Talk:Zero-COVID/Archive 1

Archive 1

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by SL93 (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
NPOV concerns.

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that only mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan are still pursuing a zero-COVID strategy? Source1: Normile, Dennis (19 November 2021). "'Zero COVID' is getting harder—but China is sticking with it". Science. 374 (6570): 924–924. doi:10.1126/science.acx9657. eISSN 1095-9203. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 34793217.

Source2:"How much longer can China keep up its zero-Covid strategy?". The Guardian. 2022-01-01. Retrieved 2022-01-02.

• • Comment: New article

Created by Novem Linguae (talk), Moxy (talk), Thucydides411 (talk), and Arcahaeoindris (talk). Nominated by Moxy at 16:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC).

• DYKcheck says that the current version of the article has only '1386 characters (221 words) "readable prose size"'. That falls below the DYK minimum of 1,500 characters.
  @Moxy and Novem Linguae: I am sure that it can readily be expanded to pass the threshold. If and when that happens, please ping me and I will complete the review. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  BrownHairedGirl. Thanks to Thucydides411 starting an expansion, we're currently at 524 words, 3536 characters. Feel free to resume your review. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Novem Linguae: that's good news, but I think it will be difficult to review while it is being actively expanded. Please can you or @Thucydides411 ping me when it has stabilised again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  @BrownHairedGirl: I'll ping you once the article is a bit more stable. I'm still adding content. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, @Thucydides411.
  Moxy's correction[1] of the hook fact is welcome, but the fact that the first hook was wrong suggests that the initial nomination was premature. It would be helpful if all 3 editors could review the article before a full DYK review is started. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Not wrong...some like to list the distinctions of Greater China ....so was amended as so.Moxy- 23:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  The unualified term "China" usually refers to the PRC, not Taiwan. So it was at best misleading. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  P.S. Suggest adding myself and Thucydides411 to the nomination, if appropriate. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Novem Linguae:: done[2]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  ... and I've added the appropriate credit templates, including one for Arcahaeoindris.  MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM  20:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure the current hook is accurate - Macau is still pursuing a zero-covid strategy too, isn't it?[3] —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  Correct me if I'm wrong, but that source doesn't appear to say that Macau is still pursing zero-COVID. My quick search for the word Macau didn't indicate anything like that in the vicinity of the word. Can you clarify with a quote? More generally, I agree that we need to tighten up the hook. That is one of the reasons this DYK is on hold. We had one article that said XYZ are the only countries pursuing COVID, but as we expand the article we are finding additional countries. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  The source I linked says "Since the early days of the covid-19 pandemic, China’s aim has been to eliminate the coronavirus entirely from within the mainland’s borders. Hong Kong and Macau have similar strategies." The alternate hook you suggested below seems fine to me. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• ALT1: Proposal for new hook that has no danger of being factually incorrect: ... that places such as China, Hong Kong and Taiwan have pursued a zero-COVID strategy? –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Support. New hook seems to correct the issues. ––FormalDude talk 13:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Bloomberg reported this morning that Omicron has ruined Hong Kong's Zero COVID [4]. Zero COVID is just a political slogan and the article gives undue weight to this political angle. CutePeach (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Zero Covid is a ongoing response for COVID-19, so this article can be updated. I think it's ok. Thingofme (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• BrownHairedGirl. Hey there. It's been a week or so. Probably worth taking another look at this. I proposed a new hook above that avoids some of the issues with the first one. Thanks for your help. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  Hey BrownHairedGirl. Sorry for the double ping. Just wanted to follow up and see if you had some time to work on this. I think this may be ready to approve using ALT1, but I'll leave that up to your good judgment. Thank you very much. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Hi @Novem Linguae, and sorry for my slow reply.
  I took a quick look at the article, and it seems that you have all done great work. It now has 4928 words and over 140 references ... so it has grown from being a stub when nominated to something more like B-class. Well done!
  However, that also means that the task of reviewing it for DYK has grown from being a 20-minute task to a whole day's work. And I am sorry to say that I have neither the time nor the inclination to devote a whole day to do, and I won't sign off as reviewed an article which I have not properly scrutinised.
  So I think it's best that I bow out, and someone else does the review. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Thank you for letting us know. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• New review needed per above. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Novem LinguaeMoxyThucydides411Arcahaeoindris, I'm happy to give this a review, but I'm not sure about the hook. It's exceptionally time-sensitive, and this was created weeks ago, and it could be further weeks before it hits the main page. I'm not overthrilled with the proposed ALT1, it's too vague to be interesting. I'm going to give the article a good reading and will see if I can come up with some suggestions, but if anyone else has one, please add! valereee (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• ALT2: The Zero-COVID strategy is predicated on a series of measures, including lookdowns, restrictions on travel, mass testing and contact tracing.Moxy- 14:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:

Image eligibility:

• Freely licensed: - na
• Used in article:
• Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Review is incomplete - please fill in the "status" field

Re: ALTs. I think you could build a dateproof alt around the fact HK's zero-COVID strategy was being called unsustainable by the end of January 2022. I think you could build one around the fact opponents are calling it unfeasible/unrealistic. valereee (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

valereee, I only see one prior DYK nomination by Moxy, from 2015. Unless you found some that I missed, they would be on their second free DYK for this nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, thanks, missed that it wasn't actually nom'd by the other editors. valereee (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

valereee (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• ALT3: ... that China's zero-COVID strategy sometimes involves testing 5-10 individuals and combining their swabs into one COVID test? –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• ALT4: ... that Hong Kong's zero-COVID strategy of strict lockdowns has been called unsustainable and may be on the brink of collapse? –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• ALT5: ... that opponents of the zero-COVID strategy worry that it may be unrealistic? –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• ALT6: ... that a portion of Canada followed a strict zero-COVID strategy and was called the "Atlantic Bubble"? –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Hey valereee. Thanks for taking the time to review this one. I added a bunch of alts just now based on your suggestions and my own re-reading of the article. Feel free to pick the most interesting one and we can coalesce our efforts around that. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, I think either ALT5 or ALT6 would work -- both are stated as something that happened rather than something that is happening, so we don't have the date issue. I personally prefer ALT5, but I'm open minded! valereee (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

How about ALT6? Slightly more positive than ALT5. Happy to help with next steps, just let me know what you need. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

How about this?

• ALT7 ... that as part of its zero-COVID strategy, China tested 18 million residents of Guangzhou in three days during a Delta variant outbreak in June 2021?

I think it's sufficiently interesting to be a hook, and there's no expiry date on the statement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Interesting to the reader. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose this is not a neutral article. Per WP:NPOV, it must represent all significant views, and one vertically significant view I added was deleted. I have added it back but I'm not sure if it will lead to a protracted dispute like in the Chinese government response to COVID-19 page where this page is being brought as proof to "settle the question" about the accuracy of China's statistics. The article is also full of SYNTH as the majority of sources in the China section do not even mention zero COVID. LondonIP (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

pls review Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.Moxy- 15:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose the article isn't neutral and the editors keep on removing counter views. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Although with multiple experience editors working forward to improve the article, its perhaps best to put this on hold till we are able to deal with the over flow argument from another article. No point in having to deal with explanations of neutrality to editors here as there is currently multiple talks on going how to write about the views at the article mainly affected and notice board. . . Talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19#POV tag.. ...Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Can Chinese academic publications be considered independent on subjects censored by the Chinese government?.--Moxy- 18:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The problem is your refusal to acknowledge there is a POV problem. Most of the coverage this topic gets is critical, yet this article completely elides those sources and their criticism, giving a glowing picture of the policy and its effectiveness. If this problem is fixed, I would fully support this proposal. LondonIP (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

After topic bans we will reviste this.--Moxy- 11:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Given the nomination has stalled over NPOV concerns and it doesn't seem like these concerns will be addressed anytime soon, it doesn't seem like there is any path forward for the nomination at this time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Meat puppets have vanished.Moxy- 03:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

FTTIS

I don't think that "Find, Test, Trace, Isolate and Support" (FTTIS) is used widely enough to feature so prominently in the lede. There are various other secondary terms that are more common, as far as I can tell. "Elimination strategy" is often used in the scientific literature. In China, the terms "zero tolerance" (for transmission) and "dynamic zero" are commonly used. I'm not as familiar with the terms used in other countries, though I wouldn't be surprised if every country had its own terminology. Maybe "Zero-COVID" is enough for the first sentence of the lede. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

FTTIS is a term used long before covid [5]....and what medical text call it [6]. Will find more data searching FTTIS then zero-anything.Moxy- 05:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Is FTTIS too broad for this article? Should we perhaps remove it from the lead, and also remove the hatnote, and then have FTTIS redirect to Eradication of infectious diseases? Just an idea, I'm not sure yet. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I am no expert in this field....so will leave it to others (that said ... while do my research for the article most academic info came from searching FTTIS. ..."zero"seems to get more media hits though.) As for the Hatnote not seeing much use for it.Moxy- 15:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Excerpt

If we are copy pasting from other articles, we should consider using {{Excerpt}}. This has maintenance benefits since the text only has to be edited and maintained in one place, saving editor time and effort. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Many sections are a mix match of relevent data from each main article.WP:DETAIL....think it may be hard.--Moxy- 01:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Never mind then. Keep up the good work! –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

South Korea

Is it accurate to say that South Korea has followed a zero-COVID strategy? South Korea has had low case numbers for most of the pandemic, but as far as I'm aware, it hasn't pursued full elimination. In my reading, South Korea's approach is often contrasted with that of its zero-COVID neighbors. See, for example, this article. In particular, this passage contrasts South Korea with "zero-Covid economies":

In contrast to the United States and Europe, where nearly 1.8 million people have died of Covid-19, South Korea has won plaudits for its pandemic response, recording just over 2,000 deaths among a population of more than 51 million.

But unlike Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Taiwan and other “zero-Covid” economies that have tried to eliminate the virus entirely, Seoul has for months now been reporting hundreds of new cases every day.

-Thucydides411 (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I interpreted Once these new tools became available, the medium- to longer-term strategy evolved, too. The next step after zero Covid has been a focus on vaccinating the population to a high threshold, and acquiring antivirals that can be given in outpatient care to keep the burden off healthcare services. The pivot from maximum suppression to mass vaccination was a rational and logical shift to achieve a successful transition out of the pandemic. as meaning they had followed zero-COVID, but as another editor pointed out, the source isn't great, it's just an opinion piece. I disagree with the comment in the inline tag that says MEDRS is needed, since a government picking a public health strategy is more akin to politics than biomedicine. But being an opinion piece, it is possible that the article got it wrong. Feel free to change if you are certain that South Korea did not follow zero-COVID. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I found a better source. The Atlantic. Singapore, Vietnam, Taiwan, South Korea, and mainland China, as well as Australia and New Zealand, were also adherents to the “zero COVID” or “elimination” strategy –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like other places starting this strategy again.Moxy- 01:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

A section listing proponents of the Zero-COVID approach

Do you think that it is worth having a section in which supporters (scientists, politicians, etc.) of the Zero-COVID strategy are listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.91.212.222 (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

There's now a section titled, "Views on the Zero-COVID policy". It currently only contains criticism, but there are also plenty of advocates of the approach. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try to contribute to it as well by including more viewpoints of public figures who maintain that Zero-COVID is the right approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.91.212.222 (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The scientific view

Multiple RS report that China has been putting on airs of having successfully continued the crisis as part of a domestic and international propaganda campaign to show how that its political system is superior to those of other countries. Therefore, we should not muddy the science with the politics on this subject, and I have split the Views section into two. CutePeach (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

This is very vague .....spillover disagreement from somewhere else?. Can you explain more...what content or sources is of concern here? concerned that we are about to get a China data debate section inserted here.Moxy- 14:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Its a spillover from the Chinese government response to COVID-19 page, but regardless of that, I agree we need to provide WP:BALANCE per WP:NPOV. LondonIP (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Where and what is not balanced ? Stats? A statement? A source?--Moxy- 00:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy: WP:NPOV says we must represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Here are a few recent among many articles critical of the policy and its implementation [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. I would like our article represent all views fairly, instead of giving undue WP:WEIGHT to this policy, when leading independent virologists around the world (including Guan Yi in China) advocate for increased vaccination and research into the efficacy of homegrown vaccines against new variants as the most effective strategy to control the pandemic. LondonIP (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a single scientific source in that list. They're all articles by non-experts in the popular press. They're essentially punditry.

If we want to document criticisms of the zero-COVID policy by various business groups, then some of these articles are decent sources, but they're not reliable sources for any claims about epidemiology or public health measures. We have actual scientific literature for that. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you think is unbalanced about the article, it provides multiple opposing viewpoints and seems fine to me. Xoltered (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Views on the zero-COVID strategy

I am concerned that the "Views on the zero-COVID strategy" section is just becoming a long list of quotes. Over-quoting violates summary style, encourages use of primary sources, and is often not the best way to write encyclopedia articles. I'm not saying we should delete the section, but we may want to give some thought to refactoring it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Well actually, I created the section under the title Opposition to the zero-COVID policy [17], to represent opposing views, per WP:NPOV. The section was then renamed by Th411 to Views on the zero-COVID strategy [18], who also changed the description of the page, putting the claim in Wikivoice that it can regionally eliminate COVID-19 and return to normal social and economic activity [19]. Neither of these two changes are, in my view, a fair representation of what is published in reliable sources. LondonIP (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

First, creating a section devoted solely to criticism of the policy is non-neutral. There are also very prominent supporters of the policy.

Second, the short description describes what the aims of the zero-COVID strategy are. It is very well documented that several countries (including China and New Zealand) did eliminate the virus for long stretches of time, and did return to a high degree of normal social and economic activity. Notably, mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong have so far successfully prevented reestablishment of sustained community transmission. Mainland China exited its major lockdown by mid-April 2020 and dropped most restrictions on social and economic activity within its borders. New Zealand had long stretches at "Level 1", with very few internal restrictions. I could list other countries, but you get the point.

Nobody knows what will happen long-term with COVID-19, but elimination is one strategy that some countries have followed and some are still following. Describing it in Wikivoice as non-mainstream is non-neutral (particularly when the world's most populous country is following this strategy), and setting up zero-COVID in opposition to vaccination is just misinformed. Vaccination is a component of zero-COVID strategies, and mainland China has one of the world's highest vaccination rates at the moment. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: which policy says that having a criticism section is non-neutral? It would be helpful for you to link to the pertinent policy or quote the exact text from the policy you have in mind. I see many articles sections entirely dedicated to criticism, like Privacy policy#Criticism, Drug policy of Sweden#Criticism, Foreign policy of the United States#Criticism and One-child policy#Criticism. I do however agree with Novem Linguae that this section doesn't read well, and I'd like to rewrite it to be more like one of the aforementioned examples. CutePeach (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The policy is WP:NPOV. There is significant support for the zero-COVID policy, not only criticism. It's an obvious violation of neutrality to create a section for the express purpose of representing views on only one side. Having a section that discusses different views - both supportive and critical - on the strategy is obviously more neutral. Criticism sections are discouraged, in general, for this very reason. See WP:NOCRIT for a more detailed explanation.

I do agree with Novem Linguae that the "Views" section is becoming a mess. We should keep it relatively short, and consider what is of encyclopedic value and what is simply punditry. We should probably restrict the views to those of people with scientific expertise, and maybe politically prominent people who have some role in / influence over public health policy. We could also include some information on public opinion surveys, if they exist. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey @CutePeach. I think you're looking for WP:CSECTION. It is an essay, but it is often linked to when deleting or renaming "Criticism" and "Controversy" sections. While not completely forbidden, I believe it is considered bad practice to have criticims sections. I've had experienced editors revert me before when I try to add criticism sections to articles, so I no longer do it. I believe it is considered better practice to present positives and negatives side by side, grouping them by topic rather than grouping by positive/negative tone. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree – when possible, we should organize material by topic rather than by point of view. "Criticism" sections tend to lead to articles with a non-neutral slant. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm all in support of essays as interpretations of policy, but we have assure that our article represents all views proportionally, and there have been a lot of critical reports in RS over the past few days about this topic. Since this is a hot topic in the news, I suggest we leave this discussion open, and make changes as they become necessary. I would compare this policy to the One-child policy because it bears social and economic costs, while the benefits remain unknown and unverifiable. Here are a few new sources we should consider adding for NPOV [20] [21] [22] [23]. LondonIP (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

A few more RSs we should consider adding for NPOV [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. This page is no longer proportionally representative of of the significant views in reliable sources. LondonIP (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

If you want to propose a concise summary of some of the criticisms here on the talk page, then please do. Something along the lines of, "Some Western commentators have criticized China's zero-COVID policy for XYZ reasons" would probably be appropriate. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes I would agree. LondonIP, you cannot simply provide sources and say "This is POV, fix it." You have to also suggest the changes. Be the change you want to see in the world. I also agree with the idea that adding a "criticism" section is bad form. it will lead to POV slanting of the ideas involved, not putting them in context. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Let's steer clear of media junk especially US media....any proposal should be done with academic sources.Moxy- 14:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

That is ironically a US source. CutePeach (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete section "Views on the zero-COVID strategy"?

The section "Views on the zero-COVID strategy" seems to have turned into a random splattering of ideas and opinions. It rambles, lacks proper grouping of ideas, and in my opinion doesn't add much to the article because it is disorganized. Thoughts on deleting it? –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Its become basically a coat rack of random views, way outstripping the DUE-ness of its individual parts. delete and start over, with summary style. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with this and I don't understand why you exclude views from scientists critical of the Chinese Communist Party's narrative. Most RS on Zero COVID are highly critical of Zero COVID [31] [32]. Please stop deleting critical views. CutePeach (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The specific views aren't particularly important to me. I'd just like it to be better organized. If you want to add it back with one paragraph negative and one paragraph positive, and mostly summarize instead of using direct quotes, I would be fine with that. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and added back the section just now, rewritten in summary style instead of using quotes. Diff. If you are satisfied with it, feel free to remove the POV tag. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I like this version. I think it's far more NPOV and summary style. Good change! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: The summary-style views section is much better than the smattering of random quotes we had before. Thank you for rewriting the section. I'm still not convinced the section is necessary, but this is an improvement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for improving this page and resolving this discussion Novem Xoltered (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring. At this point, there is so much criticism of the policy, including from within China, it makes sense to split out these critical views. Any policy by any government is bound to attract criticism, and there is a whole lot of that for this policy. CutePeach (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

For Beijing to give up on zero-COVID and allow the new variant to run its course would be tantamount to admitting that its political system is no better than Western liberal democracy in protecting people’s health. [33]. ← We need to treat this subject as political and make absolutely sure that any MEDRS brought to refute RS do so directly and without any WP:SYNTH. We need to start by including questions about the accuracy of China's statistics the effectiveness of their zero COVID policy in doing whatever it is supposed to do. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The article already mentions various criticism in the "views" section, and there is no reason to add a WP:POV quote which does not actually mention any criticism of the policy. (Also note, countries other than china have done Zero-COVID) Xoltered (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It does not mention this criticism in specific, from a highly acclaimed expert on public health in China, so it should be included imo. LondonIP (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Novem Linguae I'm not sure if you've been keeping up with the news, but at this point it is impossible not to have a section with critical views, titled as such. The views in favor of the policy are limited to China and already covered in above section, so there is no point in a generic "views" section unless they are distinguished in some way. Please can you also restore the criticism from Guan Yi, and particularly his comments on vaccination? It relates to the efficacy of China's own mRNA vaccines [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]. The Chinese government has been blocking foreign made mRNA vaccines while working on their own [42] [43], which Guan was obviously referring to in his critique. Gao has also spoken about it, though not in reference to zero COVID [44]. CutePeach (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Novem Linguae's rewrite of the section was an improvement, because it changed the section from a smattering of opinions from various people (ranging from actual experts to political pundits) to a general description of the types of arguments made for and against the zero-COVID policy. Yes, you can find an opinion piece by the editors of a business magazine criticizing the zero-COVID policy (one of your sources: [45]), and I can find an article in the very same business magazine arguing that China's zero-COVID policy is critical to the functioning of the world economy and should be continued: [46]. If there's some major type of argument that we're leaving out, we can include it (in as concise a manner as possible). However, I don't think the section should be changed back into a confused back-and-forth between dozens of opinion articles, or worse yet, into a one-sided (i.e., WP:POV) collection of criticisms of the policy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it was an improvement per NPOV and I have restored the criticism from Guan. This is just a start to restoring a very important section of a highly controversial policy. LondonIP (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Disagree completely..... you have not shown any neutrality problems whatsoever. Here on out I recommend any suggestions or tags you wish to add be outlined here first.Moxy- 04:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy: you might not agree there are neutrality problems here, but sources have been provided with significant points of view that are not represented on this page, and you seem to be aware of them enough to delete them from the page. I think the criticism of scientists like Guan Yi is very much WP:DUE and necessary as per WP:NPOV. I would also like to see China public health expert Yanzhong Huang's point of view fairly represented on the page. If you dispute the inclusion of these view points, we can post an RFC. CutePeach (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

.Still have not proven any problmes??? What statment(s) is a problem? Cant just spam mediia junk and claim bias without syaing the problems.Moxy- 17:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The views of leading Chinese public health figures like Zhong Nanshan and Wu Zunyou are no less notable than those of Guan Yi, but they're not specifically mentioned in the "Views" section either. The "Views" section used to be a confused jumble of quotes by various people, and we made a decision to condense it into a concise description of the arguments made, both pro and contra the zero-COVID policy. If you're unhappy that a particular person's views are not explicitly discussed in the "Views" section, keep in mind that no individual's views are explicitly discussed. Not Zhong Nanshan. Not Wu Zunyou. Not Guan Yi. This isn't a lack of balance - it's a decision not to turn the "Views" section back into the confusing jumble it used to be. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The problem Moxy and Thucydides411 is that according to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, we must represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Guan Yi and Yanzhong Huang's views on zdero COVID are very different to Wu Zunyou and Zhong Nanshan's views, but they are significant, and without them, this article just isn't neutral. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

We do cover the different views fairly and proportionately. Guan Yi and Yanzhong Huang's views are already described in the 2nd paragraph of the "Views" section in a general sense (in fact, one of the references is to an article that discusses Guan Yi's views). But as we decided earlier, we're not specifically quoting any individual's views. We're summarizing the different views, without providing a litany of who said what. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with this approach. Unnecessary, clunky, and likely POV to overemphasize individual views here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with this approach as it buries WP:DUE criticism from a relevant expert. "Clunky" is not a policy based argument, and NPOV is a core policy saying significant views should be represented. See Template:Who#Usage. The POV tag should remain on until this dispute is resolved, otherwise it may get protected. CutePeach (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The current text doesn't bury Guan Yi's views in the slightest. His views are summarized right there in paragraph 2 of the "Views" section, with a reference that links to an article about his views. We are fully compliant with WP:NPOV here.

I don't see a legitimate POV concern here, and the repeated tagging of the article is getting disruptive. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you should try to see the problem then? This article doesn't represent all significant points of view. Here are just two critical articles not fairly represented [47] [48]. My own analysis: it's no surprise these come out of Hong Kong, where society isn't fully under the control of the CCP, for now. LondonIP (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Not every single opinion article ever published anywhere that mentions the zero-COVID strategy has to be discussed in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

And indeed, to discuss every single article/opinion in line with that POV would create a WP:COATRACK, and thus NPOV issues. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Not every single opinion article ever published anywhere that mentions the zero-COVID strategy has to be discussed in the article... Not every single opinion was suggested for inclusion. Trying so desperately to bury the views of experts critical of government policy, and then making it about every single opinion article isn't the way to resolve this dispute. It looks like this page may need full protection too. CutePeach (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

What do you think is missing? So far I see all view point metioned ...even the one metioned above dispite not seeing it by name. Moxy- 15:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The Telegraph is paywalled, so I can't read that source, but the Al Jazeera source seems to be mostly focused on negative economic effects of the zero-COVID strategy. That concern is mentioned in the current version of the "Views" section, but not in much detail. It might be worth describing how the policy has affected Hong Kong's economy in the Zero-COVID#Hong Kong section. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps best if CutePeach and LondonIP read over Wikipedia:Academic bias (an essay) to understand how many experienced editors here on Wikipedia think.Moxy- 02:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive tagging

Tagging is meant to flag problems in the text, so that they can be worked on. It is not meant to serve as a protest against consensus.

This is an example of disruptive tagging: [49]. A whole number of "who" tags have been added to the "Views" section. What's the purpose of these tags? Is it to alert editors that the text is overly vague? No, it's to protest the consensus that developed above, that we should write the "Views" section in a more concise summary style, instead of individually listing who has said what. Previously, the "Views" section contained a hodge-podge of quotes by all sorts of people, both supporting and criticizing the zero-COVID strategy. Novem Linguae helpfully rewrote the section in summary style: [50]. A number of editors (the majority of those active on the page) agreed that the updated section was better than the previous laundry list of quotes (see #Delete section "Views on the zero-COVID strategy"?).

Template:WHO states,

Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like some or most are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Wikipedia should remain concise, even if it means being vague.

There was a conscious decision, made by the majority of editors, to switch to a concise summary the major arguments that have been made about zero-COVID, without going into detail about who said what. There are many different people with different views who could be quoted, but that would turn the section into the same bloated mess it was before. To avoid bloat, we would have to choose which specific people to quote, and such a decision would end up being arbitrary, because there are simply too many people who have weighed in. That's why we decided to switch to the concise summary we have now. These tags appear to be a protest against that decision, rather than an attempt to flag an issue that other editors can fix. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Think we may need to bring this odd meatpuppet editing to another venue. Hard to move forward with improvements when we have to deal with tag team puppetry. Still not sure what they are concerned about? Is it China stats or something else? How did this argument end up here? Is there any academic sources that convey the same thing?Moxy- 22:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy: this spilled over from Talk:Chinese_government_response_to_COVID-19#Zero-COVID where Novem Linguae said the creation of this well sourced article allows us to assume that accusations of statistics fudging are simply political accusations. That is why I'm here and I've said this article is not well sourced, relies too much on primary sourcing, and is not neutral. Please make an effort to understand my concerns. CutePeach (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

OMG its about a few numbers....wow just wow. Do we have any sources with other numbers? Above is just media junk saying somthing wrong... do we have GOOD sources with stats other then what we have? SO what numbers are of contention here? I see 2 sentances with stats for China. What sources do you have a problem with ...just repeating the same thing does not help....nor does pointing to a huge tlak that seems to have the same unseen problem.Moxy- 15:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL. The issue here is not the supposedly low numbers of infections and deaths in China. The issue here is that this policy is being paraded by the Chinese government to support their claims of having near zero deaths since April 2020. A focal point of criticism is the economic and social costs of the policy, which are not adequately represented in this article. CutePeach (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Need to be specific....... What academic sources can you provided? What do you think needes to be added ? What sources do you belive are not good here?Moxy- 15:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The only academic sources that would be relevant for stating opinions as facts are review articles, and even then other review articles may counter them, which is common science policy and health policy debates. Unless you have such articles, all criticism of the policy from relevant experts is WP:DUE, and hiding such criticism and removing the names of those making the criticism is wrong. See MOS:WEASEL and Template:Who#Usage. CutePeach (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

(ec) Good to hear you agree media is not a good source now. Can you provied any help in moving forward ...can you reply to any of the questions above?--Moxy- 16:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The issue here is that this policy is being paraded by the Chinese government to support their claims of having near zero deaths since April 2020: These aren't just "claims." It is a widely acknowledged fact that China eliminated SARS-CoV-2 within its borders in April 2020, and that it has prevented any major resurgence of local transmission since then. No sustained local transmission means extremely low case numbers and close to zero deaths. If you're disputing this basic, widely acknowledged reality, then we have a problem.

A focal point of criticism is the economic and social costs of the policy: We mention this criticism. We also mention the opposite view, which is that the zero-COVID policy has produced better social and economic outcomes. People who argue the latter position point to the fact that China was the only major economy to grow in 2020 (and that it had strong growth in 2021, as well), and that social and economic life returned to normal much more quickly in China than in most of the world. There is a discussion of the effects of elimination strategies on society and the economy in this academic paper. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@CutePeach: This article relies on extensive, high-quality secondary sources from the academic literature. Those sources are far superior to news sources. For scientific information, news sources are generally of very low quality, and should be avoided as much as possible. If we want to summarize what the zero-COVID policy is and how it works, we should rely on the academic literature. That's exactly what we're doing, to a very large extent. You've been arguing that we should go through and replace these high-quality academic articles with random speculation from popular media, such as newspapers and magazines, and you're trying to sell this as an improvement in sourcing. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Moxy are you aware there is a dispute here? Do you still think this article should not have a section dedicated to the huge number of reports of those opposing this policy? Have you kept up with RS on this topic? LondonIP (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Will give 48 hrs to come up with sources and a statement to add.Moxy- 01:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• I do not believe we have consensus in favor of the POV tag. Where was that consensus developed? can anyone point towards the discussion demonstrating the tag is necessary? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  What is this obsession with removing the POV tag? I dispute the removal of opposition and criticism of this draconian policy by scientists, commentators and politicians. The opposition section I created was replaced with a generic "views" section, and Guan Yi's criticism was toned down. Just Google "zero COVID" and you will see the majority of RS are critical, and they are not fairly or proportionally represented here. From what I can tell, most of the sources are are primary, and the first source isn't even on PubMed. China has now come up with this new "dynamic zero" version of the policy which seems to allow for some outbreaks, so this is all very wishy washy. LondonIP (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

What.? your addition was 2 sentences since then even more opposition views have been added. Why is naming Guan Yi so important? I use Google Scholar and PubMedMoxy- 08:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hatnote

Just now I shortened the hatnote to This article is about the COVID elimination strategy. For the broader topic eradicating of infectious diseases, see Eradication of infectious diseases. Elminating the hatnote is also an option, and one other editor supported eliminating it above. Thoughts on eliminating it? –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we should remove the hatnote, per WP:RELATED. That said, it's probably a good idea to link Eradication of infectious diseases from somewhere in the article, in a "See also" section if nowhere else. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Since China is the only country still pursuing this strategy, which has been questioned for its effectiveness by multiple RS (see above), we have to inform readers of the more WP:MAINSTREAM approach governments have adopted to respond to COVID-19. I added it per WP:GEVAL. LondonIP (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Is this what hatnotes are typically added for? I thought they were for disambiguation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, hatnotes are supposed to be a navigation aid. WP:GEVAL is not relevant to this. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, no one is finding this article when they intended to find the article linked. Xoltered (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I would support just linking to it in the first few sentences, no hatnote necessary. It's cleaner. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

North Korea

North Korea reportedly also follows an 'elimination strategy'.

This section is an excerpt from COVID-19 pandemic in North Korea § January–February 2020.[edit]

Masikryong Ski Resort, a popular ski resort in North Korea. Due to the outbreak of the virus, ski resorts and spas in North Korea have been closed.

North Korea was one of the first countries to close borders due to COVID-19. Starting from 23 January 2020, North Korea banned foreign tourists, and all flights in and out of the country were halted. The authorities also started placing patients with suspected COVID, including those with slight, flu-like symptoms, in quarantine for two weeks in Sinuiju. On 30 January, the state news agency of North Korea, the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), declared a "state emergency", and reported the establishment of anti-epidemic headquarters around the country. Though many parts of the border were closed, the bridge between Dandong and Sinuiju remained open and allowed supplies to be delivered. In late February, the North Korean government said that it would keep the border closed until a cure was found.

On 2 February, KCNA reported that all the people who had entered the country after 13 January were placed under "medical supervision". South Korean media outlet Daily NK reported that five suspected COVID-19 patients in Sinuiju, on the Chinese border, had died on 7 February. The same day, The Korea Times reported that a North Korean female living in the capital Pyongyang was infected. Although there was no confirmation by North Korean authorities of the claims, the country implemented further strict measures to combat the spread of the virus. Schools were closed starting on 20 February. On 29 February, Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un called for stronger measures to be taken to prevent COVID-19 from spreading within North Korea.

In early February, the North Korean government took severe measures to block the spread of COVID-19. Rodong Sinmun, the Workers' Party of Korea newspaper, reported that the customs officials at the port of Nampo were performing disinfection activities, including placing imported goods in quarantine. All international flights and railway services were suspended in early February, and connections by sea and road were largely closed over the following weeks. In February, wearing face masks was obligatory, and visiting public places such as restaurants was forbidden. Ski resorts and spas were closed, and military parades, marathons, and other public events were cancelled. Schools were closed throughout the country; university students in Pyongyang from elsewhere in the country were confined to their dormitories.

Although South Korean media reported the epidemic had spread to North Korea, the WHO said there were no indications of cases there. On 18 February, Rodong Sinmun, the official newspaper of North Korea's ruling party, quoted a public health official reiterating that there had been "no confirmed case of the new coronavirus so far". The WHO prioritised aid for North Korea, including the shipment of protective equipment and supplies.

This section is an excerpt from COVID-19 pandemic in North Korea § July–December 2020.[edit]

Kaesong, where a suspected case was reported in July 2020

On 25 July, Kim Jong Un attended an emergency meeting after a suspected COVID-19 case was reported in the city of Kaesong. Kim declared a state of emergency and imposed a lockdown on the city. The suspected case was reported to be an individual who had defected to South Korea three years earlier, before swimming back to North Korea in July (a rare case of "re-defection"). According to a South Korean senior health official, the individual was neither registered as a COVID-19 patient, nor classified as someone who came in contact with other patients. Two close contacts of the defector in South Korea tested negative for the virus. On 5 August, Salvador said the returning defector was tested but the "results were inconclusive". On 14 August, the three week lockdown in Kaesong and nearby areas was lifted by Kim Jong Un, after "the scientific verification and guarantee by a professional anti-epidemic organisation".

Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Hong Kong

We really should have a separate subsection on Hong Kong (and not just one-sentence opinion statement from a business magazine). I just haven't gotten around to writing one yet. Hong Kong has followed its own policy, which is quite separate from that of mainland China. If anyone wants to take a stab at summarizing the major policies that Hong Kong has followed and the course of the pandemic there, that would be a major contribution to the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done...needs a bit more info...and a copy edit--Moxy- 17:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Statistics in article

@Moxy: I disagree that these statistics are meaningless: [51]. For example, the fact that there were just 56 locally transmitted cases in Taiwan during 2020 is a significant fact, regardless of Taiwan's size. It would be significant even if Taiwan were 100 times smaller than it is. It's a dramatic illustration of Taiwan's zero-COVID policy. Or to give another example, the fact that the city of Guangzhou tested 18 million people in 3 days is an illustration of community screening, which is one of the tools used to maintain the zero-COVID policy.

If you think these numbers should be put in context (for example, relative to Taiwan's or Guangzhou's population), then we can think about how to best provide context. However, these numbers are important for illustrating how the policy works. Otherwise, if we say, "There was a nationwide outbreak that began in Nanjing," nobody will really have any idea what we're talking about: 10 people, 1000 people, a million people? The fact that a nationwide outbreak in a country of 1.4 billion people ended up with just over 1000 infections in total is significant context. It gives a sense of how the zero-COVID policy works. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Any number is meaningless unless we have stats for portion of the population. is 56 good ? is this 1 percent of the population or 80 percent? We cant assume people are aware of the size of Taiwan or any population size. What percentage of the population is being tested compared to other countries? Stats of this nature in an overview article discussing multiple regions need context. The majority of sections simply discuss the rise in cases ...then the strategy implemented and resulting decline then loosening of restrictions. I'm not opposed to statistics but they would have to be comparable.--Moxy- 17:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy: Okay, in the specific example of Taiwan, how about if we add the following context (changes in bold)?

Taiwan maintained near-zero viral prevalence throughout 2020, totaling just 56 known locally transmitted cases (out of a population of 23.6 million) through 31 December 2020

For Guangzhou, the main point is that 18 million people is essentially the entire population of the city. Again, how about the following context (changes in bold)?

For example, nearly the entire population of the city of Guangzhou - approximately 18 million residents - were tested over the course of three days in June 2021, during a Delta variant outbreak.

If you agree with including the statistics with this sort of context, then I can do the same for the other statistics as well. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

As per the norm here your solution is great. What are the chances we have comparable numbers for all sections/region.Moxy- 18:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I think there should be good comparisons for each statistic. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Thucydides411:..

Does this source help? PDF .....Zhan, Zhiqing et al. “Zero-Covid Strategy: What's Next?.” International journal of health policy and management, doi:10.34172/ijhpm.2022.6757 ....Moxy- 20:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

It's an interesting source, with considerations on how zero-COVID countries should proceed. I'm not sure where the material would fit in yet. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources for economic impact

• Oliu-Barton, Miquel; Pradelski, Bary S R; Aghion, Philippe; Artus, Patrick; Kickbusch, Ilona; Lazarus, Jeffrey V; Sridhar, Devi; Vanderslott, Samantha (June 2021). "SARS-CoV-2 elimination, not mitigation, creates best outcomes for health, the economy, and civil liberties". The Lancet. 397 (10291): 2234–2236. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00978-8. ISSN 0140-6736. PMC 8319701.
• Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (31 October 2020). Report on the Economic Impact of Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) on Latin America and the Caribbean. United Nations. ISBN 9789210054133. OCLC 1246621689.
• Oliu-Barton, Miquel; Pradelski, Bary S R; Algan, Yann; Baker, Michael G; Binagwaho, Agnes; Dore, Gregory J; El-Mohandes, Ayman; Fontanet, Arnaud; Peichl, Andreas; Priesemann, Viola; Wolff, Guntram B; Yamey, Gavin; Lazarus, Jeffrey V (January 2022). "Elimination versus mitigation of SARS-CoV-2 in the presence of effective vaccines". The Lancet Global Health. 10 (1): e142–e147. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00494-0. ISSN 2214-109X.
• Joshua Gans (19 May 2020). Economics in the Age of COVID-19. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-36279-5. OCLC 1153317950.
• Scott L Greer; Elizabeth King; Elize Massard da Fonseca; Andre Peralta-Santos (19 April 2021). Coronavirus Politics: The Comparative Politics and Policy of COVID-19. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-90246-0. OCLC 1241101001.

Japan

Japan has not followed a zero-COVID strategy at any point, as far as I'm aware. It has had a few stretches with very low case numbers, but it hasn't ever implemented anything like the comprehensive elimination strategy that mainland China, Taiwan, New Zealand, Australia and others have followed. In this source, which is used to reference the claim that Japan has followed a zero-COVID strategy, I don't see any actual statement that that's the government's strategy. In fact, the article paints Japan's low case numbers (at the time the article was written) as somewhat of a mystery.

The claim (in the "Views" section) that Japan switched to a zero-COVID strategy should be removed. An example of a country that actually did switch from mitigation to elimination in 2020 is New Zealand, though it has since switched back to mitigation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Seconded, as I said in the section below this (we were writing at the same time). I had already removed it a few hours ago, but it was added back in with the Bloomberg article since then. 126.116.44.167 (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Japan does NOT have a zero-covid policy

And the articles linked do not suggest that it does. The main linked article when I first removed that passage was an editorial, not policy. Now a Bloomberg article from December has been linked that just says that cases are low. They're surging now, and there is no enforcement of isolation or proper contact tracing. There is NO zero covid policy here in Japan.

126.116.44.167 (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP, please remember to follow WP:BRD, which you did not appear to do here. Upon rereading the BMJ piece, I do agree with your conclusion and offer you my apologies as I should not have reverted your edit in the first place. However, the method by which you made the next edit was improper. From now on, please discuss on the talk page before reverting a BOLD edit you made to an article. The outcome would have been the same, after we both agreed to remove the mention. But by not following BRD, you increase the likelihood of edit warring. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

WA Covid

The state of Western Australia will open on 03/03/2022, and while restrictions remain, zero-covid is no longer imposed and currently, there is only a mitigation strategy. As a result, I removed that part- VickKiang (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)