Talk:COVID-19 pandemic

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Face masks[edit]

Swept in from the pub

There is current discussion on what advice to give on face masks at Talk:China#New_coronavirus. I think the topic is broader than that, so I am raising it here.

There are multiple uses for masks.

  • I was in China during the SARS outbreak & had one then. Now many people use them against the new coronavirus; in parts of China it is even mandatory to wear face masks in public places. I doubt this offers much protection if you are not infected but am reasonably sure that if those who are infected cover up it reduces risk for others. I could be wrong on either point & would like to hear from those more knowledgeable.
  • People are using masks to avoid inhaling volcanic dust from the eruption of Taal Volcano.
  • They are often recommended for dust storms, e.g. see Beijing#Stay_healthy

There are several types of mask:

  • surgical masks, I think treated as single-use disposable items by surgeons but often re-used by others
  • N95 masks, see w:NIOSH air filtration rating
  • at least in the Philippines, reusable masks with some kind of fashion statement design -- wolf muzzle, vampire fangs, Hello Kitty, ... -- are fairly common

My guess is we need a discussion of these masks somewhere -- new travel topic? section of Infectious diseases or Travel in developing countries? elsewhere? -- and links in other articles. Pashley (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Availability may be a problem. I've seen a "no more masks in stock" sign in a Filipino pharmacy and there are web reports like this: Sold-out Amazon sellers warn shoppers about counterfeit face masks as demand soars amid coronavirus fears Pashley (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, it can be confirmed that wearing surgical masks prevent the spread of diseases to some extent, as per this NYT report and this BBC report. However, it should be stressed that it is surgical masks, as normal dust masks are too loose.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that this might be a topic for us to cover. Cultural attitudes to masks vary as well – in parts of East Asia it's reasonably common to wear a mask when you have a cold, but not in the US. One challenge is that there seems to be some uncertainty about how effective surgical masks really are at stopping viruses.
Availability is indeed a problem. I'm in Cambodia, where there is only one confirmed case of the novel coronavirus, but even so surgical masks have become hard to find, let alone N95 masks. Hand sanitizer is also sold out at most pharmacies I've checked. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have some existing content about face masks: Wildfires#Risks, Air pollution#Stay safe, and Severe weather#Air pollution, plus some notoriously smoggy destinations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Official position of the WHO is that face masks for asymptomatic individuals is not recommended at this time due to the lack of evidence that it'll prevent infection. Face masks are, however, indicated for symptomatic individuals to prevent spread. Best thing asymptomatic people can do is hand hygiene and social distancing.Thuegh (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(end of swept text)

Would a separate travel topic on face masks be a good idea? I think so, though I probably do not want to do the work.

Having one would shorten this article & they are used in other places, mostly listed above, so other articles might link to the topic. Pashley (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coronavirus... Single collation page?[edit]

Should there be a single page collating all the disprate warnings and advice from various pages? (There was a single page for Zika...) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I look forward to the day when we could archive such a page, but I think that right now, it's a good idea. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes it will be a travel topic and breadcrumbed from Stay healthy. Once it's well developed, it should be prominently posted on the main page and if need be, social media. But it will have to be continually updated. The Zika virus article is a good starting point in terms of structure. Gizza (roam) 23:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, such an article can be useful. Ypsilon (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Doc James:, Your thoughts? Asking so that someone with appropriate expertise can draft an appropriate article. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For what it's worth I'll link this here - being the advice from the UK. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I know pings don't work when you edit the username without a new signature, so re-pinging User:Doc James. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree in my opinion a single page with all the various travel recommendations is better than multiple ones. Expecially with the recommendations changing so frequently. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your view, Is anyone (rapidly) drafting the relevant page? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also - , Is there a recognized symbol that could be used to mark a health alert type warning box, as opposed to the default warning triangle? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One more point, while I'm not any kind of medical professional if there's just one or a few cases in a country and the number is hardly if at all changing, I don't think there's a reason for warningboxes or other warnings in articles. In that case I'd imagine the few people unlucky to have been infected are most likely in the hospital or otherwise quarantined. So, for example a warning like the one added to the Nigeria article isn't necessary - the country has exactly one case as of now. If the number of cases on the other hand is rapidly growing (ie. dozens of new cases in a day), it means the disease is loose and if you happen to be in that area there's a real risk you may catch it. --Ypsilon (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, Given the wording of the relevant section certain other diseases are more likely to be encountered.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have plunged forward and started a coronavirus outbreak article. It only has the bare minimum for now so please add more information! The name may also need changing but I strongly suggest keeping "coronavirus" in the title instead of technical names for the virus or disease (nobody searches for SARS-COV-2, COVID-19 or nCov-2019). Gizza (roam) 04:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an exceptionally useful article. A big thank you to those who put it together. I'm in SE Asia now and am watching the situation carefully as I am concerned about being stranded here (which would be very nice in many ways, but I have obligations at home). I am going to plunge forward and find a place for a link to it on the Main Page. Ground Zero (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Social media nomination[edit]

I have nominated the 2019-2020 coronavirus outbreak article to be shared on our social media platforms. Please see the proposal at Wikivoyage:Social media/Nominations. Thanks. Gizza (roam) 00:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gizza - That social media nominations page is not very active. Luckily, I'm the sole administrator of Wikivoyage's Facebook page who also remains active on Wikivoyage itself. I will make sure and give the coronavirus article a mention when I can.
I think Wikivoyage has a Twitter account too, but I'm not sure if it's being actively updated. I'd volunteer if I were on Twitter, but I'm not. This is probably something we should look into addressing.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes Done -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The title of this article is too ambiguous. There are different kinds of coronaviruses; the world has seen outbreaks of other kinds in the past and will surely see others in the future. I suggest moving this article to COVID-19, COVID-19 outbreak, or maybe 2020 coronavirus outbreak. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DaGizza: Thanks for creating the article, by the way. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia calls it the 2019-2020 coronavirus outbreak. We could use the same name and redirect the official names. Gizza (roam) 05:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with Mx. Granger and name change to 2019-2020 Coronavirus outbreak. May then want to change it to COVID-19 when/if this is over. Thanks for the article creation. I'll keep it on my watchlist - topic relevant to my work. Thuegh (talk) 06:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2019-2020 coronavirus outbreak sounds good to me. Of course we can always move it again later on if other terms become more recognizable. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page banner...[edit]

This should be changed to the one article like the Zika one use, as it's health related. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was going to try to create a banner from a picture of one of the bottles of hand sanitizer that have appeared in public places around Bangkok. Maybe more directly relevant than the banner at Zika virus. We can see how it turns out – I took some photos today but haven't tried cropping them to banner size yet. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option 1 - general disease banner
Option 2 - hand sanitizer at a mall in Bangkok
Here are two banners for comparison. I had a harder time than expected making a 7:1 photo where the hand sanitizer is recognizable without a lot of other distracting stuff filling up the frame. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally banner 2 for me since it aligns with messaging about hand hygiene.Thuegh (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Banner 2 personally. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pandemic Preparedness?[edit]

Current switch in key messages in several countries including the US, UK, and Canada is now onto pandemic preparedness for COVID-19. Think a section on what you can do for this is valuable? It's less travel related, although you can argue that it's also generalized to the measures needed to be taken if you're being quarantined/isolated. Thuegh (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you give some examples of what you're thinking of? —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stocking up on non-perishable food for up to 2 weeks if quarantined. Refilling prescription medications in advance. Stocking some household cleaning supplies. Making plans for your children/dependents. Thuegh (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To me most of that doesn't feel like travel advice - it's not realistic for a traveler to lug around 2 weeks of food and cleaning supplies. Also, advice seems to vary. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough. I was thinking more about for when you return from a trip and the potential for self quarantine. Restrictions are changing day to day, so between the time you leave and the time you come back, there may be quarantine restrictions for the locale from which travelers returned from.Thuegh (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Apparently the Louvre is closed. Should we mention this somewhere, like in France or Paris/1st arrondissement? Or should we just mention in this article that lots of tourist attractions and events are closed in countries affected by the outbreak? —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd keep it centralized to this article. Likely other attractions will be closed if this keeps on going. The Duomo in Milan and various other museums are also closed. Lots in Tokyo too. Thuegh (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At what point do we know if the Olympics is still happening? That's sufficiently major that people will be make bookings or already have... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As of today, still happening. I'm sure it'll be big news if it gets cancelled.Thuegh (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A WHO video[edit] ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UK Gov advice (this appears to be being update continually[edit] ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Present on all continents"[edit]

Including Antarctica? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The news reports I've seen say "every continent except Antarctica". —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So that's what this article should say, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Covid cases recorded in Antarctica for first time" - The Guardian STW932 (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Staying healthy on flights[edit]

The New York Times published an article about avoiding infection on a flight. Maybe some of the advice could go here or in Flight and health. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do. At present the article is a little light on actual travel advice. I thought of adding some info on booking flights, but the consumer protection aspects vary depending on which country you are in when you book. AlasdairW (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added some. But when it comes to prevention, there's not much to say that's specific to this virus. The advice is mostly the same as for other respiratory diseases. When it comes to travel restrictions (quarantines, self-quarantines, temperature checks, denied entry, transport shutdowns, etc.) there's more that we can say. I think advice about booking flights would be good if there's anything reasonably general. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regardless of whether advice would also pertain to other respiratory diseases, it should be mentioned here, since we have no general "Respiratory diseases" article and people are very reasonably quite worried about this disease right now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough, and I think that's what we've been doing. We do have some basic advice in the relevant section of Infectious diseases; going forward we may want to expand that with some of the information from this article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will COVID-19 go away on its own in warmer weather?[edit]

"Probably not" --Ypsilon (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lasts on surfaces up to 9 days?[edit]

Where are you getting 9 days from? Have a look at this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know who added the "9 days" claim to this article, but the source you linked seems to support it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
6-9 days on plastic only for Strain FFM1 of SARS-CoV and not Strain HKU39849 or Strain P9, yes. So yes, strictly speaking, "up to 9 days" is accurate, but "on surfaces" in the plural doesn't appear to be, unless there's another source that shows the persistence of any strain of up to 9 days on any other surface. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New research on surfaces. I would take the aerosol numbers with a grain of salt given it's within a contained experimental rotating drum and not indicative of real life.Thuegh (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The study I linked didn't actually have data on the persistence of SARS-CoV2, only other related coronaviruses. I misread SARS-CoV on their charts for SARS-CoV2. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Border closures...[edit]

Been hearing some nominally Schengen countires are closing borders? If this is so it should be mentioned.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply] ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Catalonia in lockdown...[edit]

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The U.S.[edit]

Should we mention anything specific to the U.S. regarding the coronavirus. To my knowledge, there is a severe lack of testing kits in the U.S., meaning that the authorities here have not been able to test everybody who is at high risk, so the real number of cases is probably much higher than the official number. The U.S. has tested fewer people over the past month than South Korea is able to test in a single day, so that is a cause for concern. And not to mention, some parts are going into lockdown. Here in Chicago, events are already getting cancelled, and we have already been advised to work from home if possible. The dog2 (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think that's lockdown. Most events in New York have been cancelled. There's a state of emergency here, but there isn't a lockdown, which would mean that you can't get in or out of the city, right? Anyway, the rest of your remarks are all true, and you could simply add those verbatim. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It hasn't gotten to that extent yet, but you can already see the effects, with the supermarket shelves virtually empty as people start panic buying. And it's sad to say this, but the U.S. is woefully unprepared for this. The dog2 (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

US ban on travel extended to cover UK and Ireland...[edit] 20:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

South Africa....[edit]

South Africa is another country to close it's border. 18:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Netherlands...[edit] ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Germany (Translator needed?)[edit],RtJd8Xp ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translating this with Chrome, from 8am Monday, they are partially closing the border with Austria, France, Switzerland, Luxembourg and Denmark. Commuters and goods (and presumably those driving goods vehicles) will be allowed in. AlasdairW (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Germany is temporarily closing their borders with Austria, France, Switzerland, Luxembourg and Denmark for others than German citizens, work commuters and cargo transport. 22:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Reisende ohne triftigen Reisegrund dürfen deshalb nicht mehr ein- und ausreisen aus Deutschland." — Travellers without convincing/valid reasons for travel are not permitted to enter or leave Germany. 22:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Ab morgen Früh 8 Uhr wird die Bundespolizei die Kontrollen an den Grenzen zu fünf Nachbarländern durchführen." — Effective 08:00 AM tomorrow morning (16 March 2020) the Federal Police will commence controls at the borders of five neighbouring countries. 22:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UK is closed ...[edit] —The preceding comment was added by ShakespeareFan00 (talkcontribs)

And all Baltic states, Poland, Norway, Denmark, within a few days probably Finland... I think there are few countries in Europe without some kind of border controls or closures right now. Maybe best to add them to 2019–2020_coronavirus_pandemic#Lockdowns_and_other_internal_restrictions. --Ypsilon (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The UK is NOT closed. The only mention on the UKBF website was information from last month on visa extensions for visitors from China who were already in the country. At the moment the biggest issue for visitors is the reduction in flights and events are being cancelled. We must distinguish between politician's bluster and actual controls at the border. AlasdairW (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Canadian government website out of date?[edit] still says registration can be done facetoface. I bet this is probably a website that is not maintained on a daily basis, something goverments should do during this crisisis. Just my opinion Ottawahitech (talk) 10:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This page is trying to describe current events so it's overwhelmed by them, overlaps too much with WP, and only tells prospective travellers what they already know. But travel (especially for WV) is all about planning, so it would help to raise our eyes from the present deluge, look further ahead, and concentrate on the macro stuff. We've had three months of this so we can reasonably distinguish what is barndoor obvious (eg if you keep doubling a given number, and doubling and doubling) from those unknowns where you need to listen out. I'm inserting two sections accordingly then pausing for comment on whether this helps. Initially they'll be a bit rough-hewn and not well integrated with other content, but that will be easily sorted if the page focus is sharp and agreed. Grahamsands (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think that this kind of speculation is useful on a prominent page. I am not even sure that all of it belongs on this talk page, but this is where it should start. If we agree that there are clear evidence based arguments for any of the points, then thay can be put on the page. AlasdairW (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's also try to focus on practical advice relevant to travellers. Detailed understanding of the rationale and goals of public health policy is important but not for Wikivoyage. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to put this out there, I don't think speculation belongs here, but for anything that is scientifically verified and useful for the general public to know, we should have it here. If anyone needs help, I'm happy to read medical and scientific journal articles to verify information. I have access to them through my workplace. The dog2 (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A good place to start is what WHO is publishing, but if you feel my stuff is speculative, you'll need to avert your eyes from their figures, estimates and projections. There are conversations to be had elsewhere about editorial principles and priorities for other pages thru the crisis, and on how WV can be best positioned for the future. Because you may not want to hear this, but need to grasp: this is an existential threat to the entire travel and leisure sector, including travel publications. WV as an online free collaboration is in a much better place than most but is not exempt, and the tenor of responses here gives little cause for optimism. Grahamsands (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think there's a chance this will change the travel industry as we know it, but people will still travel in the future (and indeed people are still traveling now), which means that Wikivoyage will still have a purpose. If you want to discuss Wikivoyage's future in light of COVID-19, we can do that. Personally I think it's too early to get very far on that topic—too much is unknown.
As for the article content issue: projections and planning for the future are important, but the focus of our articles has always been practical advice for travelers, not Wikivoyage editors' analyses of complex and uncertain future trends. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Grahamsands, what tone would you like us to have? I'm interested to hear more of your thoughts. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Different person responding here... I don't think we need to speculate on the course of the pandemic itself, but I'd love to see some speculation on how it will affect travel. How might airlines be affected long term? When will people be able to resume limited vacation travel with added precautions, or unrestricted travel like before the virus? With many people stuck at home accumulating vacation time that they can't use while slowly going stir crazy, might we expect a travel and vacation boom in the next year or so? --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe Wikivoyage should have a blog for that sort of thing, travel opinions and experiences etc. I'm not really comfortable putting speculation about the future into our articles, unless they're very brief and/or have basis in some actual facts.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I definitely agree. Any speculation about the medium-to-long-term effect of this pandemic on the travel industry would be highly speculative. We have no way of knowing how long this pandemic will rage and how many people it will kill. Speculation would be both ignorant and irresponsible. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As long as there is no effective vaccine, the travel industry is closed for business. Nobody wants to travel a world where the virus keeps bouncing back. An effective vaccine distributed to all corners of the world has a time frame of 1 to 1½ years. Some scientists are speculating that there are two versions of the virus. 20:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, the coronavirus is known to mutate in a fast pace. A mapping study on Iceland made by the private company DeCode Genetics, where almost 10,000 persons were tested for the coronavirus, shows, that 40 mutations specific for Iceland exist. Some persons are infected with multiple of these mutations from different stages of the mutation process. Clusters can be traced to Austria, Italy and the UK. 48 of the tested persons have not shown any symptoms at all. Source in the Danish language. 21:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── the difference between the two strains is tiny and for now, a single vaccine would be able to cover both strains ([1]). Also the mutation rate is about 2 to 4 times slower than the flu ([2]). Not that it is relevant for this page. Gizza (roam) 21:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I take no joy in predicting this, but the smart money says that long before the pandemic itself recedes or a vaccine becomes available, defiance among the public will become too widespread, and stay-at-home regulations too unenforceable, for world governments to have any choice but to call off the lockdowns, especially as winter ends in the Northern Hemisphere and the weather becomes more outdoor-friendly. This is obviously not ideal from an epidemiological perspective, but admittedly very much in tune with human beings' status as social animals who are neither psychologically wired for long periods of isolation nor particularly adept at wise decision-making. Anecdotally, even before this morning when Trump and other right-wing elements of the U.S. government began test-marketing their new "cure can't be worse than the disease" line in earnest, I was already noticing a distinct shift in tone in the online comment-o-sphere. At any rate, I think predictions of the imminent death of the travel industry are highly premature. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is indeed hard to predict. Some countries are more collectivist and do not care about personal freedoms to the extent of other countries. It also depends on how close it hits home. The moment someone's friend or family member dies from the virus (especially if the person who died wasn't that old), that person will be become fearful and more willing to comply with isolation. It will vary at the individual level too. But yes, nearly every industry will recover from this. If tourism recovered from two World Wars, the Great Depression and most aptly, the Spanish Flu, travel and the rest of the economy will get out of this challenge too. Having said that, unlike planes which have improved their ventilation systems over time, cruise ships are stuck in the 50s and seriously need to upgrade their ventilation systems close to modern medical standards so that 99% of viruses and bacteria floating around the ship are killed through the filtering system. Otherwise, the cruise industry will never recover. Gizza (roam) 22:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(GS reply to IK) Future of the travel sector and of WV for me are currently on the “unknown unknowns” list. So they just need acknowledging as big coming topics – let’s start a thread in the pub, though it may become very long and labyrinthine. Coming back to the content of this particular page, I am concerned that looking ahead is being equated with speculation. Why are all the hotels and restaurants shut in your town right now – did you not see that coming? We wouldn’t be wrangling like this if we were in the first-affected areas of China, Iran and Italy. There the crisis is already upon them. Their way of life has been swept aside, and for many their life itself.
But the English-speaking countries are not there yet. The travel and leisure restrictions are infuriating but covid illness and deaths are just something on the news feed, not our personal experience. The sun is shining, in the northern hemisphere winter is ending and the birds are singing. Town is strangely quiet, but it just feels like an extra public holiday, and the threat is all media / political flimflam. It’s so easy and comforting to equate “two months from now” with doom-laden rumour-mongering.
But travellers need help to plan. For instance, are the Olympics going ahead in July? The IOC doesn’t like “speculation”, so they’ve kicked the can away down the road. They’ve thereby lost credibility and events will no longer be in their hands. Others – governments, sports organisations, travel providers and individual travellers – all will make their own decisions. Are there some known factors that they should compute into those decisions? Yes just a few: the method and rapidity of spread, the severity if you catch it, the prospect of other prevention that would make current restrictions unnecessary, the circumstances in which those restrictions might be relaxed . . . if only this stuff could be collated in some sort of easily readable online travel guide? And what other nasty surprises are further down the line? These concepts are not complex, and I was expecting a spirited discussion on how best to lay them before the travelling public. Instead what I’m hearing is a great gasp of horror that the subject’s been broached. Grahamsands (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
12 months as a timeline for a vaccine is ignorant. A 14-month study of a vaccine just recently started in Australia. If it proves safe and effective, it will take time after that to ramp up production and distribute it widely. In the meantime, the best hope is for effective drug treatments to be made available. It's hard to know how long that will take, but it's at least distinctly possible that we're talking a matter of months in that regard. I hope it can be sooner, but even during a pandemic, it's important to make sure treatments are not only effective but safe. Chloroquine, for example, is a drug with lots of possible side effects, but perhaps the worst is poisoning from an overdose. I'd really like to know what doses they're using experimentally, but I haven't found out that information for chloroquine so far. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Why are all the hotels and restaurants shut in your town right now – did you not see that coming?" Yes, I surely did, and it should have happened sooner. "covid illness and deaths are just something on the news feed, not our personal experience." Speak for yourself! Several friends of mine in New York and Berlin are currently suffering from COVID-19 or recovering from it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Grahamsands, if you want to talk about help to plan travel, that's fine and should be discussed somewhere, but not in a thread covering a pandemic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Grahamsands, you say "We wouldn’t be wrangling like this if we were in the first-affected areas of China, Iran and Italy." You might be interested to know that I've been living in China for most of the past two years, and was there for part of this month. Some good friends of mine are in China right now. So I know that, while the crisis is not over in China, life goes on. Some tourist attractions are reopening and domestic travel has resumed. My favorite baozi shop has reopened, and one of my friends is planning to fly across the country this week. I don't want to minimize the severity of the problem—some countries are going to be more severely affected than China, and even China is still a long way from being back to normal. And I don't want to minimize the very difficult experience that many people are going through right now. But let's not declare the end of the travel industry yet. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The travel industry as such wouldn't die out, at least in the long run, but many businesses in the hospitality and tourism industry will go bankrupt or run into serious trouble. For example Norwegian Air Shuttle, one of Europe's biggest low cost airlines got problems when the Boeing 737 MAX planes were grounded a year ago and now reports say the corona epidemic could be the final blow to the company. So there are going to be less capacity in these sectors (the planes still exist, hotel and restaurant facilities still exist but new businesses won't open overnight). Not to speak of unemployment in these sectors – former employees (and for small businesses, employers too) who will have their income slashed, can't afford to travel like before.
If the corona epidemic would go on for a longer time, say a year or more, then we're probably talking about permanent damage to people's interest in traveling. --Ypsilon (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've opened a new thread in the pub where we can discuss the long term view, while keeping this page focused on the near-to-medium term. Granger, what you are saying is crucial. What I earlier sought to argue, and you are demonstrating, is that restrictions may relax even though the threat has not receded. This relaxation may take different forms as the different first-affected countries come out of the initial shock. It seems relevant to say so on WV, and while other sources are not saying so then people may read it here first. They'd be glad that they stumbled upon WV. And to those like your good self and Ikan Kekek, who are deeper into this than most, my very best wishes for the health and wellbeing of you and all your family, associates and livelihood. Grahamsands (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the article could say that the timeline for restrictions is unclear and will vary by country. That's grounded in what we already know, not too speculative. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Advice to return home[edit]

Apparently, my government has just issued advice that all UK citizens abroad should return 'home' immediately. Is this something we should mention, and if so have other governments issued similar recommendations for their citizens? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It should be mentioned somewhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think most countries are doing this, see this article about New Zealand. Canada announced a loan program for travellers who need to borrow money to get home. AlasdairW (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it is really late for that call. Worldwide flights have dropped about 40% since 12 March 2020. Many countries have already closed their airspace. 19:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added something to this effect last week. Indeed, many countries have made these recommendations. And yes, in some cases it may be too late. For instance the US embassy in Montevideo is now advising Americans there to prepare in case they "need to remain in Uruguay for an extended period of time." —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Actually there are still a large number of snowbirds (Canadians who spend the winter in the USA). They are arriving by car in large numbers, and according to news sources not heeding the request to stay home to self-isolate for 14 days. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apparently there are a significant number of travellers who didn't make it home in time. CNN reports that from the U.S. alone, there are 13,500 citizens abroad currently seeking government assistance. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prevention advice - method of payment[edit]

I think we should add advice under the prevention to use contactless function of debit/credit cards where possible. Some stores in Britain have advised it and discouraged (even banned in some cases) the use of cash. -- 09:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

canadians abroad[edit]

I just saw the tail-end of something on ctv: email address: x@ there was also a phone # that I did not mange to capture. Anyone? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, what are you asking? Can you rephrase/explain? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I imagine it must be a phone number and email address for Canadians abroad to contact for assistance related to the pandemic and travel shutdown. I suggest looking at the relevant Canadian government website or contacting your nearest Canadian embassy or consulate. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ThunderingTyphoons! Oops sorry for missing your question. Yes as @Mx. Granger says, this was an ad for Canadians abroad providing a phone number and email address to contact for assistance related to the pandemic. I haven't looked recently, but last I looked did not have up to date info. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This article should certainly link to Diplomatic_missions#Visitor_registration_services & probably include advice that during the pandemic even tourists should register. Pashley (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good idea – I've added a sentence about that. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Migrant workers in British Columbia[edit]

I never thought of farm workers as travellers, but now I realize some are. In a recent article COVID-19 outbreak investigated at West Kelowna plant nursery, they are talking about outbreak of COVID-19 involving a group of temporary foreign workers in West Kelowna. The CBC reports that 4,500 migrant workers are needed every year to work Okanagan fields and orchards.

Does wv consider the needs of so-called temporary foreign workers? Just curious. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikivoyage articles have some information for foreign workers. Work visas and work-related "Stay safe" issues are sometimes covered in the relevant sections. Some articles have a "Work" section, and we have a few articles specifically about working abroad (such as Working abroad, Teaching English, Working in China, and Working in the United States). In general, though, our core audience is short-term visitors (thus, "Sleep" sections don't usually include advice on leasing an apartment). —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link to this page from Meta? - help please[edit]

I would like to post a link to this page from m:Coronation#Sister projects, but I don't know what letter goes in front of the ":".

Am I making sense? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[[voy:2019–2020 coronavirus pandemic]] —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coronavirus banner link doesn't work on mobile[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I noticed the Cornavirus banner isn't linking to the article on mobile (the other banner links work). Is anyone else having this problem? JakeOregon (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can confirm that as well. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The coronavirus link doesn't work on my phone in mobile view either (the Dotm banners work perfectly). On the other hand it works on my phone in desktop view, and on my laptop in both mobile and desktop view. --Ypsilon (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It continues to not work on my phone in mobile view. Anyone who edits the main page/ knows the main page template system know how to fix this? Should this discussion be moved to Talk:Main Page?JakeOregon (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:SelfieCity started a discussion at Talk:Main Page. I don't know if we have any active editors who know how to fix this. I'll put a note at the pub to see if anyone can help. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I missed that. The main discussion can probably be centralized there. JakeOregon (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Treatments in a travel article[edit]

There are plenty of sources available that discuss treatment, which doesn’t exist at the moment with the exception of ventilators, and recommending to avoid drinking bleach is surely obvious no matter what President Trump says.

What do these treatments have to do with travel? Isn’t treatment (or the lack of it) global right now? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(To clarify, I am referring to the last paragraph.) --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. I would say hydroxychloroquine and MMS can be removed. At most, we can say to follow doctors' advice and not take any medication that hasn't been recommended by a doctor. Which may be common sense anyway. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes; though like you, I'm not sure about the other statement either way. On one level, it's good to repeat good advice, but on other, it's obvious. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree the last paragraph should be removed. A large range of treatments are being tried in hospitals, but I don't think any are worth mentioning here. I would keep the treatment info in the first paragraph. There are reliable sources suggesting paracetamol for symptom relief, although some suggest that ibuprofen may best avoided. AlasdairW (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello all, just a quick note— I added this partly because it’s been pretty visible in global headlines recently and thought it deserved acknowledgement since there was already an existing ‘treatment’ section, but more practically because when these headlines come out it takes the science a while to follow, and whether or not something is presented as an uncontested ‘cure’ can often be location-dependent. As for obviousness, one would think but enough people are still getting poorly from misusing this stuff that reiterating the risks can’t hurt. Nonetheless, feel free to edit out if it’s not appropriate! Best wishes, Eben PresumingEb
IMO there should be no mention of treatments when there isn't any with conclusive evidence yet. In any case, there is evidence for other viral illnesses such as the flu that anti-pyretic drugs including paracetamol/Tylenol suppress the immune system, increase the number of days of infection and chance of mortality [3], [4], [5], [6]. It's best we stay out of it as we are not a medical wiki. Gizza (roam) 23:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Thanks for the contribution, PresumingEb, and we’ll definitely continue to appreciate more of your contributions in the future. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given DaGizza's comment, maybe the best course of action is to remove the "Treatment" section altogether and leave it to doctors and public health authorities (some of which are linked in the article) to give that type of advice. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have removed that section's final paragraph according to the consensus here. I think it would also be reasonable to remove the section altogether, but I haven't removed it yet due to lack of consensus. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DaGizza's links are a good argument for "sweat it out". My take from these was that the first link (repeated as the third) suggested lower mortality in critical ill patients if treatment was only used if the body temperature got above 40°C, the fourth link, a youtube video was the most compelling argument for not treating a slightly raised temperature. I didn't get anything useful from the 37 pages in the second link.
On the basis of this I would add a qualification to the first paragraph, that some sources recommend avoiding over-the-counter pain medications. I don't think any of the sources suggested that the other points, fluids and bed-rest, were in doubt. No objections have been raised to the other paragraphs. I think the only change from this is to either qualify or remove the words on pain medications. AlasdairW (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact that we, a group of amateur travel guide writers, are examining scientific papers to decide what treatments to advise for a novel disease, is a problem. We are not qualified to be making these kinds of judgements and should defer to public health authorities. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. This section of the article is becoming a burden for contributors to keep up with the latest scientific developments. Wikipedia has the editor base to cope with such a fast-moving situation, but not us, for a topic that isn't even directly travel-related. comment by SelfieCity
I think it is worth providing the advice to consult a doctor. It may seem obvious, but there are people following the US President's uninformed ponderings to their peril. Here a case where obvious advice is warranted. Ground Zero (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added "Mild symptoms may be relieved by taking paracetamol (acetaminophen)." on 22 March based on Scottish public health advice, and a link was given in the edit summary. At the time I saw similar advice on other public health sites. AlasdairW (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. In that case I think including it is defensible, but I'm still inclined to think it's better for us to just link to public health websites (and advise people to contact a doctor if they're sick, as indicated in the "Prevention" section). Especially since, as SelfieCity pointed out, COVID-19 treatment methods aren't directly travel-related—the disease is now widespread around the world. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conspiracy theories[edit]

Should we do anything to debunk the conspiracy theories in this article? Donald Trump, Boris Johnson and Scott Morrison all claim that the virus was engineered in a lab in China, though the scientific consensus is that such a scenario is extremely unlikely for a variety of reasons. And likewise, early in the outbreak, there were theories that it was engineered by American scientists to only infect ethnic Chinese and not white people, and deliberately released in China by American spies. Of course, for the same reasons, this is extremely unlikely. The dog2 (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My sense is that debunking conspiracy theories would be outside our scope. This article is for advising people who are travelling during the outbreak. Also, I don't know where you heard that Johnson claimed the virus was engineered by a lab in China, that's not made any of the news I'm in touch with.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with ThunderingTyphoons! here. See the "treatments" section discussed above, which came to the consensus that non-travel related content shouldn't be in this article. I think the same applies to conspiracy theories. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, there's an insane amount of different conspiracy theories around the coronavirus, and I don't think it's our job to even attempt to debunk the most widespread ones. We're a travel wiki. --Ypsilon (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ThunderingTyphoons!: At least from news articles, it seems like Trump, Johnson and Morrison are putting up a united front against China. All three are focusing on blaming China for the pandemic. See this, though admittedly the sources are little sketchy. It wouldn't surprise me though given the close ties among the three countries. Interestingly, in Singapore, their embassies/high commissions are all next to each other, as well as, surprise surprise, the Chinese embassy. Almost like a perfect setup for conflicts to occur. Anyway, the scientific consensus on COVID-19 is still that it most likely came from the wild and jumped the species barrier to humans. The dog2 (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting, but I still agree with my earlier position that, being non-travel-related, this doesn't fit into this Wikivoyage article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're not to know this, but "according to a Mail on Sunday newspaper report" is the UK journalism equivalent of saying "according to the school gossip." Do you have a blog? You've got a lot of interesting things to say, but some of them require a different outlet other than a travel wiki. "their embassies/high commissions are all next to each other" - it must be a conspiracy! Seriously, if you don't have a blog, get one. I'd read it.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was admittedly tangential and a little tongue-in-cheek. I was never intending to write any of that into any article. On a more serious note, my main concern is that prominent politicians are spreading ridiculous theories that have no basis in science, but I get that the issue on where the virus originated from is not directly related to travel. That said, there is a serious problem of dubious treatments being promoted by politicians, and for better or worse, some people have actually tried ingesting disinfectants, which is probably going to kill you instead. The dog2 (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mate, we are in a whole storm of shit, (geo)politically, culturally, technologically - it all stinks to high heaven, and has done since at least the middle of the last decade. But I honestly can't see room for that info on Wikivoyage, especially given the above discussion (also cited by Selfie City). --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm issuing a correction here. Scott Morrison has clarified that he wasn't accusing China of creating the virus in a lab, and has sided with the scientific community's position that it's probably a zoonotic disease. Not to try to ignite political debates or anything, but I thought I'd just put this out there because I do not want to unfairly malign anyone. The dog2 (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough. The concern is not with accurate information, but rather with specifically which pieces of accurate information belong in a travel guide. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I think we should probably cover the anti-lockdown protests someone, like telling people to find out where they're happening and avoid those areas. Of course, the ones in the US are probably the most well-known, given how some people stormed the Michigan State Capitol with assault rifles but I've heard that they're happening in other countries like Germany as well. Any thoughts? The dog2 (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If protests are significant in a particular location, they should be covered in the relevant city or country article, just as we would cover protests about anything else. We wouldn't cover protests about train fares in Rail travel, so why should protests which are mainly in one country be covered here. AlasdairW (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is anyone travelling now? That seems to be travel information without an audience. I wouldn't spend time on it. And let's not try to be a news website. There are other places that will cover the news better than Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, not worth covering. In general we shouldn't try to provide updates on protests. They're only relevant if they affect travellers (e.g. in Hong Kong last year), in which case they should be discussed in the destination article as AlasdairW says. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These protests are quite troubling, but tourists should have the common sense to stay away from them. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If a tourist is stuck somewhere in a shutdown, they shouldn't be sightseeing, anyway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename this page?[edit]

At en-WP, w:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic was recently renamed to w:COVID-19 pandemic following this discussion. The considerations there ought to apply pretty much the same way here, so should we follow suit and rename this page? Cheers, Sdkb (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to be really technical about it, it's the SARS-CoV2 pandemic. We're not technical on this site, though. I think COVID-19 is used enough in English to be the most used name for the disease, which is our standard of WV:Naming conventions, so after all of that, I'd support your suggested name change. But let's see what others think. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That makes sense. We don't have to follow Wikipedia, but common use has gravitated to COVID-19, so we should go with that. Ground Zero (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes DoneGranger (talk · contribs) 21:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Long-term effects of coronavirus[edit]

Swept from the Pub

This is to open a conversation about the long term impact of coronavirus on travel and upon WV. There is already a specific page with its own discussion threads, but that focuses on immediate advice and there are limits to which it can look long-term. But as the pandemic affects all aspects of travel then it affects the entire content of WV. And as it threatens the survival of all travel-related business then it threatens the existence of WV.

Are we in accord about the gravity and extent of the situation? This is a novel virus that is spreading rapidly, roughly doubling every week in every country with the crucial exception of China, where it has halted. It causes severe illness in 15%, critical illness in 5% and death in 2%. In response there have been unprecedented restrictions on travel and on personal liberty, even denying travel and activity that would previously be seen as essential. This situation seems likely to go on for several months, and it could be many, many months.

We’ve all had travel plans thwarted, but what about updating of content? It feels like content on long-distance transport and amenity listings should mostly freeze; we don’t know what’s closed temporarily, when it might re-open, or what’s lost for good. There may be local transport and natural attractions and themes still worth working on. I’m not proposing any “policy” here, just a general commonsense approach.

The last calamity on this scale was 9 / 11, and its repercussions are still echoing. The travel industry was devastated but was then resurgent, with all sorts of new opportunities which we’ve been enjoying. WV can reach a good long-term position if it survives the slump, but no travel means no travel writing. Contributors find other interests, some may not return (beyond the normal turnover) and no newcomers join; then come the revival the content needs major overhaul but there are few hands to do it. Whatever we perceive as a weakness in WV right now (eg poor coverage of many areas of the world, and poor upkeep in other languages) will be exacerbated. Grahamsands (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the most active editors just need to keep doing what we're doing. Unlike travel websites that operate for profit, as far as I understand our situation in the Wikimedia community, we don't need to make a profit every quarter. Therefore, if our web traffic declines for a time but then recovers after the virus passes, we can return to normal. We might actually find ourselves in a better position than commercial travel websites that are probably losing money right now due to the coronavirus. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Grahamsands, in uncertain situations like this, it's a natural human instinct to crave hard answers about how everything will turn out in the end. But the "long term impact of coronavirus on travel and upon WV" is unknowable at this time, and thus there's no "conversation" about it to be had. Engaging in speculation is unhelpful, and trying to then establish policy (or "a general commonsense approach", or whatever term you want to couch it in) based on that speculation is even more unhelpful. And when the thinking behind that speculation is based on the absolute worst-case-scenario extreme of the range of possible outcomes, the idea becomes worse still. (For instance, I personally think it's very unlikely that lockdowns will "go on for several months, and it could be many, many months". World leaders, or at least certain right-wing elements of the U.S. government, are starting to suggest it will soon be time to get back to work to avert economic collapse, but it's actually much larger than just the economy: isolating en masse for long periods of time is not something that human beings have ever been asked to do before in all of history, including during pandemics, nor is it at all clear that such long-term isolation is within the capabilities of our species in a psychological/sociological sense, regardless of the epidemiological consequences. I say this not to engage in speculation after having denounced it, but as an example of how wide the range of possible outcomes is and that no, we are in no way "in accord about the gravity and extent of the situation".)
If you feel it's important for you personally to stop writing for Wikivoyage at this time, or to restrict your writing to certain subject matter only, then you personally are perfectly free to do so. But, I repeat, attempting to use pie-in-the-sky speculation as a basis for best practices for the whole community to follow is just as much a nonstarter here as it proved to be on Talk:2019–2020 coronavirus pandemic, and quite frankly, I really don't want to hear any more about this.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course anyone interested in discussing the long-term effects is free to do so, but those of us who don't find it very useful at this stage, like me and AndreCarrotflower, may focus on other things instead. Personally, I agree that it is too early to say what the impacts will be. Our time on Wikivoyage right now is probably best spent (a) updating practical information related to the crisis and (b) doing various maintenance and updates that we haven't gotten around to (like the cotm).
Regarding editing practices for the time being: I agree with the general sense that updates to things like national parks may be more useful than updates to things like long-distance transport. I don't think we should enforce this as a rule, though—anyone can make updates to whatever they think is useful. I agree that, at this stage, we shouldn't remove listings based on temporary closures until we know that they're closed for good. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with Granger and Andre.
One thing about confinement, it is within our capacity as humans to isolate for extended periods of time due to pandemic - we can take our lead from the inhabitants of Eyam, a village in the English Peak District, who upon discovering they had bubonic plague in their midsts in 1666, quarantined themselves from the outside world and maintained it for 14 months until the infection passed, even though dozens of people succommed. Surrounding communities supported them by bringing food to the village gates and leaving it. While the story didn't end particularly well given the nonexistent medical care, we can all take inspiration from their altruism and resolve. If they could do it, with no hope of survival beyond praying, and with nothing to do but wait, then we can do this, for as long as it takes.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, although I didn't mention this opinion in my earlier comment in this discussion, I agree with the others that this kind of analysis and adjustment to speculation is unnecessary. Also, TT, thanks for the history! I never knew about that event before! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All I'll say is, we'd better isolate for months, because the consequences of not doing so could be hundreds of millions of deaths throughout the world. Otherwise, I agree with Granger's views on things to edit. I actually haven't changed my editing routine - I still patrol, fixing grammar and syntax and reverting touting. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And returning to the topic at hand, this is what I said at Talk:2019–2020 coronavirus pandemic: "if you want to talk about help to plan travel, that's fine and should be discussed somewhere, but not in a thread covering a pandemic." So you started a thread talking about "the long term impact of coronavirus on travel" - a thread covering a pandemic. How about not speculating about the long-term effects of a pandemic on travel, at a time when we're still in relatively early stages of a deadly pandemic that potentially billions of people could be sickened by? I'd suggest showing a little sensitivity and waiting until it's under control before having this discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are fortunate that we live in an internet era. In previous pandemics, like the Black Death, Spanish Flu and countless others, quarantine would have been a lot more boring. At least we can video call people. We can see and hear them. Just not touch and get close. Easier for some (but obviously not all) industries to work from home in modern times too so the economy while severely damaged won't drop to zero. The death rate when hospitals are overwhelmed (in Wuhan and Lombardy) is 10%. Let's all do our part in slowing this down. Some historians believe that Shakespeare wrote King Lear while in quarantine so this can still be a very productive time in our lives. Gizza (roam) 21:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The biggest change to our articles will be the huge number of listings that will have closed when this is over. Many shops, restaurants, bars and hotels will disappear. Airlines and cruise ships too. Heck, maybe even other transport services. And even more sadly, the managers, workers, and regular customers of various listings will die. In my opinion, if I were to add new content, it would be on things that are guaranteed to stick around in a couple of years. Things like national parks and nature and very old historical monuments, statues and archeological sites that aren't run on a commercial basis. Also we can start a virtual tourism travel topic. Gizza (roam) 21:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. Some international ferry lines have already thrown in the towel, those without freight and cargo as their main income. Travel focus will shift from long distance travels to local and regional travels, to those who can afford it. Not that far away, but out of suburbia for a little comfort. 21:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We've deleted all virtual tourism from this site before - remote cams, etc. I agree that we should focus on those now, as this is the time for people to travel vicariously from their own homes. As for creativity, well, I've already written two new tunes since the plague came to New York. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the past week or two several other travel sites have published lists of virtual tours, live cams, streamed performances, and so on from tourist attractions that are closed due to the pandemic. We could do the same. We can create a dedicated article with a list of "travel at home" options, which we could archive, like we do with past sporting events, after the crisis has ended. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or we could not archive but embrace them, as travel sites are always partly about vicarious, virtual travel. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────As someone who is stuck in a foreign country far away from the rest of my family, I will say that having the internet is certainly making isolation much easier to cope with. Because of the internet, I am able to give my family regular updates on my situation. I can imagine how much harder it would have been for my grandfather during World War II when he was separated from his father due to the war (and his mother died young, so he was effectively an orphan for the duration of the war). There is already resistance to the shutdowns from within the U.S. Many people see it as an infringement of basic human rights and the first step in the path down to dictatorship. One common argument I have heard is that you should isolate yourself if you are scared, but the government has no right to limit people's movement as that is an infringement of personal freedom. So it is certainly conceivable that the lockdowns will end soon when people eventually become irate and start defying them en masse to march on government offices.

Regarding the long-term effects, I think it's premature to say that the travel industry will never recover. If there's something I learnt from studying history, it is that for as long as civilisation has existed, societies have gone through cycles of boom and bust. We've already been through multiple pandemics and multiple stock market crashes as a human race, and somehow, the world economy seems to always bounce back, so while things seem bleak now, I'm inclined to think we are currently just in the "bust" phase of the cycle, and a "boom" will come again at some point. The dog2 (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In terms of what we can do, I think that in two or three months, we'll have a better idea of what's closed permanently, and we can go through our favorite articles and remove closed listings. This will be easier to do for relatively ephemeral attractions: closed restaurants are probably permanent losses, but a purpose-built building (such as a hotel) is likely to be re-opened as a very similar hotel later, even if it's under a new name and with different staff. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think speculation about ultimately unknowable outcomes should govern anything we do at Wikivoyage, but as long as we seem to want to speculate idly regardless, I'll take a swing. I don't think the premature end of the lockdowns will necessarily involve "irate" citizens "march[ing] on government offices", as The dog2 said. I simply think it will involve more and more people disregarding the warnings to leave their homes and congregate in groups, especially as the weather gets nicer, and perhaps businesses like restaurants reopening illicitly because it's either that or financial ruin for their owners. And in making the decision of whether to double down on enforcement or throw in the towel, our political leaders will calculate that defying the will of the people, as foolhardy as it may be, is not good for their future electoral prospects. I've heard it argued that people who currently aren't taking the disease seriously will be scared into compliance once deaths from the virus become widespread enough that everyone knows someone who's succumbed, but I fear the opposite is true: that as death tolls mount, a certain nihilism will pervade, and the general sentiment will be, as the old saying goes, "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die". I think ultimately, the trajectory of this pandemic won't be substantially different from past ones: a quicker return to normal than we currently predict, but a much higher price to pay in lives lost than we currently hope for. And believe me, I hope I'm wrong about all of this. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We will all, at some point, get the coronavirus. One may show no symptoms, one might show light symptoms or one might show severe symptoms. Only thing that really matters is, that we and the surrounding community do not get the virus in large numbers — at the same time. It could be as simple as that. But of course it wont be that simple. Keep distance, sanitise, stay home. 18:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even if you do get it, it is better to get it later (say 3-4 months from now) than earlier (right now). A vaccine won't be available by then but we will have a much better idea of which medicines used experimentally right now are effective in reducing the severity and likelihood of dying from it. Gizza (roam) 02:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You'll also have a better chance of receiving life-saving supportive care if you don't get it until after the waves of critical patients who are and will soon be overwhelming ICUs in hard-hit areas. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It feels better that we're having these conversations than not doing so, eg on editing priorities - I'm going to occupy myself with some of the parks. Another aspect that can be tackled is poor page structure, eg if the districtification is a mess. Those pages can be remedied without update to the listings, making them easier to overhaul whenever normality returns. Grahamsands (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly. Best to avoid the "eeny, meeny, miny, moe"-period. 18:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, in these times of cancellations and suspensions, perhaps the next step will be to move the Easter holidays to Pentecost? 21:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Responsible houses of worship have closed their doors. Mainstream Christians don't believe Jesus wanted more people to get sick and die - that kind of goes against the accounts of his ministry in the Gospels. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We stated on Facebook that we will continue running as normal. Just because we feature Easter doesn't mean we're telling people to go to church. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lent was never that easy. Perhaps it should be prolonged for another 40 days? I have already got very much accustomed. 23:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the IP user is being facetious. At any rate, we've got a solid consensus in favor of the status quo here, so I see no need to further prolong this discussion. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No harm in a little light humor. These times are very depressing, so sometimes a slight bit of ironic humor might help us carry on, but it's admittedly a delicate thing online, and that's why I was initially opposed to the April Fools' Day joke article being done again this year. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And there was me thinking that eeny, meeny, miny, moe (etc) were the moons of Jupiter. But I've updated the explainer on Eyam, since it's likely to be much quoted in days ahead. Grahamsands (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stay healthy[edit]

I read an article yesterday about tourists "sheltering" in small towns, and the stress this creates on locals. (This is a result of our thinking that the coronavirus is a "foreign" thing: it makes us suspicious of people who aren't "locals".) The article said something like, "Population: 750 year-round residents, and 3,000 during the tourist season. Number of hospitals: Zero." That got me thinking: a lot of our articles don't have content about hospitals or clinics, and they probably should. Maybe that would feel like a relevant project for someone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tried this out in Western Iowa. Every city in the main list now has a {{listing}} for the nearest hospital. What turned out to be the most useful thing for this mostly rural area was finding a spreadsheet of "critical access hospitals". This is US federal bureaucrat-speak for "small hospitals with emergency rooms in the middle of nowhere". There are about 1500 of them in the US. If anyone has a favorite US state and would like the list, please ping me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This depends on the best access route to urgent health care for out-of-town visitors. In many places, the hospital is a bad decision, you should only go there if you're too ill to get there. A better option is the "out of hours" service or clinic, often primary care or nurse-led, who can triage, initiate immediate care, or place you into the appropriate second-level facility. So it's important for the relevant WV pages to explain that. Grahamsands (talk) 07:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In a mid-sized or large city, I completely agree with you, and I'd usually list those instead of, rather than in addition to, the local hospitals. However, in small towns like Okoboji, the "out of hours" service – if one exists at all – is usually open for 12–20 hours per week, so usually, you'll need to go across the street to the hospital. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WhatamIdoing Is that list of hospitals available under FOIA on a link? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, ShakespeareFan00. FOIA requests are unnecessary in this case. You can download a spreadsheet with each hospital's name and location at (among other websites). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Airlines re-opening?[edit]

American, United Airlines end social distancing, will book flights to full capacity Looks unbelievably stupid to me. Pashley (talk)`

True...will spread coronavirus very quickly. But they probably have little choice if they want to stay in business. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Though lawsuits might possibly bankrupt them, depending on different countries' laws and standards of legal standing to sue. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also Air Canada, WestJet to drop physical distancing policies as air travel picks up Pashley (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It’s interesting, since in Florida the opposite is happening. People who were going outside are deciding to stay at home and I don’t see businesses staying open long given the current trend. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Should we have some short section on the theory of testing strategies. I suppose many naïvely think that if you get a negative test, you don't carry the disease, while it shows just in the active phase, from a while before symptoms appear until the worst is over (unless you got something else while weak). Thinking you do not spread the disease because you tested negative is dangerous.

I am puzzled by some testing strategies. What is the use of first testing, then quarantining? You should be OK after the quarantine anyway, unless the quarantine is so short that people getting a false negative (because it was taken early) would be spreading it afterwards. Just for statistics?

And the Icelandic strategy of testing + short quarantine + testing? What is the use of the first test? Are you spreading the disease also after the disease is not longer seen in the test, but for less than five days?

LPfi (talk) 11:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure if any of us have enough expertise to go into detail about this. Testing policies vary widely between countries; I assume different experts and policymakers weigh various tradeoffs differently. I know some countries require multiple tests because there's a risk of a false negative.
The idea of the Icelandic policy might be that if you test positive immediately they can put you into a stricter quarantine? And two tests is better than one in terms of the risk of false negatives. But I'm just speculating.
It's probably worth mentioning that there's a risk of false negatives, especially shortly after being infected. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I understand it, the policy in New Zealand for arrivals is 14 days of managed quarantine in a hotel. There are tests on the 3rd and 12th day. People who test positive are moved to one quarantine location, which presumably has extra facilities or medical staff.
Tests are done both to manage the individual case, and to gather statistical information. If everybody tested negative on a single test, there might be political pressure to change quarantine, so evidence that people are infected when they arrive is useful. AlasdairW (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not think we need to go into detail, but there are complications we might mention & provide links for. There are at least two types of test: test for the virus itself (usually in the nose) indicating active infection or test for antibodies (in blood) indicating the person has been infected at some point. The virus test can give false positives in a recovered patient who has dead virus around. See also Bill Gates on Covid: Most US Tests Are ‘Completely Garbage’. Pashley (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've understood that the window where you get positive results from the most common (virus) tests is short, only a couple of days (i.e. the main problem is not the test per se being unreliable). I don't know whether you are contagious before the disease shows in the test, or after that. Probably at least the latter, as you take the test from a specific place (the nose) and the infection can be elsewhere (the lungs), from where I suppose it can spread. I understand the usefulness of tests to get statistics, for adjusting policy and defend political decisions, but for that I suppose samples would suffice and be much more economical. And I understand if people who tested positive are treated differently, but that seems not always to be the case. –LPfi (talk) 07:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Business class?[edit]

Would one be safer on a flight going business class, or even first, to keep further away from other passengers? Pashley (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updating the number of global recoveries - which COVID tracker should we use?[edit]

I have updated the number of global COVID confirmed cases and deaths for the end of October, but have left the number of recoveries as it was in the middle of the month. I am not sure who made the previous update and which COVID tracker they used for getting the number. The tracker I use (have been using it since February 2020) is the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control - yes it is a bit clunky but it comes from a reliable non-American source, but it does not include a column for recoveries, rather a column for the number of cases reported in the last 15 days (currently at about 14% of total cases globally, according to my calculation).

Can anyone suggest a better source for covid information? It should be from a reliable source, provide easy and fast access to the numbers, and be as stable as possible in this fast changing landscape. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've used the table in Wikipedia as a source, which itself is presumably based on reliable sources. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for responding @Ypsilon: Looks like table in Wikipedia relies on data from, which my clunky pc cannot easily decypher. I hope someone else will update the recoveries on the page (which right now looks like it will need to be updated at least every couple of weeks?)
BTW is the number on the wiki template updated automatically?Ottawahitech (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to the history for the template it's updated manually (but again Wikipedia's manpower is on a completely different level than WV...). I've been checking that table once or twice a month and updated our article if nobody has done it recently, usually rounding up or down a bit to give readers a rough picture of the situation. Ypsilon (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remove the number of recoveries from the text?[edit]

Should we simply remove the number of global recoveries from the text? It needs to be updated as often as the number of cases and the number of deaths, but it is not. According to wikipedia the number of recoveries now stands at 32 million, and another source says its is currently 35 million, but the number being reported by wikivoyage is 27 million. Ottawahitech (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there any need for us to provide such exact figures for confirmed cases and so on? Maybe we should just say "tens of millions" and leave it at that. Readers interested in current figures would be better off checking sources that are updated more consistently. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. And number of recoveries can be left out altogether. –LPfi (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. We're not Wikinews. Let's save ourselves the hassle of updating, and the awkwardness of being out of date. Ground Zero (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The number of recoveries is also complicated by different government's reporting policies on recoveries. The WP article has no data for the UK and Spain - over 2 million cases. So the number of recoveries is not useful information unless it is corrected with an estimate of those in the countries that don't report the information - readers may assume that current cases = total cases - (deaths + recoveries) which gives the wrong number worldwide and for many countries. I think that number of recoveries should be removed.AlasdairW (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with all of you. And I'd point out that in addition to Alasdair's point above, it's very debatable what "recovery" means. Some supposedly "recovered" people continue to have serious health problems for an as yet determined length of time after the acute phase of their illness, while some other individuals who had light or asymptomatic cases suddenly develop serious problems later. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of government travel advisories[edit]

So, should the infobox titled "Government travel advisories" be limited to government travel advisories, or should it also include links to various countries' ministries of health and similar agencies? My feeling is that the infobox is useful as a tool for readers to find their own government's global travel advisory (or the advisory of another government they trust), for general advice about international travel during this period. For information and links specifically about the country of travel, readers should look at the individual country article. The basic idea is that this article covers COVID-19 travel information that is global (or at least international) in scope, whereas country-specific information goes in the individual country articles. That's my view at least. The alternative, I suppose, is a very long infobox where the travel advisories are buried in a list of health agency websites. Pinging @Ottawahitech, ‎ThunderingTyphoons!: —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be good to avoid a long list, but I don't really have an independent/prior view on this, so am happy to wait for Ottawa's argument before I weigh up and decide. But thanks for the ping.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's good to have more than one source, but I'd say let's keep the number at 7 2 at most (and preferably sites where you can get information about the COVID situation globally). Individual national health authorities and the like can be linked to from the country articles. --Ypsilon (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ThunderingTyphoons!: I would very much like to hear from User:Diasimon2003 who is the one who inserted the new links to Singapore which is a country with a very interesting w:COVID history, IMO. Ottawahitech (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think COVID-19_pandemic#More_information is fine as it stands. Pashley (talk) 06:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there a link from this list to Travel_advisories#Government travel advisories? Sorry I don't visit here often enough to know. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll add one. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reversion of IP edits[edit]

One of the registered users here undid an edit by an IP to this page recently. See:

The IP obviously made edits in good faith and put effort into it. For example: they added a sympton to the list of less common symptoms. So I asked Google: is redness of the eyes a symptom of covid? Google responded by providing a list of symptoms one of which was conjunctivitis which I googled too. To make long story short, I guess the IP which added red eyes to must have seen this: (just kidding)

However, I believe many of the changes suggested by the IP are excellent ones. Opinions? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe it was a good faith edit, but much of it is better as it stands. We use COVID-19 uniformly, which is good, and a change would need to be discussed to be applied consistently (and "coronavirus" is no disease). The change "wear a mask" → "always wear a mask" is adding empty words: the former implicates the latter, except in exceptional circumstances, where you should use your judgement. Similar on covering nose and mouth and on reusing non-disposable masks; the clarification becomes confusing when the sentence is clear from start. The advice on taking showers, doing laundry and not sharing food are hard for me to understand, partly from less-than-perfect English, partly because I think they are either obvious or odd, and I don't know which. And the bullet on eating out was sarcasm or something, which should be avoided in this kind of article.
So, in all, there were too many problems for me having any desire cleaning it up. Mx. Granger might have felt the same.
LPfi (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with LPfi. There are quite a few problems with the edit, and I'm struggling to find any parts of it that are worth keeping. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On balance, I agree with most of the reversion but disagree with the spirit of one part. The one part of the current advice I object to is "Don't reuse disposable masks". I've used N99 masks that are supposed to be disposable for months, because it would be extremely irresponsible and expensive for me to get the massive supplies of them that I'd need if I discarded each one after a single use. I recently bought a few N95 masks which are supposedly reusable for no more than 30 days. They accumulate large quantities of water drops from the water vapor in my breath unless I use them almost exclusively outside and it's chilly enough (however, they work better for my girlfriend, which I hoped would be the case), but do you think I'll throw away used ones after 30 days? People who are not medical professionals should be advised to cover their noses and mouths with whatever they can obtain or make and to be careful not to assume that if they reuse the same covering indoors in places where there are high concentrations of SARS-CoV2 viruses without letting them air out for 3 days, they'll be completely safe, but they should not be blithely told to discard everything right after use according to professional directions that even professionals aren't obeying in extreme situations, such as when overwhelmed and underequipped personnel in New York in March and April disinfected N95 masks with ultraviolet light. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First: the edit did not change that, rather it added "always". It then went on saying that you can reuse reusable masks, which I find quite redundant.
Second: I agree that it might be possible to reuse disposable masks, but this is another discussion, and I'd like to have an opinion from somebody in the know. A newspaper over here told that the disposable masks can be boiled or steam boiled and would then work about as well as self-made cloth masks (i.e. protecting others, but not really protecting you from aerosols, if I've understood correctly). I don't remember their source. I don't know whether the masks deteriorate only by that handling or also during use (I suppose so, based on your 30-days limit), and I don't know for how long the virus survives in the mask if it is not treated in some way. The N95 masks are probably different from the cheaper ones the text was about.
LPfi (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow! Thanks all for the input. I wrote this partly because I see a tendency, not just here but on other wmf-wikis, to quickly dispose of edits by IPs (I think?). IMIO regulars should be gentle when undoing edits that are obviously good faith and took some effort on the part of the editor. I bring to your attention Wikivoyage:Travellers'_pub#"Best_of"_in_the_region_pages where the OP says WV needs more editors, which I totally agree with. In my experience, many IPs start with small edits, and if they are treated well tend to continue contributing. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, and have often argued for being more friendly toward new editors. In this case the claim that "the virus was identified in summer of 2019" struck me as a red flag and made me skeptical that the user intended to contribute constructively.
Re: User:Ikan Kekek's point – I think a lot of the information about masks was written in March when recommendations from many public health authorities were very different from what they are now. It would probably be a good idea to rewrite the mask guidance based on up-to-date advice from the WHO and public health agencies. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


With a vaccine now authorized for use in the U.K., and expected soon in the U.S., how should we address vaccines in this article? Since availability will vary around the world, and be very limited at first, how much detail can/ should we go into? JakeOregon (talk) 08:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very little, because they won't be widely available for a while, except that I understand Russia is administering its own vaccine widely in Russia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's a tracker that is updated fairly often & is from a TV network often considered a reliable source. Another tracker WHO document Pashley (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, there are news stories like this: Vaccination to be compulsory for Qantas international flights. We will need to cover the restrictions if Qantas follow through on this, or other airlines follow suit, or countries start requiring vaccination for entry.
I do not think we need to do this now & it likely is not yet possible anyway, but later it may be essential. Pashley (talk) 09:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's going to be a while before they have enough doses to cover the entire world. And there's also going to be distribution issues. The problem with Pfizer's and Moderna's vaccines is that they are RNA vaccines, so while they're more effective than traditional vaccines at stimulating an immune response, they need to be stored at low temperatures, which is not a problem in developed countries like the US and UK, but will be hugely problematic in large swathes of Latin America and Africa, which don't have the necessary infrastructure. The Chinese vaccine would probably not be as effective as the Pfizer of Moderna vaccine, but will probably not need to be stored at temperatures that are that low, so it might be crucial in getting vaccines out to less developed parts of the world. The dog2 (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the -70°C needed means that even countries like Finland seems to have to concentrate vaccinations to bigger cities. –LPfi (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it's "not a problem" in the U.S. That cold a temperature is quite challenging, as hospitals don't generally have such cold storage. That's what New York's Governor Cuomo says, and since he would have been told so by his Medical Commissioner, I think it's reliable. (By the way, Pfizer, as Cuomo is fond of saying, is a New York company, so the distances involved in shipping are smaller in this state but storage is still challenging.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


@Doc James: Do mind looking at the vaccination section again? We're having a second lockdown in Singapore now, and some of these positive cases are fully vaccinated. The good news is that all the fully vaccinated cases are either mild or asymptomatic, meaning that the vaccine is doing what it was meant to. The bad news is that these people can still spread the disease to unvaccinated people, who can go on to develop complications. How much of these do you think we should cover? The dog2 (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hum "Singapore health officials said that of 28 airport workers who became infected, 19 were fully vaccinated with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, the only two approved for use in Singapore."[7] Yah the vaccine is definitely not 100%. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have read about no studies on how effective the vaccines are in preventing transmission. As I understand it, the percentages cited have been related to reported cases of COVID-19 among those vaccinated, which more or less equals those with symptoms grave enough to make the person contact somebody about them. Continually (weekly?) testing ten thousand people to see whether there is an infection, simply isn't practical. I suppose there must have been smaller studies focusing on infection or transmission, but they seem not to have reached the news. –LPfi (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What the new outbreak in Singapore shows is that it is still possible to get infected even if you're fully vaccinated. However, it's not accurate to say that the vaccines have not been effective, since the fully vaccinated cases had mild or no symptoms. The main issue is that if you are fully vaccinated but get infected, you can still spread the disease to others, and the unvaccinated people can go on to develop complications. So realistically, the only time restrictions can be lifted is when the vast majority of the population is fully vaccinated. The dog2 (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not that I wrote "effective [...] in preventing transmission". I suppose everybody in the field knew this was not what was studied, and the media over here picked up that aspect about when the vaccinations began. Still, I suppose getting severely ill correlates in some degree to how effectively you spread the disease. To what degree seems to still not be known. –LPfi (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Travel restrictions on Reddit FAQ[edit]

FYI: Ottawahitech (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fines imposed in some jurisdictions for breaking covid rules?[edit]

Some countries are imposing financial fines (example) for breaking local covid regulations. Should the country's covid box explicitely warn travellers of these fines? Thanks in advance Ottawahitech (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. We can't have a 20 page Covid box detailing what is the law, and what is official guidance. Particularly as the situation changes every few days. We should summarise the situation and link to official pages for the details. If fines are very severe and regularly enforced that can be mentioned, see Man fined $5000 for breaking Taiwan Covid-19 quarantine for 8 seconds. AlasdairW (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If something is mandatory, readers should expect ignoring it can have consequences, yes. Only if the consequences are much more harsh than what could be expected, there is a need for a warning. I'd say that a travellers who expected a reprimand but got a significant fine just have themselves to blame. I wouldn't say, though, that really extraordinary consequences need to be regularly enforced – even if our reader is the only one facing them, they should have been warned. –LPfi (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Philippine President Duterte told cops to shoot quarantine violators who resist arrest; he even said "shoot to kill". The top cop immediately "clarified" that they wouldn't shoot anyone unless the resistance was dangerously violent. Pashley (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pashley: the article you linked is dated APR 1, 2020. Is this the one you meant to post here? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, this was not an April Fool's joke. Pashley (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In Canada, the maximum for breaking quarantine rules is $200,000 or $750,000 depending on the exact offence, plus six months jail time for any offence. The two cases I know of so far were both groups of American travellers. None of them got jail, first bunch (get in by claiming they are driving to Alaska, then holiday in Banff) got $12,000 fines, second (fly in with phony vaccine certificates) $20,000. Since fines are per person, that has to hurt.
I reckon they got off easy, fines should be at least $50,000 & keep them in jail until fine is paid. Other Canadians think as I do & there is pressure for heavier penalties in future. Pashley (talk) 11:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternative page banner[edit]

How to wear a non-medical fabric mask safely
  • Following discuusions at Talk:Main Page, I have created this page banner using the WHO poster on wearing a fabric mask. We should probably wait for the discuusions on the main page banner to conclude before considering changing this one. AlasdairW (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

US restrictions[edit]

U.S. to require negative COVID-19 tests for arriving international air passengers. I wonder what other countries & airlines are requiring this & how the rules will change as vaccination becomes more common. Pashley (talk) 07:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

COVID-19 pre-departure testing and Transport Canada’s Interim Order Pashley (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The UK is about to require most travellers to test negative before arrival, and New Zealand requires it from some countries in addition to 14 days quarantine in a guarded hotel. I think that many countries now require it, possibly with exceptions for near neighbours. As travellers have to make their own arrangements for these, and possibly choose between tests, we could usefully expand the Testing and treatment section. Does anybody have experience of this? AlasdairW (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, there are news stories like this: Vaccination to be compulsory for Qantas international flights. Pashley (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems the image is unproblematic. The author is trusted and explained the things that seemed suspicious. –LPfi (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Israel’s vaccine passport[edit]

Israel’s vaccine passport was released on February 21, to help the country emerge from a month-long lockdown. More:

Is this of interest here? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added a sentence alluding to this[8], which could possibly be expanded with more information. Israel-specific details should probably go in the Israel article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vaccine needed for some cruise ships[edit]

P&O Cruises says travellers will need vaccinations Pashley (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Usable to Guide[edit]

Do you think we should promote this article to Guide status? 18:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Locations map[edit]

I think the map in Locations is less than ideal: many areas that are dark on the map have more or less recovered (or are going to). I think a map on current prevalence would be much more useful, and I suppose Commons has maps that are kept updated. Hm. I wasn't able to find an up to date one. I think there must be one somewhere. –LPfi (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


With regards to terms like "China virus" or "Wuhan pneumonia", should we be more specific about who uses the terms? In the Hong Kong and Taiwan press, there is a clear divide; pro-independence media use "China virus" or "Wuhan pneumonia", while pro-China media use "COVID-19". I know that Western countries, the usage of terms like "China virus" or "Wuhan pneumonia" indicate right-wing politics, since left wingers consider these terms to be racist, but I think it would be useful for people who know the situation better to comment on whether or not these terms are commonly used by right wingers. The dog2 (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have left-wing, right-wing, and centrist friends in the US, and I have not heard any of them use the terms "China virus" or "Wuhan pneumonia". On the other hand, all of my friends know I used to live in China, so when they're talking to me they might avoid using a term that's seen as disparaging towards Chinese people. Regardless, I would advise travelers in the US to avoid using either of those terms. I don't think I've heard them used here in the UK either. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think we need to explain very much. I think it is enough to say that you might hear such names and that they are used more in some circles than in others. As a traveller you should not use them, unless that would make you stand out more than you are comfortable with. –LPfi (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Granger, you must have studiously avoided paying any attention to Trump and his collaborators, who constantly referred to the "China virus" and "kung flu" last year, helping to incite a wave of harassment and assaults on Asian-Americans, some of them murders, which has continued to increase apace so far this year. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trump is not a friend of mine, so I didn't include him in my comment above. The Trump supporters who I know personally have never used those terms in my presence (as far as I can remember) – I've seen them used much more in the media than in regular life – but of course your experience may differ. The hate crimes should be covered in "Stay safe", of course. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I see that you were describing your friends only. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When travel is about to open up after the pandemic[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Borders are slowly opening up in high vaccination rate countries. Any ideas how we can use this opportunity to grow the project's visibility? Something like a list of which countries allow fully vaccinated individuals to enter without quarantine or PCR test? OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Travel is still problematic; I wouldn't like us to be seen as recommending leisure travel abroad until the situation has improved significantly. Like last time, I think it could be good the think about criteria for when to start talking about it, but the idea didn't fly that time. Perhaps because nobody wanted to think too much about the pandemic. I think the situation is still much the same. –LPfi (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The situation changes very rapidly and is extremely complex. I don't think that we can sensibly provide a list, when the Covid info box on many countries pages has not been updated for several months. What we can provide is some general guidance on how to travel safely, making it clear that the reader must keep checking both home and destination travel advice. The IATA Travel Centre has a map which may be some use as they will update it regularly but only gives free info for 10 countries.
At this point I would only recommend domestic travel in most cases. Travel bubbles between countries are starting to appear, but these are probably best covered by the local media who can track the daily changes. AlasdairW (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Updating articles in Category:Has COVID-19 box with out of date warning would be a good use of our time, and a way to showcase our ability to adapt to changing circumstances faster than paper guidebooks. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's also helpful to make sure the COVID-19 boxes include links to the official websites with COVID-related information, like the boxes at Singapore and United Kingdom do. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sadly many articles flagged by Category:Has COVID-19 box with out of date warning have perfectly valid warnings that there has been no need to change in a year. AlasdairW (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My position on edit dates is that even if nothing changes, when we review and verify the ongoing accuracy of an item, the edit date can be updated. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That makes sense. Ground Zero (talk) 02:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good luck with that. I doubt with most of the 170 pages you'll get better than 1 year update frequency - each update requires some research, probably 5-10 minutes. I'd rather say we should just link to the official sources, perhaps with some general rule description... we use is probably good enough too... -- 06:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── While this ain't my business, I don't think we should recommend international travel until India controls its situation. Domestic tourism however, should be encouraged in Covid safe places like New Zealand or Singapore. (i.e. 400< cases a day) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 07:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ain't whose business? This is a wiki. Anything is anyone's business. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was talking about the Covid19 situation. But after having a wikivoyager being infected with Covid himself, it's far from over, globally. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 10:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The category on dated warnings includes articles like Naikoon Provincial Park (two closed campsites) and Rail travel in the Netherlands (telling us to avoid travel, keep distances and use face masks). I suppose most issues could easily be covered in country-level articles, and only semi-permanent changes handled elsewhere. In large federal countries like the USA, with many contributors, state-level can be sensible, but I'd avoid it also there. –LPfi (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what I can do, I've searched around and removed all Australian warnings, except the national border closure. Been around 100 days now. (200 for most cities except Brisbane) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 10:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I knew what you were talking about, SHB2000. My remarks referred to that and stand. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Medical masks, surgical masks, ...[edit]

Now we say that risk groups should wear medical masks, that there is a shortage of surgical masks in some areas (is there still?), and that "increasingly mask mandates specify that a FFP2 (KN95) mask needs to be worn" (where is that?).

We should write a short section on the different masks and check that we use the correct terminology. What is the difference between a medical and surgical mask? What are the standards to look for? What about masks with valves? What about reuse? We now say disposable masks should not be reused (except a sentence on reusing FFP2 masks); my understanding is they are as safe after washing/boiling (what is recommended treatment?) as home-made textile masks, which are widely used.

LPfi (talk) 10:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

several German states mandate FFP2 masks. I don't have an overview which other jurisdictions do Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should we then change
Increasingly mask mandates specify that a FFP2 (KN95) mask needs to be worn.
Several German states specifically mandate FFP2 (KN95) masks to be worn.
? –LPfi (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes we should make that change.
Generally I wouldn't recommend FFP2 masks for general use, where the object (on a population basis) is to protect everybody else from an infected wearer. FFP2 or FFP3 masks should be worn to protect the wearer in higher risk situations. I sometimes use a FFP1 mask, but these are hard to get at the moment - there are still some supply problems with FFP masks, but blue surgical type ( but non-medical) masks are readily available.
I have just read of research comparing FFP3 mask with surgical masks for hospital staff working in Covid wards - some NHS hospitals had supplied FFP3 masks when they were only required to supply surgical masks and reported a lower staff infection rate.
The w:FFP standards say that non-reusable masks are for 1 working shift (=12 hours). I find that fibres can work loose on disposable masks after a few days of occasional use. As I have to wear a mask when walking about at work, I use a new basic blue disposable mask about twice per week (6-8 hours wear). As blue disposable masks are now cheap, I wouldn't consider washing one. AlasdairW (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This site claims the FFP2 mandates are also in place in Austria and France Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Odd. The linked mask company (which I wouldn't trust not to stretch the truth) has a link (broken: .htm instead of .html) to a CNN story from January, saying Germany had introduced a national decision and France having followed. Nobody noticed? The official site linked from France only speaks about "masks". –LPfi (talk) 08:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More than a year ago (partly before our COVID page was created) we had a discussion, now at #Face masks above, of whether we needed a travel topic on the masks. I'd say a separate topic, of course with links from this article, would be worthwhile.
Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 09:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thailand now requires insurance against COVID to get a visa. Do other countries have similar requirements? Should we mention this here and/or in the Thailand article? Pashley (talk) 10:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vaccine efficacy[edit]

I just want to point out that some of these numbers can be misleading. Vaccine efficacy depends on variants present, viral load, age and a multitude of factors, so efficacy numbers can vary depending on how the clinical trials are conducted. So taking Pfizer and Moderna for example, those had their clinical trials in their absence of variants of concern, which partly explains their very high efficacy rates at preventing symptoms, but when tested against variants, that efficacy rate for Pfizer drops, though it is still over 99% effective at preventing serious cases. So with regards to Sinovac, Sinopharm, Astra Zeneca, J&J and so on, if you look into the numbers, they are still more that 99% effective at preventing serious cases that require hospitalisations, and over 99.9% effective at preventing fatalities. So if you are offered one of these other vaccines (for instance, if your country hasn't procured Pfizer or Moderna), you are still highly advised to take them. Also, headlines can be misleading. If you look at a Facebook post by Singapore's former foreign minister George Yeo, one headline from Reuters claimed that hundreds of healthcare workers vaccinated with Sinovac in Thailand, which in and of itself was not a lie, but if you look closely at the numbers, 617 healthcare workers got infected with COVID-19 out of 670,000 who received 2 doses of Sinovac. So that's less than 0.01% who got infected. The dog2 (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

still many EU countries treat those vaccinated with Sinopharm or Sputnik V as if they were unvaccinated. And there are certain downsides to inactivated virus vaccines (like Sinopharm) which is why the more difficult routes of Vector Virus or even mRNA were taken to begin with. China, by the way, is in phase III trials of their own mRNA vaccine against Covid-19. Another issue with the inactivated virus vaccines is that they use the wild type from early in the pandemic and can thus only partially cover variants Hobbitschuster (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it's true that there are challenges with inactivated vaccines. Which is why they need adjuvants. Unfortunately, this decision of what vaccines to recognise is often driven by geopolitics. Sputnik V is a viral vector vaccine, and the efficacy numbers were very good based on data published in a peer-reviewed journal. But neither America nor the EU has approved it yet, which is likely due to geopolitical considerations. San Marino, on the other hand, has been using Sputnik V because they are not part of the EU, and hence not bound by the EU's geopolitical concerns. And yes, the evidence suggests that the mRNA vaccines elicit a stronger immune response than the inactivated vaccines, but the side effects are also more severe. People with a history of anaphylaxis, for instance, can't take the mRNA vaccines because the risk is too high, so they have to take the inactivated vaccines instead, which is better than nothing. I myself got the Pfizer vaccine, and I had to take 2 days off work to recover, so at least for me, this is the worst side effects I've ever experienced from a vaccine (but nevertheless still a small price to pay to be protected from COVID). The dog2 (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Canada has a quarantine exemption for incoming fully vaccinated travellers, though you still need tests before & after the flight. Only for vaccines approved in Canada, though. I took Sinovac because that's what was offered to me in the Philippines & that does not get me the exemption. Pashley (talk) 08:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The dog2, I had side effects from the Pfizer for about 6 days, but I thought there were vanishingly few cases of severe allergies to that vaccine or the Moderna. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the numbers are very low in general, but people with a history of anaphylaxis are at a higher risk of severe side effects. In Singapore, you can get Sinovac through private clinics if you are willing to pay for it. The government-run mass vaccination sites only administer Pfizer and Moderna, the cost of which 100% borne by the government. That said, if you have a history of anaphylaxis, the government does not recommend you taking Pfizer or Moderna because of that increased risk, so they will make an exception and allow you to be reimbursed for the cost of getting Sinovac. The dog2 (talk) 08:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The vaccine often called "Pfizer" in the U.S. was actually developed by the German company BioNTech who got help in manufacturing and distribution by Pfizer because prior to the pandemic BioNTech was a relatively small company that tried to make use of mRNA technology in cancer treatment... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I know that. BioNTech actually announced that they will be building a vaccine factory in Singapore, which will make it he second company to do so after Sanofi Pasteur. Interstingly, in "Greater China", BioNTech signed the distribution rights to Fosun instead of Pfizer, so if you get the vaccine in Hong Kong, it's called the Fosun/BioNTech vaccine. Which is why it's become an issue in Taiwan, because the distribution rights for Taiwan are also held by Fosun, and the current Taiwanese government, being pro-independence, will not talk to a Chinese company under any circumstances. And when they approached BioNTech directly, it turned out BioNTech is not willing to renege on their contract with Fosun. It appears though that Taiwanese companies TSMC and Foxconn have negotiated with a deal Fosun in lieu of the government, so Taiwan will be getting the BioNTech vaccines after all. The dog2 (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just for an update on this, Sinovac has just released some of their efficacy data this past week: [9] and [10]. Also, Sinopharm had released some efficacy data two months ago [11]. Based on actual peer-reviewed studies published in reputable medical journals, it appears that the Chinese vaccines are effective. The dog2 (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One of the funniest Twitter exchanges ever involved a Canadian crowing about how we had a higher percentage of people vaccinated than the US & Ted Cruz asking who had developed the vaccine. "It was developed in Germany, and the key researchers were Turkish immigrants. Thanks for asking. Ted." Pashley (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Circles using inappropriate names[edit]

It seems The dog2 and I disagree on how much detail we should have on use of inappropriate terms, especially about the list on who uses them:

Refrain from using terminology that connects the disease with countries, cities, ethnicities etc. Such terminology is widely used in some circles, such as among pro-independence circles in Hong Kong, and in countries where anti-China sentiment is exceptionally high such as India, but it strengthens prejudices and can be perceived as racist. Instead, use location-neutral terms, such as "COVID-19", "coronavirus", or just "the virus" or "the pandemic". [italics added for the discussion]

There are more such circles: I've understood that many Trump supporters do use that terminology, and I suppose similar groups also elsewhere do. I don't see the benefit on having a longer discussion on what makes different people use the terms, but at the same time I think mentioning two or three examples from Asia makes it seem an Asian problem (and here we are telling that anti-Chinese sentiments are high in India – isn't that an overly broad generalisation). The "such as" covers all but the given example(s). I am not sure we need any example at all.

LPfi (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anti-China sentiment is extremely high in India right now because of last year's border clash. And if you interact with Indian netizens in chatrooms, the animosity towards China is very much palpable. The vast majority of Indian netizens I have interacted with blame China for the pandemic, and believe that the virus was engineered in a Chinese lab (as do 56% of Americans in the case of the latter). Even if I am not talking about politics, and I am just talking about Chinese consumers products like drones (and the Chinese do make the best consumer drones in the world), that actually is enough to trigger Indian netizens to go on an anti-China rampage. And in fact, all Indian netizens I have interacted with are calling for a complete ban on using Chinese products in India. The dog2 (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to sadly agree with The dog2 here. I remember some time where in Australia some were so anti-China that they didn't want to but products based on the tag "Made in China", and there's some racist people out there who still call it the Wuhan virus. Obviously this is just silly and racist (In my opinion, without China, the world stops). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm with LPfi here. There is no reason to have any text here about who uses these terms.
The politics & the racism are indeed concerns, but the only place in a travel guide that they might be discussed is in warnings for travellers who might be at risk. If required, those go in country or region guides. Pashley (talk) 06:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to avoid political debates here, but I think it's important for people to be aware that if you go to India, or if you interact with pro-independence Hongkongers or Taiwanese, you are very likely to hear terms like "China virus" being used. And even though the term is most certainly deliberately offensive, there's really no point in picking a fight, so the best advice I can give is to just be aware that you are likely to encounter the term in such situations, and just let it slide. And yes, I know that anti-China sentiment is high in Western countries right now, especially in the U.S., U.K., Canada and Australia, but it's nothing compared to the intense hatred of China you are seeing in India right now. The dog2 (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with The dog2. This context is important to the traveller. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to hear from editors in these places. Is the term "China virus" actually so widely used in India that travellers are likely to hear it? Or is it mostly just found among some segment of internet commenters? —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
pinging @Roovinn:. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it is good for travellers going to India to know about the hatred, especially for the Chinese and Chinese looking (there is a paragraph in India#Respect – should something be added to Stay safe?). Is it really important to know that this is a country where you might hear "China virus? I'd think that if I go to India and hear "China virus", then I'd just think "Aha, this is one of those places". Please tell why it is important that I've been warned it'd be one of them. –LPfi (talk) 05:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ravikiran r:. Pashley (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another country where "China virus" is possibly widely-used is Japan, but animosity against China, while also widespread, doesn't seem to be anywhere near as intense in Japan as it is in India, even though both are part of the Quad. But to highlight how bad things are, from my own experience, merely having a Chinese nickname in internet chatrooms is enough to trigger a hostile response from the Indians in the chatroom. That said, usually the animosity mellows out once they find out that I'm actually from Singapore and not China. The dog2 (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What happens in chatrooms is not at all necessarily similar to what people deal with in person as travelers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. I'll remove the examples for now – we can re-add if someone confirms the terms are commonly encountered by travellers in India (as opposed to chat rooms), but to be honest I don't really think we need to name specific countries in this paragraph anyway. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of changes and lockdowns and food[edit]

Swept in from the pub

So, I am going through the cities that I've been curating and I am wondering what do I do? COVID-19 changed the entire way restaurants do business, some restaurants shuttering, most others leaning into delivery or takeout whenever possible. And that's just restaurants. A lot of the way of doing things has been changed. Do I simply post the present state of information? Do I simply let the things stay as is until restrictions are listed? I am inclined to do the former, updating wherever possible. L. Challenger (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would trust your local judgment, but at this point, I would tend to update. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here new restrictions were introduced yesterday (?). I think there is no sense in changing opening hours according to the regulations: they will probably be restored when the situation improves, and the maximum opening hours are uniform across the region and a certain type of businesses. No chance to keep up updating all of them and the result will just be confusing.
I think updates on individual listings, cities or regions should mostly be done only when a change can be assumed to stay. I am not even removing closed businesses when it is probable a new owner will come along. Much of the information can be told in more general terms, such as "opening hours for restaurants are restricted in areas where the COVID-19 situation is severe", "many businesses have closed down, some temporarily or transformed to take-out only". Then let readers check individual businesses by themselves.
LPfi (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are places in the U.S. and some other countries where limited hours are no longer in force and are now at the discretion of restaurants. It's in those situations when it seems reasonable to update. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with LPfi and Ikan Kekek, and I want to emphasize that this really varies by location and by type of establishment. Challenger l, I see that you mainly edit articles about northern California. From what I hear, things are much more stable and back to normal there than, say, in Sydney or Tokyo. For restaurants in northern California I would probably go ahead and update; for most things in Sydney I would wait. It's also worth considering whether the establishment itself seems to see the change as permanent – if their website states that their current hours are temporary because of COVID, or that their closure is permanent, I would take that into account. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One thing that I think has lasting value is removing listings for permanently closed restaurants and similar businesses. I think we can safely assume that major attractions (e.g., amusement parks) will continue to exist in some form, but local restaurants – once they announce a permanent closure, they're unlikely to be re-opened. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Depends. At the university a restaurant got bankrupt and closed. In a few months there was a new owner. It of course depends, but I think such development is common where the problems are about not having deep enough pockets, but the location is obviously good for a restaurant (or whatever). In a city street there might come a shop instead, but at some locations you know it will be the same type of business. –LPfi (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's true, but even if it's the same type of business it may be very different from the establishment that was closed, or the new establishment may not be good enough to be worth recommending. I don't think it's worth keeping a listing for a permanently closed restaurant just because another restaurant is likely to open in the same spot at some point. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree and had the same thought. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We should probably keep a sentence that says "There are multiple restaurants along High Street", but "Named Restaurant, 123 High St, closed Mondays, $10, famous for ceviche" should be removed, because even if a restaurant re-appears in the same location, it will likely have different hours, different prices, and a different menu. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Temp closures[edit]

Swept in from the pub

There are many places that are still closed due to COVID-19. Some are scheduled to reopen and some are not. How should I handle it? L. Challenger (talk) 01:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd trust your judgment on this, but I'd say if they're not scheduled to reopen at all, the listings should be deleted or hidden unless they're worth keeping up just for people to see a building's facade or something. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Canada has lifted its advisory to avoid all non-essential travel[edit]

As of October 21, 2021, the government of Canada's "Travel Advice and Advisories" page no longer advises Canadians to avoid all non-essential travel. Instead, there is now an advisory to be fully vaccinated at least 14 days before travel. The advisories to use personal protective measures and to avoid cruise ship travel outside of Canada remain in effect.

I don't see any place on our page to list this.

--Robkelk (talk) 11:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably best to add it on the Canada page. Some other countries are starting to do this as well, although I don't think there's that many, at least not yet to add it onto this article. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But the advice is not for travellers to Canada, but to travellers from Canada. I suppose this is the best page for it.
As it is only a recommendation, their recommendation isn't relevant per se, only the recommendation we give based on such third-party recommendations. And we do recommend "personal protective measures" already, and tell that several countries recommend against cruises. So, I think nothing needs to be added anywhere, unless there is more specific advice we should contemplate.
LPfi (talk) 11:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interactive guide from the New York Times[edit]

Here's an interactive guide to managing COVID-19 risk when traveling to see family. It may be US-centric, but there's probably some useful guidance we could add to this article or others. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CDC warnings[edit]

Canadian headline is U.S. warns against travel to Canada because of COVID-19 surge, but "Such advisories have now been issued for large parts of the globe, including much of Europe, some of southern Africa, the Middle East – and the U.S. itself. In total, the CDC has ranked 82 countries Level 4." Pashley (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Getting positive abroad[edit]

If you do get the virus abroad, how easy is that to handle? You need isolation lodging. Are hotels willing to provide that? You might need treatment. Is that covered by regular insurance? Your visa may expire before you have recovered. Is it easy to get it extended for such reasons? Can you get home? How long might you have to stay?

I suppose things differ between countries, but I think we should include a section presenting the issues and giving some general advice.

LPfi (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. In some countries health authorities may be able to arrange accommodation, which you will probably have to pay for.
I would suggest that we start by saying that your trip may need to be extended by two weeks or more if anubody in your group tests positive. It is worth taking more care to avoid being infected than you would do at home. From what I have seen, travel insurance is likely to cover the cost of treatment, but may not cover the cost of two extra weeks in your beachside villa - it is something to check when buying the insurance. AlasdairW (talk) 10:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @LPfi:, I agree this information should be made available, and this only the beginning of the iceberg.
When I first became active here a couple of years ago, I tried to keep the this page (I think it was this one) up-to-date. But at the time consensus was IIRC that WV should stay away details about COVID, and the text was made less specific, so I stopped checking it. Today I looked at it and see that a lot was added , but is not maintained.
In my opinion, WV should make more effort to maintain this page, as I don't see this disease disappearing any time soon. YMMV. Ottawahitech (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

staying outdoors as much as possible[edit]

I have not found this recommendation displayed prominently on this lengthy page, so I added a sentence to try an and fix this. I am sure it could be said better/ somewhere else/ etc. But I made a stab at it for better or worse. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questionable edit[edit]

In this edit User:The dog2 adds "and the Taiwanese government" after "circles" in:

Refrain from using terminology that connects the disease with countries, cities, ethnicities etc. Such terminology is widely used in some circles, but ...

The edit summary is 'I saw a Taiwanese government webpage using the term "Wuhan Pneumonia" in Chinese, though the English version uses "COVID-19".'

I want to revert. I do not think this at all relevant in an English-language travel guide. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also #Circles using inappropriate names above. Pashley (talk) 02:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's completely unnecessary. Trump may have been the worst offender, but I probably think so because as an American, I unfortunately heard him rant and rave all the time for 4 years. "Some circles" is specific enough! Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I saw this term on Taiwan's Bureau of Consular Affairs website, the official website you would go to if you wanted to check Taiwan's visa requirements. The Chinese version of the website uses "Wuhan pneumonia", while the English version uses "COVID-19". If any of you can read Chinese, I'm happy to provide the link. The dog2 (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It isn't necessary for a travel guide. That might be something to add to a Wikipedia article, but travellers don't need an incomplete list of who is saying this. Leave it out. Ground Zero (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said above: "... then I'd just think 'Aha, this is one of those places'. Please tell why it is important that I've been warned it'd be one of them." –LPfi (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not just random Taiwanese guys in the street. "Wuhan pneumonia" is the official name used by the Taiwanese government in official government publications. The dog2 (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say keep the statement – it's certainly not what you would expect from government publications and is very likely to cause offense to many. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 13:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand, but why is it important for travellers to know that? We could of course rephrase "some circles" and say "in some circles, even by some governments". Would that do? –LPfi (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm not sure if there are any other governments that use the term besides the Taiwanese government since I obviously don't understand every single language of the world, but I'm fine if people want to use the terms "some governments" instead of naming Taiwan directly. As SHB2000 mentioned, it's not something you would expect to find in formal government publications, so the fact that it is used by the Taiwanese government in their official publications, and not just by politicians holding election rallies, is certainly something notable. The dog2 (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it notable in an article about the worldwide pandemic? Do we then also want to mention that Trump routinely calls it the "China virus"? Just how far do we want to go down this rabbit hole? How about not? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I am aware of what Trump did, but even so, the official DHS website still used "COVID-19". But anyway, as I said, I am fine with using "some governments" as a compromise. The dog2 (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How widely does the Taiwanese government use "Wuhan Pneumonia"? Have you only seen it on a single web page, or is it widely used in official publications? AlasdairW (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you look here, it says 武漢肺炎, with COVID-19 in brackets next to it. 武漢肺炎 literally translates as "Wuhan pneumonia". Here's a publicantion from Taiwan's CDC, where they also use 武漢肺炎. So yes, "Wuhan pneumonia" is the official Chinese name of the disease used by the Taiwanese government. Sometimes they use only the English name, but when they use a Chinese name, it's always "Wuhan pneumonia". The dog2 (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. In that case I don't object strongly to mentioning it, but it may be unnecessary. AlasdairW (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this is unnecessary detail for an English-language travel guide. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]