This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CutePeach (talk | contribs) at 10:23, 17 April 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:23, 17 April 2021 by CutePeach (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the COVID-19 pandemic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49Auto-archiving period: 7 days  |
|topic= not specified. Available options:
 | There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
 | Want to add new information about COVID-19? Most often, it should not go here. Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example:
|
 | WikiProject COVID-19 consensus
WikiProject COVID-19 aims to add to and build consensus for pages relating to COVID-19. They have so far discussed items listed below. Please discuss proposed improvements to them at the project talk page.
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page. |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | Other talk page banners | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:Vital article
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the COVID-19 pandemic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
| Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49Auto-archiving period: 7 days |
|
|
Template:Bad page for beginners
 | This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:] item
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.
The virus is typically spread during close contact and via respiratory droplets produced when people cough or sneeze. Respiratory droplets may be produced during breathing but the virus is not considered airborne. It may also spread when one touches a contaminated surface and then their face. It is most contagious when people are symptomatic, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear.(RfC March 2020) 02. Superseded by #7 The infobox should feature a per capita count map most prominently, and a total count by country map secondarily. (RfC March 2020) 03. Obsolete The article should not use
{{Current}} at the top. (March 2020)
04. Do not include a sentence in the lead section noting comparisons to World War II. (March 2020)
05. CancelledInclude subsections covering the domestic responses of Italy, China, Iran, the United States, and South Korea. Do not include individual subsections for France, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia and Japan. (RfC March 2020) Include a short subsection on Sweden focusing on the policy controversy. (May 2020)
Subsequently overturned by editing and recognized as obsolete. (July 2024) 06. Obsolete There is a 30 day moratorium on move requests until 26 April 2020. (March 2020)07. There is no consensus that the infobox should feature a confirmed cases count map most prominently, and a deaths count map secondarily. (May 2020)
08. Superseded by #16 The clause on xenophobia in the lead section should read...and there have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people and against those perceived as being Chinese or as being from areas with high infection rates.(RfC April 2020) 09. Cancelled
Supersedes #1. The first several sentences of the lead section's second paragraph should state The virus is mainly spread during close contact and by small droplets produced when those infected cough, sneeze or talk. These droplets may also be produced during breathing; however, they rapidly fall to the ground or surfaces and are not generally spread through the air over large distances. People may also become infected by touching a contaminated surface and then their face. The virus can survive on surfaces for up to 72 hours. Coronavirus is most contagious during the first three days after onset of symptoms, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear and in later stages of the disease.
(April 2020)
Notes
- Close contact is defined as 1 metres (3 feet) by the WHO and 2 metres (6 feet) by the CDC.
- An uncovered cough can travel up to 8.2 metres (27 feet).
010. The article title is COVID-19 pandemic. The title of related pages should follow this scheme as well. (RM April 2020, RM August 2020)
011. The lead section should use Wuhan, China
to describe the virus's origin, without mentioning Hubei or otherwise further describing Wuhan. (April 2020)
first identifiedand
December 2019. (May 2020) 013. Superseded by #15 File:President Donald Trump suggests measures to treat COVID-19 during Coronavirus Task Force press briefing.webm should be used as the visual element of the misinformation section, with the caption
U.S. president Donald Trump suggested at a press briefing on 23 April that disinfectant injections or exposure to ultraviolet light might help treat COVID-19. There is no evidence that either could be a viable method. (1:05 min)(May 2020, June 2020) 014. Overturned Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article. (RfC May 2020) This result was overturned at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard, as there is consensus that there is no consensus to include or exclude the lab leak theory. (RfC May 2024)
015. Supersedes #13. File:President Donald Trump suggests measures to treat COVID-19 during Coronavirus Task Force press briefing.webm should not be used as the visual element of the misinformation section. (RfC November 2020)
016. Supersedes #8. Incidents of xenophobia and discrimination are considered WP:UNDUE for a full sentence in the lead. (RfC January 2021)
017. Only include one photograph in the infobox. There is no clear consensus that File:COVID-19 Nurse (cropped).jpg should be that one photograph. (May 2021)
018. Superseded by #19 The first sentence is.jpg){kind=link}
The COVID-19 pandemic, also known as the coronavirus pandemic, is a global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).(August 2021, RfC October 2023)
019. Supersedes #12 and #18. The first sentence is The global COVID-19 pandemic (also known as the coronavirus pandemic), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), began with an outbreak in Wuhan, China, in December 2019.
(June 2024)
Adding extra information regarding the impact on education
I intend to add a small paragraph containing statistics of students' experience learning during the pandemic. I will be using the BBC article.--Julius Royale (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2021
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to edit indian section in covid-19 pandemic 27.97.244.236 (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Please, specify the changes that you want to make. Ruslik_Zero 08:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2021 (2)
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change reference 143 (Levine-Tiefenbrun, Matan et al. (8 February 2021). "Decreased SARS-CoV-2 viral load following vaccination". medRxiv: 2021.02.06.21251283. doi:10.1101/2021.02.06.21251283.) to https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01316-7, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01316-7. The paper is now published after peer review. 2001:4DF4:8580:71:C8DB:F59:5A60:AF2 (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Seems like you had an earlier version of the article because this has been removed, seemingly for other reasons, now. And simply changing the link is insufficient, that reviewed version needs to be checked to see if there's any change in the content being cited. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Fake News
| DFTT EvergreenFir (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
There is fake news in this article. The number of cases is 135 million, not 13.8 million. Fix that please. Ak-eater06 (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
|
Origin2
We have discussed China origin before, and this news is getting more coverage in Slate. We have discussed this before here Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_42#Origin_of_virus and now this is probably WP:DUE. MEDRS as I have noted before is not a valid reason to exclude. Maybe someone here could propose one sentence? I am sure we wont get consensus here, as we can come to a sentence (those that want to include) and then we run an RFC and see if the MEDRS excuse holds or not. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Already covered with a dedicated sub-section at COVID-19_pandemic#Misinformation. We can mention the popular press and political theories there. They should not be presented as a "both sides" (WP:FALSEBALANCE) option to the scientific consensus, though. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- This article in Slate doesn't really change the analysis of WP:DUE, IMO. Particularly since Dr. Chan seems to be suggesting it be considered and investigated (which the WHO did in their latest joint report, and this interview doesn't even address let alone cast doubts upon). I'd suggest the 'popular press reports of fringe science doesn't need MEDRS' idea is an attempted end-run, looking to apply a scientific veneer of credibility to a conspiracy. It's either a WP:FRINGE alternative scientific hypothesis in which case we should rely on secondary sources (latest WHO report), or it's a conspiracy theory in which case it goes in COVID-19 misinformation. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- The current COVID-19_pandemic#Misinformation section provides an excessive summarization and fails to include any of the DUE conspiracy theories on this article. One or two sentences would be sufficient. Saying 'there are various false information and conspiracy theories' is excessive summarization. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- IMO, there is no such thing as a "due conspiracy theory". At least, not for the primary article versus one specifically covering conspiracy theories (see the single short paragraph in Moon landing#Historical empirical evidence vs Moon landing conspiracy theories). But perhaps you should be more clear, what do you want included in the article? Outright conspiracy theory, or non-mainstream science? Where do you categorize the article above on the range of WP:FRINGE/PS? Bakkster Man (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Of course there are due conspiracy theories and we have entire pages dedicated to them, as as you pointed out. WP:FRINGE/PS as you mention points out "Alternative theoretical formulations" in which those skilled in the art have different opinions. The former director of the CDC is obviously in that 'skilled in the art' category (borrowing an IP term). Just because the status quo doesn't accept that opinion doesn't 'deem' them scientific (of course they would deem them unscientific if they disagree). Obviously, with attribution, the opinion of the very definition of a category expert (even if the opinion differs from the mainstream) is due a sentence. Specifically, a sentence that summarizes the other sub-article, such as 'various people including xyz and abc have alleged the virus escaped from a lab in china, although these opinions are disputed by the mainstream.' (insert notable people's name, obviously, the person making the statement would need a wikilink itself, or their opinion would be undue in my opinion to begin with, but just because they have a wikilink it doesnt make it due. but expert + notable = due) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Except the lab leak has failed to gain any significant traction amongst scientists. The odd one here and there (notice how the CDC director is also a political appointee...); but it's IMHO much closer to the "Questionable science" bit (nothing but anecdotal/circumstantial evidence) than to the "serious theory which is only supported by a minority" end of the scale. It being an "alternative theoretical formulation" would require it be reported as a serious possibility in multiple MEDRS (which would demonstrate it is a possibility actually entertained by scientists) - yet these, if they mention it at all (most don't), say things like "extremely unlikely". As to the mention in the article, that's already there, innit?
"Without evidence, some people have claimed the virus is a bioweapon accidentally or purposefully leaked from a laboratory,"
RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)- @RandomCanadian: One quibble, the "SARS-CoV-2 could have been collected from bats then accidentally leaked from the lab which collected it" hypothesis is distinct from the "it's a bioweapon" conspiracy theory, and the WHO report including the hypothesis as one of the 4 being investigated very much makes it an "alternative theoretical formulation". It's just one that's unlikely enough (according to the same MEDRS source which concludes it's an alternative worthy of consideration) not to be worth mentioning on this page, just like how the standard model article doesn't reference string theory. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Jtbobwaysf: And this is covered in Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Reservoir and zoonotic origin, which is transcluded on Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Feel free to add Dr. Chan as a notable supporter over there, but you've not made the argument (beyond an interview in Slate being 'more coverage') that it's DUE here on this article. Just like with the moon landing page, no need for the details here. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Except the lab leak has failed to gain any significant traction amongst scientists. The odd one here and there (notice how the CDC director is also a political appointee...); but it's IMHO much closer to the "Questionable science" bit (nothing but anecdotal/circumstantial evidence) than to the "serious theory which is only supported by a minority" end of the scale. It being an "alternative theoretical formulation" would require it be reported as a serious possibility in multiple MEDRS (which would demonstrate it is a possibility actually entertained by scientists) - yet these, if they mention it at all (most don't), say things like "extremely unlikely". As to the mention in the article, that's already there, innit?
- Of course there are due conspiracy theories and we have entire pages dedicated to them, as as you pointed out. WP:FRINGE/PS as you mention points out "Alternative theoretical formulations" in which those skilled in the art have different opinions. The former director of the CDC is obviously in that 'skilled in the art' category (borrowing an IP term). Just because the status quo doesn't accept that opinion doesn't 'deem' them scientific (of course they would deem them unscientific if they disagree). Obviously, with attribution, the opinion of the very definition of a category expert (even if the opinion differs from the mainstream) is due a sentence. Specifically, a sentence that summarizes the other sub-article, such as 'various people including xyz and abc have alleged the virus escaped from a lab in china, although these opinions are disputed by the mainstream.' (insert notable people's name, obviously, the person making the statement would need a wikilink itself, or their opinion would be undue in my opinion to begin with, but just because they have a wikilink it doesnt make it due. but expert + notable = due) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- IMO, there is no such thing as a "due conspiracy theory". At least, not for the primary article versus one specifically covering conspiracy theories (see the single short paragraph in Moon landing#Historical empirical evidence vs Moon landing conspiracy theories). But perhaps you should be more clear, what do you want included in the article? Outright conspiracy theory, or non-mainstream science? Where do you categorize the article above on the range of WP:FRINGE/PS? Bakkster Man (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- The current COVID-19_pandemic#Misinformation section provides an excessive summarization and fails to include any of the DUE conspiracy theories on this article. One or two sentences would be sufficient. Saying 'there are various false information and conspiracy theories' is excessive summarization. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Per summary style and fringe it is not necessary for us to summarize fringe viewpoints outside of the sub article (the investigations into the origins). And yes, MEDRS is a valid reason to exclude things that can only be sourced to "popular news" articles, as investigation of a pandemic's origin, index cases, etc is biomedical information - whereas statistics are not, investigation of single cases is. The theory is not fully disproven at this point but is considered so unlikely as to be fringe by mainstream science. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- There are no known sources of the virus. Disproving something that is not known is silly. Are there no other sources besides slate? I am guessing there are a few. There are numerous China lab leak theories as you point out, they are in fact theories, not conspiracies as the POV pushers would try to assert. I am not taking any position at this time on subsets of the China lab leak theory, whether it is a bioweapen, accidental, bats, etc. There is no discussion of the inclusion of that there and that is an attempt to the discussion off track, it is clear above what I am proposing. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Jtbobwaysf:
it is clear above what I am proposing
. With respect it is not. Perhaps it would be more clear if you wrote up the sentence you wanted added so we could discuss that, instead of hoping for someone else (who agrees with you) to write up the sentence under discussion. Until then, there's no point in continuing. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Jtbobwaysf:
- There are no known sources of the virus. Disproving something that is not known is silly. Are there no other sources besides slate? I am guessing there are a few. There are numerous China lab leak theories as you point out, they are in fact theories, not conspiracies as the POV pushers would try to assert. I am not taking any position at this time on subsets of the China lab leak theory, whether it is a bioweapen, accidental, bats, etc. There is no discussion of the inclusion of that there and that is an attempt to the discussion off track, it is clear above what I am proposing. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Our MEDRS and RS on origins only weigh probabilities of different hypotheses as there is no direct evidence for any of them, and should therefore be properly attributed as opinions, and not presented as facts in Wikivoice. The probability of accidental zoonosis are based on priors and is weighed higher than probability of lab origins, which Chan and other much more senior scientists are reported in reliable sources to contest, as lab origins has both priors with SARS viruses leaking from biosecure labs in China and circumstantial evidence linking SARS-CoV-2 to WIV through RaTG13, as reported just yesterday in CNET. A multilateral statement by 14 governments contests the weighting of the four hypotheses made in the interim WHO report, which were quietly dropped from its final report, and the WHO DM made a follow on statement calling for
further investigation
s of lab origins in specific . ::The lab origins hypothesis is falsifiable, as both our MEDRS and RS explicitly state, but only if China cooperates with these further investigations, specifically in providing access to its early patient and donor blood samples/data for seroanalysis. CutePeach (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)- MEDRS (and not just the WHO) explicitly put the lab leak on the "extremely unlikely" end of things. As for arguments to false balance and debunked arguments such as the RaTG13 "link" and political (not scientific) claims, that's already discussed in an RfC last year, and I don't see anything that has changed the situation. It's not WPs job nor purpose to advocate for "further investigations", nor to criticise the scientific consensus (there are multiple sources, not just MEDRS which explicitly say that natural zoonosis is the scientifically accepted hypothesis - you picking only the ones which report on politics is of course cherry-picking); nor to present minority opinions which are based on circumstantial evidence which in all honesty boils down to "there's a lab in Wuhan" (see the quote from a Nature article posted here or on some other talk page). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- WP:FALSEBALANCE would apply only to really ridiculous origin hypotheses like meteorites, little green men or peeps. The WHO's joint study with China and the four main hypotheses they considered includes the laboratory leak hypothesis that was assessed in their interim report as
extremely unlikely
, but that appellation was dropped in their final report . The WHO DG later said lab origin hypothesis indeed requiresfurther investigation
, which he also stated after the interim report . The US led multilateral statement made in response to the long awaited final report on the WHO joint study "underscores" the need for an investigation withfull and open collaboration
from the government of China, which is well documented to have covered up the early outbreak of this pandemic , and is well documented to cover up stuff in the general. We should not express academic opinions or contrived government policies as facts in Wikivoice. CutePeach (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)- Politics should not be confused with science. You shouldn't take governments as unbiased entities (especially not the US government which was led by the most virulent of COVID misinformation spreaders). We're writing on science. Re. the WHO report; what you're giving is the annexes, not the report itself, as should be clear from the file name and the first page. What the annexes do contain is stuff like "WIV was heavily targeted by conspiracy theories. Staff talked to media and scientific journalists to dispel the myths.", "the low likelihood that RaTG13 was the precursor of SARS-CoV-2", etc...; but that's nothing new, since you've obviously read the whole thing and are providing an unbiased assessment of it, since you're talking about it, right? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Politics shouldn't be confused with science, and the WHO is science... right? We give due weight to all kinds of things at WP including green people as another editor points out above, not sure that was his objective ;-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Even if we disregarded the WHO all other serious scientific sources point in the same direction... See WP:NOLABLEAK for a sampling. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Politics shouldn't be confused with science, and the WHO is science... right? We give due weight to all kinds of things at WP including green people as another editor points out above, not sure that was his objective ;-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- @CutePeach: Correcting a significant error in what you said above:
the laboratory leak hypothesis that was assessed in their interim report as
The first link is indeed the final report, and contains the "extremely unlikely" conclusion. The second link is a supplemental document with reference data, not a later or replacement document. It's also worth noting that this final report also concluded withextremely unlikely
, but that appellation was dropped in their final report ., the team called for a continued scientific and collaborative approach to be taken towards tracing the origins of COVID-19
. As for wikivoice, I suggest it's a stretch to say everything that might change in the future must be discussed as such in every article (see: WP:FRINGE). Consensus might change in the future, but that shouldn't stop us from describing current consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)- @Bakkster Man:, thank you for correcting that significant error as the final WHO report does in fact use the
extremely unlikely
appellation, which I missed late last night. I am much better rested now and already on my second coffee of the day. I think my main point still stands. The WHO DGcritiquedrejected the report’s findings saying that the team’sassessment
was notextensive enough
, and that the lab leak hypothesis needsfurther investigation
. The WHO’s Joint Study - which was performed by an independent group of scientists and not the WHO itself - is presented on the WHO website alongside the WHO DG’s statements , so the report should not be taken alone as the WHO’s official position on COVID-19 origins, until its findings are verified by underlying data . - Also, the US led multilateral response of WHO member states who would have liked to have had more of a say in the Terms of Reference of the Joint Study and for it have taken place earlier, and for further investigations to be expedited with
full and open collaboration
, casts doubt on the WHO Joint Study and its assessments , but agrees with the report’s call for acontinued scientific and collaborative approach
, as you pointed out. China's response to the WHO DG and the US led multilateral statement is not reassuring . Without blood samples/data, the lab leak hypothesis cannot be falsified, and if they are confident of the report’s findings, the Chinese government would have every reason to share the relevant data with the WHO like they did after the SARS-COV-1 epidemic of 2003 . WHO team member Dominic Dwyer said it is the norm for member states to share such data in a Public Health Emergency of International Concern . - As to your point on Wikivoice, the current scientific consensus on COVID-19 origins as presented in our MEDRS and RS - including the WHO report - is based entirely on weighing/assessing probabilities of different hypotheses based on priors and circumstantial evidence, and not forensic or phylogenetic evidence. There are senior scientists and officials - including the WHO DG - expressing widely varying viewpoints supporting different hypotheses, but all of them call for further investigation of all hypotheses - including lab origins - which China has yet to acquiesce. All these views should be properly attributed as opinions and not stated as fact in Wikivoice, until direct evidence is presented in a peer reviewed journal, or the Chinese government releases the blood data/samples requested by the WHO. Since you want to discuss the application of this policy on other articles, it should be no different to how we treat China’s claims in the Spratly Islands and the Air Defense Identification Zone. They are just claims, which we attribute to the Government of China, and it's as simple as that. In this article, we should not present PRC claims as facts on matters pertaining to what looks like a matter of non compliance with International Health Regulations that are legally binding on all members of the World Health Organization. Those regulations were reformed after the Chinese government’s disastrous coverup of SARS-COV-1 and will have to be reformed again after SARS-COV-2 and what looks like another coverup on its origins and emergence . CutePeach (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Bakkster Man:, thank you for correcting that significant error as the final WHO report does in fact use the
- Politics should not be confused with science. You shouldn't take governments as unbiased entities (especially not the US government which was led by the most virulent of COVID misinformation spreaders). We're writing on science. Re. the WHO report; what you're giving is the annexes, not the report itself, as should be clear from the file name and the first page. What the annexes do contain is stuff like "WIV was heavily targeted by conspiracy theories. Staff talked to media and scientific journalists to dispel the myths.", "the low likelihood that RaTG13 was the precursor of SARS-CoV-2", etc...; but that's nothing new, since you've obviously read the whole thing and are providing an unbiased assessment of it, since you're talking about it, right? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- WP:FALSEBALANCE would apply only to really ridiculous origin hypotheses like meteorites, little green men or peeps. The WHO's joint study with China and the four main hypotheses they considered includes the laboratory leak hypothesis that was assessed in their interim report as
- MEDRS (and not just the WHO) explicitly put the lab leak on the "extremely unlikely" end of things. As for arguments to false balance and debunked arguments such as the RaTG13 "link" and political (not scientific) claims, that's already discussed in an RfC last year, and I don't see anything that has changed the situation. It's not WPs job nor purpose to advocate for "further investigations", nor to criticise the scientific consensus (there are multiple sources, not just MEDRS which explicitly say that natural zoonosis is the scientifically accepted hypothesis - you picking only the ones which report on politics is of course cherry-picking); nor to present minority opinions which are based on circumstantial evidence which in all honesty boils down to "there's a lab in Wuhan" (see the quote from a Nature article posted here or on some other talk page). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class COVID-19 articles
- Top-importance COVID-19 articles
- WikiProject COVID-19 articles
- C-Class China-related articles
- High-importance China-related articles
- C-Class China-related articles of High-importance
- C-Class Chinese history articles
- High-importance Chinese history articles
- WikiProject Chinese history articles
- WikiProject China articles
- C-Class Disaster management articles
- Top-importance Disaster management articles
- C-Class medicine articles
- Top-importance medicine articles
- C-Class pulmonology articles
- Low-importance pulmonology articles
- Pulmonology task force articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- C-Class virus articles
- Top-importance virus articles
- WikiProject Viruses articles
- Former good article nominees
- Misplaced Pages In the news articles
- Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
- Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Wuhan
- Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists