Talk:Stay healthy

Travel health

I started this article before I realized there's an article called Travel health. I think this article will supersede that one, and that that article should eventually be merged here, with a redirect. However, some of the topics linked to in that thread deserve treatment in this article, such as sun protection, altitude sickness, and cold weather. Anyone who would like to help would meet with my sincerest thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Vaccines could strip us of our right to metaphysical/psychic abilities (and damage our auric fields). --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Besides, I could go for a nosode (rhymes with episode) instead. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Topic for immunization certificates

Swept in from the pub

I just deleted a WP link for "carte jaune" from the Madagascar article. I figure that if we need to explain what this document is, it's important to international travelers and should be explained somewhere on this site. Is it? If so, where? And if not, I think it probably should be, and then we can link that wherever appropriate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe they mean the Yellow fever vaccination certificate. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I was assuming they meant a yellow card that's internationally recognized and can show various vaccinations. I have one that I used in the 70s for travel to Malaysia and India, among other places. Yellow fever was only one of the vaccinations listed. I haven't traveled anywhere for decades where I was required to show a record of vaccinations, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, didn't Ryan visit Madagascar recently? He should probably know about what kind of certificates are required. So far I haven't visited any country where any kind of vaccination certificate would be required. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

There were a few countries in Africa that required proof of yellow fever vaccination so I got into the habit of keeping my vaccination card in my passport. According to the CDC, proof of vaccination is required in Madagascar only if you are arriving from a country where yellow fever is present, so someone flying through Kenya might be required to have been vaccinated. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I went to Madagascar last year and was not asked for anything but my passport. Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Alternative banner for this article?

Banner currently used in this article

Suggested new alternative banner

I created a new alternative banner for this article (I initially created it first and foremost so that it would be used at the top of the parallel article in the Hebrew edition of Wikivoyage, yet I later decided to also suggest that the English Wikivoyage community would consider using it here as well). So, which banner do you prefer having at the top of this article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the new image, it appears to be more related to health than the old one... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, I find myself unable to approve of the new banner. I realize, of course, that the fact that we are looking at any old pharmacy is by no means immediately apparent to viewers of the current banner, so in theory, I would support a banner that's more clearly on-topic, but the new banner is a fuzzy, poor-quality image, so I vote a pretty strong "No" to this proposed substitution. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Would be better, but image has been scaled up, need a better one. I like the red atmosphere though. Hopefully a similar better pic can be found :-) Syced (talk) 07:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I would support a similar banner of better photographic quality. /Yvwv (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The current one is bad. There must be something better out there. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Pollution

WHO says 92% of the world’s population exposed to unsafe levels of air pollution. Article includes a map. Pashley (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Online prescriptions

I removed most of what an IP user added, about online prescriptions:

In the United Kingdom it is unusually hard to get a prescription if you are a foreigner traveling there.

Luckily there are certain safe and regulated online doctor services that can offer you prescription medicine and advise from reliable doctors if you become ill on your travel. If you are buying online you should be careful to check the athenticity and regulatory clearance of the website you are using before you make the purchase.

They usually do an online consultation, you can pay for your medication using any credit card and they will send over the meds to your hotel or place of stay anywhere in the UK. This gives you an option to get quick reliable and economical health assistance in an expensive place like the UK.

I would like to have some evidence that these services are indeed safe, legal and reliable before letting them stay in our article. How can a doctor prescribe medication without being able to physically examine the patient? (I know there are signal flags for the purpose, but then the captain had at least some medical training – and the alternative would have been worse).

--LPfi (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Some common conditions don't require "physically" examining the patient, especially if it's a chronic or recurrent condition. Telemedicine is suitable for some conditions (and some circumstances, e.g., if the nearest prescriber is many hours away) but not for others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Make "Stay healthy" a sub-category of "Stay safe"?

See Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub#Merging "stay safe" and "stay healthy"?

There is an idea to merge the Stay healthy sections of destination articles with Stay safe. Thereby, this topic would be a sub-category of Stay safe. /Yvwv (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I oppose this suggestion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I think both are quite long, and combining the advice would make them less to the point. But they could be better coordinated. Better cross-linking and some rewriting would help. --LPfi (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. There are some cases in which a health issue is a safety issue, but that's not so most of the other cases. --Zerabat (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Links to useful sources

If these are permitted, will place them in this very useful article:

• Discussion of meds/device restrictions by Singapore could use link to their site where restrictions are defined and permissions may be obtained.... Would readers be well-served by links to sites of other countries (especially those with major restrictions/penalties) to learn if full or limited permissions can be obtained, why and how?
• Could improve understanding about useful contents for travel health kits by linking to article from the U.S. Center for Disease Control, i.e., .

Notice excellent contributions by the usual "star" contributors. Regards, Hennejohn (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Negative bias from Western-centric POV against the so-called 3rd World

“ Get any recommended vaccinations, starting 8 weeks before travelling, especially when travelling abroad to tropical or third-world areas ”

Are you, writer of the article, assuming the so-called Third World areas are dirty and poor, prone to virulent epidemies all the time?

About 3rd World, I guess it refers to the concept you can find in Wikipedia (and in this case, 3rd World comprises lots of totally different places with different healthcare statuses), otherwise, what areas are considered "Third World-class" areas?. I suppose the writer is US or European citizen with little knowledge about other less developed areas of the World the writer doesn't know, with a stereotypical preconception about them.

I can understand about the tropical destinations because those areas are full of life and living threats (yellow fever, dengue, ...) but "third-world areas" seems to be derogative to me. I'd say "areas/places with poor environmental health/low quality healthcare systems" instead. How can this be rewritten? --Zerabat (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. Look at a map of the endemic areas for certain diseases. They do tend to be tropical. And "Trikont" (LatAm, Africa, Asia) Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Zerabat agrees about tropical places and is only objecting to the somewhat dated term "Third World". I think we could rewrite the notice something like this:

Get any recommended vaccinations, starting 8 weeks before travelling, especially when travelling to areas where the diseases are endemic and standards of sanitation and health care are low. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

That might work... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

That seems a bit long and puts the onus on the reader to know where exactly these endemic areas are. I'd keep the old wording but swap "third-world" out with "developing." This also has the benefit of being more correct; after all, Switzerland is technically a third-world country. ARR8 (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

An impoverished country is not necessarily "developing"; it might be poor and staying poor, or even going from bad to worse. If we need to say "impoverished" or "tropical" we should say so as the target audience is someone who has never visited a new country and has no idea whether a claim that a specific area is "developing" is true, is sarcasm or is merely euphemism. Say what you mean. K7L (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

We ought to say whatever is the most accurate and would be the best understood by our readers. I'm not sure where this places any of these terms. "Third world" is not a very specific term; I'm not sure most people would know what this term is referring to.

I agree with K7L about the term "developing"; it's not very accurate. I think the term "impoverished" is probably the best term unless we're going to write a long list of all the countries where diseases are widespread. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with "impoverished." ARR8 (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

For better or worse, "developing countries" is a standard term, even though, as one book I read put it, some of them are not developing at a rate worthy of note. See for instance our article on Travel in developing countries. I think "impoverished countries" sounds overly negative. But developing countries are a pretty mixed bag, including places like Chile with adequate health care. Why not refer to the standards of health care in the countries rather than their economic development? Or if we need to refer to economic development, how about "low-income countries"?

Regardless, I think we should keep the word "tropical". —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I understand, Costa Rica has a very good health system, and certainly, Cuba is known for its good primary care and then some. I think that making overbroad generalizations won't be too helpful, and if it's not easy for readers to find out which countries and regions have a low standard of health and sanitation, we should tell them which ones do. And they're certainly not all in the "developing world". As good as health care in the U.S. can be for the super-rich, there are some hospitals that are known as places to die, and I daresay, the correlation between local income and standard of care does tend to apply in the U.S., though not nearly so automatically on a country-by-country basis. But we need to make a decision about how much detail we want to go into in this article, as opposed to country and region articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘What if we just really simplified it? Like this:

“ Get any recommended vaccinations, starting 8 weeks before travelling, when travelling abroad. ”

Or:

“ When travelling abroad, get any recommended vaccinations, starting 8 weeks before travelling. ”

Are these a little simpler? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

In fact they are. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

They are simpler. I think this article should indicate in some way that dangerous diseases are more prevalent in warmer/tropical countries, but I suppose that doesn't have to be in the "Vaccines" section. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Should I make the change, or which is the preferred one? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the second version reads a little better to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I like Ikan Kekek suggestion, because is not misleading and give enough details without leaving behind crucial information, but of course 2nd suggestions are OK too. --Zerabat (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll wait a little longer for other opinions before making any final changes. By the way, what does POV mean in the context of this discussion? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Point of view. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I see. Thanks. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Separate page for sexual health?

Swept in from the pub

Opinions on whether it might be worth creating a comprehensive article on sexual health while travelling?

It's not often covered in 'stay healthy' subsections, and there's some information in the 'women travellers' page but it seems quite general, and some of it might even be better off in a specific sexual health page. Information on contraceptives, morning-after pills, regional laws (and/or attitudes), STI testing, where to go (pharmacy? hospital? private companies?) and what to ask for; costs (eg. free in much of Europe); high-risk regions etc ... thoughts? - Eben PresumingEb (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I support such an article if there's useful material to put in it. But I'm having trouble envisioning what it would contain other than (a) general sexual health advice unrelated to travel, (b) location-specific information that should go in destination articles, or (c) general medical information that could go in Stay healthy. I've only thought about this for a few minutes, though, so there may be possibilities I haven't thought of. I would say start a section in Stay healthy (which already discusses condoms), and if it gets long split off a separate article.

Some countries' "Stay healthy" sections give the HIV rate and some other sexual health–related information, by the way. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Granger. And what ever happened with the proposal for Gynopedia to become a Wikimedia site? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a 0% chance of that becoming a WMF site. Where did you hear about any such proposal? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, I'll go with a 'stay healthy' section for now PresumingEb (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Justin, the idea was brought up when Gynopedia links were posted in some Wikivoyage articles and we deleted them. Why would that be an impossible proposal? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

In 19 years, the WMF have only adopted one project, which itself was fairly active and represented a new kind of knowledge for the community and that was after years and years of discussion. This is a much less active, extremely niche site that provides some combination of a travel guide (Wikivoyage), tutorial (Wikibooks), and includes info on how to break several contentious laws. I can't imagine the scenario where this site would be adopted by the WMF and even if it were, it wouldn't be for a decade. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I don't think contraception and women's health are "extremely niche" issues, though! On the project Wikimedia adopted, you mean Wikivoyage? How many years was that under discussion? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Hm. Shows what I know--looks like the discussion at Meta was only about 18 months. Could have sworn it was a few years. Sorry for taht. But yes, I think that the subdomain of women's health is a very niche thing--it's a subfield of a field. Why not WikiMedicine generally? Why a wiki only about women's health? Why host material that is illegal and dangerous about some sub-sub-topic that can be (and is) discussed by other projects? Sister projects are different kinds of knowledge, not different sorts of information. There isn't WikiMaps: there are maps on Commons that are used on Wikivoyage. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

HIV prevention

Swept in from the pub

There is a relatively new anti-HIV drug called PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis); one pill a day greatly reduces the chance of the virus taking hold if you are exposed to it. CDC says "Daily PrEP reduces the risk of getting HIV from sex by more than 90%." Use a condom as well & the risk is lowered further. We have warnings about AIDS at places like Thailand#Prostitution and a redirect at HIV to a section of the "infectious diseases" article; I'm about to add a redirect for AIDS to the same section.

Costs for PrEP are all over the map; PBS says $1300 for a month's supply in the US, but it is under C$300 in Canada and A$40 in Australia.

I think we should cover this since it reduces a risk that some travellers do take. However, I am not sure where coverage should go. Pashley (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

PrEP is not "a drug". It's "the process of taking anti-HIV drugs to prevent an HIV infection". The one-pill-a-day formulation is convenient but not the only way to do it.

As to where to stick it, maybe a sentence near Stay healthy#Condoms would also be appropriate? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The Australian cost is the state subsidised cost of a prescription, which would only be available to locals and possibly some visitors. It is not a useful figure for comparison, just as there is no point in listing the countries where it would be free. AlasdairW (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Getting ill abroad

Getting sick in a foreign country redirects to Stay healthy#What to do if you get sick or injured; I don't feel it covers all the theme. It covered emergency number, seeing a doctor and insurance for medical treatment.

I added some issues, such as getting somewhere to stay and somebody to check up on you. I don't know how these are handled generally. I could imagine that hotels aren't too keen on getting customers with a contagious disease. You may be travelling alone, or with a company that will continue their itinerary.

Even in Finland, where you'd think things are thought out – at the point your acute problem has been fixed, you are mostly sent "home" with no regard of whether you are able to travel there or even whether you have somewhere to go. If you insist, you'd get the social services arrange things for you, but if you don't, you'd be left to yourself.

–LPfi (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

So maybe this needs to be an article, with subsections for different countries? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be an article. However, many of the issues are similar across many countries, and I assume the advice would be, so best described in other sections of that article. Country sections are good if we have the information and a country differs, but I think a well-developed general discussion is more important than writing about the dozen or so (?) countries for which we have specific information. This cannot be an unusual problem, so consulates, hotels and travel bureaux should know how to handle it (but when I checked Finland's pages, there was more or less nothing). Also, unless there is country-specific legislation on it, I'd assume hotel chains have policy across countries. –LPfi (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Seems this has got nowhere. Prompted by Talk:Hyderabad#Hospitals to districts?. Does somebody have advice to share? –LPfi (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Is COVID over?

Swept in from the pub

I was surprised to see this announcement on https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/geographical-distribution-2019-ncov-cases :

As of 20 June 2022, ECDC is discontinuing the data collection and publication of the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths worldwide. Please refer to the World Health Organization (WHO) data on COVID-19 and the WHO Weekly Epidemiological and Weekly Operational Updates page for the non-EU/EEA countries.

ECDC will continue providing weekly updates for EU/EEA Member States and report on an ad-hoc basis about significant events related to COVID-19 globally.

ECDC has been collecting data on the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths for all countries in the EU/EEA and globally for more than two years. The data collected by ECDC will continue to be available in an archived format.

<

So it appears that the EU thinks COVID is no longer an issue? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

COVID will never be "over", in that it will not stop circulating in our lifetimes, but broadly speaking people's lifestyles will continue to get closer to how they were before the pandemic. Evidently ECDC has decided not to publish this particular set of data anymore, but if I understand correctly, other sources are still publishing substantively the same data for the time being. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

It is definitely not over. Current statistics are available from many sources, none 100% reliable. Worldometers Probably the most worrisome number is that there are still 18.75 million active cases (diagnosed but not yet either dead or recovered) plus some infected but not diagnosed; those can spread the disease. The US still has about 3.3 million active cases, though that number has been falling. Pashley (talk) 03:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know whether Finland is typical for EU, but here the government more or less gave up on COVID-19 in early spring. They decided that it is spreading too fast to be stopped, that with most of the population triple-vaccinated "few" get a serious disease, and life has to go on. It seems people took them on the word, I think that less than one in ten is using masks. Incidence and death toll have been record high (statistics on cases is unreliable though, as people don't get official tests), but there are only some critical voices. Non-vaccinated have restrictions on passing the border (tests or quarantine required) but vaccinated EU-citizens can come and go as they please, nightclubs etc. are crowded, and big events are taking place like they used to. You can still find masks and tests in any shop, not as in Denmark where that is finished too. –LPfi (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, in Finland COVID hasn't been the main news topic for several months (partially also due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine). On 1 July they're dropping also the entry restrictions and health controls for people entering from outside the Schengen and in shops I've as of lately seen discounts on home tests and masks being "phased out from our product selection". The Department of Health and Wellbeing (THL) publishes statistics showing cases and deaths have dropped remarkably since the spring. So at least for the moment it seems to be over, but one can never know what the situation looks like in the autumn. --Ypsilon (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed cases per 100,000 per 14 days is still in the hundreds, even though you aren't recommended to take an official test unless you get serious symptoms (as in needing hospital care). In some professions the tests are still taken, I assume. Anyway, the incidence – if counting factual cases – seems to be at least as bad as in the late autumn. 30% of actual tests are positive, when the figure used to be ~1% before the vaccines. There are about 10 persons in intensive care, while the number was about 50 at the worst time. Much better now, but far from over. –LPfi (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The health care centre still recommends mask use. –LPfi (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Data collection has ended, but I don't think the EU considers COVID to no longer be an issue. I think we should leave, in current circumstances, the COVID notice on our main page until the end of the year, pending future updates on its spread. Apart from that notice and international travel information, COVID is barely mentioned on this wiki. I think the current notices in place make sense in our environment. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Right now, the focus where I am in New South Wales is mostly the flu (for the record, I've caught it twice within the last 31 days, with the last time just 4 days ago, hence why my editing activity has increased). The only news of COVID that I've really been hearing is either about COVID in China, or about our lockdown last year. However, as some countries still have restrictions on entry, I would say keep the COVID banner on the main page until September, and if September is deemed too early, then we can do another review then. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

In New South Wales, masking is still compulsory on public transport and the majority of people follow the rule. There is also a 7-day isolation rule if you test positive. I disagree about messaging only being about the flu. Public messaging from the government and media has always been about a dual virus winter here over the past few months (encouraging both vaccinations, etc.). In any case, this wiki is about travel, not just living in one's own city. Travellers started to get affected by Covid-19 from Janaury 2020, not March 2020 when most countries first went into lockdown. International travel will also be the last activity/industry that will fully return to normal so it makes sense to keep the notice for a while longer. Gizza ^(roam) 14:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

To me, if the purpose is to help people, it can be removed. I don't think the article has been helpful for at least a year if ever. If the purpose is just to have something there, then it could stay or go. I don't think it's necessary to leave it up until every last country has lifted every restriction. Japan hasn't had any meaningful changes in its policies for 2 years in spite of less severe variants and vaccines, but it is already an outlier and becoming increasingly so. The country articles should still have information about entry which is basically the only information people care about. Leaving it until then end of the summer (September) as suggested seems reasonable though. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Most of the world has transitioned to living with the virus. The main exceptions are Japan, China and Taiwan. In the case of China, most of the elderly are unwilling to get vaccinated, and given how Hong Kong's hospitals were overwhelmed (to the point that the mortuaries ran out of space and bodies of COVID victims were piling up in the wards) during their last surge due to the same problem, I don't think China will reopen for the forseeable future. They might want to wait until all these unvaccinated elderly die of other causes before they reopen to foreigners. The dog2 (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The idea that the pandemic is over is absurd and highly premature. I would strongly suggest for us to wait until at least the end of the year before jumping to conclusions, because it's quite likely that there will be another surge in the fall, and the large number of unvaccinated people around the world are a great source of new strains. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I think whether "the pandemic" is over depends a lot on how you define "a pandemic". It's basically a political definition, not a biological one, so reasonable people and organizations can disagree on whether the current state should still be called "a pandemic". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Whether it is still a pandemic by some definition is less relevant. Are the restrictions stable enough that they are better handled together with other entry requirements, and in Cope, or in the current boxes? Is the disease different enough (as disease and as a social phenomenon) that it warrants its own article instead of being a bullet in Infectuous diseases? I think restrictions still vary fast enough that ease of maintenance is important, and then a template is the better solution, and people still see it as different from the flue and tuberculosis. –LPfi (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The definition of "pandemic" is basically a medical one. If you'd like to say that the definition of "high degree of death" is a political one, that's another question. "The estimated number of malaria deaths stood at 627,000 in 2020" per the WHO, yet it's considered endemic to Africa, rather than even epidemic. Why? I think in significant part because those with enough money to stanch the death rate mostly live outside of Africa and prefer to ignore the deaths, plus it doesn't get spread around the world in areas with no types of mosquitoes that are vectors. But saying that the definition of "pandemic" is basically political is odd, because most people hadn't heard the word used at all until 2019-20, or at least not since at least the days when AIDS was out of control in their countries (and again, Africa suffers from less medical care; see the pattern?). Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The definition of pandemic varies between sources. Is it an epidemic "crossing international boundaries, and usually affecting a large number of people"? How do you define "affecting", and what constitutes "a large number" of people? Those are both political choices. Is it instead something that happens "over a wide geographical area and that is of high prevalence, generally affecting a significant proportion of the world’s population"? Who decides what constitutes "high" prevalence, and "a significant proportion"? Basically, people make these decisions. They'll decide that these effects are really "affecting" you but these others aren't (e.g., every new version of the common cold), or that the people affected aren't "large" or "significant" enough, or that (as with the malaria decision) the key point is that it happens all the time at a fairly stable rate within each population, rather than being new. (Some definitions say that pandemics must always be a new disease, or at least one that almost nobody has immunological resistance to; others don't.)

People – not science – pick which definition to apply (different definitions for different conditions), people decide which effects "count" and whether enough people are affected, and then people decide whether to apply this label. There have been hard-and-fast definitions for some similar concepts in the past, but pandemic is a somewhat flexible concept. ("School epidemic" in some places has been defined as a certain percentage of enrolled students being out of school with the same disease/symptoms. An old friend of mine accidentally set off a measles epidemic in her high school in the 1950s. She caught it somewhere, unwittingly brought it to school, and it turned out that almost none of the students in her school had had measles before. The teachers were mostly fine, but a huge number of students were out sick over the next month.)

Here at the English Wikivoyage, though, I think LPfi has good advice. We should consider it from the practical angle rather than the "does the current situation technically match my preferred definition" angle. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me, the most likely way to have fair definitions of medical concepts is to let public health authorities and not politicians define them. In any case, I think that it's fairly clear that COVID-19 remains a serious disease that's affecting travel in various ways, so we shouldn't be in a rush to deemphasize it and should let the crisis play out. Seeing how there's been a surge each Northern Hemisphere fall, I would suggest waiting till we see what happens in January, 2023 (i.e., after any effects of Christmas/New Years travel and get-togethers are clear) before possibly making any decisions about a fundamental change in coverage here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I think that late January 2023 would be a fine time to discuss it. Christmas travel includes Epiphany in some countries, and if you add two or three weeks after that to find out what happened, then we should have fairly clear information.

Thinking long-term, one possibility is to consider a seasonal cold-and-flu-and-covid page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

That could be a good thing in the longer term, if it's not felt to be giving short shrift to other threats like malaria, zika, dengue, Lyme disease and so forth. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)