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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
We absolutely need to centralise the discussion on COVID-19's Origin here in the Project page.
We need to start a unified discussion and every time a discussion on this topic is opened on a project article talk page we need to close it immediately (using the appropriate tools [1]) and link to the discussion here. Otherwise we currently have 10s of discussions arguing the same thing with a huge time loss and no conclusion in sight.
Thoughts? -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 12:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Extended discussion of non-MEDRS
|
---|
While this topic has probably been brought up before, I would like to iterate my skepticism towards Wikipedia's stance on this treatment. Hydroxychloroquine has been successfully used in countries such as Senegal, India, Morocco and various parts around the world. It is also the opinion of Dr. Harvey Risch at Yale and Dr. Didier Raoult in France that they are effective. The latter has successfully treated 15 000 patients with it. I wrote about France's failure late last year and how Marseilles in particularly have a lower excess death because they ignored the official advice. There has also been significant evidence that the lancet gate and discovery trials were both fraudulent, the first was a simply fake and the latter gave the patients an illegal dossage. HQC as it currently stand has efficacy in the early treatment stages. http://www.newgeography.com/content/006850-frances-covid-fall In terms of Ivermectin, Dr. Pierre Kory as many of you know is a big advocate, but the person who effectivly showed that the WHOs guidelines is not up to date is Dr. Tess Lawrie, Furthermore the article that Wikipedia cites to "disprove Pierre Kory's statement is from a Computer Scientist called Philip Machanick, he is neither an epidemiologist or a medical doctor. The correct source to Dr. Tess Lawrie should be the following one. She rans an independent consultancy firm and has written many of the WHOs guideines. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348297284_Ivermectin_reduces_the_risk_of_death_from_COVID-19_-a_rapid_review_and_meta-analysis_in_support_of_the_recommendation_of_the_Front_Line_COVID-19_Critical_Care_Alliance_Latest_version_v12_-_6_Jan_2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkrugertjie ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC) I am relatively new to Wikipedia, so please let me know if you want a specific quality of the source. The story currently is that the WHO has outdated advice and unfortunately many patients have been deprived of this treatment. I am not taking an anti vaccination stance in this article as I am generally in favour of it, but I would like for Wikipedia to consider at least that there is a difference of opinion on these treatment and that a fixation on only randomization as opposed to large retrospective trials and meta analysis is simply not scientific in this respect. Please let me know how I can make the conversation constructive,
I suppose that one big challenge that you're finding in this pandemic is that the paradigms haven't been established and that makes it difficult to get accurate date. regards
edit: Thank you for the response, 1. I am not interesting in right wing fanaticism. 2. I would like to insist that the current article by Philip Machannick (cited on Dr. Pierry Kory's website) cannot be justified as he is not a medical doctor or have any training in the field, even if you still maintain your position on Ivermectin. 3. A few Wikipedia entries on some skeptical scientists look like emotional hit pieces, and that is not conclusive for larger public debate. In particular the scientists that hold different opinions. By secondary review in this respect I suppose that you mean what is commonly said to be Peer Review, all the evidence for Ivermectin and HQC, observational, primary and peer review is in the following website, this includes over 250 peer reviewed articles and a lot of preprints (that unfortunately replaced a peer review to an extend during this pandemic). https://c19ivermectin.com/ In terms of Ivermectin for example, the following in my view is stronger evidence than what is currently cited on wikipedia. Ivermectin and outcomes from Covid-19 pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trial studies https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/rmv.2265 Clinical study evaluating the efficacy of ivermectin in COVID-19 treatment: A randomized controlled study https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmv.27122 Clinical study evaluating the efficacy of ivermectin in COVID-19 treatment: A randomized controlled study https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmv.27122 The point that I would like make is that the Wikipedia articles read as if there isn't anything to them and that skews the public debate and frankly enrages the far right.
Your comment
Sorry for I overreacted, I have had that argument thrown out during this pandemic. If I understand correctly, Wikipedia's MEDS system prioritizes national guidelines over meta analysis? The 'dispute' if you will currently lies that the WHO and the national bodies do not use the latest guidelines, for example South Africa's SAHPRA still refers to the JAMA study that that now been debunked. I looked quickly at your drug repurposing research, the HQC section is out of date, https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m2670 the Recovery trial used an illegal dosage for example. Secondly I would also want to point out that the Lancetgate study has been retracted and it was the reason why many governments reversed their guidelines (a case of Malfeasence). https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/04/covid-19-lancet-retracts-paper-that-halted-hydroxychloroquine-trials https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2021225 (here is the retraction) Guidelines still advice against HQC in England, but it is not the case in many African countries. The individual guidelines are found here, https://hcqtrial.com/#results thanks for the response.
that is understandable, the most comprehensive one currently going on around (that I know many doctors are citing) is the interview is done by Dr. Tess Lawrie from the evidence based consultancy group in the UK. The meta analyses and reviews are listed in the document. https://b3d2650e-e929-4448-a527-4eeb59304c7f.filesusr.com/ugd/593c4f_cb262b08142747c99f40929fb617652e.pdf Let me know if you need something more specific, understandably that this topic has become a political football. regards
Thank you, I will ask those detractors, from my understanding you only accept peer review journals with a relatively high impact factor? regards.
Ivermectin has now made itself into the Lancet, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00239-X/fulltext Peer Review has also hit the American Journal of Therapeutics and Nature Magazine (not the journal) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00430-5 https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/06000/Review_of_the_Emerging_Evidence_Demonstrating_the.4.aspx Given the lawsuits in India, I expect that the authorities are going to change course soon (they haven't yet as per your previous discussion). https://trialsitenews.com/indian-bar-association-serves-legal-notice-upon-dr-soumya-swaminathan-the-chief-scientist-who/ All As per previous post, all the studies (good and bad) are located below. https://c19ivermectin.com/ |
I have proposed splitting COVID-19 pandemic in Australia into separate articles for each state and territory. We can discuss this at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Australia#Proposed splitting. Steelkamp ( talk) 09:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Several Wikimedia groups are teaming up with the World Health Organization for the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Vaccine Safety Wikipedia Edit-a-thon June 12, 2021. If we're lucky, we'll see some improvements to articles about COVID-19 vaccines, too. Please be on the lookout for new editors who might need help with formatting or have questions about how to edit. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the place to ask, but article COVAX seems to need months of updating... AnonMoos ( talk) 01:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Wuhan virus is a disambiguation page (because of the existence of an unrelated bacteriophage with the same name). However, there has been disagreement about the exact wording of the entry for SARS‑CoV‑2. One version was this:
Wuhan virus, an informal name for the SARS‑CoV‑2 virus, associated with the xenophobia related to the pandemic
This links both to the SARS‑CoV‑2 article (because "Wuhan virus" is a synonym for it), and to Xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic (because that's the only Wikipedia article that actually mentions the term and provides some sort of context for its history of use).
An editor has objected to the second link, insisting that the entry should read:
Wuhan virus, an informal name for the SARS‑CoV‑2 virus
Their argument is that because of the evidence for the lab leak theory, the term "Wuhan virus" is now actually neutral. If that's the case, then this neutral term will need to be mentioned in the article about the virus. Otherwise, I believe we'd continue to need a link to an article where the term is mentioned and its connotations made explicit ("neutral", "racist", "correct", "derogatory", etc.). A similar situation obtains about the dab page Chinese virus.
What do others think? – Uanfala (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I have seen that some pages have a note at the talk page about discretionary sanctions for the Covid-19 articles. Others, like COVID-19 pandemic in Argentina, do not. Question 1: Are those sanctions for all articles, regardless of having a note at the talk or not? If so, should I add the note when a Covid-19 page lacks it, or only in case of user disputes? And question 2: what is it all about? Sanctions against "editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process" sound like normal stuff for me, someone doing that would likely be blocked anyway, regardless of topic. Is there some specific thing that users did in those articles that must not be done and that caused this whole situation? Cambalachero ( talk) 18:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
(cross posted from Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#We_made_the_news_📰👀🦠🤪)
Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if there is an existing page on the increase in interest and production in pandemic-related fiction caused by COVID-19. Maybe it's too early for such a page? I found a Washington post article on the subject of "post-pandemic fiction". Maybe it would be more appropriate as a section on Disease in fiction? Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 21:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I've been doing some talk page clean-up, and came across this template from this project. The content of the template is obviously fine as a consensus template; the problem is it is absolutely huge and there is no option to collapse it, so it ends up taking a huge amount of space in the talk page header. I'm suggesting that collapse option be implemented, but I wanted to run it by y'all since it came from this project originally. Curbon7 ( talk) 22:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Also wanted to put this on everybody's radar. ProcrastinatingReader made it because we keep fielding over and over again the same arguments on the most controversial talk pages. At least if we have something like this collapsed at the top, we can direct newcomers to it before they re-assert the same 5 arguments for the 3rd time.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 00:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Dear members please help to identify which one can be included in "Postmarketing study (participants)" i.e. Phase-IV column in the table COVID-19_vaccine#List_of_authorized_and_approved_vaccines for Covaxin.
References
Thank you. Run n Fly ( talk) 14:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
This description caught my eye today:
"So far it looks as if the legacy of covid-19 will follow the pattern set by past pandemics. Nicholas Christakis of Yale University identifies three shifts: the collective threat prompts a growth in state power; the overturning of everyday life leads to a search for meaning; and the closeness of death which brings caution while the disease rages, spurs audacity when it has passed. Each will mark society in its own way." [1]
If we can find more content along these lines (e.g., analytical and focused on long-term effects), it might be easier to improve some of the articles. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
References
Greetings members, two page move discussions are on-going at Talk:Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, Talk:Moderna COVID-19 vaccine and Talk:Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. Interested editors are requested to participate/contribute. Thank you. Run n Fly ( talk) 06:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
There is a notable dissonance between some information published in NEWSORG as facts and the way the same information is treated in MEDRS, regarding the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Under many wikipolicies (WP:MEDRS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and others), information sourced on a MEDRS is more reliable than NEWSORG. This prerrogative has subordinated many pieces of information on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 published in NEWSORG to stronger, more reliable facts published in MEDRS.
Given that WP:MEDRS is not an absolute truth (is only an ideal not a prohibitory guideline); and given that WP: NEWSORG suggests that Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.
; and given that
in a recent RFC the community has shown divided and valid opinions on whether disease and pandemic origins are a form of biomedical information that falls under strict MEDRS enforcement; I am bringing to this centralized thread the specific instances of NEWSORG including information that is at odds with MEDRS.
Critics of this approach would call this inventory unnecessary, arguing that the only thing that can prompt new edits or discussion including this information is that MEDRS pick it up, which they haven't, so far. In defense of this exercise, I'd stress that it can bring out two important benefits:
I've been thinking about this topic, and am currently wondering if we should add a section to the end of (or after) Investigations for something along the lines of press/media. A lot of these conversations/debates are clearly notable, and I think we've mostly been putting off inclusion as part of fighting the broader NPOV/V fight for what gets said in the bulk of the article about the origins themself. Put another way, we've been so focused on why certain sources are unreliable/UNDUE citations for the scientific investigation, we've had a blind spot on their notability relative to the public/press attention itself. I think a section like this would help us in both directions: give DUE weight to notable news coverage, and relieve some of the pressure on covering the sources. The Wade article, WaPo timeline, Vanity Fair's coverage, Gorski, continued skepticism, the overall shift in how the lab was covered, etc. Not as a dumping ground, but addressing the media coverage of investigations and public perception of them that doesn't fit in the SARS-CoV-2 or Misinformation articles.
Let's begin listing the controversial NEWSORG-based information on the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Forich ( talk) 21:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
. [1] From BBC, this implies that the subject about the origins of the virus holds a major scientific controversy. But per MEDRS, there is no controversy among scientists about it, and much less a major one. Forich ( talk) 21:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Those three deaths are now at the centre of a major scientific controversy about the origins of the virus and the question of whether it came from nature, or from a laboratory
[1]. From BBC, a search on the scientific literature brings *crickets* on any debate about RaTG13. Forich ( talk) 21:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Seven years after it was found in that mineshaft, RaTG13 was about to become one of the most hotly contested scientific subjects of our time.
[2] From Reuters, this places the lab leak theory as important as any other. In MEDRS, the lab leak is a conspiracy theory, or at best, a fringe and tiny scientific view. Forich ( talk) 21:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)The two prevailing competing theories are that the virus jumped from animals, possibly originating with bats, to humans, or that it escaped from a virology laboratory in Wuhan, China. The following is what is known about the virus’ origins.
[3] No MEDRS source qualifies the coincidences as huge. Forich ( talk) 21:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)These three pretty huge coincidences foster the lab-leak theory, and mean it has not yet gone away. Western intelligence officials CNN has spoken to say they cannot "disprove" the idea -- or prove it. These coincidences are perhaps why it sits in this hinterland -- never permanently debunked, never proven. Their solution is like "Occam's razor" -- the idea that the simplest explanation is the most likely.
[3] From CNN, this implies it is likely that China is "hiding something". MEDRS say nothing about this. Forich ( talk) 21:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)But none of it is solid or even compelling evidence that a lab leak occurred. That evidence may exist, and be super-classified within the government that possesses it. But as it is not public, we can't presume it exists to confirm a bias that China is hiding something terrible. But the likelihood China is hiding something is of no help either. (Even the WHO team, whose report Chinese officials helped author, admits they would like access to more material and better information -- to hospital blood bank samples from the time of the outbreak, and to raw data across Hubei about possible cases in October and November. Despite making that clear months ago, they have yet to receive it).
[4] From AP. MEDRS say nothing about doubts on the WHO treatment of the investigations. Forich ( talk) 21:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)As the World Health Organization draws up plans for the next phase of its probe of how the coronavirus pandemic started, an increasing number of scientists say the U.N. agency it isn’t up to the task and shouldn’t be the one to investigate.
References
{{
cite news}}
: |last1=
has generic name (
help)
Category:COVID-19 conspiracy theorists has been nominated for deletion. Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_3#Category:COVID-19_conspiracy_theorists. Cheers, --Animalparty! ( talk) 05:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I just wanted to draw your attention to User:S201050066. They have been posting raw links for the daily Ontario and Quebec entries in the various Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic articles. I have messaged the twice on their talk page but have received no response. The User has made no efforts to listen to feedback about properly citing references. I'm getting tired of having to constantly convert their raw urls into proper references. Any advice? Andykatib 22:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Dear members, there is a dispute regarding addition of this information in ZyCoV-D COVID-19 vaccine page. I would like to request members to participate if anyone is willing to help or resolve. Thank you. Run n Fly ( talk) 12:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
New category: Category:Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the LGBT community. Feel free to help populate! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
After getting in touch with Tenryuu and S201050066, I am planning to move the Ontario and Quebec references in the various monthly Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic to the Ontario and Quebec timeline articles. Just wanted to check if Wikipedia's policy is to only include national COVID-19 related statistics in the monthly timeline pages and to relocate those from states, provinces and territories to the appropriate articles for sub-national entities. Is this the best course of action? Andykatib 02:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I recently created an article for Michael Worobey, an American evolutionary biologist who has done extensive research on COVID-19’s origins. Any help improving the article would be appreciated! Thriley ( talk) 13:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
One is the Authoritative Chronology produced by WHO's Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response (a PDF and a web version linked here) and the other is a chronology produced by the Congressional Research Service (PDF versions linked here). The articles which stand to gain from these sources include but are not limited to Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019, Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in January 2020, Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in January 2020, COVID-19 pandemic in Hubei, COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China and more (which is the reason why I decided to post it here and not on one of the talk pages). And as a side note, we don't have a section about the aforementioned panel even in World Health Organization's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, not to say about a separate article. Ain92 ( talk) 11:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Interested editors might want to regularly visit Template:COVID-19 pandemic data and update some countries. In recent months, the number of editors who edit the template regularly has been continually decreasing. Any help will be appreciated. LSGH ( talk) ( contributions) 16:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
There is a dispute regarding WP:NPOV and WP:V at the new article China COVID-19 cover-up. Help would be much appreciated. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 09:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:China COVID-19 cover-up. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 22:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I have objected to the stand-alone existence of COVID-19 cases at the 2020 Summer Olympics (formerly COVID-19 outbreak at the 2020 Summer Olympics). Before, it was WP:SYNTH creating a singular outbreak out of thin air. Now, it seems to be a CFORK of List of athletes not attending the 2020 Summer Olympics due to COVID-19 concerns#Qualified but withdrew due to testing positive for COVID-19 at its current title. The page creator has objected to a redirect, as well as a move-expansion to Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the 2020 Summer Olympics. The participation of other editors to find consensus is requested. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I can't edit either myself, I wanted to see if there is consensus for removing this image before making an edit request (or if someone here could do so?) I think this image should be removed from both articles. On the basis of
JeffUK ( talk) 12:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I have drawn attention to the WP:UNDUE weight to adverse vaccine reactions on the page for Covid Australia. It is several times the length than the sections on anything else vaccine related on the page, and its content also lacks adequate medical context and possible WP:POV editing. It needs urgent attention. Even if this was moved to COVID-19 vaccination in Australia, the counterpart section there is currently also probably too lengthy to the point of being WP:UNDUE. I have not seen anything like this on any other pandemic country page, or vaccination country page for that matter. Advice or input welcome. Arcahaeoindris ( talk) 17:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The leading theories are an accidental lab leak or zoonotic spillover from a bat or other intermediary species.From Wall Street Journal. MEDRS sources do not give this weight to the lab leak. Forich ( talk) 17:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject,
I'm hoping that someone who is more familiar with the development of COVID-19 in the U.S. than I am could look over this brief article and decide whether the claims that this doctor gave an early warning about COVID-19 is supported by the sources. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
COVID-19 vaccine mandates in the United States could probably use some additional eyes to ensure balance is being achieved—I'm not confident I'm familiar enough with the subject to do it myself. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Love is not tourism is about a grassroots movement that wants to unite couples, married or not, that were separated due to the pandedmic. I added a few categories, but I believe a few more, templates, etc. Are in order. I haven't done one specific to relationships because I couldn't find enough information, and I guess we'll only have some researches about it in the future. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 04:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Evening. Can someone with a better understanding of wikipedias Covid 19 policies, particularly with regards to individuals take a look at the R W Malone article. His notability is strongly related to his historic work, but in the last year he has become prominent among various fringe groups. Any content about him is highly polarised, either being self promotion or criticism - and striking a BLP balance is difficult due to the quality of the sourcing being so generally poor. Koncorde ( talk) 21:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Just two days after I posted Two useful early chronologies which apparently qualify as reliable secondary sources here, Elsevier published online a third one: The First 50 days of COVID-19: A Detailed Chronological Timeline and Extensive Review of Literature Documenting the Pandemic PMC 7378494. Ain92 ( talk) 20:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi all. I recently created a consensus template on COVID-19 treatments, because I (and many others) have become frustrated at the endlessly repetitive discussions on relevant talk pages. See, for example: Talk:Bret Weinstein, Talk:Ivermectin, Talk:Didier Raoult, Talk:Pierre Kory, Talk:Hydroxychloroquine. My hope is that writing all of this down in a template could be helpful as a place to direct new and inexperienced users who have repeatedly come to these talk pages to push a POV. Much like it has worked for Template:Origins of COVID-19 (current consensus), Talk:Donald Trump, Talk:Joe Biden#Current consensus, Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput. (credit to ProcrastinatingReader on those prior templates).
However, I would appreciate your feedback. Overall, of course, but also on the following specific issues:
Thank you for any help you can provide.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add this peer-review publication of phase-II results [1] at last paragraph of "Phase I and II trials".
References
42.106.203.255 ( talk) 10:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:BBIBP-CorV#Requested move 12 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 02:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Can someone perform the necessary update at DNA vaccine as per Talk:DNA_vaccine § Semi-protected_edit_request_on_20_August_2021. 2409:4061:700:93AF:418E:4466:2FDB:DC48 ( talk) 19:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Tong Zeng has heavily promoted the lab leak theory, and the article claims it in Wikipedia voice. I cut a pile of the worst of it out of the article - but the article is a badly-translated propaganda piece, and very hard to work on. (I'd suggest WP:TNT for it but the guy appears to be noteworthy.) Is there someone here who knows the lab leak theory-to-conspiracy-theory well who could look over what's in the article for medical conspiracy theories? - David Gerard ( talk) 11:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Most sources of this article date back from the initial writing : July 2020. This is inadequate. If someone know :
It would be really welcome. Yug (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Please fix the errors in sections "See also", "References", "External links" etc. as all are showing links to default template. 2402:3A80:1A4E:9F7E:690B:788B:37A:E014 ( talk) 20:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation by China#Requested move 30 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 23:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation by the United States#Requested move 30 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. –– FormalDude talk 08:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
WHO has added "Mu" (Pango lineage B.1.621) as a Variant of Interest. Would anyone like to add this to the wiki article?
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/variants-concern
https://www.who.int/en/activities/tracking-SARS-CoV-2-variants/ Hongsy ( talk) 06:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 pandemic deaths in July 2021. The discussion there has expanded beyond that monthly data page to all the monthly data pages linked from here:
My comment there:
Keep. Notability is obvious since it is COVID-19 data that is constantly reported in the media. This COVID-19 info is invaluable, because it is difficult to find in this monthly table form. Many other table lists on Wikipedia of all kinds are notable. Sourcing is from World Health Organization (WHO). How much better than that can you get? The monthly pages get around a hundred views a day during the month it is being filled in. See those numbers via the {{ page views}} banner at the top of the talk page: Talk:COVID-19 pandemic deaths in August 2021. The overall page at COVID-19 pandemic deaths that links to those monthly pages gets around 700 page views per day lately. The first of the month data from those monthly pages is used to compile this important and notable template: Template:Monthly cumulative COVID-19 death totals by country 2021. It is found on this page: COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory. That page gets around 13,000 views per day lately. People come for the tables and maps. The creator of the monthly pages is User:Anguswalker. He has been thanked by some Wikimedia Foundation staff for his great and tireless work. People and news media from around the world come to all these Covid data pages. As I said, notability is obvious.
People at the deletion discussion may not understand these issues as well as the people here at Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19. So please get involved. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 06:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion at WP:RSN concerning this paper by Yuri Deigin and Rosana Segretto in Bioessays which may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. See discussion here.
Segreto, R., & Deigin, Y. (2021). The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin. BioEssays, 43, e2000240. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202000240.
Thanks.— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 23:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
See discussion here re: whether or not we should mention contributions by individual (notable) Wikimedians at Wikipedia coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to have a new article focusing on misinformation related specifically to COVID-19 vaccines and the resulting hesitancy among populations of various countries. There is enough information out there for it to be a stand alone article. This section could start as a base and then expanded upon. This would also help that parent article as it is getting length and over-detailed and will continue to do so.
Thoughts/Opinions, User:BD2412, User:FormalDude, User:Abrilando232, User:Tenryuu and User:Ftrebien? •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 17:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I just wanted to bring your attention some problems with User:S201050066. Recently this user pasted a lot of raw urls on the Ontario entries of the various Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic articles even though those entries already have proper references. I and other Wikipedians have reached out on this user's talk page in an effort to educate them about Wikipedia policies and norms. Frankly, I don't think this user is wiling to listen to constructive feedback. I sadly recommend taking disciplinary action. What do you think? What is the best way to handle S20105066's unwillingness to follow the rules? I have told them that I will reverse all of their recent unnecessary edits. Andykatib 04:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject COVID-19, Thank you for the amazing work you do to slow the spread of COVID-19. I'm working on expanding the COVID-19 coverage on wikipedia. I have published a couple related articles recently: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the United States and High-risk people. If you could take a look and possibly make an edit, I would appreciate it. Open to any feedback.
Thank you again. -- Wil540 art ( talk) 18:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
The "COVID-19 pandemic in State" articles are wildly uneven, with lacunae of months (as with Idaho) and major developments apparently coming out of the blue (as with Alaska exceeding its ICU capacity -there's not an ECMO in the state https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/24/alaska-covid-coronavirus-rations-care-hospitals).
Overwhelm is a very real thing; there's not an aspect of this pandemic which doesn't present a fire hose of information, after all. A consistent format is needed.
I began Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic the day they shut Wuhan down; I suggest we use that method and format, with gubernatorial announcements and executive actions à la the WHO for each state. A state of emergency is akin to a PHEIC; mandates differ, or are not instituted at all; styles and philosophies of governance differ. Etc.
The main benefit of this parsed information would be that each of the 50 timelines would grow organically, just as the global, omnibus COVID-19 timeline has. We start with chief executive press releases and actions...
Sound like a plan?
kencf0618 ( talk) 10:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
As the headline implies - the page for Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic was originally split off from Immunity passport and is rife with issues, additionally the page COVID-19 vaccine card also exists and there's probably a lot of confusion there. Would appreciate some more eyes on these. Thanks. CaffeinAddict ( talk) 18:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
I've heard lately that vaccines are losing efficacy against the delta variant and in general, so I went to look it up. The article I landed at is COVID-19 vaccine clinical research#Effectiveness. The section could use a lot of work, its opening paragraphs have almost no WP:MEDRS sources. I have added a bunch of {{ medical citation needed}} tags, and also a {{ unreliable source}} tag to address the WP:FORBESCON. I encourage project members to visit this article and attempt to improve it with WP:MEDRS sources. Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 15:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The article itself needs some updating. Only tried to update the infobox. Ominae ( talk) 05:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I feel that the term "the unvaccinated" (especially with definite article) has become politically-loaded; in my opinion, I think that maybe we should use people-first language such as "patients not fully vaccinated for COVID-19". But do you think this would be a good idea to adopt as consensus? ViperSnake151 Talk 07:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
vaccine hesitant" but that wouldn't apply to people who are just between doses. For them I would say "
patients between doses" or "
not fully vaccinated" — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 12:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:COVID-19 lockdown in Italy#Requested move 7 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. VR talk 03:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Please undo mistake at Template:COVID-19 pandemic sidebar. The coronavirus image is replaced by a map ! See the change here. 2402:3A80:1C44:43:4504:598A:C12B:9BA ( talk) 09:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
As part of a restructuring of the Current Events WikiProject, a very long list of every COVID-19 article is being constructed since every COVID-19 related article is a current event. Please feel free to help expand the list being created. Elijahandskip ( talk) 17:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Seven days incidence is now available as changetype "w" in medical cases chart module. I'd prefer it to absolute or precentage type as depicting the current epidemic situation much better and making for comparabilty between countries charts. Please consider changetype "w" for all national uses of the medical cases chart module. -- Kohraa Mondel ( talk) 19:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Dear Members of the WikiProject COVID-19 section,
Im hopeful you'd be willing to provide an additional review for a new AfC for Dr. Vin Gupta, NBC News's prominent COVID-19 medical analyst, who's been on national media platforms speaking about this virus hundreds of times at this point. I created an AfC to address a key gap on wikipedia, since "Dr. Vin Gupta wikipedia" is a frequent search engine query when you type his name and viewers should be aware of his background, given his reach.
Thank you in advance. Link here: /info/en/?search=Draft:Vin_Gupta
Caroline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caroline grossman23 ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Top three sources: 1. Seattle Times Profile in 2020: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/350-tv-spots-and-counting-uws-dr-vin-gupta-delivers-coronavirus-expertise-to-the-nation/ 2. Stat News Profile in 2021: https://www.statnews.com/2021/06/14/vin-gupta-amazon-chief-medical-officer-profile/ 3. CNBC profile: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/08/amazon-hires-vin-gupta-pulmonary-doctor-and-public-health-expert.html
Several other top ones highlighting him on NPR, Washington Post, NBC, MSNBC, etc but too many to include -- cited many of them in the piece itself. Thanks again! Should note that I also included briefer mentions of Gupta in Politico and other sources as being shortlisted for Biden's Surgeon General on the back of his covid-related commentary -- which only adds to his notability.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Caroline grossman23 ( talk • contribs) 00:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Taxonomy? :
Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic is a controversial subject and it would be always good to have other eyes on it. CaffeinAddict ( talk) 16:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
The article SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant has just been created. Any help in improving it would be greatly appreciated. -- The Anome ( talk) 18:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
The article Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, which is within the scope of this project, hasn't been updated with new absolute figures for the USA since early July, 2020, nor are there any updates on the "suspected" cases outside of the USA much more up to date or, as regards the article, were ever followed up on whether those "suspected" cases outside of the USA could be confirmed. Close to 350 confirmed cases were *RANDOMLY* (as opposed to the systematic mass-screenings done for acute infection with COVID-19) found in the USA within the course of only two months in spring, 2020, and then the article just pretty much stopped counting in early July, 2020.
Also, all those figures are buried way deep in the article, where nobody would even suspect them, and the only figure named prominently in the article is the low risk of dying from MIS-C immediately, although the condition itself causes more than enough suffering and intensive care even if they don't immediately die from it. -- 2003:EF:1704:7257:A562:1B77:6B93:20CE ( talk) 08:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I have found some new identifiers for SARS-CoV-2 variants here: https://www.who.int/en/activities/tracking-SARS-CoV-2-variants/ The GISAID clade identifier for Omicron is GR/484A, and the Nextstrain clade identifier is 21K.
I have now created the property proposals Wikidata:Property proposal/GISAID identifier and Wikidata:Property proposal/Nextstrain identifier on Wikidata, to contain this information on the Wikidata entities for this and other relevant articles. If anyone would like to join the conversation there, that would be very helpful. -- The Anome ( talk) 10:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Can we have a template for COVID-19 strains? Or is it already covered in an existing template? Qwertyxp2000 ( talk | contribs) 05:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Editors are invited to participate in this RfC:
RfC about how we should use the Frutos source
Adoring nanny (
talk)
16:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in December 2021#Requested move 12 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 17:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:China COVID-19 cover-up#Requested move 8 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 00:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Greece is not out of lockdown, but it's not true. There is a total lockdown since 07.11.2020, movement only with a permit only, curfew, closed restaurants and etc. Take a look please: https://greekreporter.com/2021/03/19/greece-to-loosen-covid-19-restrictions-make-rapid-tests-available-to-all/?fbclid=IwAR10xtt-aJWFsrl_aIyMQrqwNI-bZFfJisQvdiQ8grdFDk35v62ZQrPBHTY and: https://www.varnavas.gr/en/newsroom/lockdown-movement-permit/
Hi everyone. I am involved in WikiProject interviews on the Signpost, which I think are a great way to help us build a community, understand how and where and why we are editing, listen to our fellow humans, and always interesting to read!
I would like to end out this crazy year by interviewing the members of this WikiProject. This isn't the first and I'm sure won't be the last of COVID-19 related coverage, but I thought it would be a great way to end the year with some reflections on how this WikiProject has changed and how COVID-19 has changed Wikipedia. I invite anyone (from regular to passing by editors) to contribute to the interview here: User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/WikiProject COVID19 interview draft.
Hoping to hear from you soon! Tom (LT) ( talk) 23:58, 30 November 2021 (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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
We absolutely need to centralise the discussion on COVID-19's Origin here in the Project page.
We need to start a unified discussion and every time a discussion on this topic is opened on a project article talk page we need to close it immediately (using the appropriate tools [1]) and link to the discussion here. Otherwise we currently have 10s of discussions arguing the same thing with a huge time loss and no conclusion in sight.
Thoughts? -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 12:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Extended discussion of non-MEDRS
|
---|
While this topic has probably been brought up before, I would like to iterate my skepticism towards Wikipedia's stance on this treatment. Hydroxychloroquine has been successfully used in countries such as Senegal, India, Morocco and various parts around the world. It is also the opinion of Dr. Harvey Risch at Yale and Dr. Didier Raoult in France that they are effective. The latter has successfully treated 15 000 patients with it. I wrote about France's failure late last year and how Marseilles in particularly have a lower excess death because they ignored the official advice. There has also been significant evidence that the lancet gate and discovery trials were both fraudulent, the first was a simply fake and the latter gave the patients an illegal dossage. HQC as it currently stand has efficacy in the early treatment stages. http://www.newgeography.com/content/006850-frances-covid-fall In terms of Ivermectin, Dr. Pierre Kory as many of you know is a big advocate, but the person who effectivly showed that the WHOs guidelines is not up to date is Dr. Tess Lawrie, Furthermore the article that Wikipedia cites to "disprove Pierre Kory's statement is from a Computer Scientist called Philip Machanick, he is neither an epidemiologist or a medical doctor. The correct source to Dr. Tess Lawrie should be the following one. She rans an independent consultancy firm and has written many of the WHOs guideines. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348297284_Ivermectin_reduces_the_risk_of_death_from_COVID-19_-a_rapid_review_and_meta-analysis_in_support_of_the_recommendation_of_the_Front_Line_COVID-19_Critical_Care_Alliance_Latest_version_v12_-_6_Jan_2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkrugertjie ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC) I am relatively new to Wikipedia, so please let me know if you want a specific quality of the source. The story currently is that the WHO has outdated advice and unfortunately many patients have been deprived of this treatment. I am not taking an anti vaccination stance in this article as I am generally in favour of it, but I would like for Wikipedia to consider at least that there is a difference of opinion on these treatment and that a fixation on only randomization as opposed to large retrospective trials and meta analysis is simply not scientific in this respect. Please let me know how I can make the conversation constructive,
I suppose that one big challenge that you're finding in this pandemic is that the paradigms haven't been established and that makes it difficult to get accurate date. regards
edit: Thank you for the response, 1. I am not interesting in right wing fanaticism. 2. I would like to insist that the current article by Philip Machannick (cited on Dr. Pierry Kory's website) cannot be justified as he is not a medical doctor or have any training in the field, even if you still maintain your position on Ivermectin. 3. A few Wikipedia entries on some skeptical scientists look like emotional hit pieces, and that is not conclusive for larger public debate. In particular the scientists that hold different opinions. By secondary review in this respect I suppose that you mean what is commonly said to be Peer Review, all the evidence for Ivermectin and HQC, observational, primary and peer review is in the following website, this includes over 250 peer reviewed articles and a lot of preprints (that unfortunately replaced a peer review to an extend during this pandemic). https://c19ivermectin.com/ In terms of Ivermectin for example, the following in my view is stronger evidence than what is currently cited on wikipedia. Ivermectin and outcomes from Covid-19 pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trial studies https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/rmv.2265 Clinical study evaluating the efficacy of ivermectin in COVID-19 treatment: A randomized controlled study https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmv.27122 Clinical study evaluating the efficacy of ivermectin in COVID-19 treatment: A randomized controlled study https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmv.27122 The point that I would like make is that the Wikipedia articles read as if there isn't anything to them and that skews the public debate and frankly enrages the far right.
Your comment
Sorry for I overreacted, I have had that argument thrown out during this pandemic. If I understand correctly, Wikipedia's MEDS system prioritizes national guidelines over meta analysis? The 'dispute' if you will currently lies that the WHO and the national bodies do not use the latest guidelines, for example South Africa's SAHPRA still refers to the JAMA study that that now been debunked. I looked quickly at your drug repurposing research, the HQC section is out of date, https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m2670 the Recovery trial used an illegal dosage for example. Secondly I would also want to point out that the Lancetgate study has been retracted and it was the reason why many governments reversed their guidelines (a case of Malfeasence). https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/04/covid-19-lancet-retracts-paper-that-halted-hydroxychloroquine-trials https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2021225 (here is the retraction) Guidelines still advice against HQC in England, but it is not the case in many African countries. The individual guidelines are found here, https://hcqtrial.com/#results thanks for the response.
that is understandable, the most comprehensive one currently going on around (that I know many doctors are citing) is the interview is done by Dr. Tess Lawrie from the evidence based consultancy group in the UK. The meta analyses and reviews are listed in the document. https://b3d2650e-e929-4448-a527-4eeb59304c7f.filesusr.com/ugd/593c4f_cb262b08142747c99f40929fb617652e.pdf Let me know if you need something more specific, understandably that this topic has become a political football. regards
Thank you, I will ask those detractors, from my understanding you only accept peer review journals with a relatively high impact factor? regards.
Ivermectin has now made itself into the Lancet, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00239-X/fulltext Peer Review has also hit the American Journal of Therapeutics and Nature Magazine (not the journal) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00430-5 https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/06000/Review_of_the_Emerging_Evidence_Demonstrating_the.4.aspx Given the lawsuits in India, I expect that the authorities are going to change course soon (they haven't yet as per your previous discussion). https://trialsitenews.com/indian-bar-association-serves-legal-notice-upon-dr-soumya-swaminathan-the-chief-scientist-who/ All As per previous post, all the studies (good and bad) are located below. https://c19ivermectin.com/ |
I have proposed splitting COVID-19 pandemic in Australia into separate articles for each state and territory. We can discuss this at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Australia#Proposed splitting. Steelkamp ( talk) 09:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Several Wikimedia groups are teaming up with the World Health Organization for the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Vaccine Safety Wikipedia Edit-a-thon June 12, 2021. If we're lucky, we'll see some improvements to articles about COVID-19 vaccines, too. Please be on the lookout for new editors who might need help with formatting or have questions about how to edit. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the place to ask, but article COVAX seems to need months of updating... AnonMoos ( talk) 01:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Wuhan virus is a disambiguation page (because of the existence of an unrelated bacteriophage with the same name). However, there has been disagreement about the exact wording of the entry for SARS‑CoV‑2. One version was this:
Wuhan virus, an informal name for the SARS‑CoV‑2 virus, associated with the xenophobia related to the pandemic
This links both to the SARS‑CoV‑2 article (because "Wuhan virus" is a synonym for it), and to Xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic (because that's the only Wikipedia article that actually mentions the term and provides some sort of context for its history of use).
An editor has objected to the second link, insisting that the entry should read:
Wuhan virus, an informal name for the SARS‑CoV‑2 virus
Their argument is that because of the evidence for the lab leak theory, the term "Wuhan virus" is now actually neutral. If that's the case, then this neutral term will need to be mentioned in the article about the virus. Otherwise, I believe we'd continue to need a link to an article where the term is mentioned and its connotations made explicit ("neutral", "racist", "correct", "derogatory", etc.). A similar situation obtains about the dab page Chinese virus.
What do others think? – Uanfala (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I have seen that some pages have a note at the talk page about discretionary sanctions for the Covid-19 articles. Others, like COVID-19 pandemic in Argentina, do not. Question 1: Are those sanctions for all articles, regardless of having a note at the talk or not? If so, should I add the note when a Covid-19 page lacks it, or only in case of user disputes? And question 2: what is it all about? Sanctions against "editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process" sound like normal stuff for me, someone doing that would likely be blocked anyway, regardless of topic. Is there some specific thing that users did in those articles that must not be done and that caused this whole situation? Cambalachero ( talk) 18:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
(cross posted from Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#We_made_the_news_📰👀🦠🤪)
Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if there is an existing page on the increase in interest and production in pandemic-related fiction caused by COVID-19. Maybe it's too early for such a page? I found a Washington post article on the subject of "post-pandemic fiction". Maybe it would be more appropriate as a section on Disease in fiction? Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 21:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I've been doing some talk page clean-up, and came across this template from this project. The content of the template is obviously fine as a consensus template; the problem is it is absolutely huge and there is no option to collapse it, so it ends up taking a huge amount of space in the talk page header. I'm suggesting that collapse option be implemented, but I wanted to run it by y'all since it came from this project originally. Curbon7 ( talk) 22:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Also wanted to put this on everybody's radar. ProcrastinatingReader made it because we keep fielding over and over again the same arguments on the most controversial talk pages. At least if we have something like this collapsed at the top, we can direct newcomers to it before they re-assert the same 5 arguments for the 3rd time.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 00:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Dear members please help to identify which one can be included in "Postmarketing study (participants)" i.e. Phase-IV column in the table COVID-19_vaccine#List_of_authorized_and_approved_vaccines for Covaxin.
References
Thank you. Run n Fly ( talk) 14:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
This description caught my eye today:
"So far it looks as if the legacy of covid-19 will follow the pattern set by past pandemics. Nicholas Christakis of Yale University identifies three shifts: the collective threat prompts a growth in state power; the overturning of everyday life leads to a search for meaning; and the closeness of death which brings caution while the disease rages, spurs audacity when it has passed. Each will mark society in its own way." [1]
If we can find more content along these lines (e.g., analytical and focused on long-term effects), it might be easier to improve some of the articles. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
References
Greetings members, two page move discussions are on-going at Talk:Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, Talk:Moderna COVID-19 vaccine and Talk:Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. Interested editors are requested to participate/contribute. Thank you. Run n Fly ( talk) 06:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
There is a notable dissonance between some information published in NEWSORG as facts and the way the same information is treated in MEDRS, regarding the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Under many wikipolicies (WP:MEDRS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and others), information sourced on a MEDRS is more reliable than NEWSORG. This prerrogative has subordinated many pieces of information on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 published in NEWSORG to stronger, more reliable facts published in MEDRS.
Given that WP:MEDRS is not an absolute truth (is only an ideal not a prohibitory guideline); and given that WP: NEWSORG suggests that Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.
; and given that
in a recent RFC the community has shown divided and valid opinions on whether disease and pandemic origins are a form of biomedical information that falls under strict MEDRS enforcement; I am bringing to this centralized thread the specific instances of NEWSORG including information that is at odds with MEDRS.
Critics of this approach would call this inventory unnecessary, arguing that the only thing that can prompt new edits or discussion including this information is that MEDRS pick it up, which they haven't, so far. In defense of this exercise, I'd stress that it can bring out two important benefits:
I've been thinking about this topic, and am currently wondering if we should add a section to the end of (or after) Investigations for something along the lines of press/media. A lot of these conversations/debates are clearly notable, and I think we've mostly been putting off inclusion as part of fighting the broader NPOV/V fight for what gets said in the bulk of the article about the origins themself. Put another way, we've been so focused on why certain sources are unreliable/UNDUE citations for the scientific investigation, we've had a blind spot on their notability relative to the public/press attention itself. I think a section like this would help us in both directions: give DUE weight to notable news coverage, and relieve some of the pressure on covering the sources. The Wade article, WaPo timeline, Vanity Fair's coverage, Gorski, continued skepticism, the overall shift in how the lab was covered, etc. Not as a dumping ground, but addressing the media coverage of investigations and public perception of them that doesn't fit in the SARS-CoV-2 or Misinformation articles.
Let's begin listing the controversial NEWSORG-based information on the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Forich ( talk) 21:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
. [1] From BBC, this implies that the subject about the origins of the virus holds a major scientific controversy. But per MEDRS, there is no controversy among scientists about it, and much less a major one. Forich ( talk) 21:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Those three deaths are now at the centre of a major scientific controversy about the origins of the virus and the question of whether it came from nature, or from a laboratory
[1]. From BBC, a search on the scientific literature brings *crickets* on any debate about RaTG13. Forich ( talk) 21:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Seven years after it was found in that mineshaft, RaTG13 was about to become one of the most hotly contested scientific subjects of our time.
[2] From Reuters, this places the lab leak theory as important as any other. In MEDRS, the lab leak is a conspiracy theory, or at best, a fringe and tiny scientific view. Forich ( talk) 21:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)The two prevailing competing theories are that the virus jumped from animals, possibly originating with bats, to humans, or that it escaped from a virology laboratory in Wuhan, China. The following is what is known about the virus’ origins.
[3] No MEDRS source qualifies the coincidences as huge. Forich ( talk) 21:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)These three pretty huge coincidences foster the lab-leak theory, and mean it has not yet gone away. Western intelligence officials CNN has spoken to say they cannot "disprove" the idea -- or prove it. These coincidences are perhaps why it sits in this hinterland -- never permanently debunked, never proven. Their solution is like "Occam's razor" -- the idea that the simplest explanation is the most likely.
[3] From CNN, this implies it is likely that China is "hiding something". MEDRS say nothing about this. Forich ( talk) 21:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)But none of it is solid or even compelling evidence that a lab leak occurred. That evidence may exist, and be super-classified within the government that possesses it. But as it is not public, we can't presume it exists to confirm a bias that China is hiding something terrible. But the likelihood China is hiding something is of no help either. (Even the WHO team, whose report Chinese officials helped author, admits they would like access to more material and better information -- to hospital blood bank samples from the time of the outbreak, and to raw data across Hubei about possible cases in October and November. Despite making that clear months ago, they have yet to receive it).
[4] From AP. MEDRS say nothing about doubts on the WHO treatment of the investigations. Forich ( talk) 21:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)As the World Health Organization draws up plans for the next phase of its probe of how the coronavirus pandemic started, an increasing number of scientists say the U.N. agency it isn’t up to the task and shouldn’t be the one to investigate.
References
{{
cite news}}
: |last1=
has generic name (
help)
Category:COVID-19 conspiracy theorists has been nominated for deletion. Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_3#Category:COVID-19_conspiracy_theorists. Cheers, --Animalparty! ( talk) 05:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I just wanted to draw your attention to User:S201050066. They have been posting raw links for the daily Ontario and Quebec entries in the various Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic articles. I have messaged the twice on their talk page but have received no response. The User has made no efforts to listen to feedback about properly citing references. I'm getting tired of having to constantly convert their raw urls into proper references. Any advice? Andykatib 22:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Dear members, there is a dispute regarding addition of this information in ZyCoV-D COVID-19 vaccine page. I would like to request members to participate if anyone is willing to help or resolve. Thank you. Run n Fly ( talk) 12:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
New category: Category:Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the LGBT community. Feel free to help populate! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
After getting in touch with Tenryuu and S201050066, I am planning to move the Ontario and Quebec references in the various monthly Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic to the Ontario and Quebec timeline articles. Just wanted to check if Wikipedia's policy is to only include national COVID-19 related statistics in the monthly timeline pages and to relocate those from states, provinces and territories to the appropriate articles for sub-national entities. Is this the best course of action? Andykatib 02:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I recently created an article for Michael Worobey, an American evolutionary biologist who has done extensive research on COVID-19’s origins. Any help improving the article would be appreciated! Thriley ( talk) 13:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
One is the Authoritative Chronology produced by WHO's Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response (a PDF and a web version linked here) and the other is a chronology produced by the Congressional Research Service (PDF versions linked here). The articles which stand to gain from these sources include but are not limited to Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019, Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in January 2020, Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in January 2020, COVID-19 pandemic in Hubei, COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China and more (which is the reason why I decided to post it here and not on one of the talk pages). And as a side note, we don't have a section about the aforementioned panel even in World Health Organization's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, not to say about a separate article. Ain92 ( talk) 11:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Interested editors might want to regularly visit Template:COVID-19 pandemic data and update some countries. In recent months, the number of editors who edit the template regularly has been continually decreasing. Any help will be appreciated. LSGH ( talk) ( contributions) 16:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
There is a dispute regarding WP:NPOV and WP:V at the new article China COVID-19 cover-up. Help would be much appreciated. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 09:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:China COVID-19 cover-up. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 22:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I have objected to the stand-alone existence of COVID-19 cases at the 2020 Summer Olympics (formerly COVID-19 outbreak at the 2020 Summer Olympics). Before, it was WP:SYNTH creating a singular outbreak out of thin air. Now, it seems to be a CFORK of List of athletes not attending the 2020 Summer Olympics due to COVID-19 concerns#Qualified but withdrew due to testing positive for COVID-19 at its current title. The page creator has objected to a redirect, as well as a move-expansion to Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the 2020 Summer Olympics. The participation of other editors to find consensus is requested. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I can't edit either myself, I wanted to see if there is consensus for removing this image before making an edit request (or if someone here could do so?) I think this image should be removed from both articles. On the basis of
JeffUK ( talk) 12:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I have drawn attention to the WP:UNDUE weight to adverse vaccine reactions on the page for Covid Australia. It is several times the length than the sections on anything else vaccine related on the page, and its content also lacks adequate medical context and possible WP:POV editing. It needs urgent attention. Even if this was moved to COVID-19 vaccination in Australia, the counterpart section there is currently also probably too lengthy to the point of being WP:UNDUE. I have not seen anything like this on any other pandemic country page, or vaccination country page for that matter. Advice or input welcome. Arcahaeoindris ( talk) 17:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The leading theories are an accidental lab leak or zoonotic spillover from a bat or other intermediary species.From Wall Street Journal. MEDRS sources do not give this weight to the lab leak. Forich ( talk) 17:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject,
I'm hoping that someone who is more familiar with the development of COVID-19 in the U.S. than I am could look over this brief article and decide whether the claims that this doctor gave an early warning about COVID-19 is supported by the sources. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
COVID-19 vaccine mandates in the United States could probably use some additional eyes to ensure balance is being achieved—I'm not confident I'm familiar enough with the subject to do it myself. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Love is not tourism is about a grassroots movement that wants to unite couples, married or not, that were separated due to the pandedmic. I added a few categories, but I believe a few more, templates, etc. Are in order. I haven't done one specific to relationships because I couldn't find enough information, and I guess we'll only have some researches about it in the future. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 04:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Evening. Can someone with a better understanding of wikipedias Covid 19 policies, particularly with regards to individuals take a look at the R W Malone article. His notability is strongly related to his historic work, but in the last year he has become prominent among various fringe groups. Any content about him is highly polarised, either being self promotion or criticism - and striking a BLP balance is difficult due to the quality of the sourcing being so generally poor. Koncorde ( talk) 21:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Just two days after I posted Two useful early chronologies which apparently qualify as reliable secondary sources here, Elsevier published online a third one: The First 50 days of COVID-19: A Detailed Chronological Timeline and Extensive Review of Literature Documenting the Pandemic PMC 7378494. Ain92 ( talk) 20:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi all. I recently created a consensus template on COVID-19 treatments, because I (and many others) have become frustrated at the endlessly repetitive discussions on relevant talk pages. See, for example: Talk:Bret Weinstein, Talk:Ivermectin, Talk:Didier Raoult, Talk:Pierre Kory, Talk:Hydroxychloroquine. My hope is that writing all of this down in a template could be helpful as a place to direct new and inexperienced users who have repeatedly come to these talk pages to push a POV. Much like it has worked for Template:Origins of COVID-19 (current consensus), Talk:Donald Trump, Talk:Joe Biden#Current consensus, Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput. (credit to ProcrastinatingReader on those prior templates).
However, I would appreciate your feedback. Overall, of course, but also on the following specific issues:
Thank you for any help you can provide.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add this peer-review publication of phase-II results [1] at last paragraph of "Phase I and II trials".
References
42.106.203.255 ( talk) 10:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:BBIBP-CorV#Requested move 12 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 02:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Can someone perform the necessary update at DNA vaccine as per Talk:DNA_vaccine § Semi-protected_edit_request_on_20_August_2021. 2409:4061:700:93AF:418E:4466:2FDB:DC48 ( talk) 19:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Tong Zeng has heavily promoted the lab leak theory, and the article claims it in Wikipedia voice. I cut a pile of the worst of it out of the article - but the article is a badly-translated propaganda piece, and very hard to work on. (I'd suggest WP:TNT for it but the guy appears to be noteworthy.) Is there someone here who knows the lab leak theory-to-conspiracy-theory well who could look over what's in the article for medical conspiracy theories? - David Gerard ( talk) 11:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Most sources of this article date back from the initial writing : July 2020. This is inadequate. If someone know :
It would be really welcome. Yug (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Please fix the errors in sections "See also", "References", "External links" etc. as all are showing links to default template. 2402:3A80:1A4E:9F7E:690B:788B:37A:E014 ( talk) 20:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation by China#Requested move 30 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 23:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation by the United States#Requested move 30 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. –– FormalDude talk 08:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
WHO has added "Mu" (Pango lineage B.1.621) as a Variant of Interest. Would anyone like to add this to the wiki article?
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/variants-concern
https://www.who.int/en/activities/tracking-SARS-CoV-2-variants/ Hongsy ( talk) 06:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 pandemic deaths in July 2021. The discussion there has expanded beyond that monthly data page to all the monthly data pages linked from here:
My comment there:
Keep. Notability is obvious since it is COVID-19 data that is constantly reported in the media. This COVID-19 info is invaluable, because it is difficult to find in this monthly table form. Many other table lists on Wikipedia of all kinds are notable. Sourcing is from World Health Organization (WHO). How much better than that can you get? The monthly pages get around a hundred views a day during the month it is being filled in. See those numbers via the {{ page views}} banner at the top of the talk page: Talk:COVID-19 pandemic deaths in August 2021. The overall page at COVID-19 pandemic deaths that links to those monthly pages gets around 700 page views per day lately. The first of the month data from those monthly pages is used to compile this important and notable template: Template:Monthly cumulative COVID-19 death totals by country 2021. It is found on this page: COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory. That page gets around 13,000 views per day lately. People come for the tables and maps. The creator of the monthly pages is User:Anguswalker. He has been thanked by some Wikimedia Foundation staff for his great and tireless work. People and news media from around the world come to all these Covid data pages. As I said, notability is obvious.
People at the deletion discussion may not understand these issues as well as the people here at Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19. So please get involved. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 06:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion at WP:RSN concerning this paper by Yuri Deigin and Rosana Segretto in Bioessays which may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. See discussion here.
Segreto, R., & Deigin, Y. (2021). The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin. BioEssays, 43, e2000240. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202000240.
Thanks.— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 23:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
See discussion here re: whether or not we should mention contributions by individual (notable) Wikimedians at Wikipedia coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to have a new article focusing on misinformation related specifically to COVID-19 vaccines and the resulting hesitancy among populations of various countries. There is enough information out there for it to be a stand alone article. This section could start as a base and then expanded upon. This would also help that parent article as it is getting length and over-detailed and will continue to do so.
Thoughts/Opinions, User:BD2412, User:FormalDude, User:Abrilando232, User:Tenryuu and User:Ftrebien? •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 17:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
|
Hi everyone, I just wanted to bring your attention some problems with User:S201050066. Recently this user pasted a lot of raw urls on the Ontario entries of the various Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic articles even though those entries already have proper references. I and other Wikipedians have reached out on this user's talk page in an effort to educate them about Wikipedia policies and norms. Frankly, I don't think this user is wiling to listen to constructive feedback. I sadly recommend taking disciplinary action. What do you think? What is the best way to handle S20105066's unwillingness to follow the rules? I have told them that I will reverse all of their recent unnecessary edits. Andykatib 04:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject COVID-19, Thank you for the amazing work you do to slow the spread of COVID-19. I'm working on expanding the COVID-19 coverage on wikipedia. I have published a couple related articles recently: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the United States and High-risk people. If you could take a look and possibly make an edit, I would appreciate it. Open to any feedback.
Thank you again. -- Wil540 art ( talk) 18:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
The "COVID-19 pandemic in State" articles are wildly uneven, with lacunae of months (as with Idaho) and major developments apparently coming out of the blue (as with Alaska exceeding its ICU capacity -there's not an ECMO in the state https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/24/alaska-covid-coronavirus-rations-care-hospitals).
Overwhelm is a very real thing; there's not an aspect of this pandemic which doesn't present a fire hose of information, after all. A consistent format is needed.
I began Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic the day they shut Wuhan down; I suggest we use that method and format, with gubernatorial announcements and executive actions à la the WHO for each state. A state of emergency is akin to a PHEIC; mandates differ, or are not instituted at all; styles and philosophies of governance differ. Etc.
The main benefit of this parsed information would be that each of the 50 timelines would grow organically, just as the global, omnibus COVID-19 timeline has. We start with chief executive press releases and actions...
Sound like a plan?
kencf0618 ( talk) 10:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
As the headline implies - the page for Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic was originally split off from Immunity passport and is rife with issues, additionally the page COVID-19 vaccine card also exists and there's probably a lot of confusion there. Would appreciate some more eyes on these. Thanks. CaffeinAddict ( talk) 18:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
I've heard lately that vaccines are losing efficacy against the delta variant and in general, so I went to look it up. The article I landed at is COVID-19 vaccine clinical research#Effectiveness. The section could use a lot of work, its opening paragraphs have almost no WP:MEDRS sources. I have added a bunch of {{ medical citation needed}} tags, and also a {{ unreliable source}} tag to address the WP:FORBESCON. I encourage project members to visit this article and attempt to improve it with WP:MEDRS sources. Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 15:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The article itself needs some updating. Only tried to update the infobox. Ominae ( talk) 05:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I feel that the term "the unvaccinated" (especially with definite article) has become politically-loaded; in my opinion, I think that maybe we should use people-first language such as "patients not fully vaccinated for COVID-19". But do you think this would be a good idea to adopt as consensus? ViperSnake151 Talk 07:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
vaccine hesitant" but that wouldn't apply to people who are just between doses. For them I would say "
patients between doses" or "
not fully vaccinated" — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 12:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:COVID-19 lockdown in Italy#Requested move 7 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. VR talk 03:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Please undo mistake at Template:COVID-19 pandemic sidebar. The coronavirus image is replaced by a map ! See the change here. 2402:3A80:1C44:43:4504:598A:C12B:9BA ( talk) 09:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
As part of a restructuring of the Current Events WikiProject, a very long list of every COVID-19 article is being constructed since every COVID-19 related article is a current event. Please feel free to help expand the list being created. Elijahandskip ( talk) 17:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Seven days incidence is now available as changetype "w" in medical cases chart module. I'd prefer it to absolute or precentage type as depicting the current epidemic situation much better and making for comparabilty between countries charts. Please consider changetype "w" for all national uses of the medical cases chart module. -- Kohraa Mondel ( talk) 19:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Dear Members of the WikiProject COVID-19 section,
Im hopeful you'd be willing to provide an additional review for a new AfC for Dr. Vin Gupta, NBC News's prominent COVID-19 medical analyst, who's been on national media platforms speaking about this virus hundreds of times at this point. I created an AfC to address a key gap on wikipedia, since "Dr. Vin Gupta wikipedia" is a frequent search engine query when you type his name and viewers should be aware of his background, given his reach.
Thank you in advance. Link here: /info/en/?search=Draft:Vin_Gupta
Caroline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caroline grossman23 ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Top three sources: 1. Seattle Times Profile in 2020: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/350-tv-spots-and-counting-uws-dr-vin-gupta-delivers-coronavirus-expertise-to-the-nation/ 2. Stat News Profile in 2021: https://www.statnews.com/2021/06/14/vin-gupta-amazon-chief-medical-officer-profile/ 3. CNBC profile: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/08/amazon-hires-vin-gupta-pulmonary-doctor-and-public-health-expert.html
Several other top ones highlighting him on NPR, Washington Post, NBC, MSNBC, etc but too many to include -- cited many of them in the piece itself. Thanks again! Should note that I also included briefer mentions of Gupta in Politico and other sources as being shortlisted for Biden's Surgeon General on the back of his covid-related commentary -- which only adds to his notability.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Caroline grossman23 ( talk • contribs) 00:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Taxonomy? :
Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic is a controversial subject and it would be always good to have other eyes on it. CaffeinAddict ( talk) 16:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
The article SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant has just been created. Any help in improving it would be greatly appreciated. -- The Anome ( talk) 18:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
The article Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, which is within the scope of this project, hasn't been updated with new absolute figures for the USA since early July, 2020, nor are there any updates on the "suspected" cases outside of the USA much more up to date or, as regards the article, were ever followed up on whether those "suspected" cases outside of the USA could be confirmed. Close to 350 confirmed cases were *RANDOMLY* (as opposed to the systematic mass-screenings done for acute infection with COVID-19) found in the USA within the course of only two months in spring, 2020, and then the article just pretty much stopped counting in early July, 2020.
Also, all those figures are buried way deep in the article, where nobody would even suspect them, and the only figure named prominently in the article is the low risk of dying from MIS-C immediately, although the condition itself causes more than enough suffering and intensive care even if they don't immediately die from it. -- 2003:EF:1704:7257:A562:1B77:6B93:20CE ( talk) 08:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I have found some new identifiers for SARS-CoV-2 variants here: https://www.who.int/en/activities/tracking-SARS-CoV-2-variants/ The GISAID clade identifier for Omicron is GR/484A, and the Nextstrain clade identifier is 21K.
I have now created the property proposals Wikidata:Property proposal/GISAID identifier and Wikidata:Property proposal/Nextstrain identifier on Wikidata, to contain this information on the Wikidata entities for this and other relevant articles. If anyone would like to join the conversation there, that would be very helpful. -- The Anome ( talk) 10:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Can we have a template for COVID-19 strains? Or is it already covered in an existing template? Qwertyxp2000 ( talk | contribs) 05:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Editors are invited to participate in this RfC:
RfC about how we should use the Frutos source
Adoring nanny (
talk)
16:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in December 2021#Requested move 12 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 17:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:China COVID-19 cover-up#Requested move 8 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 00:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Greece is not out of lockdown, but it's not true. There is a total lockdown since 07.11.2020, movement only with a permit only, curfew, closed restaurants and etc. Take a look please: https://greekreporter.com/2021/03/19/greece-to-loosen-covid-19-restrictions-make-rapid-tests-available-to-all/?fbclid=IwAR10xtt-aJWFsrl_aIyMQrqwNI-bZFfJisQvdiQ8grdFDk35v62ZQrPBHTY and: https://www.varnavas.gr/en/newsroom/lockdown-movement-permit/
Hi everyone. I am involved in WikiProject interviews on the Signpost, which I think are a great way to help us build a community, understand how and where and why we are editing, listen to our fellow humans, and always interesting to read!
I would like to end out this crazy year by interviewing the members of this WikiProject. This isn't the first and I'm sure won't be the last of COVID-19 related coverage, but I thought it would be a great way to end the year with some reflections on how this WikiProject has changed and how COVID-19 has changed Wikipedia. I invite anyone (from regular to passing by editors) to contribute to the interview here: User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/WikiProject COVID19 interview draft.
Hoping to hear from you soon! Tom (LT) ( talk) 23:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)