Talk:Sunetra Gupta

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women scientists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science 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.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article was last assessed in December 2018.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

COVID-19 Low‑importance

	COVID-19 portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

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

Personal Life[edit]

It's easy to find sources confirming that Gupta married Adrian V. S. Hill, and that they have two children together, but I can't find any sources referring to a divorce or confirming that they are still married, so for the moment I am deleting statements about their marriage. Sources welcomed! Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/jun/08/corrections-and-clarifications - I'll restore it with ref. Cheers. Mvolz (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per capita of the population[edit]

I'm pretty sure Gupta mispoke in the video about covid, and she meant 1 in 10,000 of the total popuation, because she knows, as an expert, and by recent scientific analyses, that is is likely that up to 50% of the population is immune to covid by default, due to millions of years of being exposed to similar coronaviruses. And I think she suspects, as I do, that it will be more than 50%...even in most of the elderly (not all elderly are unhealthy...many have very stong immune systems). Also, a lot of people in the overall population have a strong T-cell or B-cell immunity that reloads in the system to fight the virus off successfully without even symptoms or easily identifiable antibodies (which, experts know., are not the only factor in fighting off another virus, or even the same virus [which experts know, that 2nd infection percent of population is tiny. Statistical noise]). I don't think it is educational to quote from a fast moving interview ...which, if you are ever interviewed in-depth on a very complex topic, you will mispeak on some things...and posting a population comparison on her Wikipedia page to studies about CASES, without fully verifying from her what she meant, may not be accurate. - Tommy Barlow - Vermont - https://www.facebook.com/tommy.barlow.52 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.38.104.150 (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imbalance in the Covid section[edit]

That the verbiage in the Covid section here is critical of her position without one word of support shows a lack of balance. There is no preponderance of support but there is no absence either! If there is space for the criticism then there must be space to at least explain her POV. She is a highly respected scientist, she has not gone mad, she is not alone in her view. This one view perspective here is not the WP way. Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Wikipedia doesn't do "right to reply" style "balance", but adheres to WP:NPOV. In particular fringe ideas are downplayed or aired only within a rational mainstream context. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. Alexbrn (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the FAQ on https://gbdeclaration.org/, that strategy was the default strategy until COVID happened. Including that, along with a possible reference to documentation that it was infact the default strategy, seems like the very minimum that must be done to address the blatant imbalance. Hiding behind wikipedia not haveing a "right to reply" is simply dishonest. Not including this is a signal that Wikipedia is not following WP:NPOV and WP:FALSEBALANCE is simply not relevant here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.239.195.102 (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UnHerd article[edit]

I think this, or at least a version of it, should be reinstated :

In March 2020 Gupta and colleagues published models for the coronavirus pandemic contrasting to earlier models produced elsewhere.[12][13] Their model suggested that up to 68% of the population could already have been infected, suggesting broader immunity and a subsiding threat. In May that year she told UnHerd that she believed "the epidemic has largely come and is on its way out in [the UK]. So, I think [the infection fatality rate] would be definitely less than one in a thousand, and probably closer to one in ten thousand."[14] Both before and after this statement, the estimates of other experts have fallen in a range much higher than this.[15][16][17][18]

It was removed in this revision:

13:01, 7 December 2020‎ Alexbrn talk contribs‎ 15,293 bytes −2,679‎ →‎COVID-19: trim undue/unreliable non-WP:MEDRS and OR spun around it undothank

It seems very relevant to her credibility and position on the Great Barrington Declaration. Ml66uk2 (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got any reliable sources? Alexbrn (talk) 07:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just seen your reply, but why wouldn't you consider the seven sources in the section you removed reliable - a paper she co-authored on MedRxiv, Bloomberg, the actual interview on YouTube, the Lancet, BMJ, Nature, and CEBM? We're not talking BitChute or Infowars here.

I'd add the Unherd article based on the interview: https://unherd.com/2020/05/oxford-doubles-down-sunetra-gupta-interview/

Ml66uk2 (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reintroduced a slightly edited version of the paragraph, but replaced the medRxiv source (I didn't see any issue with it, but can't think what other source was at issue) and added the UnHerd article at Ml66uk2's suggestion. DominicRA (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]