This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The result was: rejected by
SL93 (
talk)
03:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
NPOV concerns.
Source2: "How much longer can China keep up its zero-Covid strategy?". The Guardian. 2022-01-01. Retrieved 2022-01-02.
Created by Novem Linguae ( talk), Moxy ( talk), Thucydides411 ( talk), and Arcahaeoindris ( talk). Nominated by Moxy at 16:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC).
... that places such as China, Hong Kong and Taiwan have pursued a zero-COVID strategy?– Novem Linguae ( talk) 21:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook eligibility:
Image eligibility:
QPQ: None required. |
Review is incomplete - please fill in the "status" field
Re: ALTs. I think you could build a dateproof alt around the fact HK's zero-COVID strategy was being called unsustainable by the end of January 2022. I think you could build one around the fact opponents are calling it unfeasible/unrealistic. valereee ( talk) 14:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
valereee ( talk) 14:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
How about this?
I think it's sufficiently interesting to be a hook, and there's no expiry date on the statement. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 16:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that "Find, Test, Trace, Isolate and Support" (FTTIS) is used widely enough to feature so prominently in the lede. There are various other secondary terms that are more common, as far as I can tell. "Elimination strategy" is often used in the scientific literature. In China, the terms "zero tolerance" (for transmission) and "dynamic zero" are commonly used. I'm not as familiar with the terms used in other countries, though I wouldn't be surprised if every country had its own terminology. Maybe "Zero-COVID" is enough for the first sentence of the lede. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 03:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Is FTTIS too broad for this article? Should we perhaps remove it from the lead, and also remove the hatnote, and then have FTTIS redirect to Eradication of infectious diseases? Just an idea, I'm not sure yet. Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 07:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
If we are copy pasting from other articles, we should consider using {{ Excerpt}}. This has maintenance benefits since the text only has to be edited and maintained in one place, saving editor time and effort. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 16:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Is it accurate to say that South Korea has followed a zero-COVID strategy? South Korea has had low case numbers for most of the pandemic, but as far as I'm aware, it hasn't pursued full elimination. In my reading, South Korea's approach is often contrasted with that of its zero-COVID neighbors. See, for example, this article. In particular, this passage contrasts South Korea with "zero-Covid economies":
In contrast to the United States and Europe, where nearly 1.8 million people have died of Covid-19, South Korea has won plaudits for its pandemic response, recording just over 2,000 deaths among a population of more than 51 million.
But unlike Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Taiwan and other “zero-Covid” economies that have tried to eliminate the virus entirely, Seoul has for months now been reporting hundreds of new cases every day.
- Thucydides411 ( talk) 19:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Once these new tools became available, the medium- to longer-term strategy evolved, too. The next step after zero Covid has been a focus on vaccinating the population to a high threshold, and acquiring antivirals that can be given in outpatient care to keep the burden off healthcare services. The pivot from maximum suppression to mass vaccination was a rational and logical shift to achieve a successful transition out of the pandemic.as meaning they had followed zero-COVID, but as another editor pointed out, the source isn't great, it's just an opinion piece. I disagree with the comment in the inline tag that says MEDRS is needed, since a government picking a public health strategy is more akin to politics than biomedicine. But being an opinion piece, it is possible that the article got it wrong. Feel free to change if you are certain that South Korea did not follow zero-COVID. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 19:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Singapore, Vietnam, Taiwan, South Korea, and mainland China, as well as Australia and New Zealand, were also adherents to the “zero COVID” or “elimination” strategy– Novem Linguae ( talk) 03:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Do you think that it is worth having a section in which supporters (scientists, politicians, etc.) of the Zero-COVID strategy are listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.91.212.222 ( talk) 10:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I will try to contribute to it as well by including more viewpoints of public figures who maintain that Zero-COVID is the right approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.91.212.222 ( talk) 17:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Multiple RS report that China has been putting on airs of having successfully continued the crisis as part of a domestic and international propaganda campaign to show how that its political system is superior to those of other countries. Therefore, we should not muddy the science with the politics on this subject, and I have split the Views section into two. CutePeach ( talk) 14:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Here are a few recent among many articles critical of the policy and its implementation [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. I would like our article represent all views fairly, instead of giving undue WP:WEIGHT to this policy, when leading independent virologists around the world (including Guan Yi in China) advocate for increased vaccination and research into the efficacy of homegrown vaccines against new variants as the most effective strategy to control the pandemic. LondonIP ( talk) 01:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I am concerned that the "Views on the zero-COVID strategy" section is just becoming a long list of quotes. Over-quoting violates summary style, encourages use of primary sources, and is often not the best way to write encyclopedia articles. I'm not saying we should delete the section, but we may want to give some thought to refactoring it. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 11:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Let's steer clear of media junk especially US media....any proposal should be done with academic sources. Moxy- 14:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The section "Views on the zero-COVID strategy" seems to have turned into a random splattering of ideas and opinions. It rambles, lacks proper grouping of ideas, and in my opinion doesn't add much to the article because it is disorganized. Thoughts on deleting it? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 15:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't agree with this and I don't understand why you exclude views from scientists critical of the Chinese Communist Party's narrative. Most RS on Zero COVID are highly critical of Zero COVID [31] [32]. Please stop deleting critical views. CutePeach ( talk) 15:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Novem Linguae: The summary-style views section is much better than the smattering of random quotes we had before. Thank you for rewriting the section. I'm still not convinced the section is necessary, but this is an improvement. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 20:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for improving this page and resolving this discussion Novem Xoltered ( talk) 00:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring. At this point, there is so much criticism of the policy, including from within China, it makes sense to split out these critical views. Any policy by any government is bound to attract criticism, and there is a whole lot of that for this policy. CutePeach ( talk) 17:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
For Beijing to give up on zero-COVID and allow the new variant to run its course would be tantamount to admitting that its political system is no better than Western liberal democracy in protecting people’s health.
[33]. ← We need to treat this subject as political and make absolutely sure that any MEDRS brought to refute RS do so directly and without any
WP:SYNTH. We need to start by including questions about the accuracy of China's statistics the effectiveness of their zero COVID policy in doing whatever it is supposed to do.
ScrumptiousFood (
talk)
17:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Novem Linguae I'm not sure if you've been keeping up with the news, but at this point it is impossible not to have a section with critical views, titled as such. The views in favor of the policy are limited to China and already covered in above section, so there is no point in a generic "views" section unless they are distinguished in some way. Please can you also restore the criticism from Guan Yi, and particularly his comments on vaccination? It relates to the efficacy of China's own mRNA vaccines [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]. The Chinese government has been blocking foreign made mRNA vaccines while working on their own [42] [43], which Guan was obviously referring to in his critique. Gao has also spoken about it, though not in reference to zero COVID [44]. CutePeach ( talk) 15:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
The problem
Moxy and
Thucydides411 is that according to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, we must represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic
. Guan Yi and Yanzhong Huang's views on zdero COVID are very different to Wu Zunyou and Zhong Nanshan's views, but they are significant, and without them, this article just isn't neutral.
ScrumptiousFood (
talk)
18:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Not every single opinion article ever published anywhere that mentions the zero-COVID strategy has to be discussed in the article...Not every single opinion was suggested for inclusion. Trying so desperately to bury the views of experts critical of government policy, and then making it about
every single opinion articleisn't the way to resolve this dispute. It looks like this page may need full protection too. CutePeach ( talk) 14:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Tagging is meant to flag problems in the text, so that they can be worked on. It is not meant to serve as a protest against consensus.
This is an example of disruptive tagging: [49]. A whole number of "who" tags have been added to the "Views" section. What's the purpose of these tags? Is it to alert editors that the text is overly vague? No, it's to protest the consensus that developed above, that we should write the "Views" section in a more concise summary style, instead of individually listing who has said what. Previously, the "Views" section contained a hodge-podge of quotes by all sorts of people, both supporting and criticizing the zero-COVID strategy. Novem Linguae helpfully rewrote the section in summary style: [50]. A number of editors (the majority of those active on the page) agreed that the updated section was better than the previous laundry list of quotes (see #Delete section "Views on the zero-COVID strategy"?).
Template:WHO states,
Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like some or most are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Wikipedia should remain concise, even if it means being vague.
There was a conscious decision, made by the majority of editors, to switch to a concise summary the major arguments that have been made about zero-COVID, without going into detail about who said what. There are many different people with different views who could be quoted, but that would turn the section into the same bloated mess it was before. To avoid bloat, we would have to choose which specific people to quote, and such a decision would end up being arbitrary, because there are simply too many people who have weighed in. That's why we decided to switch to the concise summary we have now. These tags appear to be a protest against that decision, rather than an attempt to flag an issue that other editors can fix. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 16:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
accusations of statistics fudging are simply political accusations.That is why I'm here and I've said this article is not well sourced, relies too much on primary sourcing, and is not neutral. Please make an effort to understand my concerns. CutePeach ( talk) 14:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
The issue here is that this policy is being paraded by the Chinese government to support their claims of having near zero deaths since April 2020: These aren't just "claims." It is a widely acknowledged fact that China eliminated SARS-CoV-2 within its borders in April 2020, and that it has prevented any major resurgence of local transmission since then. No sustained local transmission means extremely low case numbers and close to zero deaths. If you're disputing this basic, widely acknowledged reality, then we have a problem.
A focal point of criticism is the economic and social costs of the policy: We mention this criticism. We also mention the opposite view, which is that the zero-COVID policy has produced better social and economic outcomes. People who argue the latter position point to the fact that China was the only major economy to grow in 2020 (and that it had strong growth in 2021, as well), and that social and economic life returned to normal much more quickly in China than in most of the world. There is a discussion of the effects of elimination strategies on society and the economy in this academic paper. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 16:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Just now I shortened the hatnote to This article is about the COVID elimination strategy. For the broader topic eradicating of infectious diseases, see Eradication of infectious diseases.
Elminating the hatnote is also an option, and
one other editor supported eliminating it above. Thoughts on eliminating it? –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
18:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
North Korea reportedly also follows an 'elimination strategy'. [1]
North Korea was one of the first countries to close borders due to COVID-19. [2] [3] Starting from 23 January 2020, North Korea banned foreign tourists, and all flights in and out of the country were halted. The authorities also started placing patients with suspected COVID, including those with slight, flu-like symptoms, in quarantine for two weeks in Sinuiju. [4] [5] [6] On 30 January, the state news agency of North Korea, the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), declared a "state emergency", and reported the establishment of anti-epidemic headquarters around the country. [7] Though many parts of the border were closed, the bridge between Dandong and Sinuiju remained open and allowed supplies to be delivered. [8] In late February, the North Korean government said that it would keep the border closed until a cure was found. [9]
On 2 February, KCNA reported that all the people who had entered the country after 13 January were placed under "medical supervision". [7] South Korean media outlet Daily NK reported that five suspected COVID-19 patients in Sinuiju, on the Chinese border, had died on 7 February. [10] The same day, The Korea Times reported that a North Korean female living in the capital Pyongyang was infected. [11] Although there was no confirmation by North Korean authorities of the claims, the country implemented further strict measures to combat the spread of the virus. [12] [13] Schools were closed starting on 20 February. [14] On 29 February, Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un called for stronger measures to be taken to prevent COVID-19 from spreading within North Korea. [15]
In early February, the North Korean government took severe measures to block the spread of COVID-19. Rodong Sinmun, the Workers' Party of Korea newspaper, reported that the customs officials at the port of Nampo were performing disinfection activities, including placing imported goods in quarantine. [16] All international flights and railway services were suspended in early February, and connections by sea and road were largely closed over the following weeks. [9] In February, wearing face masks was obligatory, and visiting public places such as restaurants was forbidden. Ski resorts and spas were closed, and military parades, marathons, and other public events were cancelled. [9] Schools were closed throughout the country; university students in Pyongyang from elsewhere in the country were confined to their dormitories. [17] [14]
Although South Korean media reported the epidemic had spread to North Korea, the WHO said there were no indications of cases there. [18] On 18 February, Rodong Sinmun, the official newspaper of North Korea's ruling party, quoted a public health official reiterating that there had been "no confirmed case of the new coronavirus so far". The WHO prioritised aid for North Korea, including the shipment of protective equipment and supplies. [19]
On 25 July, Kim Jong Un attended an emergency meeting after a suspected COVID-19 case was reported in the city of Kaesong. Kim declared a state of emergency and imposed a lockdown on the city. [20] [21] The suspected case was reported to be an individual who had defected to South Korea three years earlier, before swimming back to North Korea in July (a rare case of "re-defection"). According to a South Korean senior health official, the individual was neither registered as a COVID-19 patient, nor classified as someone who came in contact with other patients. Two close contacts of the defector in South Korea tested negative for the virus. [22] On 5 August, Salvador said the returning defector was tested but the "results were inconclusive". [23] On 14 August, the three week lockdown in Kaesong and nearby areas was lifted by Kim Jong Un, [24] after "the scientific verification and guarantee by a professional anti-epidemic organisation". [25]
Pieceofmetalwork ( talk) 11:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
References
We really should have a separate subsection on Hong Kong (and not just one-sentence opinion statement from a business magazine). I just haven't gotten around to writing one yet. Hong Kong has followed its own policy, which is quite separate from that of mainland China. If anyone wants to take a stab at summarizing the major policies that Hong Kong has followed and the course of the pandemic there, that would be a major contribution to the article. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 16:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Moxy: I disagree that these statistics are meaningless: [51]. For example, the fact that there were just 56 locally transmitted cases in Taiwan during 2020 is a significant fact, regardless of Taiwan's size. It would be significant even if Taiwan were 100 times smaller than it is. It's a dramatic illustration of Taiwan's zero-COVID policy. Or to give another example, the fact that the city of Guangzhou tested 18 million people in 3 days is an illustration of community screening, which is one of the tools used to maintain the zero-COVID policy.
If you think these numbers should be put in context (for example, relative to Taiwan's or Guangzhou's population), then we can think about how to best provide context. However, these numbers are important for illustrating how the policy works. Otherwise, if we say, "There was a nationwide outbreak that began in Nanjing," nobody will really have any idea what we're talking about: 10 people, 1000 people, a million people? The fact that a nationwide outbreak in a country of 1.4 billion people ended up with just over 1000 infections in total is significant context. It gives a sense of how the zero-COVID policy works. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 17:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Taiwan maintained near-zero viral prevalence throughout 2020, totaling just 56 known locally transmitted cases (out of a population of 23.6 million) through 31 December 2020
For example, nearly the entire population of the city of Guangzhou - approximately 18 million residents - were tested over the course of three days in June 2021, during a Delta variant outbreak.
Does this source help? PDF .....Zhan, Zhiqing et al. “Zero-Covid Strategy: What's Next?.” International journal of health policy and management, doi:10.34172/ijhpm.2022.6757 .... Moxy- 20:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Japan has not followed a zero-COVID strategy at any point, as far as I'm aware. It has had a few stretches with very low case numbers, but it hasn't ever implemented anything like the comprehensive elimination strategy that mainland China, Taiwan, New Zealand, Australia and others have followed. In this source, which is used to reference the claim that Japan has followed a zero-COVID strategy, I don't see any actual statement that that's the government's strategy. In fact, the article paints Japan's low case numbers (at the time the article was written) as somewhat of a mystery.
The claim (in the "Views" section) that Japan switched to a zero-COVID strategy should be removed. An example of a country that actually did switch from mitigation to elimination in 2020 is New Zealand, though it has since switched back to mitigation. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 16:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
And the articles linked do not suggest that it does. The main linked article when I first removed that passage was an editorial, not policy. Now a Bloomberg article from December has been linked that just says that cases are low. They're surging now, and there is no enforcement of isolation or proper contact tracing. There is NO zero covid policy here in Japan.
126.116.44.167 ( talk) 17:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
The state of Western Australia will open on 03/03/2022, and while restrictions remain, zero-covid is no longer imposed and currently, there is only a mitigation strategy. As a result, I removed that part- VickKiang ( talk) 03:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The result was: rejected by
SL93 (
talk)
03:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
NPOV concerns.
Source2: "How much longer can China keep up its zero-Covid strategy?". The Guardian. 2022-01-01. Retrieved 2022-01-02.
Created by Novem Linguae ( talk), Moxy ( talk), Thucydides411 ( talk), and Arcahaeoindris ( talk). Nominated by Moxy at 16:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC).
... that places such as China, Hong Kong and Taiwan have pursued a zero-COVID strategy?– Novem Linguae ( talk) 21:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook eligibility:
Image eligibility:
QPQ: None required. |
Review is incomplete - please fill in the "status" field
Re: ALTs. I think you could build a dateproof alt around the fact HK's zero-COVID strategy was being called unsustainable by the end of January 2022. I think you could build one around the fact opponents are calling it unfeasible/unrealistic. valereee ( talk) 14:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
valereee ( talk) 14:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
How about this?
I think it's sufficiently interesting to be a hook, and there's no expiry date on the statement. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 16:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that "Find, Test, Trace, Isolate and Support" (FTTIS) is used widely enough to feature so prominently in the lede. There are various other secondary terms that are more common, as far as I can tell. "Elimination strategy" is often used in the scientific literature. In China, the terms "zero tolerance" (for transmission) and "dynamic zero" are commonly used. I'm not as familiar with the terms used in other countries, though I wouldn't be surprised if every country had its own terminology. Maybe "Zero-COVID" is enough for the first sentence of the lede. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 03:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Is FTTIS too broad for this article? Should we perhaps remove it from the lead, and also remove the hatnote, and then have FTTIS redirect to Eradication of infectious diseases? Just an idea, I'm not sure yet. Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 07:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
If we are copy pasting from other articles, we should consider using {{ Excerpt}}. This has maintenance benefits since the text only has to be edited and maintained in one place, saving editor time and effort. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 16:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Is it accurate to say that South Korea has followed a zero-COVID strategy? South Korea has had low case numbers for most of the pandemic, but as far as I'm aware, it hasn't pursued full elimination. In my reading, South Korea's approach is often contrasted with that of its zero-COVID neighbors. See, for example, this article. In particular, this passage contrasts South Korea with "zero-Covid economies":
In contrast to the United States and Europe, where nearly 1.8 million people have died of Covid-19, South Korea has won plaudits for its pandemic response, recording just over 2,000 deaths among a population of more than 51 million.
But unlike Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Taiwan and other “zero-Covid” economies that have tried to eliminate the virus entirely, Seoul has for months now been reporting hundreds of new cases every day.
- Thucydides411 ( talk) 19:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Once these new tools became available, the medium- to longer-term strategy evolved, too. The next step after zero Covid has been a focus on vaccinating the population to a high threshold, and acquiring antivirals that can be given in outpatient care to keep the burden off healthcare services. The pivot from maximum suppression to mass vaccination was a rational and logical shift to achieve a successful transition out of the pandemic.as meaning they had followed zero-COVID, but as another editor pointed out, the source isn't great, it's just an opinion piece. I disagree with the comment in the inline tag that says MEDRS is needed, since a government picking a public health strategy is more akin to politics than biomedicine. But being an opinion piece, it is possible that the article got it wrong. Feel free to change if you are certain that South Korea did not follow zero-COVID. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 19:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Singapore, Vietnam, Taiwan, South Korea, and mainland China, as well as Australia and New Zealand, were also adherents to the “zero COVID” or “elimination” strategy– Novem Linguae ( talk) 03:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Do you think that it is worth having a section in which supporters (scientists, politicians, etc.) of the Zero-COVID strategy are listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.91.212.222 ( talk) 10:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I will try to contribute to it as well by including more viewpoints of public figures who maintain that Zero-COVID is the right approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.91.212.222 ( talk) 17:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Multiple RS report that China has been putting on airs of having successfully continued the crisis as part of a domestic and international propaganda campaign to show how that its political system is superior to those of other countries. Therefore, we should not muddy the science with the politics on this subject, and I have split the Views section into two. CutePeach ( talk) 14:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Here are a few recent among many articles critical of the policy and its implementation [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. I would like our article represent all views fairly, instead of giving undue WP:WEIGHT to this policy, when leading independent virologists around the world (including Guan Yi in China) advocate for increased vaccination and research into the efficacy of homegrown vaccines against new variants as the most effective strategy to control the pandemic. LondonIP ( talk) 01:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I am concerned that the "Views on the zero-COVID strategy" section is just becoming a long list of quotes. Over-quoting violates summary style, encourages use of primary sources, and is often not the best way to write encyclopedia articles. I'm not saying we should delete the section, but we may want to give some thought to refactoring it. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 11:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Let's steer clear of media junk especially US media....any proposal should be done with academic sources. Moxy- 14:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The section "Views on the zero-COVID strategy" seems to have turned into a random splattering of ideas and opinions. It rambles, lacks proper grouping of ideas, and in my opinion doesn't add much to the article because it is disorganized. Thoughts on deleting it? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 15:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't agree with this and I don't understand why you exclude views from scientists critical of the Chinese Communist Party's narrative. Most RS on Zero COVID are highly critical of Zero COVID [31] [32]. Please stop deleting critical views. CutePeach ( talk) 15:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Novem Linguae: The summary-style views section is much better than the smattering of random quotes we had before. Thank you for rewriting the section. I'm still not convinced the section is necessary, but this is an improvement. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 20:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for improving this page and resolving this discussion Novem Xoltered ( talk) 00:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring. At this point, there is so much criticism of the policy, including from within China, it makes sense to split out these critical views. Any policy by any government is bound to attract criticism, and there is a whole lot of that for this policy. CutePeach ( talk) 17:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
For Beijing to give up on zero-COVID and allow the new variant to run its course would be tantamount to admitting that its political system is no better than Western liberal democracy in protecting people’s health.
[33]. ← We need to treat this subject as political and make absolutely sure that any MEDRS brought to refute RS do so directly and without any
WP:SYNTH. We need to start by including questions about the accuracy of China's statistics the effectiveness of their zero COVID policy in doing whatever it is supposed to do.
ScrumptiousFood (
talk)
17:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Novem Linguae I'm not sure if you've been keeping up with the news, but at this point it is impossible not to have a section with critical views, titled as such. The views in favor of the policy are limited to China and already covered in above section, so there is no point in a generic "views" section unless they are distinguished in some way. Please can you also restore the criticism from Guan Yi, and particularly his comments on vaccination? It relates to the efficacy of China's own mRNA vaccines [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]. The Chinese government has been blocking foreign made mRNA vaccines while working on their own [42] [43], which Guan was obviously referring to in his critique. Gao has also spoken about it, though not in reference to zero COVID [44]. CutePeach ( talk) 15:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
The problem
Moxy and
Thucydides411 is that according to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, we must represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic
. Guan Yi and Yanzhong Huang's views on zdero COVID are very different to Wu Zunyou and Zhong Nanshan's views, but they are significant, and without them, this article just isn't neutral.
ScrumptiousFood (
talk)
18:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Not every single opinion article ever published anywhere that mentions the zero-COVID strategy has to be discussed in the article...Not every single opinion was suggested for inclusion. Trying so desperately to bury the views of experts critical of government policy, and then making it about
every single opinion articleisn't the way to resolve this dispute. It looks like this page may need full protection too. CutePeach ( talk) 14:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Tagging is meant to flag problems in the text, so that they can be worked on. It is not meant to serve as a protest against consensus.
This is an example of disruptive tagging: [49]. A whole number of "who" tags have been added to the "Views" section. What's the purpose of these tags? Is it to alert editors that the text is overly vague? No, it's to protest the consensus that developed above, that we should write the "Views" section in a more concise summary style, instead of individually listing who has said what. Previously, the "Views" section contained a hodge-podge of quotes by all sorts of people, both supporting and criticizing the zero-COVID strategy. Novem Linguae helpfully rewrote the section in summary style: [50]. A number of editors (the majority of those active on the page) agreed that the updated section was better than the previous laundry list of quotes (see #Delete section "Views on the zero-COVID strategy"?).
Template:WHO states,
Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like some or most are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Wikipedia should remain concise, even if it means being vague.
There was a conscious decision, made by the majority of editors, to switch to a concise summary the major arguments that have been made about zero-COVID, without going into detail about who said what. There are many different people with different views who could be quoted, but that would turn the section into the same bloated mess it was before. To avoid bloat, we would have to choose which specific people to quote, and such a decision would end up being arbitrary, because there are simply too many people who have weighed in. That's why we decided to switch to the concise summary we have now. These tags appear to be a protest against that decision, rather than an attempt to flag an issue that other editors can fix. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 16:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
accusations of statistics fudging are simply political accusations.That is why I'm here and I've said this article is not well sourced, relies too much on primary sourcing, and is not neutral. Please make an effort to understand my concerns. CutePeach ( talk) 14:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
The issue here is that this policy is being paraded by the Chinese government to support their claims of having near zero deaths since April 2020: These aren't just "claims." It is a widely acknowledged fact that China eliminated SARS-CoV-2 within its borders in April 2020, and that it has prevented any major resurgence of local transmission since then. No sustained local transmission means extremely low case numbers and close to zero deaths. If you're disputing this basic, widely acknowledged reality, then we have a problem.
A focal point of criticism is the economic and social costs of the policy: We mention this criticism. We also mention the opposite view, which is that the zero-COVID policy has produced better social and economic outcomes. People who argue the latter position point to the fact that China was the only major economy to grow in 2020 (and that it had strong growth in 2021, as well), and that social and economic life returned to normal much more quickly in China than in most of the world. There is a discussion of the effects of elimination strategies on society and the economy in this academic paper. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 16:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Just now I shortened the hatnote to This article is about the COVID elimination strategy. For the broader topic eradicating of infectious diseases, see Eradication of infectious diseases.
Elminating the hatnote is also an option, and
one other editor supported eliminating it above. Thoughts on eliminating it? –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
18:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
North Korea reportedly also follows an 'elimination strategy'. [1]
North Korea was one of the first countries to close borders due to COVID-19. [2] [3] Starting from 23 January 2020, North Korea banned foreign tourists, and all flights in and out of the country were halted. The authorities also started placing patients with suspected COVID, including those with slight, flu-like symptoms, in quarantine for two weeks in Sinuiju. [4] [5] [6] On 30 January, the state news agency of North Korea, the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), declared a "state emergency", and reported the establishment of anti-epidemic headquarters around the country. [7] Though many parts of the border were closed, the bridge between Dandong and Sinuiju remained open and allowed supplies to be delivered. [8] In late February, the North Korean government said that it would keep the border closed until a cure was found. [9]
On 2 February, KCNA reported that all the people who had entered the country after 13 January were placed under "medical supervision". [7] South Korean media outlet Daily NK reported that five suspected COVID-19 patients in Sinuiju, on the Chinese border, had died on 7 February. [10] The same day, The Korea Times reported that a North Korean female living in the capital Pyongyang was infected. [11] Although there was no confirmation by North Korean authorities of the claims, the country implemented further strict measures to combat the spread of the virus. [12] [13] Schools were closed starting on 20 February. [14] On 29 February, Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un called for stronger measures to be taken to prevent COVID-19 from spreading within North Korea. [15]
In early February, the North Korean government took severe measures to block the spread of COVID-19. Rodong Sinmun, the Workers' Party of Korea newspaper, reported that the customs officials at the port of Nampo were performing disinfection activities, including placing imported goods in quarantine. [16] All international flights and railway services were suspended in early February, and connections by sea and road were largely closed over the following weeks. [9] In February, wearing face masks was obligatory, and visiting public places such as restaurants was forbidden. Ski resorts and spas were closed, and military parades, marathons, and other public events were cancelled. [9] Schools were closed throughout the country; university students in Pyongyang from elsewhere in the country were confined to their dormitories. [17] [14]
Although South Korean media reported the epidemic had spread to North Korea, the WHO said there were no indications of cases there. [18] On 18 February, Rodong Sinmun, the official newspaper of North Korea's ruling party, quoted a public health official reiterating that there had been "no confirmed case of the new coronavirus so far". The WHO prioritised aid for North Korea, including the shipment of protective equipment and supplies. [19]
On 25 July, Kim Jong Un attended an emergency meeting after a suspected COVID-19 case was reported in the city of Kaesong. Kim declared a state of emergency and imposed a lockdown on the city. [20] [21] The suspected case was reported to be an individual who had defected to South Korea three years earlier, before swimming back to North Korea in July (a rare case of "re-defection"). According to a South Korean senior health official, the individual was neither registered as a COVID-19 patient, nor classified as someone who came in contact with other patients. Two close contacts of the defector in South Korea tested negative for the virus. [22] On 5 August, Salvador said the returning defector was tested but the "results were inconclusive". [23] On 14 August, the three week lockdown in Kaesong and nearby areas was lifted by Kim Jong Un, [24] after "the scientific verification and guarantee by a professional anti-epidemic organisation". [25]
Pieceofmetalwork ( talk) 11:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
References
We really should have a separate subsection on Hong Kong (and not just one-sentence opinion statement from a business magazine). I just haven't gotten around to writing one yet. Hong Kong has followed its own policy, which is quite separate from that of mainland China. If anyone wants to take a stab at summarizing the major policies that Hong Kong has followed and the course of the pandemic there, that would be a major contribution to the article. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 16:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Moxy: I disagree that these statistics are meaningless: [51]. For example, the fact that there were just 56 locally transmitted cases in Taiwan during 2020 is a significant fact, regardless of Taiwan's size. It would be significant even if Taiwan were 100 times smaller than it is. It's a dramatic illustration of Taiwan's zero-COVID policy. Or to give another example, the fact that the city of Guangzhou tested 18 million people in 3 days is an illustration of community screening, which is one of the tools used to maintain the zero-COVID policy.
If you think these numbers should be put in context (for example, relative to Taiwan's or Guangzhou's population), then we can think about how to best provide context. However, these numbers are important for illustrating how the policy works. Otherwise, if we say, "There was a nationwide outbreak that began in Nanjing," nobody will really have any idea what we're talking about: 10 people, 1000 people, a million people? The fact that a nationwide outbreak in a country of 1.4 billion people ended up with just over 1000 infections in total is significant context. It gives a sense of how the zero-COVID policy works. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 17:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Taiwan maintained near-zero viral prevalence throughout 2020, totaling just 56 known locally transmitted cases (out of a population of 23.6 million) through 31 December 2020
For example, nearly the entire population of the city of Guangzhou - approximately 18 million residents - were tested over the course of three days in June 2021, during a Delta variant outbreak.
Does this source help? PDF .....Zhan, Zhiqing et al. “Zero-Covid Strategy: What's Next?.” International journal of health policy and management, doi:10.34172/ijhpm.2022.6757 .... Moxy- 20:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Japan has not followed a zero-COVID strategy at any point, as far as I'm aware. It has had a few stretches with very low case numbers, but it hasn't ever implemented anything like the comprehensive elimination strategy that mainland China, Taiwan, New Zealand, Australia and others have followed. In this source, which is used to reference the claim that Japan has followed a zero-COVID strategy, I don't see any actual statement that that's the government's strategy. In fact, the article paints Japan's low case numbers (at the time the article was written) as somewhat of a mystery.
The claim (in the "Views" section) that Japan switched to a zero-COVID strategy should be removed. An example of a country that actually did switch from mitigation to elimination in 2020 is New Zealand, though it has since switched back to mitigation. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 16:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
And the articles linked do not suggest that it does. The main linked article when I first removed that passage was an editorial, not policy. Now a Bloomberg article from December has been linked that just says that cases are low. They're surging now, and there is no enforcement of isolation or proper contact tracing. There is NO zero covid policy here in Japan.
126.116.44.167 ( talk) 17:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
The state of Western Australia will open on 03/03/2022, and while restrictions remain, zero-covid is no longer imposed and currently, there is only a mitigation strategy. As a result, I removed that part- VickKiang ( talk) 03:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)