The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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

COVID-19 Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine: Pulmonology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (assessed as Low-importance). Viruses Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Policy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 28 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jaagee. Peer reviewers: Lissampope.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 15 October 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dwr002. Peer reviewers: Hwubb, Marriottl.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MDY format was in a fix for this... 136.158.58.196 (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a source for the vaccination rollout table that had just been commented out, if anyone more knowledgeable on the subject is interested in filling out said table. Love of Corey (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't include the legend with the US map until it is fixed. See: commons:File talk:Covid-19 Vaccination Map of USA.png --Timeshifter (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Public opinion" section, I disagree with this edit today [ 00:15, 1 July 2021‎ 24.102.98.133 ] The user's justification for the change is that racial markers like Black, Latino, white, etc. shouldn't be mentioned, at least perhaps not in proximity to "political ideas," because it is an "incentive to violence." I think perhaps the user meant to suggest that a discussion of Republican/Democratic demographics should have a separate subheading from racial demographics. Indeed, we might create subheadings. But however we might organize those topics, it isn't an "incentive to violence" to mention race. Also, this user replaced a citation about differences in vaccine hesitancy across racial demographics with an uncited comment that vaccine hesitancy had "dwindled [overall], especially within communities of Color." Also, while the Washington Post citation was indeed a "non-medical non-peer reviewed article," citations in the section labeled "Public opinion" generally won't be medical articles. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 10:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I edited the article so that there is a more general comment saying that the Kaiser Family Foundation does demographic polling on vaccine hesitancy and one of the things they consider is racial difference. The Washington Post article pointed to KFF anyway, so I didn't bother to restore the Washington Post citation. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current data states "% of population" vaccinated, but that is the percent of the entire population of the state, rather than the eligible population. I would recommend removing that entire column, as it is misleading. Kstern (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 itself doesn’t care if one is or is not eligible for the vaccine, so we should keep the column. It’s data useful for offsite original research like, is there a correlation between COVID-19 new cases per capita and vaccination per capita? Samboy (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article from the NYT could provide more info on who is still unvaccinated. X-Editor (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the Biden Administration announcing a coming federal vaccination mandate for large employers, I propose to break out COVID-19 vaccine mandates in the United States (currently a redirect to this article). BD2412 T 21:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Draft:COVID-19 vaccine mandates in the United States as a working title for exploring this. BD2412 T 16:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now moved to COVID-19 vaccination mandates in the United States. BD2412 T 06:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a drop in vaccination rates amongst at least two states and two countries listed in the Vaccination Rate Table compared to the numbers shown a few months ago (in October). Specifically, Illinois dropped from 69.4% to 67.2%, Kentucky dropped from 61.9% to 58.8%, the Marshall Islands dropped from 39.5% to 31.7%, and Palau dropped from 100% to 83.8%. I assumed Palau's 100% vaccination rate to be a mistranscription or error since 100% vaccination rate in any country or territory would be extremely unlikely, but the other drops in vaccination rates seem doubtful. Are these decreased rates a reflection of increases in respective populations (as in an influx of unvaccinated residents migrating to the territory or state)? Or do they indicate an initial error in data recording or reporting? Or perhaps are the current numbers inaccurate or mistranscribed? Perhaps there was a sudden boom in the birth rate in the territory or state? With so many unvaccinated people dying from this pandemic, even if the number of vaccinated people remained unchanged, I would still expect expect the vaccination rate to increase do to a population decrease. Once vaccinated, people do not become unvaccinated at a later date. Were there fraudulent vaccinations subsequently exposed? These are significant discrepancies, especially with regard to Palau and the Marshall Islands. I can see data from foreign nations perhaps being less reliable, especially in less developed areas. The data from states, however, should not be as suspect. If the previous numbers were the ones that were erroneous, then no action need be taken, but care should be taken to verify the current numbers to ensure the article's accuracy. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]