Talk:Endemic COVID-19/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Phrasing of the lead sentence

I'm not convinced that this diff is an improvement, I invite editors to attempt improving the phrasing in the lead. SmolBrane (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

At least it improved the roaring POV problem, the grammar, and the confusion between a disease and a virus. Alexbrn (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

India

Someone please add this. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Done! Corinal (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Fundamental problem

This article doesn't really tell us much about the endemic "phase" of this outbreak; it is mostly an assemblage of ignorant things politicians have happened to say at one time or another. A re-think is needed. Bon courage (talk) 06:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion in the context of the WP:PILLARS or WP:COPO? I don't understand the praxis of your statement... any edits in mind? SmolBrane (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Because this is an epidemiological subject, it needs to be based on MEDRS sources. As it is, it doesn't convey much "accepted knowledge" about what the "endemic phase" is (other than a politician soundbite). Bon courage (talk) 06:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is also included in the "political responses" and "national responses" categories, as well as the medical responses category. Deferring to MEDRS would be a POV issue. If politicians allegedly misuse the word 'endemic' it needs to have sourced commentary to suggest such, we cannot make that presumption. Very few additions to this article have been reverted.

Tedros is not a politician according to his wiki bio and his words were pretty clear("[we've] never been in a better position to end the pandemic/we can see the finish line"). I think more academic and medical commentary would be beneficial but there currently isn't much of it--it's not surprising that rigorous MEDRS sources are lagging; it takes a while to do the science and it's likely to be backward-looking. SmolBrane (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The head of the WHO's view is WP:DUE, it's true. Bon courage (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

A lot of material is about "living with COVID", but this phrase doesn't necessarily mean the disease has entered an endemic phase. Rather, "living with" can just be a strategy or approach to dealing (or not dealing) with COVID-19 as a pandemic. I've chopped some material that talks about "living with" without talking about "endemic". Bondegezou (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

This article was originally split from the Living with COVID article, which was then merged back into this one. So that's why there is content surrounding Living with COVID. Not disputing your edits here--I have reviewed them--just offering some context as a new arriving editor at this article. Your experience as an editor is noted here. SmolBrane (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

We had an article Living with COVID-19. There was a failed attempt to rename it Endemic management of COVID-19. This article was started. The content of Living with COVID-19 got here copied here anyway. Bon courage (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both for the history. I've no objection to the concept of "living with COVID" being discussed on Wikipedia (in an appropriate way, cognisant of WP:MEDRS etc.). It is a concept that overlaps with endemicity discussions, but it is a distinct concept, not a synonym. Bondegezou (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I've just removed a fair amount of content that made no mention of endemicity. The material was about reducing or ending public health measures, including discussion of "living with" COVID. The article still has a fundamental problem if people use it as a dumping ground for coverage of how countries are reducing or ending their public health measures. This article is called "Endemic COVID-19": it should only be about evidence that COVID-19 is or will become endemic (which requires WP:MEDRS sourcing), or about politicians/public health officials explicitly talking about treating COVID-19 as being endemic. Bondegezou (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

If this article can't find a sensible way forward, I would support deletion under WP:POVFORK. Bondegezou (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a 'dumping ground' in the sense that we are building an encyclopedia. I invite the attempt to delete the article, I think it would be an enlightening process. SmolBrane (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I think a double merge might work. The endemicity content could be merged to COVID-19 pandemic (where it would make the article not any bigger because there is already a section for this); the shopping list of what happened in certain countries could be merged - where not already there - back into the articles for each nation. Bon courage (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dumping ground: it is, of course, highly structured and we have a host of policies about how to structure content into different articles. A bunch of out-of-context quotes about different places moving towards an endemic context does not seem like a very sensible structure. It may be seen as violating WP:POVFORK and WP:SYNTH. As per Bon courage, what each country is doing can go in the articles for each nation. The endemicity content is covered in COVID-19 pandemic. So, what is this article doing? What in this article actually ties together these disparate (and sometimes desperate) snippets from different countries? Where is the WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing? I invite editors to improve the article (in a manner consistent with POVFORK, SYNTH and MEDRS). Bondegezou (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

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

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Endemic phase of COVID-19/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 02:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll grab this review. What is the purpose of this page? It reads like a future class article and is frankly all over the place in terms of what is considered "endemic". The discussion here exemplifies the rather fundamental issues with this page. I can also see a verification needed tag and a number of 'dated statement' tags.

Copy-vios

• Nothing notable

Prose

• The lead is noncompliant with MOS:LEAD. It needs to be abundantly clear that this is a hypothetical phase of the Covid pandemic.
• On 14 September 2022.... how does this related to an endemic?
• Is endemic equal to removing Covid restrictions? I would argue that equating the two is just WP:OR.

Half of these countries don't even mention an 'endemic phase', instead its just a watered down version of X county and the COVID pandemic.

• A 2021 article in The Lancet called restrictions.. Undue weight, entire section feels almost like WP:POV pushing.

This page is a quickfail, and it honestly needs to be seriously reworked. It is just a collection of quotes from different politicians sprinkled with medical experts. This page suffers from serious WP:POV issues as well, giving substantial weight to seemingly random factoids about each country. This isn't meant to scare you off from Good Article nominations, its just my assessment of the page's viability at GA. I recommend asking Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19 for more help. Etrius ( Us) 02:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Finland

@Bon courage: Please clarify what you meant. The small edit contained two claims: 1) the leading Finnish health authority considers Covid-19 to be endemic in Finland (a country), and 2) this is reflected in statements and actions overseen by the Finnish government (valtioneuvosto). Both claims are reported in primary and secondary sources. The subsection Endemic phase of COVID-19#By countries appears to review similar claims by country. What in my edit is irrelevant? Brittletheories (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

It contained no relevant article text. You seemed to have fixed that in an improved edit. Bon courage (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The latter edit brought no additional information. Brittletheories (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Many sources are MEDRS

MEDRS nutshell suggests that "medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies" are included. I would encourage editors to assess how many sources on this article are actually MEDRS given that they come from national health authorities in the respective countries. SmolBrane (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Are any published "position statements"? Bon courage (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Restore comments from head of the World Health Organization

The content in this edit, containing the recent comments of Tedros Ghebreyesus, the head of the World Health Organization which is the authority over whether we are in the endemic stage, should be restored. It is obviously and inherently WP:DUE, and per sources, the end of the pandemic and start of endemicity are precisely the same. I note that the same editor who removed it three times, said earlier on this page just a few weeks ago, The head of the WHO's view is WP:DUE, it's true. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

"the end of the pandemic and start of endemicity are precisely the same" ← wrong. Bon courage (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any sources whatsoever - contradicting the ones in the article - stating that the end of the pandemic could be any other outcome? Crossroads ^-talk- 04:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

That's not how it works. The onus is on editors to provide on-topic material which satisfies WP:V. Not sure why this is being discussed both here and at WT:MED. Bon courage (talk) 04:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

But we did that - sources in the article show that the pandemic ends with endemicity.

The MED discussion seems to be running out and in any case this matter didn't really get addressed in that discussion. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

It did. The way forward now is to progress the merge discussion. Bon courage (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the WP:DUE nature of the head of the WHO discussing the potential to end the pandemic. I think it could use better phrasing to ensure it's WP:NPOV in the context of the article. I can see an argument that it should be better contextualized that Tedros is not saying "it's almost endemic, no matter what we do", it's an explicit call for action against the relaxation of restrictions described in this article in order to capitalize on an opportunity to reach an end of the pandemic. Pending merge discussion aside. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

It is important not to refer to any WHO official as "the authority". It is probably OK to refer to a WHO official as "an authority". There is no "the authority" for most statements of fact about science and/or politics. Jaredroach (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Israel for consideration

A couple articles on the end of pandemic/downgrade to flu status/related commentary from Israel[1][2]. There are more sources. SmolBrane (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't seem particularly newsworthy. I quote, "He described the goal as to get to an "endemic" stage of the virus when the disease is spreading at a normal or expected level." Well, yes, that would be the goal. He doesn't say Israel has achieved that goal. Bondegezou (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. Articles needs to build on reliable secondary sources which contain actual thinking about topics, not just reportage, This has been a running problem with this article (I've just cleaned the news out). Bon courage (talk) 06:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Material about individual countries

Regarding this and this, as long as an article on this topic exists, this is clearly WP:DUE. The actions and statements of expert bodies on this matter are WP:MEDRS and relevant to this topic. News sources are used in numerous COVID-19 articles as WP:Secondary sources to relay these sorts of things - indeed, relying solely on secondary sources in academic publishing would mean our articles would need to be out of date. If the claim is that news media cannot be used for COVID-19 topics in any way, that affects a great many articles and would need a much wider discussion. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

NPOV is non-negotiable and determines the content permitted, not reasoning about this article's title or the many problems in other COVID articles, News sources are generally not secondary and while it's true position statements of major medical bodies are MEDRS we don't have any (except maybe Finland). We are not trying to conform to a news-y notion of "up-to-date" but to relay accepted knowledge about topics as published in reliable sources. Conforming to core policies does not 'require a great deal of discussion' - the problem here is that some editors want to edit against them. As a general reminder, discretionary sanctions apply to this topic area. Bon courage (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

For example, this is an expert body, is it not? So it is your position that such material does not belong in an article on Endemic COVID-19? That it is NPOV to exclude it? I'd like to hear some thoughts from others. Also, these tags are not warranted. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

It may be an expert body, but where is their 'position statement'? Remarks in the news ain't that. Where's the thinking, analysis and synthesis from good sources? Articles must be based on secondary sources, yet the backbone of this is a shopping list of WP:PRIMARYNEWS snippets, which you reverted. It's boring and pointless is it not? This is meant to be an encyclopedia article, not a scrap book. Bon courage (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

"Boring and pointless" isn't really a good argument. And it isn't being applied consistently on Wikipedia. For example, I think by any reasonable standard the vast majority of the day-by-day content on pages like this is boring and pointless. A major shift like a transition or statement that it is endemic is much more noteworthy. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikpedia articles are not meant to be boring and pointless, but a summary of knowledge based on secondary sources. Where is the knowledge in this shopping list of factoids? The fact that indeed there are some other incredibly poor articles on COVID-19 is not a reason to add this one to the tally of shame. Bon courage (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

It is community consensus that we sacrifice some up-to-dateness in favour of accuracy and reliability, as per WP:NOTNEWS. In particular, when dealing with healthcare, we follow WP:MEDRS. I have written dozens and dozens of great research articles, including work that has influenced national policies on COVID-19, but they still don't meet WP:MEDRS, and I'm fine with that because that is the settled view of the editing community. These are not new policies, Crossroads.

But, of course, there are plenty of grey areas. How we apply policy to specific areas often needs discussion and we need to get the balance right. And there are plenty of other policies of concern.

It seems to me that some of the removed content is obviously inadequate. For example, "On 24 January 2022, Hok Kim Cheng, a spokesman for the Cambodian Health Ministry said that Cambodia was entering the endemic stage of the coronavirus." A news report of what a spokesman said does not meet WP:MEDRS. A spokesman talking to journalists may simplify language, and journalists may simplify language in their reporting. It doesn't meet the criterion of "guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies".

Likewise, "On 20 September 2022, the Executive Board of the Indonesian Medical Association's (IDI's) COVID-19 task force head Erlina Burhan stated that Indonesia is on the right track in its endeavors to enter the COVID-19 endemic stage." That's the words of one person. It's a person in an important position, but it's not "guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies". A central principle of evidence-based medicine is that we shouldn't rely on individual opinion.

Some of the removed content involves statements by politicians. Statements by politicians may be noteworthy in and of themselves (but let's see broad and sustained coverage, as per WP:NOTNEWS), but statements by politicians are unlikely to meet WP:MEDRS. Politicians are not (usually) health experts. Again, they may phrase things inaccurately.

A sentence plucked from a news article in one country, another from a news article in another country, is not the way to build a Wikipedia article. Leaving aside concerns about sourcing, it's WP:SYNTH, it's a WP:POVFORK. Material should be balanced, NPOV and in context. Bondegezou (talk) 10:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The primary sources can be well differentiated from the secondary sources as they are separate documents—the primary sources coming from groups like the OMT in the Netherlands. If you doubt whether a source is secondary, perhaps you should seek out the primary to test, rather than removing material?

The OMT stated(translated) "In conclusion, we can say that the Netherlands for omikron and her subvariants seems to be largely through the transition phase and a has reached endemic stage. The predictability of COVID-19 revivals, also outside the classic respiratory season in winter, is however still limited. Good surveillance therefore remains, just as before for example influenza is of great importance to revivals of it virus by identifying new (sub)variants and/or 'waning immunity' in good time detect and, if necessary, take countermeasures."[3] page 5.

Same is true in Wales(my addition was reverted), where I actually cited the primary source(in addition to a secondary source) entitled Together for a safer future: Wales’ long-term Covid-19 transition from pandemic to endemic[4]. Wholesale removals, tagbombing the article without specifying which content is objectionable is not a good use of all of our time. I appreciate that we are discussing this on the talk page instead of jousting via edit summaries. SmolBrane (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Secondary sources are explained in WP:SECONDARY. Stringing together entire sections of the kind "on date X body/person Y said Z, which included the word 'endemic'" without any analysis and commentary is not encyclopedic, and centring an entire article around that practice is POV as has been remarked above. There's wide agreement this article has big problems, so adding the requisite tags is not 'tag bombing'. Bon courage (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@SmolBrane: The primary sources can be well differentiated from the secondary sources as they are separate documents. You may want to recheck this against WP:NOTLINKSINCHAIN, and WP:USEPRIMARY/WP:SECONDARY in general.

I'll expand on what Bon courage and Bondegezou said above, and point out that official position statements of major health bodies are typically secondary sources, based on the primary sources of various fundamental research and surveillance data.

On this specific topic of national sections, the list of sources is all over the map. In general, we should put the most weight on official policy statements (not just 'statements by officials'); for notable nations (this isn't a WP:STANDALONE list article, we can afford to evaluate WP:DUE weight by size and relevance); and particularly those which explicitly reference endemicity, 'end of the pandemic', or 'end of emergency' (in roughly decreasing weight). The broader (unofficial) discussion on how/when the disease becomes endemic should prioritize international debate, rather than presenting multiple national debates.

Applying this to some of the specific reverts mentioned at the top of this section:

• The Netherlands one appears to be an OMT advisory opinion, rather than official policy (yet). Might still be notable, but reword it as a 'recommendation' instead of a 'declaration'.
• The Finnish source appears to be another unofficial mention, in this case even the text says it was 'argued', rather than official.
• The Hong Kong paragraph cleared my threshold for due weight on the above criteria, and given the language barrier I think news sources covering such an official transition are reasonable.

Bakkster Man (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with evaluating entries case by case, just not a blanket removal. It sounds like we might agree to include the Netherlands, but reworded? Crossroads ^-talk- 18:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't have an issue with a reworded Netherlands per above. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I have had very little time for wiki these days, my apologies. I will try to get around to digesting your comments here Bakkster Man. Just an update here that the Netherlands did adopt the suggestions from the OMT(which was observed to be likely by the initial secondary source, by the way-"Although it is up to the government whether to accept the proposals, ministers usually follow the OMT’s advice."-Dutch News) [5]. SmolBrane (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Background section chronology

The background section currently has content in reverse chronological order, with newest info at the top and oldest info at the bottom. The Steere-Williams document concludes that "Framing COVID-19 as an endemic disease in early 2022 is a misguided attempt and a result of cultural and political forces." Some timeframe context may be helpful to readers here. SmolBrane (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed and I rewrote it before I saw this comment. It is a "short communication" by a historian which seems rather contrary to the complaints above about non-MEDRS, but in any case I attributed it for now. The text is very, very clear that it is talking about the situation in early 2022, at the height of the Omicron wave (it was submitted in January 2022). The author says absolutely nothing about 2023, nor implies that what he says about endemicity not being the case applies for all time thereafter. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Not sure this content is due as you suggest but the section might benefit from the addition. Attribution seems more appropriate than not here, probably not suitable for wikivoice. SmolBrane (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding this, do I take it as meaning you think it is a MEDRS, Bon courage? Crossroads ^-talk- 18:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

No, MEDRS is irrelevant there. Bon courage (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge

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

---

Following the discussion above (#Fundamental problem) and at WT:MED, it's become clear this is a problematic article, with insufficient sourcing available to construct a reasonable article on what COVID-19 endemicity is. What little there is, makes better sense elsewhere per WP:NOPAGE. Hence a double merge is proposed whereby:

1. The few paras of general/global content are merge to COVID-19 pandemic#Transition to endemic phase.
2. Items from the shopping list of country-specific material is merged back to each country's article (where in most cases it already exists anyway). Bon courage (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Support merge as nominator. Bon courage (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, we have plenty of WP:MEDRS on endemicity already in the article, indicating it is a notable topic, and detailing which countries have moved into the endemic phase in one place makes sense, just like all the other pages on lockdowns and other responses that summarize individual countries. Merging this back into other pages would just make them even more oversized and bloated. Considering the extreme detail in which earlier phases of the pandemic are documented on Wikipedia, I don't understand the opposition to a much smaller amount of material about this. Crossroads ^-talk- 09:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  We have six journal articles in the article, three of them directly addressing actual endemicity (the remainder addressing “living with covid”, primarily the UK government's response), and none appear to meet WP:MEDRS criteria. This seems a reasonable number of citations to merge into the main pandemic article, especially since one of them is already cited there. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed there would be no adverse size change to the main COVID article from the merge. Bon courage (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with the comment about the extreme detail in which earlier phases of the pandemic are documented on Wikipedia, but that's a reason for improving other articles, not a reason to keep this article as is. In other words, an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Bondegezou (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support merge. While this article may have had good intentions, it is not working. COVID-19 is still a pandemic and it is unclear whether it may or may not ever become endemic, making the title and parts of this article dubious under WP:CRYSTAL. The article is repeatedly used as a dumping ground for reports of public health measures being reduced in various countries: editors keep conflating the removal of public health measures with endemicity when these are not the same; and lumping together disparate policy moves in different places like this is WP:SYNTH. Some appear to want this article to push a narrative of COVID-19 becoming less serious. Material is presented out of context, material is cherry-picked. (For example, under Lebanon, there are quotes from Abdul Rahman Bizri, the head of the National Committee for the Administration of coronavirus vaccines, but there is no context of what anyone else in the Lebanese govt or public health system thinks.) This is all classic WP:POVFORK stuff. News of public health measures being reduced should be presented in the context of articles covering the pandemic or covering the pandemic in different places. Crossroads links to the COVID-19 lockdowns by country and National responses to the COVID-19 pandemic articles and argues this article is like those. It is not. The end of lockdowns should be part of COVID-19 lockdowns by country; other reductions in public health measures should be part of National responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Bondegezou (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'd argue that these issues can be addressed easily through editing and through a tiny bit of discussion about inclusion criteria, per the principle behind WP:NOTCLEANUP. For example, only when national public health agencies or ministers make a statement about endemicity would it be included here, perhaps. Individual doctors, or reducing restrictions without any statement about whether this is part of transition to endemicity, would be excluded. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  Those suggestions sound good, but I fear would be insufficient. However, feel free to try to improve the article while this discussion is ongoing. I note that WP:NOTCLEANUP applies to a deletion discussion. We're talking about merging here. A collation of even just national public health agencies or ministers making statements about endemicity would still be taking those comments out of context and a violation of WP:SYNTH. The appropriate context for, say, a national public health agency or minister in Lebanon making a statement about endemicity is the full story of COVID-19 in Lebanon, in other words put the material in COVID-19 pandemic in Lebanon. WP:MEDRS-compliant sources about whether COVID-19 is actually becoming endemic should be in COVID-19 pandemic. Bondegezou (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  Your statement is false, this is a deletion discussion in disguise. The long content would never be added to the target article due to WP:TOOLONG, this content will always be on a sub-article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  I would expect each "COVID-19 pandemic in..." article to cover the end of significant public health measures or other significant policy shifts in that place. Can you show me some examples of anyone citing WP:TOOLONG and refusing such article content? Bondegezou (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Crossroads, he put it better than I could. SmolBrane (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support merge. The level of internationally relevant content with good citations that's here but missing from the Pandemic article is minimal, as are the recaps of the national articles, fulfilling WP:MERGEREASONs 3 and 4. The identification of the national articles would perhaps be sufficiently served with a category to navigate through the set, rather than a list article with summary prose. I also echo the WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SYNTH concerns, and feel that the inability to coalesce over the last six months into a strong article with reliable sources on a single agreed upon topic, instead tying two disparate topics together - "living with covid" government policies, and scientific estimates of how/when the disease would become endemic - suggests a merge is the better solution. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
• support per Bakkster Man rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Ozzie10aaaa: I see you added two sources on the COVID-19 pandemic regarding Tedros' recent comments on the pandemic ending("We are much closer to being able to say that the emergency phase of the pandemic is over"). Neither of these sources contain the word 'endemic'. While I definitely think these comments are DUE and provide important updates to our readers, how do you reconcile these additions when they do not use the word? Should they be added to this article? Does your support of merging here include a renaming of the section on COVID-19 pandemic? We need somewhere to chronicle these DUE updates and if it isn't here, it perhaps warrants another article entirely(probably a bad idea). SmolBrane (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

yes I see your point (BTW the statement was made December 2, you can check the WHO ref to verify), in light of this new WHO statement I therefore
oppose--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

That makes no sense whatsoever. That the WHO is continuing not to talk about "endemic" COVID does not strengthen the case for an article on it. Bon courage (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, this doesn't seem to strengthen the case for an endemic article. If anything, it's an indication that the WHO is even less likely to consider a global end to the pandemic any time soon, just the emergency relating to it.

I think the comment by SmolBrane touches on the discussion of when the term "endemic" should and shouldn't be used, and if there's an alternate term to use in some situations like the Transition to endemic phase section. Probably worth discussing on the pandemic article. However, in this discussion, it comes across to me more as grasping at straws for a reason to keep this article rather than a strong case that's an obvious conclusion from what Tedros said. Maybe I'm off base though, and there's a rationale I'm missing. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose COVID-19 pandemic is already WP:TOOLONG so this is really an attempt to WP:BLANK disguised as a merge. Sourcing is fine on this endemic article, per Crossroads. This type of end-run POV pushing is sad. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Jtbobwaysf I would argue that the entire article is POV pushing!!! WP:BLANK is honeslty the best outcome this page can hope for seeing the sheer redundancy of the page and its info. I'm a bit surprised this didn't go straight to WP:AFD, and honestly it should. Etrius ( Us) 19:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed that would have been a more direct and honest approach, instead of this proposal to merge content knowing it will be deleted. Many of the votes and comments on this talk page (including yours) in fact reinforce the position that I made that this is a closet delete discussion and not a merger discussion. Thus it should be done in the correct AFD venue as you point out. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Too soon and insufficient evidence to claim that it will not become recognised as endemic in many or most parts of the world, so just keep tinkering until the situation stabilises. We have been living with this for nearly three years now, and in some parts of the world it appears to be de facto endemic, whatever politicians might like to think and claim. A summary section in the main article would be appropriate, not a merge. Define the scope clearly, attempt to clarify what endemicity actually means from a scientific and medical point of view, and ditch everything clearly out of scope. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  Too soon and insufficient evidence to claim that it will not become recognised as endemic in many or most parts of the world, so just keep tinkering until the situation stabilises. This comes across as WP:CRYSTAL, which would be a reason to merge/delete rather than keep. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC) Striking per below. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  No, you twist his words. Endemic already has sufficient RS and he is refuting the position that it might in the future not be endemic. He is pointing out that speculating on it becoming non-endemic (when it already has plenty of endemic RS today) would be crystal. You are taking the absurd to a new level by making a crystal of the crystal. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'm uncertain that this is about being non-endemic in the future, but I can agree with the interpretation that he's disagreeing the position above as you describe it, which would not be WP:CRYSTAL. Still not sure I agree with "just keep tinkering until the situation stabilises", but that's much more open to disagreement on interpretation of guidelines like WP:DEADLNE, rather than a PaG concern. I'll strike the above comment. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Support. Both endemic COVID-19 and its predecessor Living with Covid-19 are uninformative, speculative and full of WP:OR. Does not hold up as a standalone topic. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Support. The first five paragraphs of Endemic COVID-19 are currently full of self contradictions and contradictions with endemic. One concludes that Endemic COVID-19 is currently being used as a platform for political opinions. Jaredroach (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Support/Delete The overwhelming majority of information from this page is in 'COVID-19 pandemic in X Country'. The rest is in Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic. Honestly, a merge isn't even necessary since this page is largely redundant. As the GA reviewer for this page, I see little long term viability of this page until there are actual sources claiming an 'endemic' stage has been reached. Even then, WP:CRYSTALBALL is very clear on how to proceed in these sort of hypotheticals. If this page is kept then it needs to be redone entirely, this page is rife with WP:OR & WP:POV issues and, frankly, needs to be WP:BLANKED. Etrius ( Us) 19:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The article certainly doesnt merit GA... nomination was pure LOL. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - In the future, there may be more information about COVID-19's endemic phase as more countries transition to it, enough to make this topic have its own article. At that point, the merge would have to be reversed or better yet, not be done in the first place. 9March2019 (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed, better to improve the article from its current state. Lots of casual sources discussing endemicity support this type of approach (Moderna CEO)[6], (The Guardian opinion "Today, however, Covid-19 is endemic across Britain and the US.")[7] SmolBrane (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Neither of those are remotely MEDRS compliant. The article needs MEDRS-compliant sourcing, not casual sources. Bondegezou (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not suggesting citing those articles. At this point, might as well wait a few days for the impending WHO commentary Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#"Ongoing_Pandemic". SmolBrane (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Forgive me, but why did you mention these articles if you're not suggesting citing them? The article needs citations we can use. Bondegezou (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  I made my case here [8]. The dueness outweighs the marginal technical objection regarding sources, MEDRS absolutism is unpersuasive, countries have been living with covid/treating it like the flu etc and editors(and this article not getting deleted) seem ok with this. If this was one country with a couple sources we could be more strict. Regards SmolBrane (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  @9March2019: You probably want to move this comment to the survey section above. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose should be rewritten and update it with proper sourcing or simply deleted outright as per MED.Moxy- 01:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

---

• Oppose the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic clearly fails to meet the criteria given in Endemic (epidemiology), and there is already a problematic widespread belief that the virus is endemic. Merging these articles would further muddy the waters, furthering this misconception and preventing people holding that view from realizing their error. These articles should remain separate, so that Endemic COVID-19 can focus on hypothetical endemicity and political agendas, and COVID-19 pandemic can remain focused on epidemiology. TTK (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Alternative Proposition

As I indicated above, this page serves a largely redundant function. 'COVID-19 pandemic in X Country' and the Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic already include the vast majority of this information. Perhaps we should consider sending this page to WP:AFD since a merge with COVID-19 pandemic would just create more problems than its worth. Etrius ( Us) 03:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

A deletion appears to be the de facto outcome of this 'merge' if it were to succeed; AFD would probably produce more input from additional editors. Not sure if another procession of discussion is really justifiable though--might be interpreted as WP:FORUMSHOP. Discussion's been going on for over a week, and the COVID-19 pandemic talk page with its 2k watchers got notified.

The nominator did participate in the prior consideration of AFD in a reply [9]. Not sure why we need to ensure this gets merged in a way that prevents a section from getting bigger, to the point of this diff. Material is likely to grow on this subject rather than diminish. I'm inclined to oppose this suggestion. SmolBrane (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I think this could be WP:FORUMSHOP. This proposal should be allowed to run its course. The two ideas are hardly different anyway; either the way the question is the same - should this be an article or a subheading? Crossroads ^-talk- 23:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree. If the earlier concerns about 'de facto deletion' made earlier in the process (11 days ago) had requested it as the appropriate forum to get appropriate visibility, I think it would have made more sense to actively consider. I could see an argument that the change in venue would be unlikely to change the result, and as a proposal from those seeking to avoid deletion it would presumably improve their acceptance of an eventual merge/delete consensus. To do so now, almost two full weeks after discussion was opened, feels like it would result in the opposite impression, even if it was intending to give deference to those opposed to merge/deletion.

Is there an alternate path that could get more feedback and/or closure on the above discussion with no new comments in the past week? Potentially listing on WP:PROPMERGE to seek outside closure? Bakkster Man (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty easy 'no consensus' close to me. Type 3 mergers according to the page you linked would include controversial and/or difficult closes; doesn't seem to apply here. There is already a backlog over there. SmolBrane (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you may be reading 'no consensus' through the lens of your own !vote, which is of course a big reason why closures happen through uninvolved editors. Fair point on the backlog on PROPMERGE. I'm not sure we need to rush any closure, but maybe pinging WP:COVID again (or an alternate venue) looking for a closer if it remains unclosed weeks after the last comment. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

If there's no consensus I'll try an AfD to widen the input. But I don't think that'll be necessary. Bon courage (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I see eleven !votes with 5/6 in favor slightly of support. Looks like clear 'no consensus to merge', I support that we 'keep tinkering' to quote Peter Southwood. Are you pursuing additional input 'through the lens of your own !vote'? No need for these types of characterizations imo. Perhaps I misunderstand the process, but status quo is the precedent and this article's existence was never questioned until now. Better to create articles rather than un-create them when no consensus emerges imo. I've been frustrated with the lack of editor participation in the COVID area before [10] it's not a new problem. SmolBrane (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Remember what WP:!VOTE says: it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important. And the level of policy-backed comments above doesn't look like a pretty easy 'no consensus' close from my experience. See also: WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:CON.

I'm certainly not intending to bend the process towards a favored result. My question above was intending to find consensus on a neutral venue to seek a close (if needed) with those holding the opposing view on the proposal, because I know such a request can be (or appear to be) WP:CANVASSing, and having support from both sides of this dispute is a way to avoid that issue. Without that kind of consensus, I am not going to be seeking closure through a new venue.

On a final note, I don't think this article's existence was never questioned until now is a strong argument against merge. It's under discussion now, and it'll be up to the closer to decide on the merits above, not whether there was any prior warning. I understand the frustration with getting more editors as well, but WP:NEGLECT isn't by itself sufficient justification. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I think we can give it more time (maybe up to a month) and then list it at WP:CR if it still hasn't been closed. I'm not too familiar with PROPMERGE but that's what I figured. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Of course we will disagree on whose sides' merits are more robust than whose. We are on either side of the !vote! All editors are pretty darn experienced here, except for me.... I just don't see why sympathy needs to extend to folks that have already !voted, two weeks after the proposal began. SmolBrane (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

It's been two and a half weeks since the last comment. The article hasn't changed significantly. 6 Wikipedians support merger and have given reasons for their decision: Bon courage as nominator, myself, Bakkster Man, Arcahaeoindris, Jaredroach and Etriusus. 5 Wikipedians oppose the merger. Jtbobwaysf, Peter Southwood and Crossroads have given reasons for their decision. SmolBrane was "as per Crossroads". Ozzie10aaaa initially supported merger and then switched to oppose, but their reasoning makes no sense -- was that an error?

Three main reasons are given for opposition: (1) COVID-19 pandemic is WP:TOOLONG (Jtbobwaysf's main reason and Crossroads' subsidiary argument); (2) that there is adequate WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing (Crossroads' main argument and Jtbobwaysf's subsidiary argument); and (3) a process argument (Jtbobwaysf). On (1), there is already a section on this question in COVID-19 pandemic, so we won't be lengthening that article. The main actual merging of content will be to country-specific articles. (2) has already been dismissed above. Sourcing does not satisfy MEDRS requirements, which states, "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies." (3) is rather beside the point: we're having a discussion; it doesn't matter that much whether we do it here or at AfD. The same points will be raised.

We can drag this out, but the majority support merger and the main arguments of those opposed are mistaken. Bondegezou (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I had to re-add material you removed, adding a primary source because you erroneously thought this wasn't MEDRS [11]. Respectfully I find your arguments unpersuasive. This is a job for WP:CR. SmolBrane (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

My edit there was in line with MEDRS. If you think that an ITV journalist satisfies MEDRS, I suggest you should review what MEDRS says. Bondegezou (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't beneficial to draw out the process unnecessarily. Above, Crossroads suggested listing at WP:CR once more time was given. They said "up to a month", and I'm uncertain whether they meant a month from the proposal or a month from the above comment.

I am in favor of listing at WP:CR now, as it's past the 30 days open and 2-3 weeks post-discussion (26 days since the last !vote, 18 days since the last procedural comment) suggested at WP:CR. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with SmolBrane in that these arguements by Bondegezou are not persuasive. They are one sided POV arguments masquerading as a neutral uninvolved statements. Relating to WP:TOOLONG and process, Bondegezou actually admits this is a delete discussion when he says "there is already a section on this question in COVID-19 pandemic, so we won't be lengthening that article" which directly contradicts Bon courage's proposal which states "The few paras of general/global content are merge to COVID-19 pandemic#Transition to endemic phase". I disagree that a discussion of history (dates and figures of when and how countries each decide and announce they will classify covid as endemic) is subject to MEDRS as this is not biomedical information, thus there is no issue with sourcing. This is the typical MEDRS censorship 'we need the WHO to agree that covid in Thailand is endemic, we wont just take the Thai president's word for it because he cant be found in the Lancet'... We dont need a medical journal to relay a statement by a president of a sovereign nation, a standard RS is fine. Please read Wikipedia:Biomedical_information#What_is_not_biomedical_information? for policy on this. Given above, I think better to go to CR and get more uninvolved editors, rather than listening to summaries of involved editors. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

People can list this at CR as far as I'm concerned. I also agree that Bondegezou's summary is not neutral and is not persuasive. 'Deletion via merger' is not appropriate. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Listed at CR. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The deletion via merger is really not cool and I understand that now after reading your comment, thanks. SmolBrane (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Whether COVID-19 is endemic in Thailand comes under MEDRS. Whether the Thai President said COVID was endemic in Thailand does not come under MEDRS. The Thai President claiming something doesn’t make it true (that fails RS, let alone MEDRS). I am not saying that everything in this article requires MEDRS-compliant sourcing. My point was that Crossroads claimed the article was MEDRS compliant when it clearly is not. Referencing papers in medical journals is not enough to satisfy MEDRS: MEDRS wants secondary reviews. Bondegezou (talk) 10:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Citing politicians, even high-ranking ones, on medical matters is always problematic. Politicians have made numerous false and stupid statements during the pandemic, from Trump's bleach, to African politicians spreading FUD about vaccines, to China's various unbelievable sets of official statistics. But when a politician says something about "endemic" we include it on Wikipedia because we're trying to get ahead of the "stubborn WHO". What a sorry state of affairs. Bon courage (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and regardless if politicians are medically stupid or not, their actions tend to be historical and thus encyclopedic. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, except "stupid" things need to be presented within the framework of actual knowledge, because NPOV. Bon courage (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

And that's the dispute in a nutshell: public health policy changes are notable, but is this article with the title "endemic" the right location to make note of them? In any case, not much to do now but wait for a neutral party to close. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

COVID endemicity isn't differentially unique enough to be separated from the end of the pandemic/flu-like management/return to normalcy in a manner that outweighs the dueness of the end of the pandemic/return to normalcy etc. The objection is too marginal and technical to warrant the nuking of all the due content. The instantiation of pandemic measures didn't come from MEDRS content, and the cessation isn't either. I've been careful to add material that mentions endemicity specifically and I think that's more than enough rigor. SmolBrane (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

COVID endemicity is differentially unique enough to be separated from the end of the pandemic/flu-like management/return to normalcy. Endemicity is a specific technical term and is a topic that is clearly covered by WP:MEDRS. The end of pandemic public health measures is a separate topic. It's a topic that can be covered sensibly within articles on those public health measures, the way the end of most things is covered within articles on those things. Bondegezou (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: As per WP:AGF, may I ask you to retract your comment that my post was masquerading as a neutral uninvolved statements. I clearly indicated that I was an involved editor. Bondegezou (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I retract it and apologize as I must have been confused. I dont see where you wrote you were involved, however you did state you support and that makes it clear. This looks like WP:WL. Maybe take this to CR or some other sort of dispute resolution, or nominate for AfD as is the clear and stated goal. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

How do we wrap this up?

The above discussion has ground to a halt. Neither side will concede. The article is basically in the same state and the issues some of us have with it remain unfixed. The reason why it failed its GA review remain unfixed.

Can we get a neutral editor to close the above discussion? Would it be better to go through some process that has a formal end point, like AfD? Bondegezou (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It remains listed at Wikipedia:Closure requests#Talk:Endemic COVID-19#Proposed merge, which per above would be my strong preference to get uninvolved closure prior to any further action. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. That process is taking its time and will probably not produce a result for a fair while longer unfortunately. Bondegezou (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed on the timescale, but I tend to believe that taking longer to reach a decision everyone agrees to abide by is better than not getting buy-in because of procedural concerns. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it is good to take our time over decisions and better to reach a consensus that everyone can get around. That said, we've been discussing the same basic issues here for just under 100 days. Discussion has stalled: we had 28 days without anything being added to the discussion. So, I'm throwing some suggestions out there. Probably the main procedural concern expressed above was that the merge is a stealth delete. Well, the obvious way to satisfy that concern is to go to AfD. But I throw the floor open to alternate suggestions. Does anyone have another idea? Can those who want to keep this article make some sort of edits to assuage others' concerns? Bondegezou (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't wait longer to get a proper uninvolved closure either. Meanwhile, it's tagged with the proposal, which signals to the reader that there is some disagreement whether the page should exist. As for the concerns, it isn't really clear to me at this point what exactly those are. I believe I've said above that material that is not from either a reliable medical source or public health authority, or is not specifically about endemicity, can be removed. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The issues raised in the GA review summary at the top of this Talk page are still all there. Bondegezou (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

As per Crossroads suggestion above, I will remove material that is not from either a reliable medical source or public health authority. Bondegezou (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Right, articles should be based on secondary sources. Most of this article is just mirroring reportage that a politician or publix health figure used the word "endemic". Most of it can be deleted for a start. Bon courage (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Now that there are two more opposes, and editing is moving forward(normally not advisable during discussions), it would appear this proposal is effectively closed for practical purposes. The nominator could close it, I suppose. SmolBrane (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but what do you mean by "two more opposes"? I don't see any new editors having added to the discussion. The proposal remains very open. Bondegezou (talk) 11:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Two votes of oppose came in after I listed at CIR. But I agree, until there's an uninvolved closer we can't just presume the result will go the way we prefer. Especially because it's WP:NOTAVOTE, and one of the oppose comments lists deletion as a second preference to a rewrite.

@SmolBrane: Typically the limitation on editing articles with an active discussion is about content directly related to the topic of the discussion. Given this is a merge discussion where content would be used going forward (either in this article or the various merge destinations), continued page maintenance is appropriate. I might even argue it's encouraged, particularly with a proposal like this based on source quality, where the proposal could be sufficient motivation for editors to resolve the underlying issues.

I'm still in favor of external closure, and closure by the proposer is most certainly not appropriate per WP:MERGECLOSE, as the discussion is not even close to unanimous. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree re: external closure being preferred. If WP:CR is slow, editors will have to be patient. SmolBrane (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please be patient. This is the second time you've suggested the discussion should be closed in your favor. That won't help us get an uncontested closure, if anything it's more likely to make potential closers less interested in bothering. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I expect the conversation to be closed with no consensus, not in my favor, to be clear. SmolBrane (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Aydenholtonvlogs (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  WP:NOTAVOTE. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Ongoing?

Maybe this discussion has died down as its obvious "endemic" and "ongoing pandemic" are opposed concepts, but we editors have stopped even counting cases since 2022, see COVID-19 pandemic cases. If we are no longer treating it as ongoing, is it really ongoing? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

From yesterday.[12] The WHO say we are in a PHEIC.[13] Bon courage (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I treat the COVID-19 pandemic as ongoing. I don't have time to update case counts. If anything, my lack of time supports the claim that the pandemic is ongoing, rather than refutes it. Jaredroach (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

We have to keep an eye on what the WHO and possibly other sources say in the future, especially when they end the PHEIC (which could be not too far off) and even if not then, continually thereafter. Of course nobody defines the Spanish Flu as ongoing for the last 105 years despite the fact that people worldwide still get H1N1 and sometimes still get injured/killed by it, and despite their mentioning that, it isn't at all clear why this previously linked article claims COVID might always be a pandemic. I'd consider that a fringe viewpoint, frankly. Eventually it's probably going to become an issue of WP:DUE where even though some scattered individual researchers still claim it's a pandemic (and possibly get disproportionate coverage in some media outlets) the WHO and mainstream bodies say it is endemic, not pandemic. We should follow their lead in that case. But that isn't where we're at yet. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Anybody predicting the future is fringe since it's not known what will happen. It may never become endemic. Just follow the WP:MEDRS and avoid politicians and media outlets (unlike this crappo article). Bon courage (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

We do cover some likely future events on Wikipedia, though, like the 2024 Olympics. A number of experts consider it to be endemic already, and very many more believe it will become so in the future. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

When we cover likely future events, we still follow what reliable sourcing says about them. What matters now is what WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing says. If you have WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing saying COVID-19 is now endemic, please share it. If you have WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing commenting on the likelihood of COVID-19 becoming endemic, please share it. Last I looked, sources said the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing. Bondegezou (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Title of article is about a false non-existent thing at present that is not accepted science

Why does this article even exist? The idea that COVID-19 is endemic is false and appears to be supported by fringe scientists, including now some experts in public health, meaning that they are not the scientific consensus. I have asked the University of one professor to provide me with articles that support COVID-19 being endemic - they included an article with a graph showing a state of endemic, that shows it can be a wavy line and not necessarily constant straight. However, compared to the actual infections and hospitalizations in the country they claimed to be endemic, the actual levels look very different to that small wavy line at the end that is supposed to be endemic. The last wave was still much more of a wave, in this ongoing pandemic, than the state of endemic. In addition, there are other scientists that say endemic requires R0=1 to be maintained for a constant period that is normally understood to be around a year and, on this basis, nowhere that has had the pandemic in the world has ever left it. These scientists appear to be more widespread.

This article accordingly appears to be wishful thinking and I note that in the 1918 flu pandemic, after a relatively short time, it appeared that there was a certain amount of denial about the pandemic going on and people understandably wanting it to end. The article appears to be formed on this basis after widespread emotional impact of having to deal with the horrors of an infectious disease on many in the now dystopian gaslighting society I encounter in mass denialism, to some extent, over it being a pandemic, including pseudoscience in the media regularly claiming such to be the case in the face of the accepted current scientific consensus that seems to have influenced many people on an emotive basis, including the illusory truth effect being obtained through continued repetition as well as cognitive dissonance required by people behaving inconsistently with the fact the pandemic is ongoing and normalcy bias. It is rather dystopian that, after some time away from Wikipedia on the matter of the pandemic, I return to find this article exists. I have seen no evidence to date to prove that COVID-19 will become endemic - this appears to be assumed on the basis of previous pandemics, none of which, by definition, have involved this virus, so it cannot be known the pandemic will end - just an unproven assumption. As far as I see, it is highly unlikely the pandemic will end as long as people on mass scale continue to behave as if it isn't here anymore and therefore likely to prolong the pandemic in fact, enabling the virus to get ahead of vaccines more quickly due to viral evolution sped up by high levels of transmission that occur when people take no measures beyond vaccines to try to prevent or reduce spread of the virus. aspaa (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Please comment in the RfC above and/or propose this article for deletion. There are moves underway to sort this. Bon courage (talk) 06:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Note the section above isn’t actually an RfC, it’s #Proposed merge. Bondegezou (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, it would be inappropriate to propose it for deletion while a merge discussion is underway, per WP:FORUMSHOP. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I have closed the above merge discussion, because it's pretty clearly no consensus. At this point, it would not be FORUMSHOP to start a deletion discussion in my opinion, though such a proposal should reference back to the Merge discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

If one searches the English-language Wikipedia for articles with the phrase "hypothetical state", one finds about 500 such articles. The results include articles such as Post-capitalism. Although there may be other arguments to take action on this article, an argument based on endemicity being hypothetical would seem to fail. Jaredroach (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The good news for you is that the article actually states prominently that Covid is not considered endemic at this time; however WP:MEDRS do exist on the topic and are presented. Many experts do expect it to become so in the future, and that is the status of other human coronaviruses. Some experts consider it endemic already, and they are not ipso facto "fringe" for saying so, though that does appear to be a minority viewpoint at this time. Other pandemics ended even though they occurred at a time when non-pharmaceutical interventions were not used or were revoked or discontinued before an official "it's over". Crossroads ^-talk- 19:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC about expert bodies

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

---

Are statements by expert bodies WP:DUE for inclusion (with in-text attribution)? Crossroads ^-talk- 19:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes, per WP:MEDORG. Such statements are in and of themselves WP:DUE for this topic, and are themselves MEDRS (MEDORG is a part of MEDRS). No additional commentary or analysis by third parties of any kind is needed to justify inclusion; such a requirement contradicts Wikipedia guidelines and amounts to skewing due weight and hence, is POV. However, if analysis exists that is also MEDRS, it would additionally be included; however such is by no means needed to include the original statement. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Depends with a side serving of Bad RfC. If such sources are relevant and offer encyclopedic/WP:SECONDARY coverage of this article's topic, or if they're an actual "guidelines or position statements" as MEDRS considers RS, then very probably yes. If they not that, and not that relevant (making, say, only a passing mention of 'endemic') then probably no; but they may be still be suitable for the country's individual article on COVID. An RfC seeking to give an open-ended WP:LOCALCON for a source type while disregarding WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is a bad idea. What we want to avoid is a repetitive laundry list of sources that contains the substring "endemic", but which otherwise offer no knowledge for the subject of COVID-19 endemicity. Bon courage (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  If an expert body considers Covid to be endemic in a particular place, or in general, that is in and of itself knowledge for the subject of COVID-19 endemicity and encyclopedic. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  It's information rather than knowledge. Knowledge is a layer on top of information (roughly analogous the secondary/primary split in sources). Bon courage (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• Bad RFC (Summoned by bot). There isnt a one size fits all sort of an answer - It would depend on the "expert", their credibility, and their claims. Would recommend to start a fresh rfc about whatever claims you want to include. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. A reader coming to a page on endemic COVID-19 is likely to want to know which countries have declared COVID-19 endemic.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Note first RfC response is inaccurate in stating WP:MEDORG somehow applies to the content that's been under discussion in this article. It's actually 'Guidelines and position statements' that MEDORG refers to. That's a bit different from the press releases and snippetty updates that have been proposed for this article. Bon courage (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

At one time or another various editors have proposed various things, and I haven't endorsed all of them. However, this is a statement by a CDC-like body, and especially this is due (thankfully the latter is now restored, this time). Crossroads ^-talk- 20:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The NZ stuff is about prevalance testing, and mentions the word "endemic" is passing. Building an entire section out of that is an example of the problem to be avoided. Bon courage (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Who is proposing to build "an entire section" out of that? At most it would be a subsection on New Zealand, as many articles do country-by-country information - but if having excessive headings is the objection, then just say that; there's big difference between the questions of what to include and how to organize it. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

An entire section was what was added. The plan announced by one editor above is in time to have a section for every country, all roughly saying the same thing. Bon courage (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not that other editor, and it can be consolidated in the future if it becomes a worldwide (or nearly so) status. But anyway, this removal is POV; that was specifically related to endemicity per the sources and the expert body, and constitutes "guidelines" and "knowledge" as you supported above. Yet you removed it, while previously adding this non-MEDRS journal-opinion-article by one virologist warning against a change in response. Doesn't seem consistent. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

No, that NL stuff is just coatracking of stuff about certain public health measures. I think expert commentary about basic word meaning is great to have. Bon courage (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

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

OVERTAG

Seems to me the article is WP:OVERTAG and I dont see any material discussion of any of these issues here or in the lone archive. @Bondegezou: please explain your re-addition of the tags and start discussion of them here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is a disaster. There is no sign of the concerns raised on this Talk page being resolved. The tags are a (minimal) indication of the serious problems this crappy article has. Bon courage (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

We had a long proposed merge discussion, now in the Archive at [14], which non-consensus-ed out. Some progress was made on bringing different perspectives together, for which I am thankful for editors involved, but I think some fundamental points of disagreement remain over the article (also discussed at [15]). That's why I think tags are still useful.

There are three tags in contention: "The neutrality of this article is disputed"; "This article relies excessively on references to primary sources"; "This article needs more medical references for verification or relies too heavily on primary sources". I (and others; see Bon courage's pithier comments above) still feel the article is (in places) trying to knit together (i.e. WP:SYNTH) numerous low quality references in low quality sources (newspaper articles) to politicians or local medical boards removing public health restrictions or talking about plans for the future to construct a narrative promoting a view (i.e. WP:NPOV violating) of COVID-19 as something that has become endemic. "Endemic" is a technical medical term, this is an article about a medical condition, so WP:MEDRS applies.

As such, I propose returning the neutrality tag and the medical references tag. (Sure, we don't need the third tag.) Bondegezou (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

It would help a lot if those in favor of these tags moved them to more specific subheadings or references so we can then work through improving or perhaps removing those sections. As it is, complaints like "disaster" and "crappy" are so vague they are useless and unactionable. Discussion on them had previously died out, per WP:WTRMT number 7. The community has already established in the merge discussion that the article itself should exist, so disagreeing with that is absolutely not grounds for maintaining the tags. Specific, actionable problems must be named or the tags should be removed.

For example, what exactly is wrong with the lead? And with the Background section? Crossroads ^-talk- 14:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed broadly. The tags need to be specified on which content is objected, and a talk section needs to be ongoing to justify them. WP:RESPTAG is clear on this--tagging is for the purposes of moving forward with improving the article, not casting doubt on the article and then not discussing or addressing the alleged issues.

Three editors--myself, Jtbobwaysf and Crossroads [16] all support removal of the tags, consensus at this time is to remove. Calling this article a disaster is not productive and it's disrespectful to the consensus building collaborative process. SmolBrane (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not a vote, is it. The article is shit, sorry. Bon courage (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I've moved the POV tag to a specific section. I've left the medref tag for the whole article: it all struggles with respect to WP:MEDRS. There is a Talk section ongoing about these problems. It is this one. It would help if editors engaged in the ongoing concerns about the article rather than pretending a consensus exists when it doesn't. Bondegezou (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm still leaning delete. Other than the small amount of MEDRS-sourcable stuff (which can live elsewhere) the article's spine is a sequence of nothing-y opinions sourced to WP:NEWSPRIMARY sources, and so contravenes our requirement to base articles on secondary sources. In addition, the whole declaring "it's endemic here now" thing seems have have been a passing fad, with politicians etc seeming to have forgotten about the word this year anyway. Bon courage (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I suggested before that maybe we should go to an AfD discussion. I think that might be a good way to go, although it might just end up in a non consensus decision like the Merge discussion did. Bondegezou (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe before that getting some expertise from WT:MED could also help? Bon courage (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

You already did, which resulted in significant discussion, [17] and you addressed this in your merger nomination Talk:Endemic_COVID-19/Archive_1#Proposed_merge. SmolBrane (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Re "passing fad", of course places that declared it endemic already aren't going to pointlessly repeat that over and over every year thereafter. It's like saying that because no one specifically said "endemic" about H1N1 this year, maybe that's still a pandemic. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Who said the same country needed to repeat it? Bon courage (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

It took me a couple of minutes to find a 2023 citation saying H1N1 is endemic, and many others were more or less saying the same (e.g [18]). Bondegezou (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry folks--I'm busy enjoying the weather these days! COVID endemicity is not a passing fad, that's why I reverted you Bon Courage [19]. Macau, Hong Kong, Netherlands, Indonesia--all from this year. SmolBrane (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• I think one solution could be to reduce the whole "Countries" section to a single sentence. Most of it is wadding and in some cases it is just garbled nonsense. Has anybody read the "Singapore" section recently for example? It's hard to fathom why editors are defending this stuff. Bon courage (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  The Singapore section was boldly edited by a now-blocked editor [20] and might warrant manual revert. SmolBrane (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

End game?

One has to ask what the end game is here? In time it's (quite) likely every country will have had a health official (/body) say COVID is endemic. There are ~200 countries, so ... what then? Is the aim to have 200 sections each with some variation of "Dr X speaking for the Health Ministry of Vulgaria said that the country was now transitioning to the endemic phase. Masking restrictions are to be lifted and all public gatherings can proceed as normal etc etc blah blah". It's not scalable, and is part of why this is why this sort of routine reportage is not encyclopedic, telling us nothing about what is known about "endemic COVID-19". Bon courage (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

A bunch of editors wanted an article about the end of COVID restrictions, the end of the COVID emergency, and they latched on to endemicity as a way to do that. This is unfortunate. The pandemic/endemic distinction isn't really what matters, and what "endemic" means is contested and negotiated. Is, for example, HIV/AIDS a pandemic or endemic? It doesn't really matter. What matters is how many people are infected, what the worldwide distribution is, what treatments there are available, what preventative measures, &c. The same is true of COVID-19. Most public health restrictions have ended, not because COVID became endemic, but because of widespread vaccination. So, we're left with this WP:SYNTHy shoe-horning of random news coverage into a WP:POVFORKy framework rather than a discussion of COVID-19's endemicity. Bondegezou (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Start an RfC or AfD then. I think we can agree this article could use more eyes. SmolBrane (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

But as a supporter of the shopping list approach I'd like your answer: is the ambition to have a section for every country that makes an announcement? And if not, what? Answering this will help clarify the AfD thinking. Bon courage (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Crossroads here [21]. Material by country is prudent for this article. This article is included in the categories National responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, Medical responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, Political responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Perhaps this article could be renamed "Endemic COVID-19 by country". Currently this article is summarized on the COVID-19 Pandemic article in a DUE section on COVID endemicity broadly construed. Readers should be informed on COVID endemicity. SmolBrane (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

This article and it's predecessor "Living with COVID-19" were always structured with content by country [22]. There is no good reason to change that now. SmolBrane (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

"The plan announced by one editor above is in time to have a section for every country, all roughly saying the same thing."[23] Please do not mischaracterize my comments again. SmolBrane (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

We can't know the "endgame" without knowing the future. I'd be much more interested in the endgame of those who insist that both expert bodies and mainstream media reporting on them are undue because none of them are sufficiently "secondary". Do they feel the 1918 and 2009 pandemics never ended and should be labeled as "ongoing" across Wikipedia? Crossroads ^-talk- 19:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

We have excellent sources saying the 1918 flu epidemic was generally considered over by mid-1920. The 2009 pandemic was announced as over by the WHO in August 2010. Some pandemics last longer.[24] Bon courage (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Announced as over by the WHO? An expert body? But you have said on this page that "What we need are secondary sources actually discussing THE TOPIC" regarding a different expert body. And when people point to media coverage of it, you replied that news sources are primary and that they aren't good enough either. So, it does appear that according to the logic being espoused, Wikipedia should say we have actually been in a swine flu pandemic for the last 14 years unless we find a source with enough degrees of separation and enough "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis". How much is enough? Who knows. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I've also said primary sources are fine to use to touch in details on a solid secondary base. What's you're missing is that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. For an article on endemicity we want sources on endemicity. Your news and medorg factoid-y statements and announcements are more appropriate for the individual country pages, where they are touching in useful details on that article's established base. Bon courage (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I was looking at the latest issue of The Lancet and there was this editorial entitled "Moving past the COVID-19 emergency in the USA". It does not mention "endemic" anywhere. We still have this problem that some editors want to write about moving past the COVID emergency, for example on a country by country basis, the sort of thing covered in the Lancet editorial, but this article is about "endemic COVID-19", which is a different topic. We don't have any other "endemic OTHERDISEASE by country" articles. Bondegezou (talk) 07:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

NPOV

I think it violates NPOV to have "There is no single agreed definition of what it means for COVID-19 to become endemic" followed by two quotes strongly against the idea of COVID being endemic. There are many other reliable sources that take a less hostile view. For example, this Scientific American article takes a much more sympathetic view of the idea that it is society who declares a pandemic over. Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

How does it violate NPOV to follow high-quality sources? The Scientific American piece is a poor source for this since it's a lay piece by a non-expert which only mentions 'endemic' COVID once. Bon courage (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you actually read the article? It's an interview with two academics. And yes, it does violate NPOV to only quote one side of the argument unless that side totally predominates.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

There's only one "side" - high quality sources among which there is no disagreement. We're not going to put irrelevant ones up against them. Bon courage (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

You have in no way proved that there is "no disagreement" among "high quality sources". I would be very surprised if all academics in relevant fields agreed with all the implications of the two quotes the article currently has.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Prove a negative? No. Wikipedia reflects quality sources so they're needed as the basis of content. Bon courage (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you arguing that it is impossible to show that a small selection of sources is representive of a broader whole?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

No. Bon courage (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Then why refuse to do so?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 10:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not "refusing" to do anything. Wikipedia follows the WP:BESTSOURCES and, with WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:MEDRS in mind, I actually think this article has a good sweep of what's available on COVID-19 endemicity, at least before we get into its problematic second half. If there are other quality sources that have been missed it would be great to know about them! Bon courage (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I would simply suggest removing this as UNDUE. What is the utility of the statement? The following two negative statements don't concern me too much given how many national sources are considering COVID endemic anyway. The academics are welcome to disagree with national authorities.

And the following two paragraphs are more neutral IMO. SmolBrane (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you, you've put my point much better than I could have. The Katzourakis quote has nothing to do with the definition of "endemic" and the Steere-Williams quote is essentially an opinion piece published in an academic journal.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Somewhat relatedly, the new lead sentence "Endemic COVID-19 is a phase of the COVID-19 pandemic" doesn't seem reflected by the Immunity journal source, it differentiates between epidemic and endemic. Endemic COVID is unlikely to be a phase of a pandemic. SmolBrane (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately the terminology even in RS is a mess, I've tried to align what we have to the mess with a fudge/tweak. This is why it's important to say the definitions are not standardized. Bon courage (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Your edit is an improvement, thanks. SmolBrane (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

There are no sources that support that "endemic" can be a phase of "pandemic", rather they are mutually exclusive. Pandemic is a worldwide epidemic. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Correct, which is why the wording was changed. Though what the endemic phase is a phase of I'm not sure. Something, anyway. Bon courage (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

An example of the problem

Here[25] is an example of the issue. This is added content not about what endemicity is, but about ending public health measures, and which is off-topic and/or implying that somehow endemicity means 'freedom', or 'harmless', in exactly the way quality scholarly sources are cautioning against. Bon courage (talk) 04:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Only the two in-line citations regarding the 2021 incidental restrictions were not explicitly about endemicity. I included them to provide context to the reader since I defer to NPOV policies. The other four sources are about endemicity. Please read the sources carefully. SmolBrane (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

How is adding off-topic content from primary sources "deferring to NPOV policies?". It's textbook WP:SYNTHESIS and rather like the opposite on NPOV? Bon courage (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I added the source that connects the dots. SmolBrane (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Some sources are noting that a future endemicity, as of when they were written, does not necessarily mean those things, but neither are they saying that it does not mean the end of public health restrictions, which is what is actually being talked about here rather than the vague terms of 'freedom' or 'harmless'. "Harmless" amounts to a strawman anyway; the seasonal flu is not "harmless", but there are no restrictions for it either in the community. Your position amounts to POV distortion of the topic because it permits inclusion of text about a 'maximalist/no relaxing' outcome and forces exclusion of the 'return to normal' (for the general community) outcome - the latter of which, you must have noticed by now, is what is actually occurring in the real world.

And it can be demonstrated via other experts that the worst-case scenario people like Katzourakis are warning about is not the only one experts are talking about. Here, for instance, are multiple experts from Johns Hopkins: I think there's at least a reasonable chance that COVID-19 ends up being less of a public health concern than the flu. Even now, for someone who is vaccinated and boosted, the risk of hospitalization is higher if they were to get the flu than if they were to get COVID-19. And: As cases go down, protective measures will wane. At certain points, there will be surges in cases and some efforts to reduce spread of disease, like masking, may come back into our lives temporarily....But while we return to mostly normal life, some things won't go back to normal—trust in public health has taken a hit. Health-related misinformation is more powerful than ever. And: SARS-CoV-2 eventually will put itself in a pigeonhole where it won't have much ability to change drastically and get around immune responses, and that will be the time when we can really start talking about this as something more like seasonal flu, as opposed to the pandemic virus that it is still to this day.

Bottom line: an expert body saying it is now endemic and on that basis removing restrictions is in no way contradicted or overruled by people who say that endemicity is not here and when it is it might be severe. Per WP:NPOV, we include multiple due viewpoints with attribution if the experts themselves are divided. If expert bodies or health ministers say that the end of restrictions is relevant to endemicity, then it is not the place of Wikipedia editors to exclude that entirely simply because some other expert said some other thing in the past that is just a vague statement about a possible future. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The expert position is not 'maximalist' but cautious. And while it's obviously correct that as the public health threat diminishes govts will ease restrictions, that is not precisely the same as 'endemic'. The nub of your problem is the words 'on that basis removing restrictions'. The basis for removing restrictions is a judgement about what worth those restrictions have, not a tickbox with the word 'endemic' next to it; that is precisely the fallacy (endemic==harmless) our best RS is warning about. So in NZ the 'endemic' announcement was coincident with precisely zero change to restrictions, which had already been much eased. This article is trying to prove otherwise by juxtaposing weak sources to equate 'endemic' with 'freedom!' (as well as its stated intention to show that the WHO is being 'stubborn'). Bon courage (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

"best RS", hardly. It's one author's opinion, emphasizing a possible outcome that others do not. You are fighting an immense strawman; there is nothing in the disputed text or implied anywhere about "freedom" or the WHO being "stubborn" or anything like that, or saying that endemic equals harmless. And you are now jumping to talking about NZ when this subheading was about Singapore. Your unsourced opinion about "the basis for removing restrictions" is not relevant; what the expert bodies themselves say is. If they make that connection - which not all do, but when they do - it is absolutely relevant and is POV to exclude. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Lots of huffing and puffing there, but no evidence. If you had a case that in RS endemicity is, as you assert, "the basis" for removing restrictions it would be easy to produce a quality source supporting it. But no. Adding weak sources (e.g. for Singapore) which are off topic because Wikipedia editors are labouring under this misconception, is a problem. This is kind of basic. Bon courage (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

New Zealand

Primary source from New Zealand government [26]:

Aotearoa New Zealand has passed the emergency stage of its COVID-19 response, with the virus endemic in our communities. The results of any COVID-19-focused prevalence survey would be unlikely to meaningfully alter any current public health response as there are only two pandemic-related mandates still in place (the 7-day isolation period and mask use for visitors to healthcare facilities).

Worth keeping an eye on! SmolBrane (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we could use this as a source, as they appear to be an expert body (rather than it just being the opinion of a politician like a prime minister). But even a mainstream, highly reputable news source reporting on this would get called a primary source by some. So, what sources are acceptable then without getting tagged? Crossroads ^-talk- 23:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

would get called a primary source by some ← where that 'some' will include clueful Wikipedia editors who understand WP:PRIMARYNEWS. The main basis of the article needs to be secondary sources on the topic of 'endemic COVID-19' - sources which provide analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts on that topic. That could include news sources too, for non-biomedical aspects of the topic. Sure, primary sources are useful to touch in details atop that central basis, but my major concern is that the article backbone itself become a laundry list of factoids. It's Topsy-Turvy. If there was some way to make it mainly secondary with the primary stuff reduced to a brief supporting function, that could work. Bon courage (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Bon courage and as per basic, Wikipedia standards. Bondegezou (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The article--and this content--isn't just factoids, most of the content--including this content, express the impact that endemicity has on policies, mandates, etc. This source outlines that prevalence surveys wouldn't meaningfully alter public health responses since COVID is endemic and states the surveys won't proceed in the first sentence I omitted("the Ministry of Health has agreed that the COVID-19 prevalence surveys should not advance in their proposed current format"). The impact on public health decisions are not factoids. SmolBrane (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Secondary sources have emerged [27] [28] [29] SmolBrane (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Not really. Where is their analysis of what 'endemic COVID' means? I just see passing mentions and dwelling on other things (public health measures e.g.). Bon courage (talk) 04:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

We should be inclusion-ist when "position statements from national or international expert bodies"(MEDRS) discuss endemicity. We all know what endemicity means when Ministries of Health discuss it. We should be extending good faith to these reliable MEDRS and not splitting hairs over whether there is overt explanation over what that means. And as I said directly above, this statement informs their cessation of the development of prevalence surveys. The emergence of endemicity after a pandemic is fundamental to the subject and shouldn't be artificially excluded from the COVID-19 articles on wiki. I think the burden is on you to demonstrate that somehow these national health bodies have a marginal definition of endemicity that somehow shouldn't be covered by wiki. SmolBrane (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

But where is the discussion of endemicity? This is mostly about control measures. This isn't the "Living with COVID" article any more. Bon courage (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Control measures are directly related to endemicity. That's why the national health authorities stated it that way. Start an RfC already! SmolBrane (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Not really. The only info in the NZ ministry statement is that they're not going to do more prevalence testing as whatever they found, it likely wouldn't change anything ("the 7-day isolation period and mask use for visitors to healthcare facilities"). That they assess COVID-19 as endemic is mentioned too. This doesn't tell us anything about COVID-19 endemicity without performing OR (e.g. even though endemic, nothing changes in policy mandates). What we need are secondary sources actually discussing THE TOPIC. Bon courage (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

"Passing the emergency stage" is VERY due. I think you are marginalizing a significant development. SmolBrane (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

If it's VERY due it'll be easy to find some secondary coverage analyzing it. Seems to have passed without any fuss beyond an offhand mention. Expected, routine news in other words. Bon courage (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you applying this standard to any other coverage of Covid? Or any other current events topic? If not, why not? Crossroads ^-talk- 19:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Why not WP:FOC instead of trying to go personal, eh? Bon courage (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I am FOC. I don't understand why this topic should be held to a standard that no other topics follow. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The WP:PAGs apply across the project. All good editors strive to present well-summarized knowledge rather than long lists of factoids, in my experience. Bon courage (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

This is not a reason to exclude well-sourceable facts. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Omitting this content will require editors to presume that either the Ministry of Health of New Zealand doesn't know what endemicity means, or that they haven't said enough in the right terms for us to include. Neither of these are persuasive. Endemicity is an epidemiological term with a well-known and well-established interpretation that would constitute a POV violation to omit. If COVID-19 is endemic in New Zealand, this is the article to state it in. SmolBrane (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

No, it would be the COVID-19 in New Zealand article, unless there was some knowledge that told us something about endemicity. Bon courage (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Then you need to open an AfD, since the majority of this article's content is built on exactly this type of summary. Your attempt to 'gut'(not my words) this article, deleting 15kB of 20kB [30] while your own merger proposal was ongoing failed for the same reason.

This content is due for that article as well, and it will likely be backfilled as the COVID articles get cleaned up with time. SmolBrane (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Control measures are directly related to endemicity. and "Passing the emergency stage" is VERY due. are both incorrect. Passing the emergency stage is related to widespread vaccination, the relaxation of control measures is related to widespread vaccination. You are still trying to write one article (about the relaxation of control measures) under a different title (endemic COVID-19). Bondegezou (talk) 07:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Vaccination didn't play the whole role here: “the largest determinant of how endemicity manifests itself is the levels of immunity people have, both as a result of vaccination and infection.”-Immunity Review, “the decision was made partly due to high vaccination and infection rates, and mild symptoms in infected persons.”-AP News(HK), “Fauci's comments followed a report from the CDC indicating that the United States had a much higher level of collective immunity due to the Omicron variant.”-WaPo. SmolBrane (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: indeed and the statement from the WHO today[31] about ending the 'emergency' status doesn't talk about endemic disease at all, but focuses on "long-term management of the COVID-19 pandemic". Bon courage (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

India

Keep an eye on India:

The central government is set to start deliberations on officially declaring Covid-19 an endemic disease, top sources in the Union Health Ministry told ThePrint Monday. [32].

-SmolBrane (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Further evidence of the disconnect between 'lifting restrictions' and ticking the endemic checkbox. Bon courage (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source that demonstrates this interpretation? SmolBrane (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The one you posted Bon courage (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The Steere-Williams quote

This has no business being placed in the article as a definite statement on the definition of "endemic". It's an opinion piece published in an academic journal that has a grand total of five citations, not all of which cite it in relation to its argument. Eldomtom2 (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It's called expert "knowledge" and it's what Wikipedia is for - summarizing it that is. It is not given as a definitive statement but we say "According to historian Jacob Steere-Williams ...". This is called attribution. Bon courage (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that it represents a common academic opinion? As I said, it's an opinion article with five citations... --Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

who's saying anything about "a common academic opinion"? Certainly not Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

What is the quote there for then? We do not list every person's opinion on a topic.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Where do we "list every person's opinion"? Are these straw men actually going anywhere? Wikipedia values expert knowledge as found in high-quality sources. It is astonishing to me that in an article crammed full of shitty WP:NEWSPRIMARY sources the one source which is causing you disquiet is peer-reviewed scholarship from an actual expert appearing in a well-established, MEDLINE-indexed journal which is exactly on-point for the topic. It looks like blatant POV pushing. Bon courage (talk) 05:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

That a source is published in a peer-reviewed academic journal is not inherent reason to include it, especially when it's an opinion article like this one. What purpose does the quote serve, aside from being "expert knowledge"?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 05:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

It shows what the WP:BESTSOURCES are saying on this topic. This is encyclopedic writing. If you have other excellent sources, bring them forth: this is a very short article and more quality scholarship would be good. Bon courage (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

"It shows what the WP:BESTSOURCES are saying on this topic". So, in other words, you are claiming it represents a common academic opinion.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I support removal of this content, described as 'commentary' by the author. Are we going to include commentary from David Dowdy [33] or Eleanor Murray [34] or David L. Heymann [35]? At least these folks have wiki articles unlike Jacob Steere-Williams. There has been a lot of commentary from specific epidemiologists on COVID endemicity but this is the only one we include, and we shouldn't. No reason to treat this material differently just because it was published in a journal--it's still just commentary. SmolBrane (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

If you would like to suggest content based on the three articles you mention, that would be an improvement to the article. We should follow WP:MEDRS and WP:BESTSOURCES, which favour peer-reviewed medical journal articles over newspaper reports. Bondegezou (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

And six more here: [36] I haven't really fought against the Steere-Williams quote partly as a compromise/concession, and also because the author is appropriately very explicit he is talking about early 2022 specifically, but I do find its addition rather ironic given the heavy emphasis on the 'needs MEDRS' issue and nowhere in MEDRS are commentary articles supported as sources. There's a high risk of cherry picking with such sources. But if we have to include them (this and the Katzourakis one), then I also support other expert comments that balance those opinions. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Commentary articles (e.g. editorials) can be golden MEDRS. But the meaning of words is not really biomedical information so invoking it for this would to be WP:CRYMEDRS. If there's more peer-reviewed content on what the term means I'd like to see it! Bon courage (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Hold on - are you seriously making the argument that the definition of epidemiological terms like "endemic", "pandemic", etc. are not "biomedical information"? Crossroads ^-talk- 16:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm just stating the (obvious) consensus. Bon courage (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The statement that "the desire to label COVID-19 as being endemic in early 2022 was a political and cultural phenomenon connected to a desire to see the pandemic as being over" is value laden and contentious--it currently represents one man's opinion and shouldn't be used here in the absence of multiple citations. No reason for us to tell readers that this is a unanimous interpretation. SmolBrane (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s not contended at all Bon courage (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Provide evidence of that. If it is the common consensus, then you should be able to provide a source saying the same thing that's been cited more often.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Asking to prove a negative? If editors are disputing RS it needs to be with equivalent RS, not their personal unsupported assertions. Bon courage (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm asking you to prove a positive. You don't get to say something is "not contended at all" without evidence.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Logic fail. Bon courage (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The null hypothesis is that a single academic article is not representive of a broader consensus. Why are you against proving that it is representive?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

You’re repeating the same bad arguments you made already. Time to ignore. If you want expert input ask at WT:MED. Bon courage (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@SmolBrane, what values do you think are being pushed in that sentence? It might be contentious, since few enough politicians want to admit that they say things that make themselves popular with voters, rather than purely following science. A value-laden term implies something more than the words, e.g., calling an organization a cult instead of a religion (value: the author indicates suspicions about and disapproval of the group), or calling someone a freedom fighter instead of an attacker (value: the author indicates support and sympathy for the motivating cause). In this particular case, the author said that in early 2022, people just wanted the pandemic to be over already. This doesn't seem even slightly surprising. I doubt that we could, even with extensive research effort, find any reliable sources saying that people wanted the pandemic to continue after struggling through the first two years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The statement presumes that endemicity is observed because of politics or culture, rather than the expertise of national health organizations. Casting doubt on national health organizations doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic without better sourcing. SmolBrane (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that endemicity was actually "observed" by the people who wanted to declare that the pandemic was already over in 2022, and as far as I recall, none of the experts at national health organizations were saying that we were in an endemic phase. They were mostly saying "Sure, Paul Politician gave a speech on the campaign trail that claimed this, but the reality is a bit more complicated than that..."

But perhaps I have misremembered. Can you find any publications by reputable national health organizations that said the endemic phase started last year? A source in which such an announcement wasn't immediately decried as being made in defiance of the facts and under coercion from politicians would be ideal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Who said anything about coercion? Who's decrying statements made in defiance of the facts? Not Jacob Steere-Williams. We follow sources. Respectfully, you should familiarize yourself with this article more thoroughly. Sources that considered COVID endemic in 2022—Finland Institute for Health and Welfare, Malaysian Health Minister issued a statement in 2021, Philippines Department of Health(2022), Fauci as the NIAID director in 2022, Singapore outlined plans for endemicity in 2021(as per the inappropriatedly reverted content here [37]) SmolBrane (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the reverted content, I see "plans for the country's transition to a new normal, managing the COVID-19 virus like other endemic diseases". I notice particularly that this reverted content said they were choosing to treat it "like" an endemic disease. Mind the gap between "it actually is endemic" and "we'll behave as if it were endemic".

Do you have links for the others? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I searched for information about Fauci's remarks, because I remember him saying something that he had to walk back, and I found these sources.

• January 2022: Fauci says that Covid most likely "will" become endemic, i.e., that it was not endemic at that time. Also, this is another source for saying that people are equating endemicity with a return to pre-pandemic lifestyles. [38]
• April 2022: "we are no longer in the acute fulminant accelerated phase of the outbreak...The United States and the entire world is still experiencing a pandemic, but there are different phases of the pandemic," he said. And what we are in right now is somewhat of a transitional phase, out of the accelerated component into hopefully a more controlled component." [39]
• May 2022: "The U.S. is not in an endemic phase just yet" [40]
• August 2022: "experts like Dr. Anthony Fauci say that we are getting closer to an endemic stage," i.e., that as of August 2022, the US was not yet in an endemic phase. [41]

I didn't find any that said something like "Yes, Fauci says the US is in an endemic phase now". Did you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Note though that "like other endemic diseases" implies that it would in fact be considered endemic. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

"implications" from primary sources. Just shows the problem really. Bon courage (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's what the source intends to communicate, but even if we stipulate for the sake of discussion that the source implies that, implications aren't enough. Sources have to WP:Directly support the claims we put in the article to avoid original research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

If editors would like to add more academic articles on this point, with supporting, different or complementary positions, that would be a good thing. However, a number of editors here are talking about common academic opinion, but aren't adding any material citing academic articles to the text. Let's try to make the article better by adding content (using the highest quality evidence on the WP:MEDRS hierarchy as possible). If we have plenty of content, of the highest quality, that summarises the academic consensus well, we can see about which citations to drop, but I am loathe to cut material from an academic journal to replace it with nothing. Bondegezou (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I went to Google Scholar, selected for 2023 papers, looked at the top paper on my search and have added it to the text. It would be good to move further up the WP:MEDRS hierarchy and get some systematic reviews, but I've not seen anything relevant yet. Let's continue looking. Bondegezou (talk) 08:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of scientific evidence could be found to claim that a particular situation ought to be labeled a pandemic. Wikipedia:Biomedical information#What is not biomedical information? lists "definitions" as an example of something that is not biomedical information. You will never see a double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial on whether your mouth is supposed to say /pænˈdɛmɪk/ or /ˌɛpɪˈdɛmɪk/ or /ˈnɔɹm(ə)l/ when you encounter a situation like this one. Editors should be "seriously making the argument that the definition" of anything isn't biomedical information. There will be no systematic reviews on the definition of any words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

That one's not that great either IMO, nursing isn't really a super-relevant field like, say, immunology or epidemiology, and the journal doesn't seem to be that high-ranking. Not to mention it's just by the editor herself. I'd rather we get more sources like this one (as you no doubt agree), or statements by CDC-like bodies from various countries that have commented on the matter (for or against). Crossroads ^-talk- 19:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS talks of “reputable” journals; it has no requirement around journals being “high-ranking”.

Thank you for your suggestion of a new source. Bondegezou (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

PMID:34626549 was added to the article last November[42] (by me). I'd agree we want more WP:SCHOLARSHIP; and we need to lose the lay press cruft. Bon courage (talk) 06:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

"Reputable" is what I'm getting at. The nursing article is really not that great, hopefully we get some better sources like the one I noted (but yeah, that exact one's already in the article). Crossroads ^-talk- 00:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Science Based Medicine

Holding my nose on this one, cause I'm not a huge fan of SBM, but reliable sources are reliable sources right?

COVID is now more of an endemic infection, like the flu, which is exactly what most experts predicted would happen (once it became established). We are now living with COVID rather than trying to live through COVID. Let’s review some of the stats. [43]

(More generally, I'm going to step back from consistently editing this article as the creator; it needs to stand on its own feet with more editor participation and given the WHO May 5 statement it should be able to). SmolBrane (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Again it's "more of an endemic infection". This tells us nothing about endemicity (but it does tell us something about Steve Novella thinks). The way you're trying to write this article is like looking through the wrong end of a telescope. This is meant to be an article giving the knowledge of what endemic COVID is, not what any source which contains the substring "endemic" says. Bon courage (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

SBM is often used for WP:PARITY on alt-med topics, but here when we have better sources like peer-reviewed research and official expert bodies I'm not seeing a reason to cite it here. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

South Korea

From the Korea Times:

Korea announced it will stop classifying COVID-19 as a health crisis, lifting almost all pandemic-related restrictions next month, including mandatory isolation, and treat the disease as an endemic.[44]

And covered by KBS [45]. Editors need to stop removing content related to national health announcements, this article is straying towards POV fork territory. The lead of the COVID-19 pandemic in South Korea states that "South Korea began relaxing social distancing rules on 4 March 2022 and announced a shift toward endemic living on 18 March" SmolBrane (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Possible due at the South Korea article, but not here. It tells us nothing about the topic of COVID endemicity and is yet more WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Bon courage (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

No, the Korea Times article reads much more like a secondary source, commenting on the four-tier system in Korea, freeing people "to return to aspects of pre-pandemic normality", the relevance of the May 5 WHO statement, effect on mask mandates, the maintenance of the COVID-19 response system etc. SmolBrane (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Much of which is irrelevant anyway. This is an article about endemic COVID, although you still seem to be writing one about "living with COVID". Bon courage (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Since Living with COVID redirects here, then content about living with COVID is presumably appropriate for this page.

It sounds like we might need to have a discussion about the scope of this article. There are concepts of endemicity that align very well with the "living with" idea (in which case, most of the world is probably "endemic" now), and others that are narrower (under which model, we won't know for several more years whether this year qualifies as "endemic"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

"we might need to have a discussion about the scope of this article" Yes although Living with COVID ran into "is a term" issues. (I can't find the relevant "is a term" page right now). SmolBrane (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

That redirect is a result of this bold edit.[46] I don't think it was wise and I'm not sure the Living With article was viable anyway. Bon courage (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course it's a secondary source. It's really frustrating to be told to constantly jump through extra hoops to add anything to meet a standard not applied anywhere else, and that a source specifically about a certain country's approach to endemicity "tells us nothing" about the topic. That is the topic. The pandemic article uses tons of media sources to relate the imposition of restrictions at the beginning of the pandemic, so why can this not be followed on the other end? Also, if the lifting of those things is done on the advice of, or by, their equivalent of the CDC, it is a MEDORG source and therefore DUE regardless of whether news articles are primary or secondary. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

No, it tells us nothing about endemicity (other than that South Korea will 'tick the endemic box' soon). Lots of COVID articles are in terrible shape, it's true. Let's not make this another one - even more than it is now anyway. Bon courage (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Even that is not "nothing about endemicity" and is rather quite significant. At high-traffic and highly-watched Covid articles, such as the main one about the pandemic, the clear consensus by editing is that they are not in "terrible shape" for using media sources to relay governmental and health agency decisions to impose restrictions. If you tried to remove that, I suspect you would quickly be reverted. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

As you should know, Wikipedia operates by WP:PAG. The source says nothing "quite significant" about endemicity. At most it's a factoid about endemicity in South Korea. Bon courage (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that the Korea Times article is a secondary source. It repeats what the government said, without adding any intellectual work of its own (e.g., original analysis of why it's happening, comparison to other countries, commentary on whether it's a good idea...). We can WP:USEPRIMARY sources, and I've no objection to using this one appropriately, but it is a primary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Primary source. It might be appropriately used to add a detail to COVID-19 pandemic in South Korea (with a link here). But it doesn't tell us anything about endemicity itself so is not really relevant to this article. Bon courage (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

We do not need (or want) "commentary on whether it's a good idea" from a newspaper as equally valid as, or required to include, what a health agency says or does. In fact, the media is well-known for both-sidesing issues. In the US I've seen many articles in which "state health agency" and "random person on the street" have their opinions treated as equally noteworthy by some article. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, we might not "need (or want)" that particular type of commentary in this case, but I have given it as an example of the kind of intellectual work that makes a source be a secondary source instead of a primary source. Wikipedia:Secondary is not another way to spell good. It is a primary source; if it added such commentary, it could be both secondary and not especially desirable (or at least not desirable for anything about whether it's a good idea). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more fruitful to instead simply approach it from a question of 'include, or not?'. Do you think it should be included? The country-specific examples have been a major sticking point here historically. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

(Moved comment) Inviting more input here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#National_Health_organizations_and_news_sources_for_Endemic_COVID-19 SmolBrane (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)