed for inclusion? Alexbrn (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  I was mostly commenting on the source which I think is reputable. The claim is that a lab-leak is a realistic possibility. Probably should be used here: Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 rather than on this page (where I think the virus origin is accurately described as unknown). Such a claim is not covered by WP:MEDRS from my understanding. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• This source appears to be a journalistic opinion piece (is it peer-reviewed?) in a bottom-of-the-barrel journal. Probably not reliable for anything scientific, let along something controversial in the realm of bioscience when we a handful of top-tier sources. Proponents aren't even saying when they think it's reliable for. Alexbrn (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly what it is, republished from the self-pub on Medium, with an author who is problematic has past writings widely disputed by scientists in the field. I agree with the view that it's basically WP:MEDPOP. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about the Bulletin. But I do take issue with Nicholas Wade being described as "a 'science' writer" with scare-quotes around "science" and as broadly "problematic"—these seem to be smears, blatant WP:BLP violations, and totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. Not until Wade waded into the fevered swamp of race did he become "controversial", and this was clearly for political more than scientific reasons, beginning with Before the Dawn (book). Wade was the staff writer for the NYT Science Times for 30 years, former editor of both Nature and Science, and has impeccable credentials—and is one of the preeminent science writers. Enough with the smears, please—they're politically puerile and fall far below encyclopedic standards. Elle Kpyros (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

A journalist (not a scientist) writing uncritically about a FRINGE position (republishing an originally self-published piece) in a non-topic related journal is not a credible reliable source for our concerns. So, yes, he is "controversial" and "problematic", and we're perfectly allowed (in fact, we need to, per WP:SPS) to evaluate the credibility of authors, especially when it concerns self-published sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I updated my wording above to be more specific, but stand by my analysis of the unreliability of the article. Whether written by Wade or someone else, it remains a former WP:SELFPUB picked up by a publisher outside the field of study and wasn't peer reviewed. It's not a WP:RS. Given all the attention on the COVID articles over open letters with around a dozen scientists signing on, the author having an open letter where over 100 scientists said he misrepresented their research should be an additional WP:REDFLAG to a source that arguably already isn't reliable enough to include. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

If it is possible, I would like to modestly put several points in perspective:(1) The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is dealing with biosecurity issues for years. If one recognizes that, that is a first point;(2) Wade's publication is published under this category, so a priori with the same rigor if one recognizes the previous point; (3) The reprinting of Wade's article, originally in Medium, can therefore be considered as recognition of Wade's article in this field, by the biosecurity experts of the Bulletin; (4) In addition to the Bulletin's expertise, Wade's expertise as a science reporter for the New York Times is also recognized. So, to say that the source is not "unreliable" or "peer-reviewed" seems to have to be weighed, at least in the sense that (a) the Bulletin has recognized expertise on biosecurity, (b) the editorial board has agreed to republish Wade's text, so the editorial board has accepted it in its original form (c) bulletin, with its editorial choices, remains a journal hosted by Taylor & Francis CyberDiderot (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC).

To clarify again, my concerns of credibility are not the root issue. No matter how credible the author, the source wouldn't be strong enough to cite for the reasons it's being suggested we cite it. I'm merely adding that he's not so dependable/reliable/credible as to have an argument that we make an exception to WP:PAGs in order to include it.

If you can confirm that the article was peer reviewed before republishing, then we can have the discussion that it meets our guidelines for being a strong source. If not, then we're left with the article being one of the weaker sources available describing this minority viewpoint. And a plethora of weak sources doesn't increase WPDUE weight. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Better image/collage for infobox

I created this collage of photos including worldwide situations, I think is better than just to have the american nurse in there, but I need a consensus. Hearing you people. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended content

From left to right and top to bottom: people in Guangzhou wearing face masks; burial of COVID-19 victims in Iran; student in Mexico taking online classes from home while wearing a face mask; nurse from Italy showing his bruised face due to the long hours of wearing medical stuff as a helper of COVID-19 infected people; nurse treating a COVID-19 patient in an intensive care unit aboard USNS Comfort, a U.S. hospital ship

• What is the benefit of a collage? Collages are only useful when there's multiple images that convey extremely important information about the event and they cannot be decided between. I don't think a collage is necessary for this article - the other images can certainly be included in the body if/where appropriate. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• I am weakly against a collage (though definitely not in favor of one as big as the one here, maybe max 3 images). I think if we are going to use a single image, it should be similar to the top-left one presented here. If there is one lasting and representative image of this pandemic, it will be those blue surgical masks being worn by the public. I don't really like the nurse image because I think it's generic and fails to highlight the unique sights of this time in history (medical equipment and masking in a hospital is nothing special or striking). The image is too "personal"/"small scale" for this event, which affected the lives of people far, far beyond those who caught the disease and treated it. I am not opposed to having no image, either. — Goszei (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Comment. This was the "3 image" version of the collage that was briefly in the article, for the record: [50]. Any thoughts? — Goszei (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended content
From left to right: people in Guangzhou wearing face masks; burial of COVID-19 victims in Iran; nurse treating a COVID-19 patient in an intensive care unit aboard USNS Comfort, a U.S. hospital ship

• I agree the current image is generic. There was a previous discussion on this that decided to remove a collage. Probably decisions such as this should be added to the page consensus so that we don't continue revisiting past discussions forever. I think we should probably stick to that decision but maybe use another single image which is more representative. It needs to include masks and give a sense of scale I think. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not a fan of most of the images in this collage. The bottom (existing) and top-right images are fine, but the upper left one is cluttered, the middle left one is low-quality and uncompelling, and the middle right one is a really powerful portrait but not a good fit for the collage. Given the length of the infobox already, I'd be more willing to consider a three-image collage than this, but I'm not 100% convinced we need a collage at all. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• What about something like this --Almaty (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended content

The preference seemed to be to avoid a collage entirely, to improve mobile readability. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Wuhan lab staff sought hospital care before COVID-19 outbreak disclosed

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/wuhan-lab-staff-sought-hospital-care-before-covid-19-outbreak-disclosed-wsj-2021-05-23/

205.175.106.86 (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC) |}

• current discussion Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information give opinion please--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Humor during the COVID-19 pandemic

Greetings,

Requesting article expansion support @ Draft:Humor during the COVID-19 pandemic

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

DUE WaPo

In depth coverage of the controversy by Wapo makes it DUE. MEDRS doesnt apply to history. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Mere coverage in mainstream press doesn't make a concept DUE for every single article on wikipedia. It's not even a question of MEDRS, but of WP:GEVAL and WP:FRINGELEVEL. The theory is absolutely notable, which is why it's discussed at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. But it remains low acceptance, so it's best to remain on those articles instead of here, until acceptance grows significantly. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

You're stretching the definition of "history" here. Is geology just "history", and if articles about the history of tectonic shift in the popular press conflict with review articles in high-quality scientific journals, which should we rely on? The origins of SARS-CoV-2 are a scientific question - one that the vast majority of journalists (including those writing on the subject for major newspapers) are completely unequipped to evaluate competently. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf and Bakkster Man, there is now an RFC on how WP:MEDRS applies to COVID-19 origins [51]. I think we should get that over and done with before considering which aspects of the virus/disease origins/aetiology and which sources to reference. CutePeach (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think we all can agree, at this point, after more than a year and a half, that the lab leak is certainly a possible cause of the pandemic, regardless of what some arm chair scientists in here might claim. Time to update reliable sources to reflect this it seems. --Malerooster (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not MEDRS applies and the results of that MEDRS/BMI RfC, I think we can handle a discussion of WP:DUE in the meantime. Particularly as it applies to this page and this topic (which is covered in more detail elsewhere). Bakkster Man (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

That is fine, but there is absolutely no need to hat this discussion, that is clear. --Malerooster (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, we have an editor who thinks he owns this page, lets set him straight. Should this thread be hatted? --Malerooster (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I could make an argument either way. The comment is very close (if not identical) to the discussion on the RSN. Is there anything you or Jtbobwaysf think is applicable here that isn't (or shouldn't be) covered there? Bakkster Man (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bakkster, I just don't see any burning reason to hat this discussion, that's all. If folks feel otherwise then fine, hat it. A single editor should not make that decision, and certainly should not edit war over it when it has been disputed. I understand there is a similar discussion happening else where, buts that's ok to. --Malerooster (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll say this. We can have a discussion of DUE here, but we have arguably much stronger sources that would be cited in this article on whatever text was added. The Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 has multiple that would be a better basis on which to have that discussion, and would be productive. If the discussion is specifically that this particular WaPo source, or the one citing US intelligence be used to give more credence to the lab leak theory, then the discussion should be hatted and take place in one place: the RSN. Otherwise it looks like WP:FORUMSHOP. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• There is absolutely no point in having the same discussion (this is the same discussion, about the piece in the WaPo) at multiple places - that wastes editor resources and time and leads to the same arguments being pointlessly repeated (and may lead to [unintentional?] WP:FORUMSHOP). As I said, there is an existing discussion at WP:RSN - go there instead. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• It is fine to discuss these sources on this talk page. The WaPo source is indepth and was not subject of the RSN (at least yet). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Lab_Leak_Again is about the report of the exact same thing (some random "intelligence report" about some people in Wuhan having been sick with something in late 2019). Whatever the outcome there, I doubt the WaPo is much different from the WSJ as far as we're concerned. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Interestingly this RFC is ongoing here as well Wikipedia_talk:Biomedical_information#Survey Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Care to expand on why you believe this particular news article makes "the controversy" DUE for this article? Or is this just going to be an argument about whether we link it on the talk page? Bakkster Man (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

In depth coverage makes it due. Dealing with WP:SEALION comments on this talk page, thus seems unlikely it is going to get agreed to on this talk page, but that doesn't prohibit discussion of it. Dont confuse lack of talk page consensus with a prohibition on discussion of it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not looking to shut down discussion, but without more detail on why you come to a different conclusion about WP:DUE than I do, we're not really discussing anything. My interpretation is as follows:

WP:DUE: Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. This page's Background section Is just 2 paragraphs with 10 total sentences, only around half directly addressing the origins. That being the case, the addition of even 1-2 sentences of what remains a minority view (even a significant one, as this clearly is), would violate DUE by being "as much of or as detailed a description". This section does have a "See also" to the Investigations article, where this view can (and does) get DUE weight. Though I would agree that rephrasing the contrary opinions away from the current wording lumping it all as "online conspiracy theories" would be a good idea.

WP:DUE: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. This appears clearly to suggest that addition to the Background section would probably be UNDUE. Both through prominent placement in such a large article, and because the majority view isn't explained in sufficient detail to identify and explain differences adequately. If you're suggesting a more detailed description lower on this article, I would be open to discussing that possibility, but my initial impression is that the link to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 is probably a better solution anyway.

WP:GEVAL: plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. Per above, this is a concern specific to this page, which should be included or omitted based on relevance to the topic at hand. As a counter-argument, does this COVID investigation timeline being published in WaPo make it WP:DUE for inclusion in the Timeline article? It references 2009 flu pandemic timeline, should it reference every pandemic timeline of any notability? I argue no, for the same reason as above. Notability in general is not equivalent to notability for every related article.

If you disagree with my conclusions based on WP:PAGs, then please explain your position. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

We are talking about history, not about the legitimacy of the history. Your point is that the child is illegitimate so it doesn't exist. I am not arguing for a comparison of absurd theories in the article. The proposed certainty relating to the lab leak theory is as lacking in evidence as to the theory that it came from a yet undetermined animal. The excessive discussions of this point are essentially already bludgeoned and the defense of any one position without lots of studies is ignorance defined. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

This is not history, as already explained to you (if it were history, then you could surely cite sources telling us what the definitive origin of the virus was). The only SEALION I see is people begging for WP:FALSEBALANCE. Here's a post, with many sources to support it, which outlines A) that the scientific consensus is that the virus has a natural zoonotic origin; B) that the lab leak is a WP:FRINGE position within the scientific community and under our policies; and C) why we are academically conservative (because we follow the top sources). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: The proposed certainty relating to the lab leak theory is as lacking in evidence as to the theory that it came from a yet undetermined animal. The excessive discussions of this point are essentially already bludgeoned and the defense of any one position without lots of studies is ignorance defined. With all due respect, is it possible you have misinterpreted the studies again? Bakkster Man (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

What would be the issue with this NIH source that states "Unless the intermediate host necessary for completing a natural zoonotic jump is identified, the dual‐use gain‐of‐function research practice of viral serial passage should be considered a viable route by which the novel coronavirus arose." Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Why are you mischaracterising the sources, again? That is an essay (not a review paper) in a journal which publishes essays (as you'd guess from the title) by two non-virologists (who have also co-authored "papers" with Mr. Deigin and the usual lab leak proponents from that' Twitter group) with no relevant expertise. It's not even a regular WP:RS, except for the opinion of its authors, who are non-notable non-expert non-entities which we can't cite anyway. It's akin to the paper by Wade. When compared with the high quality sources in journals like Nature Medicine, Review in Medical Virology, etc... it holds no weight. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• neutral comment -US President Biden revealed that earlier this year, he asked the intelligence community to assess “whether it emerged from human contact with an infected animal, or from a laboratory accident."--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Food shortages

The statement in the lede: "It has led to widespread supply shortages exacerbated by panic buying, agricultural disruption, and food shortages. " seems grossly overstated. It has been a remarkable feature of this pandemic that the food supply chain has continued to work very well. I don't recognise the reference to "agricultural disruption" at all. Panic buying has not been a major issue. There have been localised shortages of medical equipment and supplies (ventilators, PPE, oxygen). But the sentence as written gives entirely the wrong impression. Mhkay (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

thank you for posting and bringing this issue up--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree that this could use an update. I suspect this text remains mostly unchanged since the initial wave of restrictions. Probably need to better distinguish between localized short-term shortages in food diversity (grocery stores selling out of beans/rice/cereal/milk/bread prior to government restrictions going into effect) and long-term increases in global food insecurity where the problem is access to basic nutrition (compare reports from 2021 to warnings from early 2020). We should be clear about the impacts to wealthy and impoverished communities to avoid being to focused on the perspective of editors (more likely food diversity than food insecurity). Bakkster Man (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WikiProject COVID-19

Please join this broad discussion on how we discuss and explain COVID origins. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)