Talk:Living with COVID-19

Could use a 'See also' section

"Living with COVID-19" seems to be a bit of a slippery sentimental phrase that isn't explicitly used by sources; it could make this article difficult to constrain, but nonetheless this article could use a 'See also' section. SmolBrane (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC) To be more clear, "Living with Covid" is a UK phenomenon as per the article. SmolBrane (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

"Living with COVID-19" explicitly

To my above point, the following "Several South Korean media analysed that North Korea would like to launch a "living with COVID-19" strategy." is cited to and , neither of these sources when translated say "Living with" anything. After reading WP:NONENG, does this warrant a footnote? Clarity for non-Korean readers would be appreciated. SmolBrane (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Same with my diff here [1] - I would expect to see "Living with COVID-19" on the relevant mainpages for NK and SK if they were applicable here. SmolBrane (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Consider renaming this article

After reading more, it's apparent only the UK and (allegedly)Korea are exploring this idea(Living with COVID-19^TM) explicitly, as described by the lead section. There is a great deal of content on this article that refers to endemic management of some variety without use of the term. I would therefore suggest that this article be renamed to something like Endemic management of COVID-19 or Post-pandemic management of COVID-19. SmolBrane (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 18 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. No consensus after extended discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Living with COVID-19 → Endemic management of COVID-19 – See above section on talk page--Living with COVID-19 is a particular subset of a general set of strategies; this article in its current form more accurately reflects general strategies of this nature and should be renamed accordingly. SmolBrane (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• There is a similar issue with the Zero-COVID term, which the Chinese government didn't start using till mid to late 2021, and is now calling it "Social", "Societal" or "Dynamic" Zero COVID. I think these terms just became WP:COMMONNAME name, and have not been properly sourced. I think it might be better to leave these articles with their names and scope and instead write a more general article titled COVID-19 containment measures, or rename Public health mitigation of COVID-19 and incorporate it there. CutePeach (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  Definitely there are similarities here with zero COVID, although zero covid has more adoption and therefore more usefulness as a standalone concept. I think that the titles I've suggested here correspond well to the comments made by the respective authorities in the jurisdictions listed; the current lead section on this article doesn't really jive with the rest of the content accordingly. Most or all of the quotes from authorities on this page express endemic management or getting out of the pandemic(post-pandemic management) in some sense. zero COVID and endemic management seem sufficiently divergent at the moment for two articles, although harmonizing them in the future might be worthwhile. SmolBrane (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject COVID-19 has been notified of this discussion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• I've heard the term "living with COVID-19" before, but I don't think I've heard "endemic management of COVID-19". And looking at the article's references, I see that several of the titles include the phrase "living with covid" or "living with COVID-19", but none include the phrase "endemic management". On that basis I'm inclined to oppose, but I'm open to being persuaded if someone can provide evidence that the proposed title is more common. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  This is my concern, particularly as endemic is a somewhat formal epidemiological term (as is pandemic). I'd prefer we avoid the term 'endemic' until that's the formal categorization of major public health bodies. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  It appears that only Mexico has declared COVID endemic, although many jurisdictions are headed that way. Your point is taken however. SmolBrane (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  (^ This is no longer the case, I count nine of fourteen countries on this article using the word 'endemic'.) SmolBrane (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'm trying to suggest integrating this article into the general case, the public health mitigation article mentioned above--which I wasn't previously aware of--throws a bit of a wrench in this too. These two articles should probably be merged. While 'Living with COVID' does have sourcing, it really doesn't well describe the general approaches by a wide range of jurisdictions. That is to say--living with COVID is a subset of a more general category that has yet to be well-named. Much of the content on the article does reflect a general case so the title need not be explictly sourced imo(in the same sense that 'public health mitigation' may not be phrased explicitly as such in sources). Alternative suggestions are welcomed. SmolBrane (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  As User:Bakkster Man notes above, the word "endemic" has a technical meaning in epidemiology, so as a general descriptive title for the article, it's probably not a good choice. The article covers a broad category of approaches to COVID-19, including in places where the disease is not yet endemic. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  I don't agree, please consider the opening line of the lead: ""Living with COVID-19" is a term used to describe management strategies for the COVID-19 pandemic that designate Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as an endemic illness that has lessened in severity but cannot be fully contained, and prioritise a return to normal lifestyles." As far as I can tell, this article is about endemic management in a general sense, although it is apparent there are differing levels of capitulation here(not all jurisdictions are 'living with this virus' but many are--Australia, Fauci saying "we're really in a transitional phase...into hopefully a more controlled phase and endemicity"). Endemic management is emerging but it appears the be the most appropriate name for this article. SmolBrane (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment as requester I have added a large amount of material which seems to illustrate further the need to rename this article. The word 'endemic' is not a hangup because it is being used by many sources. I am going to mention this on the NPOV noticeboard since NPOV includes WP:DUE. The article title currently does not comply with NPOV policy, 'Living with COVID-19' is a subset of a more DUE title, and the lead uses 'endemic' and 'management' which seems simple and appropriate, and consistent with sources. SmolBrane (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not sure if I have to ping @Bakkster Man and Mx. Granger: or not but I haven't heard from them in a while. SmolBrane (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  It looks like you've added a bunch of material about COVID-19 that includes the word "endemic", but some of it isn't really relevant to this article, which is about a set of strategies for managing COVID-19. Some of the other sources are relevant, but do any of them use the phrase "endemic management"? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Living with COVID is an endemic management strategy; this article was including endemic management strategies broadly construed before I started contributing, and as you'll note the lead sentence suggests a breadth of inclusion that goes beyond Living with COVID. As COVID management strategies are changing, we need articles to cover them. And the word 'endemic' appears in every section except for reception, which is a marginal section at this time. There's definitely a bit of an identity crisis on this article but 'endemic management' is more inclusive here than 'living with COVID'. Based on the five naming criteria outlined by policy, 'Living with COVID' fails on:

  Naturalness(The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles.),

  Precision(The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects.) and

  Consistency(The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.) SmolBrane (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  I've made my comment, which also means I couldn't be the closer. I'm still watching the discussion, but nothing much more for me to weigh in on without more comments. This discussion doesn't really need my comments, it needs attention on noticeboards. I pinged Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine to hopefully get more input. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, I have replicated your comment on the wikiproject politics talk page as well. SmolBrane (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. So far, I'm not seeing common enough use of "endemic management" to support the move. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  The background section starts with "The widening availability of COVID-19 vaccines, and the development of drugs for treating COVID-19 infections, led to discussions over whether they would allow populations to reach herd immunity, or otherwise be able to accept the idea of "living with COVID-19"—where COVID-19 is treated as an endemic illness that can not be fully eliminated, and a focus is placed on returning to "normal" life where the disease is still present, but is no longer considered to be as severe of a threat to public health than it was prior to the availability of vaccines." And the first four citations are reffed here, with two of them using the word endemic and two of them using the phrase "live with covid" or "living with covid", but neither of those "live with" usages are addressing the specific policy but rather the sentiment of living with COVID. Two of them use "here to stay" and two use "return to normal" but those would also be poor title choices.

  Argentina: Argentinian Minister of Health Carla Vizzotti confirmed changes for isolation protocols and explained that "the testing strategy is focused on people with symptoms". She said "the virus is behaving in an endemic way"

  Australia: Queensland's Chief Health Officer John Gerrard said that spreading COVID-19 is "necessary" in order to transition from the "pandemic stage to an endemic stage"

  Malaysia: Malaysian Minister of Health Khairy Jamaluddin announced that the government would transition to treating COVID-19 as if it was in an "endemic phase" by the end of October 2021

  Mexico: COVID-19 has moved on from a pandemic to an endemic stage, meaning authorities will treat it as a seasonally recurring disease.

  Singapore: roadmap was being developed for how the city state could eventually live "normally with [COVID-19] in our midst", and manage it as an endemic disease

  Spain: Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said the Spanish government was exploring how and when the management of the COVID-19 pandemic would shift to the management of the coronavirus as an endemic illness

  USA: Governor Gavin Newsom announced a formal shift toward endemic management of COVID-19 in California, saying "we are moving past the crisis phase into a phase where we will work to live with this virus"

  US Virgin Islands: [Bryan] stated that "we are transitioning from COVID-19 pandemic to endemic"

  Vietnam: On 29 August 2021, Prime Minister Phạm Minh Chính stated that Vietnam might have to live with the virus and could not rely on indefinite closures and quarantines...In March 2022, Chính declared COVID-19 to be "endemic" and considered ending daily reporting of new cases. SmolBrane (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Governor Gavin Newsom announced a formal shift toward endemic management of COVID-19 in California, saying "we are moving past the crisis phase into a phase where we will work to live with this virus" I ran a quick spot check on this, and think it actually makes the opposite case. The news coverage uses the word "endemic", often in quotes. However, neither the actual plan document nor his press conference with the above quote use the word. In the press conference, he continues to say "we will work to live with this virus and we will maintain a readiness posture and stay on top of the nature of change that is so self-evident with this pandemic and disease" (emphasis added). At a minimum, I would not describe this as "a formal shift toward endemic management", but a formal shift towards a less restrictive policy described by some others as endemic management. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Fauci also used the word endemic, although he backtracked, and the RI health authority did use the word. Good catch though, Newsom used the word to describe his plan in a prior announcement I believe[2], [3] (In his remarks about his "endemic response plan,"), [4], [5], [6]("In that endemic plan, we will be able to answer many questions that many of you have about the world we are living in and where we are going with this virus and where can create criteria as we transition to the endemic phase," Newsom said last week, previewing the announcement.), [7](Last week in Oakland, Governor Newsom said the state will embrace an endemic response. "In that endemic plan, we will be able to answer a lot of questions you have about what world are we living in, where are we going with this virus," the governor told reporters.) SmolBrane (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Appreciate the followup, thanks. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:21, 8 June 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.

Is a term

This article has a clear WP:ISATERMFOR issue. Is there some consensus behind the current opening line? Any objections to something along the lines of "Living with COVID-19" is a set of management strategies for the COVID-19 pandemic ..."? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I have looked for more concrete sources regarding the explicit use of this term and haven't come up with much(aside from the UK and some Canadian provinces). Tasmania used this term to refer to their moving forward with COVID but it's only primary sourced. Of course the sentimental nature of the phrase means it appears on many articles that do not refer to the policy titled "Living with COVID-19", meaning it's hard to search for. Maybe this doesn't answer your question, but I think it helps to suggest the improper naming of this article. Living with COVID is definitely a 'term used to describe', not simply an explicit policy... SmolBrane (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree there is a problem here. Synthy term begets synthy content. Might need to be deleted. Alexbrn (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

(Deletion) seems unlikely, "Management strategies for the COVID-19 pandemic that designate Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as an endemic illness that has lessened in severity but cannot be fully contained, and prioritise a return to normal lifestyles" is definitely a subject that warrants an article, it just needs to be appropriately named and organized. SmolBrane (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Don't think so, any more for any other endemic illness. It's mainly just a shopping list of the way some Nations have a public health policy ("management strategies" are for business) for this disease when it's widespread (whether that's "classified" as endemic or not). After de-crufting would slot into National responses to the COVID-19 pandemic or the individual national articles. A problem here is that it is pre-supposed there is one universal thing called "living with COVID", which is kind of simplistic, wrong, and unsourced. Alexbrn (talk) 08:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

You are, of course, well within your rights to attempt deletion here; I'm wagering that this is a great way to get more eyes on this article and it will then get split, or rolled into Public health mitigation of COVID-19(edit: or the article you mentioned) or simply renamed. I think the word 'endemic' is pretty significant not only in the context of the pandemic but in the context of political decisions. The universality is coming from epidemiological endemicity observed by RSes. SmolBrane (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

A merge rather than delete. The trouble with "endemic" is that is has an established medical meaning, but is also a word used widely[8] by idiots, blowhards and pundits (no it does not mean "end of the pandemic"!). Needless to say, to avoid the bad stuff Wikipedia needs to be using WP:MEDRS for any content about what is or or not endemicity, or whether it exists wrt COVID. Alexbrn (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I opened a RS noticeboard discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Treating_COVID-19_as_an_"endemic"_illness_-_Requires_MEDRS? SmolBrane (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

We cannot presume that all these non-MEDRS sources are idiots, blowhards and pundits on the basis that they are using the word 'endemic'. That would be SYNTH. Endemic appears far too often in the dialogue and the citations for us to exclude it. SmolBrane (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not what WP:SYNTH means. If RS tells us a word is widely mis-used, that's a clue to be careful about sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to demonstrate misuse of the word if you have a basis for the alleged misuse. SmolBrane (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

What do we do in the case of other words which have both a colloquial meaning and a specific meaning within a particular field? I expect there's room to describe both 'pandemic plans described as endemic' and 'epidemiologist assessments of whether or not it's endemic'. Aside from the article title question (trickier to explain the colloquial caveats in a title), it seems clear we'll have to do this. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I think you will have a hard time demonstrating that the usage of 'endemic' by sources on this article are in fact colloquial usages. The majority on this page are citations from health officials(Argentina, Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, Rhode Island) and a couple national or state representatives(Mexico, Spain, California, Vietnam). If you can demonstrate that these are colloquial and non-technical applications you are welcome to demonstrate that. SmolBrane (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps not colloquial, but some other indication that the disease is not yet agreed to be endemic. If we start with the presumption that the WHO is the authority on pandemics, and that endemic and pandemic are mutually exclusive, the WHO says we're still in a pandemic. Not that we can't say that these jurisdictions aren't using the term 'endemic', just that it's either aspirational (a plan designed for the anticipated near-term transition to endemic) or otherwise not a universal agreement. So some way to describe that while COVID-19 isn't officially endemic, some jurisdictions have transitioned to public health plans intended for endemic management of the virus. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

We can only presume that the WHO is the authority on all perceptions related to the pandemic if it is regarded as such by sovereign states and consequentially/additionally in the material produced by secondary sources. If secondary sources and sovereign states do not effectively qualify their commentary and policies respectively, then we are left with the issue of either presuming as you suggest, or simply including secondary material as it is DUE. I would defer to the latter; I see no reason to presume that the WHO is the best source for all jurisdictions or this would be reflected in secondary RS commentary--and indeed by the health authorities in those jurisdictions.

Endemicity is deductively intrinsic to living with COVID and I think it's the best way to constrain this article rather than with slippery terms(Living with COVID). I reviewed the creation of this article and the first sources(edit: that were cited in the lead) did all specify endemicity but they were discussing "how we'll live with COVID" or something similarly non-specific. I do not share the anxieties around the word 'endemic' given it is being used by authorities capable of making such declarations(and as per Masem's comments on the noticeboard and Horse Eye's Back's edit summary). Hopefully this article will one day receive enough attention for these matters to be coherently resolved. SmolBrane (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is claiming that the WHO is the authority on all perceptions related to the pandemic. But the WHO is a reliable source for public health information. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

More specifically, the WHO is the only global health body, and thus the official authority on whether something is a pandemic (by definition, a global event) or not. Jurisdictions can differ of course, my concern is just that we to avoid phrasing local endemic policies in a way that gives the impression the pandemic isn't ongoing (officially, at least). Bakkster Man (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Should be up to secondary sources I think. Note that the Philippines and Spain section both contain commentary by the WHO since it was observed by the secondary source. The WHO is generally not commenting on endemicity stated by jurisdictional authorities, as far as I can tell. Any jurisdiction's authority is within their reliability to transition to endemicity; we can note the discrepancy where due. SmolBrane (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

"Endemic" in the lead sentence

The lead currently states that Living with COVID-19" is a term used to describe COVID-19 pandemic public health policies that designate Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as an endemic illness... But in fact the "living with COVID-19" strategy is also used in areas where the disease is not yet endemic (including areas covered in this article). The term endemic has a specific meaning in epidemiology, and we should not misuse it – it should be removed from this sentence in the lead. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there any source which defines what "living with COVID-19" means? Meanwhile, have trimmed the lead's fancies. Alexbrn (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully this article can resolve its identity crisis; it will be much easier to edit once constrained. SmolBrane (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I've had a go at rewriting the lead sentence with reference to this BMJ article which discusses a lack of clear definition for the term. There is no mention of "endemic" in the article. Welcome thoughts. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Nice! Alexbrn (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this, looks like a new source for this article; I would caution that this is an opinion article and should be handled carefully. If this article didn't have such a slippery meaning to begin with, I would consider removing it as a source. SmolBrane (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

It's by far the best source, and the only one specifically about this quasi-bullshit term. An opinion piece is what one would expect on the meaning of a word -- can't do an RCT on it! The fact we now have on-point academic experts for sourcing gives the article some basis. Meanwhile, all the editorial OR and cruft about "endemic" this and that can be cut. Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @SmolBrane:. It may be the opinions of members of Independent Sage but it is in a credible, peer-reviewed medical source, making it one of the best sources used in this article. Almost every other source in the "Characteristics" and "Background" sections are WP:MEDPOP kind of strewn together into original synthesis. This really must be improved if this article is to justify its existence. Otherwise Public health mitigation of COVID-19 broadly covers this topic. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that removing all this LASTING material from the lead is really improving the article; deferring to MEDRS instead of MEDPOP when there are more sources in the latter seems problematic(especially given the non-medical components of social and political decisions) and the lead used to summarize the rest of the material much more clearly. Endemicity is unsurprisingly a primary characteristic of living with a disease(as noted by the characteristics section) but this article still needs to be constrained. SmolBrane (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

When Wikipedia wants to describe what a phrase means, and scholars have addressed that topic, Wikipedia mirrors the WP:SCHOLARSHIP. It's not for Wikipedia editors to decide their view trumps theirs (or indeed that their view is worth anything at all). Alexbrn (talk) 05:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Yikes. Keep it collaborative, yeah? SmolBrane (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

New article for endemic phase

I have created a stub for the Endemic phase of COVID-19, editors can remove endemic mentions from this article as they see fit. SmolBrane (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

New Reuters source

A new source on the subject, to help generate some clarity--the lead needs some work! [9] SmolBrane (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't think so: this just proves the point there are multiple definitions. This lay source thinks it means masking-up and self-testing. Alexbrn (talk) 05:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)