WikiProject COVID-19 consensus WikiProject COVID-19 aims to add to and build consensus for pages relating to COVID-19. They have so far discussed items listed below. Please discuss proposed improvements to them at the project talk page. General Superseded by TfD October 2020 and later practice - consult regular ((Current)) guidance. Refrain from using Worldometer (worldometers.info) as a source due to common errors being observed as noted on the Case Count Task Force common errors page. (April 2020, April 2020) For infoboxes on the main articles of countries, use Wuhan, Hubei, China for the origin parameter. (March 2020) "Social distancing" is generally preferred over "physical distancing". (April 2020, May 2020) Page title COVID-19 (full caps) is preferable in the body of all articles, and in the title of all articles/category pages/etc.(RM April 2020, including the main article itself, RM March 2021). SARS-CoV-2 (exact capitalisation and punctuation) is the common name of the virus and should be used for the main article's title, as well as in the body of all articles, and in the title of all other articles/category pages/etc. (June 2022, overturning April 2020) Map There is no consensus about which color schemes to use, but they should be consistent within articles as much as possible. There is agreement that there should be six levels of shading, plus gray   for areas with no instances or no data. (May 2020) There is no consensus about whether the legend, the date, and other elements should appear in the map image itself. (May 2020) For map legends, ranges should use fixed round numbers (as opposed to updating dynamically). There is no consensus on what base population to use for per capita maps. (May 2020) To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

COVID-19 Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Law High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine: Pulmonology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (assessed as Low-importance). Viruses Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Section sizes Section size for COVID-19 lockdowns (12 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 9,679 9,679 Efficacy 16,549 25,822 Voluntary versus mandatory restrictions 9,273 9,273 Reception 686 27,060 Related to epidemiology 10,963 10,963 Related to social impacts 9,495 9,495 Related to economic impacts 3,922 3,922 Protests 1,994 1,994 Table of pandemic lockdowns 10,621 10,621 Variation by countries and territories 401 401 See also 593 593 References 403 403 Total 74,579 74,579

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Arahman007.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cecilia haha.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would be great to have a map of the lockdowns if possible! Tom W (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And also a graph with the total population under lockdown.

As for the map you have here one from the FT at the bottom of the page, https://www.ft.com/coronavirus-latest

I've created a map, including subregions and cities etc., based on the table with lockdowns. I'll see if I can make it into a more wiki friendly format. Emailsson (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have collapsed the table created for this page for now due to multiple issues it has.

• The list of countries and territories is not complete.
• Lacks references.
• Only a handful of countries have descriptions under the 'Type of regulation' column. Most others simply state, 'nationwide lockdown'. Are those really required? Main articles of the countries could be browsed to see information on lockdowns of a particular country/territory.
• In the 'Main article' column, only about three countries have main articles for their lockdowns. Rest all are displaying their main articles for the pandemic, these could be easily hyperlinked with the names of the countries, like in the template above. Raising the question, is this column required?

In Comparison, the template list above is accurate, precise and regularly updated. So, is this table really needed? And without the table, the article itself is quite redundant. Curfews and lockdown information can be seen in National responses to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and individual country pages. It is also being discussed to perhaps merge this with Social distancing measures related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, which itself is being discussed to be deleted. Discuss ----Shawnqual (talk) 21:15 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Where should we document reactions by political leaders advocating defiance of shelter-in-place orders, e.g., [1], [2] and [3]?

Update: please discuss this at Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States#Does advocacy of insurrection against stay-at-home orders deserve its own section? Thank you. 107.242.121.26 (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While the virus has dramatically spread in countries such as the US, Italy, Spain and the UK, South Korea has successfully taken control of the situation – without even enforcing a lockdown.

Coronavirus: How South Korea is successfully tackling COVID-19 without shutting down the country --아드리앵 (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened the case of clear separation of Pandemic lockdown as opposed to social distancing. Economic consequences are clearly different.

Feedback required.

GeorgeDorgan (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't any of the mentions of social distancing in this article (COVID-19 lockdowns) link the social distancing article, George? Fairthomas (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the article says that the table includes countries where "shutdown of parts of the economy" occurred, meaning "non-pharmaceutical anti-pandemic measures" such as school closures. However, the template has the following editing instructions : "DO NOT PLACE ANY COUNTRIES/TERRITORIES HERE IF THE WORDS "LOCKDOWNS/SHUTDOWNS/QUARRANTINE" WERE NOT USED IN ANNOUNCEMENTS". This creates a contradiction with the text of the article, because official school and shop closures announcements do not necessarily include the words "lockdown" or a synonym. For instance, in Greece most shops and businesses were closed on 12 and 13 March, while the official "lockdown" only came on March 22 (the current date in the table template). We need to decide what we want this article to say. One option could be to work on the template to have it include more information. Another could be to let the table in place and create another, more detailed template where the various measures (school closures, local, regional and national quarantines, curfews, etc.) are dated separately. Fa suisse (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fa suisse, I placed the instruction a couple of days ago when editors insisted on removing countries such as Indonesia, South Korea and Japan from the main template, the reason being these countries had not officially declared "lockdowns" but rather implemented large-scale social restrictions, including social distancing and closures of public places such as schools among others. Nations have been mostly using the term "lockdown" when social movement restrictions along with closures of public places are enforced rather than made voluntary, such as is the case for Indonesia, Belarus and Japan. When a nation declares a lockdown, it mostly means that it is enforceable by law and is clearly stipulated in government announcements. Japan also went as far as stating that they had not implemented any "lockdowns" to make it clear.

For this reason, to separate official lockdowns from voluntary social restrictions, these countries have been placed in the table under 'countries and territories without lockdowns'. If no synonyms for the word 'lockdown', such as 'shutdown/quarrantine/closed down' or the word itself have not been used, it is safe to assume that only restrictions have been placed. Governments have been careful about using the word and its related synonyms for declarations so far, and in case they haven't, have gone further to declare if a lockdown is in place or not, case in point; Japan or like Greece; there was no official lockdown until it was announced by the government. The article is about the presence of lockdowns or of their lack in places around the globe. I will tweak the language of the article a bit to remove contradictions and make things clearer. @GeorgeDorgan has also opened this case of separation of pandemic lockdowns from social distancing measures. See the discussion right above this.

Working on the main template to include various intricate details about the lockdown would lead us to an extra-wide messy template which would hinder the basic information from getting across. For instance, as countries have various methods and details of lockdowns in place, some places would have a bigger row about the details, such as USA, India etc...while others would barely contain a line or two due to the lack of available information or even dedicated editors. This would be a hefty task. Hence, it is best to leave it as such.

There actually does exist a template with details which was displayed here when I first came about and started editing this article. I raised various issues regarding it. As the article developed, it was better to remove the template and instead place it as a hyperlink, one can still access it under the pandemic lockdown section as See also. It hasn't been updated in a long while and you can see my point of countries having different details about the type of lockdown, most just state, 'nationwide lockdown', while others are empty and only few, about 20 have details. The template has since been proposed to be merged by another editor. Shawnqual (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you very much for the detailed reply. Obviously the matter is complicated and trying to compile such detailed information in a single table could be impractical. I'll let the matter at rest for the moment and maybe some idea(s) will emerge. Fa suisse (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no lockdown in place in England any more (there is in Scotland and Wales) if by "lockdown" we mean "curfews, quarantines, and similar restrictions (known as stay-at-home orders, shelter-in-place orders, shutdowns/lockdowns)". There is no stay-at-home order any more. There is advice to stay at home where possible, but it is no longer particularly prominent advice and it is purely advice. There are stringent social distancing rules (you can't meet friends and family except under limited circumstances) but there is no stay-at-home. There is no curfew and citizens are allowed to leave their homes as many times a day as they like and for as long as they like. 86.191.247.88 (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bunch of regional lockdowns in Indonesia - see 2020 Indonesia large-scale social restrictions. Not sure how to integrate into the table, so I'll just leave this here. Juxlos (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a long (mostly annotated and cited) list of current stay-at-home orders over at Stay-at-home order#COVID-19 pandemic which I don't feel should be in that article due to WP:RECENT. I propose moving that content from there to COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns. Thoughts? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold and moved that list to this article. Might need some cleanup. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The table is inconvenient to read please any body fix the table Ktdk (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Fix the damn table so you don't hide when lockdowns end. This is not accidental. W has become just another media propaganda machine and why you got no money from me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:2601:B10D:E866:D73F:354:1496 (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivia aun esta en cuarentena hasta el 30 de junio ^[1]

it says that Uusimaa had a lockdown but the only restricted movement was people crossing the borders of Uusimaa – within the region it wasn't any different from the rest of the country LICA98 (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any better sources that give an overview of the perspectives of epidemiologists? This seems to be an opinion piece. Benjamin (talk) 06:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, great job on the article! One question - should the country of Bulgaria be added to the table? Do measures such as the closures of schools, malls, restaurants etc. as well as bans on certain mass gatherings (first implemented in mid March 2020) fit the definition of a lockdown or are they in themselves not considered sufficiently stringent?

Here is an article in English:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/03/bulgaria-military-allowed-force-coronavirus-curbs-200320160712198.html

Posted on 8 August 2020

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic § Lockdowns map still commented out. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 02:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Israel closed its schools Mar 12th, 2019, its kindergartens Mar 15th, 2019 and on the following days closed all stores, courts, sports events, etc. By any definition there was a nationwide lockdown starting Mar 15th and ending somewhere during early May depending on definitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.77.162 (talk) 08:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/us/politics/social-distancing-coronavirus.html

Anyone think that a father 'piggybacking' his daughter's high school science project and that becoming a part of lockdown policy deserves a mention?

"Dr. Glass’s daughter Laura, then 14, had done a class project in which she built a model of social networks at her Albuquerque high school, and when Dr. Glass looked at it, he was intrigued.

Students are so closely tied together — in social networks and on school buses and in classrooms — that they were a near-perfect vehicle for a contagious disease to spread.

Dr. Glass piggybacked on his daughter’s work to explore with her what effect breaking up these networks would have on knocking down the disease.

The outcome of their research was startling. By closing the schools in a hypothetical town of 10,000 people, only 500 people got sick. If they remained open, half of the population would be infected.

“My God, we could use the same results she has and work from there,” Dr. Glass recalled thinking. He took their preliminary data and built on it by running it through the supercomputers at Sandia, more typically used to engineer nuclear weapons.

Dr. Mecher received the results at his office in Washington and was amazed.

If cities closed their public schools, the data suggested, the spread of a disease would be significantly slowed, making this move perhaps the most important of all of the social distancing options they were considering."

This seems pretty noteworthy, no? NYT thought so. Covidtonthemurderhornet (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is an issue with the choice of wording in the opening sentence (and subheading) of the UK section COVID-19_pandemic_lockdowns#United_Kingdom where it is claimed that the Prime Minister "announced a stay-at-home order effective immediately" and cites [321]^[1] and is tagged "dubious – discuss". I think it would be good to tackle this once and for all, because it has now been "propagated" to another page, the Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_Northern_Ireland#March_2020 under 23 March, where it is claimed "Boris Johnson announces a nationwide 'Stay at Home' order", citing the same Gov.uk source Prime Minister's "address to the nation on coronavirus". If this is to be taken as a physical order, such as an instrument giving authority, then I do not believe that any such "order" exists, even though the lockdown was subsequently given authority by various Regulations. The current wording, on both pages, is misleading, even a little suggestive of an overly authoritarian or totalitarian regime issuing a "nationwide 'Stay at Home' order". So I propose replacing these words with "instructed the nation to stay at home", this would be more faithful to the source. We could then tie the replacement line in with the next portion of text which deals with the "when", as in, when the "instruction" became legally effective or even enforceable as something more akin to an order. I am not sure the current choice of wording should be permitted to 'bed in' or gain traction, unless Wikipedia is a place to coin phrases! All suggestions welcome. SpookiePuppy (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my posting above, I just Googled "stay-at-home order", and was surprised to find that it has its own article on Wikipedia, so it's already very well established. However, much of the above still applies, as it is about the wording, timing and source, but the part about coining a phrase I take back! SpookiePuppy (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great to mention Ontario's lockdown as mentioned in COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario.

Let me ping CaffeinAddict, Username6892, and ViperSnake151 on how to add the section without having any refs conflicting with the existing refs in the article. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 16:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinions about it are that we hardly have a "Lockdown" by international standards, but rather a strict shutdown of most businesses, with the exception of industry and an incredibly poor enforcement of social gatherings. The result is a lot of lip-service and "please don't do this" with little to no respect for the rules and regulations by the actual population. There's moral stigma toward people who do decide to largely ignore the suggested regulations, but they tend to just do their own thing anyway, and therefore we've been getting 2000+ cases daily of community spread. On the flipside the new shutdown is more akin to a lockdown than what we've seen in the past. The other issue is geographically Ontarioans and visitors from outside the province are completely free to move amongst the province and also have no quarantine requirement if travelling from outside of the province, compared especially to places like the Atlantic Bubble and other provinces who have regional or provincial restrictions on travel. By and large, it may be semantics but I think the province has more of a public spaces shutdown rather than a "lockdown" which would imply we're heavily restricted from leaving the house and/or our personal geographic areas. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am an israeli citizen and the information in the table about Israel lockdowns is completely false... Israel never had a lockdown specific in Bnei brak. All lockdowns were nation wide. Secondly the dates... Our first lockdown started on 14th of march with banning to gather more then 10 people and a complete shutdown of the education system. It lasted like that until 3rd of may. Second lockdown started in the 18 of september and lasted until 17 of october. Last lockdown started in the 27 of december and still on going. Please see the wikipedia page in hebrew for this information and fix the facts.

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/מגפת_הקורונה_בישראל#סגר_ראשון — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.66.152.74 (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article gives the impression that lockdown worked based on modelling data (which is not real world data). The studies based on real world observational data are nowhere near as conclusive. As they contain data that is more real those should be reflected in the article. Also China's data should be given a lot of scepticism as they don't appear to have been very honest about many things regarding the virus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.0.104 (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The references cited in this section show that lockdowns have been effective at reducing the spread of COVID based on modelling and real world data. This article is also not really about China's transparency - COVID-19 pandemic in China and COVID-19 misinformation by China are for that. e.g. (although there are plenty more):

• https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7_reference.pdf
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7877495/
• https://academic.oup.com/jtm/article/27/3/taaa037/5808003
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7355328/
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7355328/
• https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2020/213/8/probability-6-week-lockdown-victoria-commencing-9-july-2020-achieving

--Arcahaeoindris (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the United Kingdom is unbelievably long. It should be summarised, or even split into a separate article. It is several times longer than the other countries entries. These can be linked to the several very long articles about the different UK regulations, such as The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, First COVID-19 tier regulations in England, First COVID-19 tier regulations in England, The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 3) Regulations 2020, and that's just for England, not Wales, Scotland and NI. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this statement added 20 March, as I do not feel like it is verified by its citation: "According to a May 22, 2020 report from the World Health Organization (WHO), COVID-19 restrictions have been partially responsible for preventing nearly 80 million children worldwide from receiving vaccines meant to protect them against other diseases, such as measles, diphtheria and polio." This report cited (1) says this is an impact of the COVID-19 pandemic broadly, not lockdowns specifically. It only mentions restrictions as "some parents are reluctant to leave home because of restrictions on movement, lack of information or because they fear infection with the COVID-19 virus". This, to me at least, does not reflect the idea that restrictions are responsible for 80 million children being unable to get vaccinated - this is a broad impact of the pandemic. Welcome any thoughts. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See this edit by unregistered user and this one. This page has been added and then removed from category Human rights abuses, now for the 5th time. Look at the other pages in this category, they refer to massacres, ethnic cleansing and warfare, defined as "when any state or non-state actor breaches any of the terms of the UDHR or other international human rights or humanitarian law". The term "human rights abuses" is a highly WP:LOADED term, and although lockdowns have been met with controversy and criticism (which have been covered here), this characterisation of an "abuse" is not cited, explained or listed anywhere in the article. If China's lockdown is what is referred to, and if this is cited, then I would argue COVID-19 lockdown in China should go there, not this article. But even then, any such claim needs to be supported by multiple, secondary and reliable sources as per WP:REDFLAG. Also see WP:UNDUE WP:POV. Welcome any further thoughts. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Look at the other pages in this category, they refer to massacres, ethnic cleansing and warfare, defined as "when any state or non-state actor breaches any of the terms of the UDHR or other international human rights or humanitarian law"."

I don't see how this is relevant, as I said before, lockdowns are a violation of the freedom of movement, which is guaranteed by the UDHR. As for China, well, China is the country which created this lockdowns, all lockdowns are to an extent modeled after those of China, so the criticism applies to them as well. -- 201.20.66.6 (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Although yes, lockdowns do restrict freedom of movement, on Wikipedia, you must provide reliable, secondary sources for your statement that they are human rights abuses as per WP:SOURCE, especially for a WP:REDFLAG claim like this. It is also a central tenet of Wikipedia to maintain a neutral WP:POV. Please provide reliable sources to support this characterisation. Also, Cordon sanitaire (medicine) and stay at home orders are not new - they have been practiced for hundreds of years, China's lockdowns of Hubei was not the first in history. If these are to an extent human rights abuses, then why aren't the even more generalised pages for Cordon sanitaire (medicine), shelter-in-place and stay at home order also so dilligently re-added to this category? Arcahaeoindris (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization specifically must maintain a neutral point of view and reflect defining characteristics of the topic according to reliable sources. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the table of pandemic lockdowns, England's third lockdown appears to have ended on 29 March 2021. However, many sources explicitly state that England will be under lockdown until 19 July 2021 (e.g. - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57476776; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiK7wOOeWNM). Should a change be made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.91.212.222 (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So England has been following a "reopening roadmap" since February 2021. See here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56158405 29 March was the date when outdoor gatherings of 6 people were permitted again, and there have been further changes to restrictions since then. 19 July is the end to all legal restrictions remaining, incl social distancing rules, face mask requirements and caps on venue capacity. It would be hard to pinpoint when the end of its lockdown would be as there is not currently a clear definition in this article. The few remaining rules in England are definitely not a stay at home order, but I agree 29 March is not the correct date in this case. 12 April or 17 May would make a lot more sense in my opinion. Welcome thoughts. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated this in the table, but welcome any suggestions. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, very well put, the new wording in the table is the perfect compromise!

Among other edits, I added the year @ COVID-19 lockdowns#Australia to some dates of lockdowns in Australia here because otherwise it was not apparent in what year the lockdowns listed occurred. Some of the years I added were removed in this edit.
Can anyone see any problem with adding the years?
@Erinthecute: for comment. Regards, 220 of ^ßorg 12:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Corso Vittorio Emanuele II Milano.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the three cleanup templates on this page can all be removed, but I'd like to ask for a consensus here before doing so.

• This article needs to be updated: This template was added about a year and a half ago and, from what I can tell, all information in the article is current and up-to-date. Furthermore, per WP:NOTNEWS, as long as statistics are relatively recent, WP is not responsible for constantly updating them.

• This article may be too long: This template just isn't true. I'm not sure about the length of the article when the template was added, but as of right now the article itself is relatively small and not overbearing on the reader whatsoever.

• This section possibly contains original research: All references under this section come from reliable studies/news sources, so I don't see how they are considered original research.

• This article may lend undue weight to certain ideas: I read this section this was in a couple times just to make sure, and each paragraph is worded in a manner that makes it seem very neutral. The only idea that it seemed to give any weight to at all was that vaccines are good, but I'm not necessarily sure that's an unpopular opinion or wrong in any sense.

I'd love to hear all of your thoughts on removing these. Thanks. ― Tuna ^No_SurprisesPlease 22:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tunakanski:. Thanks for bringing this up. Agree that all of these can be removed, except for the original research on the voluntary versus mandatory section. I still think this section relies too heavily on primary sources, and synthesises them, rather than aligning with the interpretation of reviews or reliable sources. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, why did you revert my edit if I cited articles published on good journals, one of them on The lancet? Lechatjaune (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They were primary sources, we really want secondary. Alexbrn (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am not used to edit on en.wiki, but I thought that sources are quite authoritave (even better than some who are cited on the article). Now to put some other sources and reviews, I guess it is fine especially because it is not a controversial observation: lockdown is effective to prevent other diseases which spread the same way COVID does. Lechatjaune (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources are WP:MEDRS and the WP:OVERCITE was horrid. If you want to help, find a WP:MEDRS source. If none such exists, there is nothing to say. Alexbrn (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which source did you find not MEDRS. The Lancet is an authotaritive source, cdc is realiable and take into account many countries and institutes, and so on. You said it is not secundary but it is and the information s consistent across many papers published in many countries and revues. You must be specific about the reason why you do not want to accept the sources, which are much better than other cited on the text. By the way, overciting is not a reason to remove the information, and citing several sources is the better solution when someone challenges the validity of the information as must happen after first phrase of the section.Lechatjaune (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citing loads of bad sources is unhelpful, and removal certainly is justified. If you can find a decent source on this then fine. The CDC would indeed be one such, but the link you give is to a report about mitigation measures in general, not lockdown specifically. WP:MEDRS sources are required here. Alexbrn (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concede it is more apropriate to say that NPIs (not only lockdown) intended to stop COVID also prevented other respiratory diseases. Which of the following sources do you think meets MEDRS?

• the bmj: Covid lockdown: England sees fewer cases of colds, flu, and bronchitis
• CDC: Decreased Influenza Activity During the COVID-19 Pandemic — United States, Australia, Chile, and South Africa, 2020
• The Lancet: We observed a dramatically lower percentage of tests positive for all seasonal respiratory viruses during 2020-2021 compared to pre-pandemic seasons
• Acta Paediatrica: First COVID-19 lockdown resulted in most respiratory viruses disappearing among hospitalised children, with the exception of rhinoviruses

As you may see, the articles are on the core journals according to WP:MEDRS and their results are more conclusive. Lechatjaune (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only the CDC source is a WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are not the others? Lechatjaune (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read WP:MEDRS? See particularly WP:MEDASSESS. For quicker orientation see WP:MEDFAQ and WP:WHYMEDRS as background information. Alexbrn (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I read. I repeat my question. Lechatjaune (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, to take an example, this[4] is a primary source. Alexbrn (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is ok to cite primary sources if reliable (which is the case) if we also cite secondary source. Do you think all of the above sources are primary? What about [5]? Lechatjaune (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a primary linked to a secondary maybe usefully cited. A systematic review is a secondary source, of the kind English Wikipedia most values. Alexbrn (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the case. Lechatjaune (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lechatjaune I'm not sure what you're trying to do here but it's not good. Your latest edit[6] reinterprets sources which talk about mitigation measures in general, to apply to lockdown alone; further, you elevate a likely association into a definite causality, and generalize data about countries into a global assertion. The use of multiple non-applicable sources also constitutes WP:SYNTH. Editing of medical content needs to be much more careful and honest than this. I think it very unlikely any source addresses the relationship between lockdowns (alone and specifically) and respiratory infections in general, but you will need such a source if you want to include content on that relationship. Alexbrn (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, I agree with "sources which talk about mitigation measures in general, to apply to lockdown alone", but in the introduction, we read "a number of non-pharmaceutical interventions colloquially known as lockdowns (encompassing stay-at-home orders, curfews, quarantines, cordons sanitaires and similar societal restrictions)", so the usage of the word lockdown is not unappropriate in this article, do you agree with me? I showed a list of reliable sources which clearly verify the the fact that during covid lockdown (as defined here), the number of other respiratory diseases was lower than the before. If you think my wording is not correct, please help me improving it instead of just keep on reverting my edits. I guess by you have written that it is honest for you to say "many studies demonstrated a reduction of other respiratory infections during the phase of covid npi/lockdown" and than cite those studies I listed above. Lechatjaune (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't agree, because mitigation measures are wider than lockdown as defined in this article (e.g. mask wearing, improved ventilation, encouraging home-working, etc.). I also think the relevant sourcing describes the situation as being much, much more complicated than it might first appear. For example, here is PMID:33980687 on influenza in the US during the pandemic:

It is unclear whether public health interventions (e.g., travel restrictions, social distancing, handwashing, or PPE like masks) resulted in this decline or whether other factors inadvertently contributed to biases in data, such as fewer individuals seeking routine medical attention or the lack of testing for influenza and other respiratory viruses due to competition for resources used for SARS-CoV-2 testing ...

Alexbrn (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any opinions on this review by economists?^[1]

There has been a bunch of push back against this paper, including by fact checkers which is addressed in the paper. (Appendix II: The Anatomy of the Negative Spin-Meisters )^[1]: 89. The authors say that this criticism is political in nature.

This article isn't in line with what is described in this article, though I suspect some of this might come down to definitions (the paper excludes voluntary guideance from lockdowns) and exclusion of papers using modelling.

Overall, our meta-analysis supports the conclusion that lockdowns – at least in the spring of 2020 – had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality.

^[1]: 58. (Though in a preceding paragraph is notes that there is evidence for some reduction in deaths)

There is some discussion about how the results constrast to earlier reviews in the paper.^[1]: 61.

It might be worth noting that John Hopkins claims 39 Nobel Laureates. I have heard criticisms on the social media's by medics with the standard "these people aren't doctors" line. Personally I suspect that economics and public health has a large degree of overlap and that economists may on average have a better statistical understanding and work more with observational studies... though there is a prevailing "wealth causes health" bias in the field.

Talpedia (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I've added a paragraph about this. Let's see what people think. In theory this source replaces the entire section on voluntary versus coercive measures with "mandatory measures have little to no effect" since it's is all based on primary sources as it stands. Talpedia (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that one of the authors also runs the journal in which the review was published and it says most of the papers it publishes are for people within the organization (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/working-papers/studies-in-applied-economics/). I don't know what to think about this. Talpedia (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I am using "undue weight" incorrectly. I am not a Wikipedia expert. Please correct me if a more appropriate guideline applies. I don't expect that I'm on-target with everything I mention here, but I'm hoping other editors can pick out the best points. Essentially, I am writing this because I think our article isn't accurately representing the state of research on lockdowns.

The first paragraph of the Efficacy section reads:

Several researchers, from modeling and demonstrated examples, have concluded that lockdowns are effective at reducing the spread of, and deaths caused by, COVID-19. Lockdowns are thought to be most effective at containing or preventing COVID-19 community transmission, healthcare costs and deaths when implemented earlier, with greater stringency, and when not lifted too early.

I believe that this statement is reductive. It appears to represent a certain consensus in the sources, but such a consensus is not present. Many sources do find efficacy of lockdowns, but with significant limitations or caveats. Many of the sources are very clear in differentiating degrees of NPIs (non-pharmaceutical interventions) or "lockdowns", whereas our statement here refers only to "lockdowns", without qualification.

Consider the following excerpts from some of the inline citations in that paragraph:

• ^[1]: While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less‐restrictive interventions.
  • This is at odds with the "Lockdowns are thought to be most effective [...] with greater stringency" statement in the article.
• ^[2]: the findings in this paper suggest that more severe lockdown policies have not been associated with lower mortality.[...]
  the evidence presented here suggests that lockdowns have not significantly affected the development of mortality in Europe
  • Again at odds with the stringency statement, and the mortality statement.

The next paragraph cites a meta-analysis which seems to be at odds with the first paragraph:

• ^[3]: See Section 3.2 of this review (pdf link]). The authors of this meta-analysis are very clear that the eligible studies are not in agreement that lockdowns are effective. The authors write the following in their conclusion:

  Finally, allow us to broaden our perspective after presenting our meta-analysis that focuses on the following question: “What does the evidence tell us about the effects of lockdowns on mortality?” We provide a firm answer to this question: Our study finds that lockdowns had little to no effect in reducing COVID-19 mortality.

I think some rewriting and/or restructuring of the Efficacy section is needed to accurately represent the sources.

Four of the references that broadly support the efficacy of lockdowns are primary studies from June 2020 or earlier. I imagine that the state of research has shifted since then as more data became available and scientists had time to analyze it thoroughly.

Further, our article does not have a section dedicated to costs. Virtually every cited source dedicates significant discussion to the non-medical cost of NPIs (non-pharmaceutical interventions / "lockdowns") and contrasts it with the effectiveness data. Cost-benefit analysis is highly present in the literature. Our article mentions costs, but I propose that it should have its own section, given the nearly universal examination in sources of the cost-benefit analysis. In order to accurately present the state of research on this, the structure of our article needs to reflect it.

The existing "reception" section is distinct from a section on "cost", as "reception" is referring to popular reception and governmental debates. A section on costs would be based on scientific articles (including some of the existing references, I am sure), just like the efficacy section. It would serve to present the cost-benefit aspect of the research on lockdowns, which the scientific community has clearly identified as important.

--Frogging101 (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This does not look like a reliable (i.e. WP:MEDRS) source. Is there anything reliable in this topic space? Bon courage (talk) 06:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This piece struck me as an odd inclusion:

"A systematic review with Johns Hopkins University by economists concluded that lockdowns as opposed to guidelines or medical advice had little to no effects on COVID-19 mortality."

That economists dispute the efficacy of lockdowns doesn't seem relevant or insightful to me. Whether or not their conclusion is wrong, this is a medical issue, not an economic one. If the data was verified independently, this needs to be mentioned. 2603:7081:1603:A300:65FE:396F:71B6:6609 (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Economists are as able to count deaths as medics (probably better). This is an issue for all of academia not just medicine, and the bias would be not including rather than including it. Medical scholars are quite able to publish responses to the review if there are issues.Talpedia (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Economists use statistical analysis to study the allocation of finite resources, identify the outcomes associated with resource-allocation decisions taken by individuals, firms, or states, and attempt to determine the nature and direction of these and other variables. There is nothing remotely contentious about economists conducting research regarding the outcomes of government policies.

Finally, I have no idea what "if the data was verified independently" means. Academic publishing is quite rigorous in its fact-checking; it's safe to assume that economists are indeed able to count. Foxmilder (talk) 08:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 May 2023 and 10 August 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ys5220 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ys5220 (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So... I'm not sure it's accurate to says this was published as a working paper, nor exactly not peer-reviewed. It's a self-published paper by a journal at John Hopkins that publishes on economics. So yeah, that's a bit unusual. I was googling for how common this practice is, but couldn't find much. There is in theory "editorial oversight there" similar to say, British Medical Journal editorials on long covid that were used as MEDRS sources during the pandemics, just with a risk of bias.

It's worth noting that on some topics the journal system was working as a distributed censorship machine suppressing research in "the public interest" during the pandemic... so that might explain a bit of this. Of course, that doesn't mean that its a good idea to ignore policy just because there is systemic bias in publishing.

It is unsurprising that it is getting flak given its findings. Talpedia 09:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]