![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
I found this article ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7264656/) which is recent (5 weeks old) which acted as a summary of what research has discovered thus far.
I feel that it seems like a reputable source (115 citations) to refresh some gaps of information of what the science currently says on the page as a whole.
An easy example is section 3.2, which descriptions that role of the ACE2, and even has a nice summary of hypothetical future treatment mechanical goals (Figure 2).
I am new to Wikipedia, so I would love your feedback and a consensus on this approach before I begin suggesting specific edits.
Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Well That's Deep ( talk • contribs) 21:04, June 11, 2020 (UTC)
Thank you RexxS. I would like to submit the following statement for discussion and examination:
A speculative computer-modeled study based on computer modeling, (Liu, W. & Li, H. COVID-19 attacks the 1-beta chain of hemoglobin and captures the porphyrin to inhibit human heme metabolism. ChemRxiv (2020)), which suggests that SARS CoV2 does displace iron atoms from haeme/hemoglobin/RBCs. To quote a reddit-user, “While I understand it’s a computer simulated study, it’s seeming to be corroborated by clinical presentation and warrants further investigation. Often, patients are significantly hypoxic without shortness of breath. In addition to high ferritin and other lab values, it may indicate that COVID-19 is more of a hemoglobinopathy as opposed to a classic viral pneumonia.” Therefore, I suggest an edit which alludes to this theoretical model, while nodding to it’s speculative nature which awaiting further research to confirm or deny this mechanism.
Secondly, there is mounting evidence to suggest the “thrombotic microvasculopathy theory, which proposes pulmonary capillary bed microthrombosis as the mechanism: http://farid.jalali.one/covid19emailpdf.pdf “
Lastly, according to figure 2 of this reviewed study: ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7264656/), “The mechanism of SARS‐CoV‐2 and ACE2 interaction based on renin‐angiotensin‐aldosterone system (RAAS) and potential therapeutic strategies in COVID‐19. SARS‐CoV‐2 invades cells via ACE2 receptor, which may lead to the down‐regulation of ACE2 expression. The down‐regulation of ACE2 expression could destroy the balance between ACE/ACE2 and lead to the tissue injury. Potential therapeutic approaches include a SARS‐CoV‐2 spike protein‐based vaccine and small‐molecule inhibitors to block the interaction between S protein and ACE2”.
Therefore, I believe the page has outdated/vague information regarding the pathophysiology of COVID-19, and needs to remain updated as knowledge increases on the subject, and I believe that each of these three points should be either entirely reputed, or the viewpoint/perspective should be acknowledged.
![]() | This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A named reference present in the article at the beginning of this month seems to have been mistakenly removed when the section of the article defining the reference was moved into another article. However the reference was referred to elsewhere into the article, leading to cite errors, with the error-producing cites of the missing named reference since being removed.
Please add back the reference '<ref name="CDC Interim Guidance">{{cite web|url=https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance-management-patients.html|title=Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) |date=6 April 2020|website=[[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) |access-date=19 April 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200302201644/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance-management-patients.html|archive-date=2 March 2020|url-status=live}}</ref>'.
The places which cited that reference at the time it was moved are as follows:
Information related to happy hypoxia can be added if found appropriate in this or other articles. 1, 2, 3 these are some of the examples of references. -- Dr. Abhijeet Safai ( talk) 08:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Looking at three current (June 2020) review articles, one review/meta [1] shows no male/female susceptibility difference (1.06/1 m/f ratio) and makes no mention of mortality difference by sex (primarily finding DM, HTN, age). Another [2] also shows no difference in CFR by gender. Third review [3] notes two Chinese reports of more severe illness and fatality in men but suggests it could be from lifestyle choices such as smoking and drinking alcohol. How do we address this section of the article? MartinezMD ( talk) 19:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
The word "lockdown" does not appear in this article and Coronavirus recession is only present under "see also". I propose that we add a short "Lockdown" subsection (or one with some other name) under "Society and culture", to cover this, hatnoted with a {{ see main}} template to a suitable target (perhaps Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
"No medication or vaccine is approved to treat the disease"
seems an odd statement. Not only are several drugs being used to treat the disease, presumably with someone's approval; but the statement doesn't appear to have been tested globally.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
22:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
17 Diseases Named After Places Or People, Why not Chinese flu or Virus and why should we call Spanish flu if the matters came on china, its not Chinese flu why?
Here are 17 other diseases named after populations or places:
West Nile Virus Named after the West Nile District of Uganda discovered in 1937.
Guinea Worm Named by European explorers for the Guinea coast of West Africa in the 1600s.
Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever Named after the mountain range spreading across western North America first recognized first in 1896 in Idaho.
Lyme Disease Named after a large outbreak of the disease occurred in Lyme and Old Lyme, Connecticut in the 1970s.
Ross River Fever Named after a mosquito found to cause the disease in the Ross River of Queensland, Australia by the 1960s. The first major outbreak occurred in 1928.
Omsk Hemorrhagic Fever Named after its 1940s discovery in Omsk, Russia.
Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever Named in 1976 for the Ebola River in Zaire located in central Africa.
Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) Also known as “camel flu,” MERS was first reported in Saudi Arabia in 2012 and all cases are linked to those who traveled to the Middle Eastern peninsula.
Valley Fever Valley Fever earned its nickname from a 1930s outbreak San Joaquin Valley of California, though its first case came from Argentina.
Marburg Virus Disease Named after Marburg, Germany in 1967.
Norovirus Named after Norwalk, Ohio after an outbreak in 1968.
Zika Fever First discovered in 1947 and named after the Zika Forest in Uganda.
Japanese Encephalitis Named after its first case in Japan in 1871.
German Measles Named after the German doctors who first described it in the 18th century. The disease is also sometimes referred to as “Rubella.”
Spanish Flu While the true origins of the Spanish Flu remain unknown, the disease earned its name after Spain began to report deaths from the flu in its newspapers.
Lassa Fever Named after the being found in Lassa, Nigeria in 1969.
Legionnaire’s Disease Named in 1976 following an outbreak of people contracting the lung infection after attending an American Legion convention in Philadelphia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.Lukes ( talk • contribs) 11:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
The acronym WARS (Wuhan Acute Respiratory Syndrome) was added to the article, then tagged for needing a better source. I can only find a few mentions. Looks like a few people wanted to follow naming similar to SARS and MERS early in the outbreak, but it didn't stick. I found a letter to the editor (Hong Kong Medical Journal) and a few minor news references, but nothing more. Does this name merit inclusion? MartinezMD ( talk) 18:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
(Anchor:propagation comments)
To the special attention of User:Sdkb & others who commented here in early April to polish the similarly styled red/green GIFs shown at far right. (See the extended discussion at Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019/Archive 5.)
I've created this new "propagation" animation to be less cartoonish and have less empty space in-frame. I considered a circular arrangement rather than the current 16x9, but a circular arrangement, though more symmetrical, would have taken up more vertical space in WP articles.
The international version will be completely without text; I use symbology to reduce text even in this English-language version.
Please comment and provide constructive suggestions for change. — RCraig09 ( talk) 05:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I think the current images are clearer. The cartoonish aspects I see of them is some of the text (of the first image). The second and third graphic don't look cartoonish at all. MartinezMD ( talk) 15:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Alrightee then! I've enhanced the animation in a few ways, the most notable being the the portrayal of containment measures as including not only face masks but also social distancing and vaccination (the animation isn't limited to COVID-19 in June 2020). Absent any further discussion to the contrary, I'll WP:BOLDly add the animation to appropriate articles. — RCraig09 ( talk) 02:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Here's some new sources. The first is a review, hence a secondary source. The second is a Nature article reporting on a mix of primary & secondary sources.
Peaceray ( talk) 15:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: Joelaroche ( talk) 09:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a crucial error in this text from data sourced in April. It shows up as a first result/answer in Goggle when people query, "when is coronavirus most contagious" and it is factually incorrect since the true answer is unknown.
Current text: "It is most contagious during the first three days after the onset of symptoms, although spread is possible before symptoms appear, and from people who do not show symptoms.[7][22]"
Should be changed to: "Recent data (June 2020) suggests growing evidence of transmission risk from infected people without symptoms (asymptomatic) or before the onset of recognized symptoms (presymptomatic)." [1] Kmeggs ( talk) 14:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I've cut this from the article:
However, according to a study carried out by researchers at the University of Bradford: Genetics is one major key factor to understanding COVID-19 in Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic communities. [IJERA 1]
I do not agree that the
International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications is a suitable publication for sources relating to COVID-19: see their
website for a description of their fields of activity. The paper published is not a review, nor a study, but an op-ed piece by its two authors. I am particularly worried by statements in the source like "it is very important for descendants of each human Y-Chromosome DNA haplogroup to stay where their haplogroups belong to, in order to live safe and without developing unrelated health conditions.
" Is this really the quality of source that we should be using in our medical articles? --
RexxS (
talk)
00:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
For example, native populations of Europe including Britain, where there is low ultraviolet (UV) radiation, are genetically designed to have light skin colour as their skin has little melanin pigmentation. The light skin provides the native inhabitants with better UV radiation absorption which helps their body to produce more vitamin D needed by the body for important body functions including better immunity. On the other hand, native populations of the hot/sunny parts of the world where there is high UV radiation, have dark skin colour being rich in melanin pigments. Dark skin protects their body from the damaging effects of UV radiation. Vitamin D‟s classic effects are on calcium and bone homeostasis and deficiency"
Actually, I'd say it's more than speculation (it's more like correlation), but I'm not sure if it's enough to be a medical source in this article. Vecr ( talk) 02:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
an anonymous newcomer with 18 edits". What you just said is against Wikipedia policies and I will report you to Wikipedia for your persistent misjudgment, conduct issues and dialog fails. Wikipedia has given me the right to stay anonymous like you or Vecr or MartinezMD or anyone else. In fact by looking at your history of comments, it is so obvious that you easily attack anyone and any source and you act like as if you own the articles here. Wikipedia clearly says that "
No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page".
published in an engineering journal" it means that you have no knowledge regarding the topics of viruses and genetically modified viruses as part of Genetic engineering which is a branch of Biomedical engineering and you don't know that normally these topics are published in engineering journals. You don't even know that it is Genetic engineering that can make a COVID-19 vaccine in virology labs. [IJERA 2]
I do not agree" you first attacked the source and then you mentioned the statement that you are worried about which is "
it is very important for descendants of each human Y-Chromosome DNA haplogroup to stay where their haplogroups belong to, in order to live safe and without developing unrelated health conditions.". I just went through the article and I looked for that statement and I found that this is their prevention strategy which will benefit you if you are a member of BAME communities. You later attacked the University of Bradford and their academics. You even attacked geneticists and you published false statements.
The university is not an issue, and not the journal itself. The article is the problem. It is highly speculative and reviews no significant data. Furthermore it makes fairly extreme assertions such as "Sugar can deplete our body from essential immune-supporting nutrients such as zinc, vitamin C, and glutathione. It also feeds parasites in our body and may lead to abnormal tissue and cancerous growth." Much of this is pretty WP:Fringe. There are much better recent studies we can use now to discuss genetics. The NIH just discussed in their public blog the issue of genetics and refers to a moderately large (1980 patients) genetic study published in NEJM, a journal that has the highest impact factor in medicine, about susceptibility. If we want to mention that genetics can play a factor (a fairly harmless statement that applies to most diseases), I would look to maybe using that. MartinezMD ( talk) 05:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
References
For those who still think it's a good idea to insert content from any "peer-reviewed" source, please read https://www.zbw-mediatalk.eu/2018/12/a-self-expriment-in-fake-science-the-tricks-of-predatory-journals/ and consider carefully the advice given in MEDRS. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Involvement of central and peripheral nervous system has not been studied in clinical settings, however it is expected to be significant not only in the progression of the disease but also in transmission. [1] Millersberg ( talk) 13:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the article section "Signs and Symptoms", the first paragraph contains a [citation needed]; however, the sentence's claim is supported by source #41, as in the previous sentence, and seems like a summary of the previous sentences that causes unnecessary redundancy — I propose that the sentence either be removed, or the citation for source #41 be applied to both that and the previous sentence. -- Rootless Cosmopolitan ( talk) 21:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I previously mentioned an early web page here (April 16, 2020) which claimed that SARS-CoV-2 attacks T-cells like HIV. I also saw this article "This HIV/AIDS Specialist Explains Its Similarities — And Differences — To COVID-19". Now there is a report in the NY Times: "How the Coronavirus Short-Circuits the Immune System", which links to this preprint: "Immunologic perturbations in severe COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 infection" and other research reports: "Deep immune profiling of COVID-19 patients reveals patient heterogeneity and distinct immunotypes with implications for therapeutic interventions"; "Decreased T cell populations contribute to the increased severity of COVID-19."; "A consensus Covid-19 immune signature combines immuno-protection with discrete sepsis-like traits associated with poor prognosis". There are reservations about these resuts, which are mentioned in the NY Times article (with a good quote). Would now be a good time to add something about this to this article? As with a lot of observations about this virus, the description of the results would have to be written carefully. -- Robert.Allen ( talk) 22:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The change I made is to what I believe is the preferred way of incorporating citations. It allows newcomers to add the reference materials to the body of text and experienced users to add a reference nickname (e.g.<ref name "This article">
) to the body of text and the full reference to the reference list. It makes it easier to see the text you are editing. Otherwise, the full reference descriptions break up the article so much it is hard to add material or edit. Newcomers' citations can easily be moved to the reference section by more experienced users. Please check with an admin before reverting again. Thanks.
Stoney1976 (
talk)
18:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
<ref name="sourcename">
) in the body of the article. People can still add basic inline citations, but it allows the option of naming them. I don't NEED to apply it to the article, but it would reduce clutter. It can also identify any errors in the references (both annoying and helpful). I was just trying to improve the page and make it easier to edit. Let me know if you change your minds. In the meantime, I'll focus on content.
Stoney1976 (
talk)
21:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rename to "COVID-19;" see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles for why. 2604:3D08:D180:4500:C73:5967:AC2D:5A51 ( talk) 01:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
– — ° ′ ″ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § 2604:3D08:D180:4500:C73:5967:AC2D:5A51 ( talk) 01:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOTADVICE is quite clear that we may not issue instructions in Wikipedia's voice: "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not."
I've removed the disputed text "Medical grade facemasks such as N95 masks should be reserved and prioritised for healthcare workers and first responders." that was
re-inserted by
Gammapearls claiming consensus: "Undid revision 966010983 by Wikmoz (talk) restoring consensus version". I'd like to see a link to the discussion where that consensus was reached. --
RexxS (
talk)
19:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Medical grade facemasks such as N95 masks should be reserved and prioritised for healthcare workers and first responders.
This article talks about complications with the brain, they're not written in the disease card: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/scientists-warn-potential-wave-covid-linked-brain-damage-n1233150 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omer abcd ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Please add to end of the section on "Prevention": — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoney1976 ( talk • contribs) 10:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Enhanced ventilation. The CDC recommends ventilation of all public spaces to help dilute and clear out potentially infectious aerosols. [1] [2] This can be achieved by increasing the percentage of outside air, increasing the total airflow to occupied spaces, disabling demand-control ventilation (DCV) controls, and using natural ventilation (e.g., opening windows and doors if possible and safe to do so). [1]
Enhanced filtration. The CDC recommends enhancing filtration in building heating and air conditioning (HVAC) systems as part of an overall risk mitigation plan in conjunction with consideration of "compatibility with HVAC system capabilities for both temperature and humidity control as well as compatibility with outdoor/indoor air quality considerations." It should be designed in consultation with a professional or it may be counterproductive. The CDC recommends increasing air filtration as high as is possible (MERV 13 or 14) without reducing design airflow. This may require replacing the current HVAC system with one that can better handle such filters which create more resistance to air flow. Other recommendations include using appropriate, correctly installed filters, running ventilation systems continuously, and creating separate ventilation zones for higher and lower risk areas of the building (e.g., individual offices on a different zone than office gym). [1]
Another option may be to add freestanding air cleaners, which range in size from tabletop units for homes and restaurants to units for large rooms. The CDC recommends considering portable high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) fan/filtration systems to further clean the air, especially in areas where virus particles are likely to be most concentrated. [1] [3]
UV systems. The CDC recommends ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI) as part of an overall system to help inactivate the virus. This should be done as part of an overall mitigation plan in consultation with a professional because the specifics of the system are critical to safety and effectiveness. [1]
Bathrooms. The CDC recommends that bathroom fans be working and at full capacity when people are in the building. [1] Stoney1976 ( talk) 16:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change:
The virus is primarily spread between people during close contact,[a] most often via small droplets produced by coughing,[b] sneezing, and talking.[6][20][22] The droplets usually fall to the ground or onto surfaces rather than travelling through air over long distances,[6] although in some cases they may remain airborne for tens of minutes.
to:
The virus may spread between people when they directly contact each other, or are in close proximity. It is thought to do so via secretions, saliva, or contaminated droplets, which are expelled from the mouth or nose, including when coughing, sneezing, speaking or singing. It may also spread when people touch surfaces contaminated with these secretions or droplets, and then their face. Smaller droplets known as aerosols may also be implicated, notably where there is poor ventilation or crowded indoor spaces. [6] [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.181.162.136 ( talk) 07:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The virus is primarily spread between people during close contact,[a] most often via small droplets produced by coughing,[b] sneezing, and talking.[6][20][22] The droplets usually fall to the ground or onto surfaces rather than travelling through air over long distances.[6] Transmission may also occur through smaller droplets (called aerosols) that are able to stay suspended in the air for longer periods of time. Aerosol transmission can happen during some medical procedures and potentially in crowded indoor spaces that are inadequately ventilated.-- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 22:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Please take a look at the underlying code in the talk section above. When the system added my requested edit, it created an error that hid a number of sections, including part of my request. I couldn't figure out where the error occurred, so I created a new section and reposted my request. If you want to correct the rest of the problem, please fix the code. It would be much appreciated. Stoney1976 ( talk) 17:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
nowiki
tags like this:<nowiki><ref name="example"></nowiki>
It is mainly about its effect on the blood transfusion supply but it has direct links to the pandemic https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhae/article/PIIS2352-3026(20)30186-1/fulltext Anthropophoca ( talk) 07:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I can't edit the page since I'm not in the right level, but I'm pretty sure you can delete the viral exposure from the risk factor list, because this is the way to get infected, this is like writing that dying is a risk factor of death. Also, where is the group of people WHO wrote have a gigher risk of developing severe symptoms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omer abcd ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please take this phrase:
the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends 2 metres (6 ft)
and replace it with:
the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends 6 feet (2 metres)
I understand that the article uses metric, but in this case, the source says "Maintain good social distance (about 6 feet). This is very important in preventing the spread of COVID-19." Since the goal is basically to quote their recommendation, the unit they use ought to be mentioned first, since 2m is just a conversion from that. 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:507E:8161:94B1:9C52 ( talk) 02:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
I found this article ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7264656/) which is recent (5 weeks old) which acted as a summary of what research has discovered thus far.
I feel that it seems like a reputable source (115 citations) to refresh some gaps of information of what the science currently says on the page as a whole.
An easy example is section 3.2, which descriptions that role of the ACE2, and even has a nice summary of hypothetical future treatment mechanical goals (Figure 2).
I am new to Wikipedia, so I would love your feedback and a consensus on this approach before I begin suggesting specific edits.
Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Well That's Deep ( talk • contribs) 21:04, June 11, 2020 (UTC)
Thank you RexxS. I would like to submit the following statement for discussion and examination:
A speculative computer-modeled study based on computer modeling, (Liu, W. & Li, H. COVID-19 attacks the 1-beta chain of hemoglobin and captures the porphyrin to inhibit human heme metabolism. ChemRxiv (2020)), which suggests that SARS CoV2 does displace iron atoms from haeme/hemoglobin/RBCs. To quote a reddit-user, “While I understand it’s a computer simulated study, it’s seeming to be corroborated by clinical presentation and warrants further investigation. Often, patients are significantly hypoxic without shortness of breath. In addition to high ferritin and other lab values, it may indicate that COVID-19 is more of a hemoglobinopathy as opposed to a classic viral pneumonia.” Therefore, I suggest an edit which alludes to this theoretical model, while nodding to it’s speculative nature which awaiting further research to confirm or deny this mechanism.
Secondly, there is mounting evidence to suggest the “thrombotic microvasculopathy theory, which proposes pulmonary capillary bed microthrombosis as the mechanism: http://farid.jalali.one/covid19emailpdf.pdf “
Lastly, according to figure 2 of this reviewed study: ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7264656/), “The mechanism of SARS‐CoV‐2 and ACE2 interaction based on renin‐angiotensin‐aldosterone system (RAAS) and potential therapeutic strategies in COVID‐19. SARS‐CoV‐2 invades cells via ACE2 receptor, which may lead to the down‐regulation of ACE2 expression. The down‐regulation of ACE2 expression could destroy the balance between ACE/ACE2 and lead to the tissue injury. Potential therapeutic approaches include a SARS‐CoV‐2 spike protein‐based vaccine and small‐molecule inhibitors to block the interaction between S protein and ACE2”.
Therefore, I believe the page has outdated/vague information regarding the pathophysiology of COVID-19, and needs to remain updated as knowledge increases on the subject, and I believe that each of these three points should be either entirely reputed, or the viewpoint/perspective should be acknowledged.
![]() | This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A named reference present in the article at the beginning of this month seems to have been mistakenly removed when the section of the article defining the reference was moved into another article. However the reference was referred to elsewhere into the article, leading to cite errors, with the error-producing cites of the missing named reference since being removed.
Please add back the reference '<ref name="CDC Interim Guidance">{{cite web|url=https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance-management-patients.html|title=Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) |date=6 April 2020|website=[[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) |access-date=19 April 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200302201644/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance-management-patients.html|archive-date=2 March 2020|url-status=live}}</ref>'.
The places which cited that reference at the time it was moved are as follows:
Information related to happy hypoxia can be added if found appropriate in this or other articles. 1, 2, 3 these are some of the examples of references. -- Dr. Abhijeet Safai ( talk) 08:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Looking at three current (June 2020) review articles, one review/meta [1] shows no male/female susceptibility difference (1.06/1 m/f ratio) and makes no mention of mortality difference by sex (primarily finding DM, HTN, age). Another [2] also shows no difference in CFR by gender. Third review [3] notes two Chinese reports of more severe illness and fatality in men but suggests it could be from lifestyle choices such as smoking and drinking alcohol. How do we address this section of the article? MartinezMD ( talk) 19:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
The word "lockdown" does not appear in this article and Coronavirus recession is only present under "see also". I propose that we add a short "Lockdown" subsection (or one with some other name) under "Society and culture", to cover this, hatnoted with a {{ see main}} template to a suitable target (perhaps Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
"No medication or vaccine is approved to treat the disease"
seems an odd statement. Not only are several drugs being used to treat the disease, presumably with someone's approval; but the statement doesn't appear to have been tested globally.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
22:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
17 Diseases Named After Places Or People, Why not Chinese flu or Virus and why should we call Spanish flu if the matters came on china, its not Chinese flu why?
Here are 17 other diseases named after populations or places:
West Nile Virus Named after the West Nile District of Uganda discovered in 1937.
Guinea Worm Named by European explorers for the Guinea coast of West Africa in the 1600s.
Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever Named after the mountain range spreading across western North America first recognized first in 1896 in Idaho.
Lyme Disease Named after a large outbreak of the disease occurred in Lyme and Old Lyme, Connecticut in the 1970s.
Ross River Fever Named after a mosquito found to cause the disease in the Ross River of Queensland, Australia by the 1960s. The first major outbreak occurred in 1928.
Omsk Hemorrhagic Fever Named after its 1940s discovery in Omsk, Russia.
Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever Named in 1976 for the Ebola River in Zaire located in central Africa.
Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) Also known as “camel flu,” MERS was first reported in Saudi Arabia in 2012 and all cases are linked to those who traveled to the Middle Eastern peninsula.
Valley Fever Valley Fever earned its nickname from a 1930s outbreak San Joaquin Valley of California, though its first case came from Argentina.
Marburg Virus Disease Named after Marburg, Germany in 1967.
Norovirus Named after Norwalk, Ohio after an outbreak in 1968.
Zika Fever First discovered in 1947 and named after the Zika Forest in Uganda.
Japanese Encephalitis Named after its first case in Japan in 1871.
German Measles Named after the German doctors who first described it in the 18th century. The disease is also sometimes referred to as “Rubella.”
Spanish Flu While the true origins of the Spanish Flu remain unknown, the disease earned its name after Spain began to report deaths from the flu in its newspapers.
Lassa Fever Named after the being found in Lassa, Nigeria in 1969.
Legionnaire’s Disease Named in 1976 following an outbreak of people contracting the lung infection after attending an American Legion convention in Philadelphia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.Lukes ( talk • contribs) 11:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
The acronym WARS (Wuhan Acute Respiratory Syndrome) was added to the article, then tagged for needing a better source. I can only find a few mentions. Looks like a few people wanted to follow naming similar to SARS and MERS early in the outbreak, but it didn't stick. I found a letter to the editor (Hong Kong Medical Journal) and a few minor news references, but nothing more. Does this name merit inclusion? MartinezMD ( talk) 18:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
(Anchor:propagation comments)
To the special attention of User:Sdkb & others who commented here in early April to polish the similarly styled red/green GIFs shown at far right. (See the extended discussion at Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019/Archive 5.)
I've created this new "propagation" animation to be less cartoonish and have less empty space in-frame. I considered a circular arrangement rather than the current 16x9, but a circular arrangement, though more symmetrical, would have taken up more vertical space in WP articles.
The international version will be completely without text; I use symbology to reduce text even in this English-language version.
Please comment and provide constructive suggestions for change. — RCraig09 ( talk) 05:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I think the current images are clearer. The cartoonish aspects I see of them is some of the text (of the first image). The second and third graphic don't look cartoonish at all. MartinezMD ( talk) 15:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Alrightee then! I've enhanced the animation in a few ways, the most notable being the the portrayal of containment measures as including not only face masks but also social distancing and vaccination (the animation isn't limited to COVID-19 in June 2020). Absent any further discussion to the contrary, I'll WP:BOLDly add the animation to appropriate articles. — RCraig09 ( talk) 02:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Here's some new sources. The first is a review, hence a secondary source. The second is a Nature article reporting on a mix of primary & secondary sources.
Peaceray ( talk) 15:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: Joelaroche ( talk) 09:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a crucial error in this text from data sourced in April. It shows up as a first result/answer in Goggle when people query, "when is coronavirus most contagious" and it is factually incorrect since the true answer is unknown.
Current text: "It is most contagious during the first three days after the onset of symptoms, although spread is possible before symptoms appear, and from people who do not show symptoms.[7][22]"
Should be changed to: "Recent data (June 2020) suggests growing evidence of transmission risk from infected people without symptoms (asymptomatic) or before the onset of recognized symptoms (presymptomatic)." [1] Kmeggs ( talk) 14:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I've cut this from the article:
However, according to a study carried out by researchers at the University of Bradford: Genetics is one major key factor to understanding COVID-19 in Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic communities. [IJERA 1]
I do not agree that the
International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications is a suitable publication for sources relating to COVID-19: see their
website for a description of their fields of activity. The paper published is not a review, nor a study, but an op-ed piece by its two authors. I am particularly worried by statements in the source like "it is very important for descendants of each human Y-Chromosome DNA haplogroup to stay where their haplogroups belong to, in order to live safe and without developing unrelated health conditions.
" Is this really the quality of source that we should be using in our medical articles? --
RexxS (
talk)
00:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
For example, native populations of Europe including Britain, where there is low ultraviolet (UV) radiation, are genetically designed to have light skin colour as their skin has little melanin pigmentation. The light skin provides the native inhabitants with better UV radiation absorption which helps their body to produce more vitamin D needed by the body for important body functions including better immunity. On the other hand, native populations of the hot/sunny parts of the world where there is high UV radiation, have dark skin colour being rich in melanin pigments. Dark skin protects their body from the damaging effects of UV radiation. Vitamin D‟s classic effects are on calcium and bone homeostasis and deficiency"
Actually, I'd say it's more than speculation (it's more like correlation), but I'm not sure if it's enough to be a medical source in this article. Vecr ( talk) 02:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
an anonymous newcomer with 18 edits". What you just said is against Wikipedia policies and I will report you to Wikipedia for your persistent misjudgment, conduct issues and dialog fails. Wikipedia has given me the right to stay anonymous like you or Vecr or MartinezMD or anyone else. In fact by looking at your history of comments, it is so obvious that you easily attack anyone and any source and you act like as if you own the articles here. Wikipedia clearly says that "
No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page".
published in an engineering journal" it means that you have no knowledge regarding the topics of viruses and genetically modified viruses as part of Genetic engineering which is a branch of Biomedical engineering and you don't know that normally these topics are published in engineering journals. You don't even know that it is Genetic engineering that can make a COVID-19 vaccine in virology labs. [IJERA 2]
I do not agree" you first attacked the source and then you mentioned the statement that you are worried about which is "
it is very important for descendants of each human Y-Chromosome DNA haplogroup to stay where their haplogroups belong to, in order to live safe and without developing unrelated health conditions.". I just went through the article and I looked for that statement and I found that this is their prevention strategy which will benefit you if you are a member of BAME communities. You later attacked the University of Bradford and their academics. You even attacked geneticists and you published false statements.
The university is not an issue, and not the journal itself. The article is the problem. It is highly speculative and reviews no significant data. Furthermore it makes fairly extreme assertions such as "Sugar can deplete our body from essential immune-supporting nutrients such as zinc, vitamin C, and glutathione. It also feeds parasites in our body and may lead to abnormal tissue and cancerous growth." Much of this is pretty WP:Fringe. There are much better recent studies we can use now to discuss genetics. The NIH just discussed in their public blog the issue of genetics and refers to a moderately large (1980 patients) genetic study published in NEJM, a journal that has the highest impact factor in medicine, about susceptibility. If we want to mention that genetics can play a factor (a fairly harmless statement that applies to most diseases), I would look to maybe using that. MartinezMD ( talk) 05:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
References
For those who still think it's a good idea to insert content from any "peer-reviewed" source, please read https://www.zbw-mediatalk.eu/2018/12/a-self-expriment-in-fake-science-the-tricks-of-predatory-journals/ and consider carefully the advice given in MEDRS. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Involvement of central and peripheral nervous system has not been studied in clinical settings, however it is expected to be significant not only in the progression of the disease but also in transmission. [1] Millersberg ( talk) 13:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the article section "Signs and Symptoms", the first paragraph contains a [citation needed]; however, the sentence's claim is supported by source #41, as in the previous sentence, and seems like a summary of the previous sentences that causes unnecessary redundancy — I propose that the sentence either be removed, or the citation for source #41 be applied to both that and the previous sentence. -- Rootless Cosmopolitan ( talk) 21:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I previously mentioned an early web page here (April 16, 2020) which claimed that SARS-CoV-2 attacks T-cells like HIV. I also saw this article "This HIV/AIDS Specialist Explains Its Similarities — And Differences — To COVID-19". Now there is a report in the NY Times: "How the Coronavirus Short-Circuits the Immune System", which links to this preprint: "Immunologic perturbations in severe COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 infection" and other research reports: "Deep immune profiling of COVID-19 patients reveals patient heterogeneity and distinct immunotypes with implications for therapeutic interventions"; "Decreased T cell populations contribute to the increased severity of COVID-19."; "A consensus Covid-19 immune signature combines immuno-protection with discrete sepsis-like traits associated with poor prognosis". There are reservations about these resuts, which are mentioned in the NY Times article (with a good quote). Would now be a good time to add something about this to this article? As with a lot of observations about this virus, the description of the results would have to be written carefully. -- Robert.Allen ( talk) 22:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The change I made is to what I believe is the preferred way of incorporating citations. It allows newcomers to add the reference materials to the body of text and experienced users to add a reference nickname (e.g.<ref name "This article">
) to the body of text and the full reference to the reference list. It makes it easier to see the text you are editing. Otherwise, the full reference descriptions break up the article so much it is hard to add material or edit. Newcomers' citations can easily be moved to the reference section by more experienced users. Please check with an admin before reverting again. Thanks.
Stoney1976 (
talk)
18:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
<ref name="sourcename">
) in the body of the article. People can still add basic inline citations, but it allows the option of naming them. I don't NEED to apply it to the article, but it would reduce clutter. It can also identify any errors in the references (both annoying and helpful). I was just trying to improve the page and make it easier to edit. Let me know if you change your minds. In the meantime, I'll focus on content.
Stoney1976 (
talk)
21:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rename to "COVID-19;" see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles for why. 2604:3D08:D180:4500:C73:5967:AC2D:5A51 ( talk) 01:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
– — ° ′ ″ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § 2604:3D08:D180:4500:C73:5967:AC2D:5A51 ( talk) 01:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOTADVICE is quite clear that we may not issue instructions in Wikipedia's voice: "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not."
I've removed the disputed text "Medical grade facemasks such as N95 masks should be reserved and prioritised for healthcare workers and first responders." that was
re-inserted by
Gammapearls claiming consensus: "Undid revision 966010983 by Wikmoz (talk) restoring consensus version". I'd like to see a link to the discussion where that consensus was reached. --
RexxS (
talk)
19:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Medical grade facemasks such as N95 masks should be reserved and prioritised for healthcare workers and first responders.
This article talks about complications with the brain, they're not written in the disease card: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/scientists-warn-potential-wave-covid-linked-brain-damage-n1233150 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omer abcd ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Please add to end of the section on "Prevention": — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoney1976 ( talk • contribs) 10:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Enhanced ventilation. The CDC recommends ventilation of all public spaces to help dilute and clear out potentially infectious aerosols. [1] [2] This can be achieved by increasing the percentage of outside air, increasing the total airflow to occupied spaces, disabling demand-control ventilation (DCV) controls, and using natural ventilation (e.g., opening windows and doors if possible and safe to do so). [1]
Enhanced filtration. The CDC recommends enhancing filtration in building heating and air conditioning (HVAC) systems as part of an overall risk mitigation plan in conjunction with consideration of "compatibility with HVAC system capabilities for both temperature and humidity control as well as compatibility with outdoor/indoor air quality considerations." It should be designed in consultation with a professional or it may be counterproductive. The CDC recommends increasing air filtration as high as is possible (MERV 13 or 14) without reducing design airflow. This may require replacing the current HVAC system with one that can better handle such filters which create more resistance to air flow. Other recommendations include using appropriate, correctly installed filters, running ventilation systems continuously, and creating separate ventilation zones for higher and lower risk areas of the building (e.g., individual offices on a different zone than office gym). [1]
Another option may be to add freestanding air cleaners, which range in size from tabletop units for homes and restaurants to units for large rooms. The CDC recommends considering portable high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) fan/filtration systems to further clean the air, especially in areas where virus particles are likely to be most concentrated. [1] [3]
UV systems. The CDC recommends ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI) as part of an overall system to help inactivate the virus. This should be done as part of an overall mitigation plan in consultation with a professional because the specifics of the system are critical to safety and effectiveness. [1]
Bathrooms. The CDC recommends that bathroom fans be working and at full capacity when people are in the building. [1] Stoney1976 ( talk) 16:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change:
The virus is primarily spread between people during close contact,[a] most often via small droplets produced by coughing,[b] sneezing, and talking.[6][20][22] The droplets usually fall to the ground or onto surfaces rather than travelling through air over long distances,[6] although in some cases they may remain airborne for tens of minutes.
to:
The virus may spread between people when they directly contact each other, or are in close proximity. It is thought to do so via secretions, saliva, or contaminated droplets, which are expelled from the mouth or nose, including when coughing, sneezing, speaking or singing. It may also spread when people touch surfaces contaminated with these secretions or droplets, and then their face. Smaller droplets known as aerosols may also be implicated, notably where there is poor ventilation or crowded indoor spaces. [6] [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.181.162.136 ( talk) 07:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The virus is primarily spread between people during close contact,[a] most often via small droplets produced by coughing,[b] sneezing, and talking.[6][20][22] The droplets usually fall to the ground or onto surfaces rather than travelling through air over long distances.[6] Transmission may also occur through smaller droplets (called aerosols) that are able to stay suspended in the air for longer periods of time. Aerosol transmission can happen during some medical procedures and potentially in crowded indoor spaces that are inadequately ventilated.-- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 22:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Please take a look at the underlying code in the talk section above. When the system added my requested edit, it created an error that hid a number of sections, including part of my request. I couldn't figure out where the error occurred, so I created a new section and reposted my request. If you want to correct the rest of the problem, please fix the code. It would be much appreciated. Stoney1976 ( talk) 17:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
nowiki
tags like this:<nowiki><ref name="example"></nowiki>
It is mainly about its effect on the blood transfusion supply but it has direct links to the pandemic https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhae/article/PIIS2352-3026(20)30186-1/fulltext Anthropophoca ( talk) 07:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I can't edit the page since I'm not in the right level, but I'm pretty sure you can delete the viral exposure from the risk factor list, because this is the way to get infected, this is like writing that dying is a risk factor of death. Also, where is the group of people WHO wrote have a gigher risk of developing severe symptoms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omer abcd ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please take this phrase:
the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends 2 metres (6 ft)
and replace it with:
the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends 6 feet (2 metres)
I understand that the article uses metric, but in this case, the source says "Maintain good social distance (about 6 feet). This is very important in preventing the spread of COVID-19." Since the goal is basically to quote their recommendation, the unit they use ought to be mentioned first, since 2m is just a conversion from that. 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:507E:8161:94B1:9C52 ( talk) 02:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)