![]() | 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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 19 |
This article has consistently had a dangerous bias against the possibility of transmission via contaminated surfaces, misrepresenting sources. For example, the conclusion to the most recent source clearly states "Two modes of transmission exist—direct and indirect. The direct mode includes transmission via aerosols, anal (feco-oral) secretions, tears, saliva, semen, and mother-to-child. Indirect modes include transmission via fomites [contaminated surfaces]. Several of these modes may be underestimated". The language of this study is less than perfect (direct and indirect modes as defined in the conclusion are not mutually inclusive and in fact the indirect mode requires the things listed as direct. It also contradicts the language used in other sources that assumes aerosols can be an indirect mode: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-69286-3), but other reliable sources (some of which appear to have been removed from the section) agree that there are multiple likely/possible modes of transmission. Instead this was simply misrepresented as "transmission by surfaces has not been conclusively demonstrated". This might be technically correct but it is not what the source says and it is extremely misleading and DANGEROUS to misrepresent the sources in this way, especially as the source does not say it has been "conclusively demonstrated" that surface transmission is rare either. Even the cases where close contact happened cannot generally rule out that they touched the same surface, so we really don't know how common each mode of transmission is. Mr G ( talk) 21:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7454106/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-69286-3
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195670120300463
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs42399-020-00498-4
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30678-2/fulltext
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30514-2/fulltext (waning, this study has a sample size of ONE hospital ward which only found ONE positive swab due to hospital cleaning practices. very weak evidence. the above article relies on this)
I've significantly restored the WP:MEDRS sourcing and content of this section as it had gotten out of hand. In the lead especially we should stick to reliable secondary medical sources such as the WHO or CDC/ECDC. it seems we had slowly drifted away from those sources and the content had become confusing/incorrect/imprecise. Please review my edits and let's ensure we stick to WP:MEDRS for this crucial page. -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 12:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
The section on IFR is grossly out of date. The best current estimates that I can find are those used by the MRC Biostatistics unit in Cambridge, UK Here:(In the section "Epidemic Summary", click on the tab labelled IFR), and reported by the BBC here.
I'd like to propose adding a paragraph immediately after the first paragraph of the IFR section as follows:
The fatality rate of Covid-19 varies greatly by the age of the patient, so that the average IFR of any population will vary by the demomgraphics of that population. The more useful measure is how the Infection Fatality Rate varies by age. The MRC Biostatistics Unit at the University of Cambridge currently (as of November 2020) uses the following estimates of IFR by age:
Age | IFR |
---|---|
Overall | 0.69% |
0-4y | 0.00051% |
5-14y | 0.0017% |
15-24y | 0.0034% |
25-44y | 0.027% |
45-64y | 0.37% |
65-74y | 2.3% |
Over 75y | 15% |
Normally I would be WP:BOLD, and just add this text but as this is not peer-reviewed data, then I thought I should seek consensus here first. Hallucegenia ( talk) 16:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Across 51 locations, the median COVID-19 infection fatality rate was 0.27% (corrected 0.23%): the rate was 0.09% in locations with COVID-19 population mortality rates less than the global average (< 118 deaths/million), 0.20% in locations with 118–500 COVID-19 deaths/million people and 0.57% in locations with > 500 COVID-19 deaths/million people. In people < 70 years, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.31% with crude and corrected medians of 0.05%.
We have three different summaries of COVID-19 signs and symptoms in the following topics:
My initial thought was to consolidate and fine tune the best summary into Symptoms of COVID-19 and then transclude the first two paragraphs elsewhere. However, I think that we can actually merge the breakout back into Coronavirus disease 2019 § Signs and symptoms (as previously done with Mortality and Prognosis breakouts) and transclude from there to the pandemic topic. The bottom of the breakout (Complications and Longer-term effects) is already included in the main disease topic. So it would just be a matter of adding the bulleted symptoms list from the breakout and merging duplicate paragraphs that have slightly diverged. It would not substantially lengthen this topic. Thoughts? - Wikmoz ( talk) 19:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Gtoffoletto, Tenryuu, Moxy, Bakkster Man, Ovinus Real, Sdkb, RealFakeKim, and Doc James: Inviting for comment since this is related to the content de-duplication effort being discussed in the COVID-19 pandemic thread. Traffic to the breakout is not insubstantial but still well below the reader and editor eyeballs on this topic and I think a majority of the traffic is coming from the 'Main article' links in this topic and the pandemic topic (can test if necessary). - Wikmoz ( talk) 19:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Should we adopt a similar approach for other sections covered by subarticles? I think the "transclusion of the lead into the main article and deep dive in the sub article" makes sense in all cases to avoid duplication of content and out of date content.
@ Wikmoz, John P. Sadowski (NIOSH), Shameran81, and WhatamIdoing: thoughts? We could adopt it as a general guideline in {{ Current_COVID-19_Project_Consensus}} -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 00:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
How about:
To avoid duplication: when a section within a general article is covered by a specific sub-article on that topic the guideline is to transclude the lead of the specific sub-article into the general article with a link to read more
I would something like this to the consensus template for general reference. -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 19:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC) @ Wikmoz, John P. Sadowski (NIOSH), Tenryuu, and WhatamIdoing: should we add this to the consensus template? -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 02:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the second sentence of the third paragraph, change "he" to they in order to be less gender specific Mattyice21 ( talk) 02:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I haven't monitored this page as closely as COVID-19 pandemic, and checking back in on it, I'm disappointed to see that the lead was substantially better a month or two ago than it is now. Seriously, who thought it was a good idea to remove a link to COVID-19 pandemic? (No, the hatnote isn't sufficient, since those are supposed to be disambiguatory, not informative.) The descriptions have also lost their conciseness and jargon such as "fomites" has been needlessly added. I'm not sure who's responsible and haven't checked, but someone competent needs to start paying attention, and I urge those less competent to self-reflect enough to realize that their contributions are not helping. It shouldn't be such a struggle to keep this page on an upward rather than downward path. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 22:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Similar to how the COVID pandemic lead update discussion is ongoing, we have to update the lead as vaccines have started being distributed, and a patient in UK has been discharged after being injected. Gerald WL 03:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm removing this:
The COVID-19 Clinical Research Coalition has goals to 1) facilitate rapid reviews of clinical trial proposals by ethics committees and national regulatory agencies, 2) fast-track approvals for the candidate therapeutic compounds, 3) ensure standardised and rapid analysis of emerging efficacy and safety data and 4) facilitate sharing of clinical trial outcomes before publication. [1] [2]
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
from COVID-19#Research, because I don't think it really fits in this article. It probably fits in another one; maybe someone can find it a new home? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
There's so more work that needs to be done in de-duping treatment content. We should not have two different medication sections:
Can someone help consolidate into Treatment and management of COVID-19?
It looks like there may be more content that needs to be moved from Research but approved medications seems like the higher priority. - Wikmoz ( talk) 06:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I propose that the recommendation in the next section based on markedly better hospital outcomes for COVID patients who were not vitamin D deficient be incorporated into the article.
COVID-19
Vitamin D and COVID 19: The Evidence for Prevention and Treatment of Coronavirus (SARS CoV 2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha2mLz-Xdpg
Premiered Dec 10, 2020
Professor Roger Seheult, MD explains the important role Vitamin D may have in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Dr. Seheult illustrates how Vitamin D works, summarizes the best available data and clinical trials on vitamin D, and discusses vitamin D dosage recommendations.
Roger Seheult, MD is the co-founder and lead professor at https://www.medcram.com
He is an Associate Professor at the University of California, Riverside School of Medicine and Assistant Prof. at Loma Linda University School of Medicine
Dr. Seheult is Quadruple Board Certified: Internal Medicine, Pulmonary Disease, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine
Interviewer: Kyle Allred, Producer and Co-Founder of MedCram.com
REFERENCES:
The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS)... (J. of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology) | https://www.researchgate.net/publicat...
Aging decreases the capacity of human skin to produce vitamin D3 (The J. of Clinical Investigation) | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2997282/
Racial differences in the relationship between vitamin D... (Osteoporosis Int.) | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
Decreased bioavailability of vitamin D in obesity (The American J of Clinical Nutrition) | https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article...
Vitamin D Insufficiency and Deficiency and Mortality from Respiratory Diseases ... (Nutrients) | https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/12/8/2488
Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: systematic review and meta-analysis... (BMJ) | https://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.i...
Randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation to prevent seasonal influenza A... (The American J.of Clinical Nutrition) | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20219...
Vitamin D and SARS-CoV-2 infection... (Irish J. of Medical Science) | https://link.springer.com/article/10....
Factors associated with COVID-19-related death... (Nature) | https://www.nature.com/articles/s4158...
Editorial: low population mortality from COVID-19 ... (Alimentary Pharm. & Therap.) | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32311...
The role of vitamin D in the prevention of coronavirus ... (Aging Clinical & Experimental Research) | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
25-Hydroxyvitamin D Concentrations Are Lower in Patients with ... SARS-CoV-2 (Nutrients) | https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/12/5/1359
Vitamin D deficiency in COVID-19: Mixing up cause and consequence (Metabolism) | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
Low plasma 25(OH) vitamin D level... increased risk of COVID-19... (The FEBS J.) | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32700...
The link between vitamin D deficiency and Covid-19... | https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.11...
SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates... with circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels (PLOS One) | https://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...
Vitamin D status and outcomes for... COVID-19 (Postgrad Medical J.) | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
Vitamin D Deficiency and Outcome of COVID-19... (Nutrients) | https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/12/9/2757
“Effect of calcifediol treatment...” (The J. of Steroid Bio. and Molec. Bio.) | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
Vitamin D and survival in COVID-19 patients... (The J. of Steroid Bio. and Molec. Bio.) | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
Effect of Vitamin D3 ... vs Placebo on Hospital Length of Stay...: A Multicenter, Double-blind, Randomized Controlled Trial | https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.11...
Short term, high-dose vitamin D... for COVID-19 disease: a randomized, placebo-controlled, study [SHADE study] (Postgraduate Medical Journal) | https://pmj.bmj.com/content/early/202...
Association of Vitamin D Status... With COVID-19 Test Results (JAMA Network Open) | https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama...
Vitamin D Fortification of Fluid Milk ... A Review (Nutrients) | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
Analysis of vitamin D level among asymptomatic and critically ill COVID-19 patients... (Scientific Reports from the Journal Nature) | https://www.nature.com/articles/s4159... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdctx ( talk • contribs) 00:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
However, the NICE source seems to contradict this slightly:Vitamin D deficiency was not associated with a higher chance of infection by COVID-19 (OR = 1.35; 95% CI = 0.80–1.88), but we identified that severe cases of COVID-19 present 64% (OR = 1.64; 95% CI = 1.30–2.09) more vitamin D deficiency compared with mild cases. A vitamin D concentration insufficiency increased hospitalization (OR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.41–2.21) and mortality from COVID-19 (OR = 1.82, 95% CI = 1.06–2.58). We observed a positive association between vitamin D deficiency and the severity of the disease... However, there is no support for supplementation among groups with normal blood vitamin D values with the aim of prevention, prophylaxis or reducing the severity of the disease.
And the BML meta-analysis from 2017 of general respiratory infection protection, which is not COVID specific and the conclusion was :There is no evidence to support taking vitamin D supplements to specifically prevent or treat COVID‑19. However, all people should continue to follow UK Government advice on daily vitamin D supplementation to maintain bone and muscle health during the COVID‑19 pandemic.
Combined, these seem to suggest less that Vitamin D is a treatment for COVID-19, and rather that (per the first source in particular) Vitamin D deficiency may be a risk factor for COVID-19 (amongst all the other health risks of deficiency). Personally, I think we should trim that section to primarily these three sources, focusing on the deficiency link and noting there is no COVID-specific recommendation for supplements from an authoritative source. Other sources that expand on these discussions (Mayo Clinic link, for instance) would be welcome. I might take a stab at this later, thanks for mentioning it. Bakkster Man ( talk) 17:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Vitamin D supplementation was safe and it protected against acute respiratory tract infection overall. Patients who were very vitamin D deficient and those not receiving bolus doses experienced the most benefit.
I propose that the following recommendation and the findings on which it is based be incorporated into the article.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-77093-
Article
Open Access
Published: 19 November 2020
Analysis of vitamin D level among asymptomatic and critically ill COVID-19 patients and its correlation with inflammatory markers
Anshul Jain1, Rachna Chaurasia2, Narendra Singh Sengar3, Mayank Singh4, Sachin Mahor5 & Sumit Narain4
Scientific Reports volume 10, Article number: 20191 (2020) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdctx ( talk • contribs) 01:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I am surprised to see that this article doesn't talk much about strains, and doesn't talk at all about serotypes and Cluster 5. I'm thinking about adding this paragraph to the end of the virology heading.
SARS-CoV-2 has at least six main strains as of August 2020. The main strains are L, S, V, G, GR, and GH. Strain L was the first strain, discovered in Wuhan in December 2019. As of August 2020, strain G (and related strains GR and GH) are the most widespread. Strains L and V are gradually disappearing. [1] In addition, there are some infrequent mutations. Cluster 5 was a rare but virulent strain that was discovered in mink farms and mink farmers in Denmark. Denmark engaged in a mink euthanasia campaign [2], and is believed to have eradicated Cluster 5. The number of SARS-CoV-2 serotypes is currently unknown.
Source for the strains is ScienceDaily.com. It says it got its material from "Daniele Mercatelli, Federico M. Giorgi. Geographic and Genomic Distribution of SARS-CoV-2 Mutations. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2020; 11 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.01800". I don't know if that's a "preprint" or not, how does one tell?
A serotype is in my opinion very important data to include in an article about a pandemic. A strain is any change at all to the genetics, whereas a serotype is a change to the genetics that changes the antibody needed to fight/kill the pathogen. The number of serotypes is very important from a vaccination perspective. It's the difference between the disease being easy to vaccinate (measles - 1 serotype), versus having to change vaccines every year (flu - medium # of serotypes), versus the disease being impractical to vaccinate (rhinovirus aka common cold - high # of serotypes). I suspect the # of serotypes for COVID is 1, but I googled hard, and I couldn't find an article that explicitly stated this. Nevertheless, I believe it important to include a sentence on serotypes in this article. Maybe it will inspire somebody to find an article and specify the #.
Any objections? If comments are positive, I'll go ahead and add this, and you guys can edit the details once it's in the article. Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 17:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Apokrif ( talk) 13:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Editorialised to include the example sentence. It seems it could be either, though in this case, I find "do" to be more phonically pleasing than "does". — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) ( 🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 02:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)In [One in a hundred students take/takes drugs], however, the head is plural, but the verb can be singular as well as plural.
References
In the Virology section, variants of the virus are discussed. (Arguably this belongs in Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, but e.g. Cluster 5 is covered in this disease article, not in that virus article.)
The variant N501Y, now prevalent in London, allegedly no more lethal but significantly more contagious than former strands, appears not to be mentioned in Wikipedia at all. Of course, a good source would be needed.-- Nø ( talk) 10:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I posted the results of a " natural experiment" in South Korea that found that recent spread of COVID-19 had occurred in a restaurant from a host to a 16-year old victim, at a distance of 20' apart, and during a maximum 5-minute exposure at that distance. A good-faith editor removed my edit as representing only a single example and therefore not sufficiently significant and perhaps conclusionary. In fact, the P.R.C. CDC had noted the likely insufficiency of a six-foot distance as early as late January, 2020. I'll add those cites. South Korea found an early instance of a superspreader who was a member of a large congregation of a denomination, denialists that preached that illness had causation in "sin." Historical superspreaders have their own Wikipedia articles, of course, including Gaëtan Dugas and Mary Mallon being among the most famous. The editor had deleted my well-sourced and notable details, as emanating from only a single instance, and therefore not worthy of mention. Another editor deleted partial documentation of a study that determined that the presence of a frequent residual fragment of Western European Neanderthal DNA made such victims of COVID-19 much more susceptible to highly negative outcomes of infection, produced more likely hospitalizations, fatalities, and markedly constrained the success of conventional inpatient treatment producing significantly more negative responses and outcomes despite intense treatment. In removing my text the editor removed the international collaborative context, especially the work of Svante Pääbo (a Swedish/Estonian scientist who could succeed his father in receiving the Nobel prize) in the development of the hypothesis and its confirmation, that good faith editor terming it "fluff." Activist ( talk) 23:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
While I could see a case made that the case studies of greater distances of infection than 6' depending on airflow (see also: [3]), it does need to be placed in the proper context and lower prominence than the recommendations of various public health organizations. The simplest solution for all of this, however, would be to find a reliable secondary source showing consensus on the topic. I expect a secondary source stating that transmission >6' is possible but rare can be found, I think it's less likely we'll find one on the Neanderthal finding. Bakkster Man ( talk) 17:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)If conclusions are worth mentioning (such as large randomized clinical trials with surprising results), they should be described appropriately as from a single study... If no reviews on the subject are published in a reasonable amount of time, then the content and primary source should be removed.
Someone seems to keep changing sentences like The virus may also spread via
contaminated surfaces
to The virus may also spread via
fomites (contaminated surfaces)
.
MOS:JARGON is pretty clear about this: Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do
. I'm going to change back to plain English and I urge whoever is doing this to familiarize themselves with the MOS advice on this. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk 23:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Avoid excessive wikilinking (linking within Wikipedia) as a substitute for parenthetic explanations such as the one in this sentence.Which seems to me to encourage the use of parenthetical "simple" descriptions. I don't have an opinion on their use or disuse in this article. But I did want to point out that the policy is not particularly clear on this issue. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 07:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do.MY read would be that we should add a parenthetical explanation for the word 'fomite' if we're directly quoting a source which uses that word, and otherwise the more common alternative of contaminated surfaces (with the wl to the article people can read more) is most appropriate. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following to the History#Possible earlier cases section after the existing text there
However conclusions from the study were questioned because such antibody tests can show up a lot of false positives, and at the time in the area there also wasn't a dramatic uptick in pneumonia-like cases corresponding to the study's ratio of positives. [1]
Explanation:
The section is based on a single reference, a news report by the site "Lovin malta", which is reporting on another news report by 112 Ukraine, which is affiliated with Viktor Medvedchuk. There are more credible sites reporting on this.
If you read about it in Live Science they include commentary:
But it's hard to imagine that a substantial fraction of the population was infected with SARS-CoV-2 in September in Italy without a dramatic uptick in pneumonia-like cases then. For instance, in Spain, far less than 10% of the population tested positive for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in the summer, despite the fact that 28,000 people had died from COVID-19 up to that point, according to a survey published in August in the journal The Lancet.
"I would be very cautious," about these findings, said Dr. George Rutherford, professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco, who was also not a part of the study. The results "have to be confirmed with different antibody tests," that look for the prevalence of antibodies that target other parts of the coronavirus.
His previous experience has shown that such antibody tests for the coronavirus' RBD can create a lot of false positives, Rutherford told Live Science. And because this is "such an unexpected finding," it should be confirmed with other antibody tests such as those that look for antibodies against another one of the coronavirus' proteins, an outer coat called a "nucleocapsid," which is also unique to the novel coronavirus, he said.
So it only makes sense to mention that as well.
-- 176.72.77.137 ( talk) 08:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
References
You can change the wording. Can someone at least comment? -- 176.72.77.137 ( talk) 00:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I spotted a double "such as such as" in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.197.217.12 ( talk • contribs)
I was just reading the subsection Medications on Remdesivir and found that it did not flow well. I think the subsection would benefit from a reordering of the sentences, with attention to the chronology, and with some slight adjustment to the wording. The current 3rd paragraph could be used to open the subsection. It would also benefit from being inverted, and a brief description of what Remdesivir is, such as: "a broad-spectrum antiviral medication". The first sentence would then read as:
On 1 May 2020, Remdesivir, a broad-spectrum antiviral medication, was given an emergency use authorization (EUA) for people hospitalized with severe COVID-19 by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Then it would flow into the next sentence refering 28 August 2020 with the word "By" leading in:
By 28 August 2020, the FDA broadened the EUA for remdesivir to include all hospitalized patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, irrespective of the severity of their disease.
Then the sentence starting: "In Australia and the European Union" could be tagged on the end as this might benefit from a chronological context as 3 of the 4 sources for this sentence are dated August 2020. The next sentence of the 2nd paragraph would read:
The same month, remdesivir (Veklury) was indicated in Australia and the European Union for the treatment of COVID-19 in adults and adolescents aged twelve years and older with body weight at least 40 kilograms (88 lb) with pneumonia requiring supplemental oxygen.
The 3rd paragraph could start "Remdesivir was approved for medical use in the United States in October 2020 but should be combine with the sentence starting "As of late October 2020, Remdesivir was the only drug..." as these sentences say more or less the same thing. The third paragraph could look something like:
As of late October 2020, Remdesivir was the only treatment for COVID-19 approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for medical use in the United States. It is indicated for use in adults and adolescents aged twelve years and older with body weight at least 40 kilograms (88 lb) for the treatment of COVID-19 requiring hospitalization.
The reworked subsection would close with the last remaining sentence, only preceded by the word "In":
In late November 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) made a conditional recommendation against treatment with remdesivir for hospitalized patients, regardless of severity (based on data from the Solidarity Trial).
I've moved the text around in most of the above, but they largely say the same thing. I am hoping that this proposed order might flow better, and better reflect how things developed chronologically speaking. I look forward to hearing what you think of this. SpookiePuppy ( talk) 00:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.145.37.2 ( talk) 14:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
There a big gap here between transmission abundant details and incubation (=the first days of the progression). I can't find any texts regarding passage through airways, landing sites, spike engagement with ACE2, cell penetration, etc. and timelines thereto (minute-by-minute, hour-by-hour). I wouldn't mind even more granular timings (seconds).
Everything I've learned so far about that has been in scattered bits and pieces in articles here and there, and I'm really puzzled*.
I came here to get a sketch and some better sources, and find neither. Somebody who knows something about that subset of the etiology and knows their way around the literature, formal and informal, might want to fill that in. Thank you. _____
*I'm surprised to not even find a one-minute youTube video on this very interesting topic. Just about everything else under the sun is covered. JohndanR ( talk) 22:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
The first case was identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. It has since spread worldwide, leading to an ongoing pandemic.
This suggest the virus is from Wuhan and started in December 2019. This is not confirmed. Please reword this segment.
172.98.159.139 ( talk) 16:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
172.98.159.139 ( talk) 18:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the Duration from 5 days to 10 months+...to just short to long term. Also to added references beside the duration section. [1]
Because most people can recovered in 1 to 2 weeks. But are there some people which can have longer effects like lingering or symptoms which comes and go. 80.233.48.106 ( talk) 18:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
References
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
B11K. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 16#B11K until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,
Rosguill
talk 18:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Does Wikipedia have legal exposure for failing to include Ivermectin as a treatment option? Ivermectin has USFDA approval and has the same USNIH rating as other medications that Wikipedia considers acceptable for COVID-19.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 01:53, 19 January 2021 (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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 19 |
This article has consistently had a dangerous bias against the possibility of transmission via contaminated surfaces, misrepresenting sources. For example, the conclusion to the most recent source clearly states "Two modes of transmission exist—direct and indirect. The direct mode includes transmission via aerosols, anal (feco-oral) secretions, tears, saliva, semen, and mother-to-child. Indirect modes include transmission via fomites [contaminated surfaces]. Several of these modes may be underestimated". The language of this study is less than perfect (direct and indirect modes as defined in the conclusion are not mutually inclusive and in fact the indirect mode requires the things listed as direct. It also contradicts the language used in other sources that assumes aerosols can be an indirect mode: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-69286-3), but other reliable sources (some of which appear to have been removed from the section) agree that there are multiple likely/possible modes of transmission. Instead this was simply misrepresented as "transmission by surfaces has not been conclusively demonstrated". This might be technically correct but it is not what the source says and it is extremely misleading and DANGEROUS to misrepresent the sources in this way, especially as the source does not say it has been "conclusively demonstrated" that surface transmission is rare either. Even the cases where close contact happened cannot generally rule out that they touched the same surface, so we really don't know how common each mode of transmission is. Mr G ( talk) 21:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7454106/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-69286-3
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195670120300463
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs42399-020-00498-4
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30678-2/fulltext
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30514-2/fulltext (waning, this study has a sample size of ONE hospital ward which only found ONE positive swab due to hospital cleaning practices. very weak evidence. the above article relies on this)
I've significantly restored the WP:MEDRS sourcing and content of this section as it had gotten out of hand. In the lead especially we should stick to reliable secondary medical sources such as the WHO or CDC/ECDC. it seems we had slowly drifted away from those sources and the content had become confusing/incorrect/imprecise. Please review my edits and let's ensure we stick to WP:MEDRS for this crucial page. -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 12:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
The section on IFR is grossly out of date. The best current estimates that I can find are those used by the MRC Biostatistics unit in Cambridge, UK Here:(In the section "Epidemic Summary", click on the tab labelled IFR), and reported by the BBC here.
I'd like to propose adding a paragraph immediately after the first paragraph of the IFR section as follows:
The fatality rate of Covid-19 varies greatly by the age of the patient, so that the average IFR of any population will vary by the demomgraphics of that population. The more useful measure is how the Infection Fatality Rate varies by age. The MRC Biostatistics Unit at the University of Cambridge currently (as of November 2020) uses the following estimates of IFR by age:
Age | IFR |
---|---|
Overall | 0.69% |
0-4y | 0.00051% |
5-14y | 0.0017% |
15-24y | 0.0034% |
25-44y | 0.027% |
45-64y | 0.37% |
65-74y | 2.3% |
Over 75y | 15% |
Normally I would be WP:BOLD, and just add this text but as this is not peer-reviewed data, then I thought I should seek consensus here first. Hallucegenia ( talk) 16:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Across 51 locations, the median COVID-19 infection fatality rate was 0.27% (corrected 0.23%): the rate was 0.09% in locations with COVID-19 population mortality rates less than the global average (< 118 deaths/million), 0.20% in locations with 118–500 COVID-19 deaths/million people and 0.57% in locations with > 500 COVID-19 deaths/million people. In people < 70 years, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.31% with crude and corrected medians of 0.05%.
We have three different summaries of COVID-19 signs and symptoms in the following topics:
My initial thought was to consolidate and fine tune the best summary into Symptoms of COVID-19 and then transclude the first two paragraphs elsewhere. However, I think that we can actually merge the breakout back into Coronavirus disease 2019 § Signs and symptoms (as previously done with Mortality and Prognosis breakouts) and transclude from there to the pandemic topic. The bottom of the breakout (Complications and Longer-term effects) is already included in the main disease topic. So it would just be a matter of adding the bulleted symptoms list from the breakout and merging duplicate paragraphs that have slightly diverged. It would not substantially lengthen this topic. Thoughts? - Wikmoz ( talk) 19:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Gtoffoletto, Tenryuu, Moxy, Bakkster Man, Ovinus Real, Sdkb, RealFakeKim, and Doc James: Inviting for comment since this is related to the content de-duplication effort being discussed in the COVID-19 pandemic thread. Traffic to the breakout is not insubstantial but still well below the reader and editor eyeballs on this topic and I think a majority of the traffic is coming from the 'Main article' links in this topic and the pandemic topic (can test if necessary). - Wikmoz ( talk) 19:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Should we adopt a similar approach for other sections covered by subarticles? I think the "transclusion of the lead into the main article and deep dive in the sub article" makes sense in all cases to avoid duplication of content and out of date content.
@ Wikmoz, John P. Sadowski (NIOSH), Shameran81, and WhatamIdoing: thoughts? We could adopt it as a general guideline in {{ Current_COVID-19_Project_Consensus}} -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 00:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
How about:
To avoid duplication: when a section within a general article is covered by a specific sub-article on that topic the guideline is to transclude the lead of the specific sub-article into the general article with a link to read more
I would something like this to the consensus template for general reference. -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 19:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC) @ Wikmoz, John P. Sadowski (NIOSH), Tenryuu, and WhatamIdoing: should we add this to the consensus template? -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 02:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the second sentence of the third paragraph, change "he" to they in order to be less gender specific Mattyice21 ( talk) 02:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I haven't monitored this page as closely as COVID-19 pandemic, and checking back in on it, I'm disappointed to see that the lead was substantially better a month or two ago than it is now. Seriously, who thought it was a good idea to remove a link to COVID-19 pandemic? (No, the hatnote isn't sufficient, since those are supposed to be disambiguatory, not informative.) The descriptions have also lost their conciseness and jargon such as "fomites" has been needlessly added. I'm not sure who's responsible and haven't checked, but someone competent needs to start paying attention, and I urge those less competent to self-reflect enough to realize that their contributions are not helping. It shouldn't be such a struggle to keep this page on an upward rather than downward path. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 22:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Similar to how the COVID pandemic lead update discussion is ongoing, we have to update the lead as vaccines have started being distributed, and a patient in UK has been discharged after being injected. Gerald WL 03:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm removing this:
The COVID-19 Clinical Research Coalition has goals to 1) facilitate rapid reviews of clinical trial proposals by ethics committees and national regulatory agencies, 2) fast-track approvals for the candidate therapeutic compounds, 3) ensure standardised and rapid analysis of emerging efficacy and safety data and 4) facilitate sharing of clinical trial outcomes before publication. [1] [2]
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
from COVID-19#Research, because I don't think it really fits in this article. It probably fits in another one; maybe someone can find it a new home? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
There's so more work that needs to be done in de-duping treatment content. We should not have two different medication sections:
Can someone help consolidate into Treatment and management of COVID-19?
It looks like there may be more content that needs to be moved from Research but approved medications seems like the higher priority. - Wikmoz ( talk) 06:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I propose that the recommendation in the next section based on markedly better hospital outcomes for COVID patients who were not vitamin D deficient be incorporated into the article.
COVID-19
Vitamin D and COVID 19: The Evidence for Prevention and Treatment of Coronavirus (SARS CoV 2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha2mLz-Xdpg
Premiered Dec 10, 2020
Professor Roger Seheult, MD explains the important role Vitamin D may have in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Dr. Seheult illustrates how Vitamin D works, summarizes the best available data and clinical trials on vitamin D, and discusses vitamin D dosage recommendations.
Roger Seheult, MD is the co-founder and lead professor at https://www.medcram.com
He is an Associate Professor at the University of California, Riverside School of Medicine and Assistant Prof. at Loma Linda University School of Medicine
Dr. Seheult is Quadruple Board Certified: Internal Medicine, Pulmonary Disease, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine
Interviewer: Kyle Allred, Producer and Co-Founder of MedCram.com
REFERENCES:
The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS)... (J. of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology) | https://www.researchgate.net/publicat...
Aging decreases the capacity of human skin to produce vitamin D3 (The J. of Clinical Investigation) | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2997282/
Racial differences in the relationship between vitamin D... (Osteoporosis Int.) | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
Decreased bioavailability of vitamin D in obesity (The American J of Clinical Nutrition) | https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article...
Vitamin D Insufficiency and Deficiency and Mortality from Respiratory Diseases ... (Nutrients) | https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/12/8/2488
Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: systematic review and meta-analysis... (BMJ) | https://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.i...
Randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation to prevent seasonal influenza A... (The American J.of Clinical Nutrition) | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20219...
Vitamin D and SARS-CoV-2 infection... (Irish J. of Medical Science) | https://link.springer.com/article/10....
Factors associated with COVID-19-related death... (Nature) | https://www.nature.com/articles/s4158...
Editorial: low population mortality from COVID-19 ... (Alimentary Pharm. & Therap.) | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32311...
The role of vitamin D in the prevention of coronavirus ... (Aging Clinical & Experimental Research) | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
25-Hydroxyvitamin D Concentrations Are Lower in Patients with ... SARS-CoV-2 (Nutrients) | https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/12/5/1359
Vitamin D deficiency in COVID-19: Mixing up cause and consequence (Metabolism) | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
Low plasma 25(OH) vitamin D level... increased risk of COVID-19... (The FEBS J.) | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32700...
The link between vitamin D deficiency and Covid-19... | https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.11...
SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates... with circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels (PLOS One) | https://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...
Vitamin D status and outcomes for... COVID-19 (Postgrad Medical J.) | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
Vitamin D Deficiency and Outcome of COVID-19... (Nutrients) | https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/12/9/2757
“Effect of calcifediol treatment...” (The J. of Steroid Bio. and Molec. Bio.) | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
Vitamin D and survival in COVID-19 patients... (The J. of Steroid Bio. and Molec. Bio.) | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
Effect of Vitamin D3 ... vs Placebo on Hospital Length of Stay...: A Multicenter, Double-blind, Randomized Controlled Trial | https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.11...
Short term, high-dose vitamin D... for COVID-19 disease: a randomized, placebo-controlled, study [SHADE study] (Postgraduate Medical Journal) | https://pmj.bmj.com/content/early/202...
Association of Vitamin D Status... With COVID-19 Test Results (JAMA Network Open) | https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama...
Vitamin D Fortification of Fluid Milk ... A Review (Nutrients) | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
Analysis of vitamin D level among asymptomatic and critically ill COVID-19 patients... (Scientific Reports from the Journal Nature) | https://www.nature.com/articles/s4159... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdctx ( talk • contribs) 00:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
However, the NICE source seems to contradict this slightly:Vitamin D deficiency was not associated with a higher chance of infection by COVID-19 (OR = 1.35; 95% CI = 0.80–1.88), but we identified that severe cases of COVID-19 present 64% (OR = 1.64; 95% CI = 1.30–2.09) more vitamin D deficiency compared with mild cases. A vitamin D concentration insufficiency increased hospitalization (OR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.41–2.21) and mortality from COVID-19 (OR = 1.82, 95% CI = 1.06–2.58). We observed a positive association between vitamin D deficiency and the severity of the disease... However, there is no support for supplementation among groups with normal blood vitamin D values with the aim of prevention, prophylaxis or reducing the severity of the disease.
And the BML meta-analysis from 2017 of general respiratory infection protection, which is not COVID specific and the conclusion was :There is no evidence to support taking vitamin D supplements to specifically prevent or treat COVID‑19. However, all people should continue to follow UK Government advice on daily vitamin D supplementation to maintain bone and muscle health during the COVID‑19 pandemic.
Combined, these seem to suggest less that Vitamin D is a treatment for COVID-19, and rather that (per the first source in particular) Vitamin D deficiency may be a risk factor for COVID-19 (amongst all the other health risks of deficiency). Personally, I think we should trim that section to primarily these three sources, focusing on the deficiency link and noting there is no COVID-specific recommendation for supplements from an authoritative source. Other sources that expand on these discussions (Mayo Clinic link, for instance) would be welcome. I might take a stab at this later, thanks for mentioning it. Bakkster Man ( talk) 17:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Vitamin D supplementation was safe and it protected against acute respiratory tract infection overall. Patients who were very vitamin D deficient and those not receiving bolus doses experienced the most benefit.
I propose that the following recommendation and the findings on which it is based be incorporated into the article.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-77093-
Article
Open Access
Published: 19 November 2020
Analysis of vitamin D level among asymptomatic and critically ill COVID-19 patients and its correlation with inflammatory markers
Anshul Jain1, Rachna Chaurasia2, Narendra Singh Sengar3, Mayank Singh4, Sachin Mahor5 & Sumit Narain4
Scientific Reports volume 10, Article number: 20191 (2020) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdctx ( talk • contribs) 01:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I am surprised to see that this article doesn't talk much about strains, and doesn't talk at all about serotypes and Cluster 5. I'm thinking about adding this paragraph to the end of the virology heading.
SARS-CoV-2 has at least six main strains as of August 2020. The main strains are L, S, V, G, GR, and GH. Strain L was the first strain, discovered in Wuhan in December 2019. As of August 2020, strain G (and related strains GR and GH) are the most widespread. Strains L and V are gradually disappearing. [1] In addition, there are some infrequent mutations. Cluster 5 was a rare but virulent strain that was discovered in mink farms and mink farmers in Denmark. Denmark engaged in a mink euthanasia campaign [2], and is believed to have eradicated Cluster 5. The number of SARS-CoV-2 serotypes is currently unknown.
Source for the strains is ScienceDaily.com. It says it got its material from "Daniele Mercatelli, Federico M. Giorgi. Geographic and Genomic Distribution of SARS-CoV-2 Mutations. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2020; 11 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.01800". I don't know if that's a "preprint" or not, how does one tell?
A serotype is in my opinion very important data to include in an article about a pandemic. A strain is any change at all to the genetics, whereas a serotype is a change to the genetics that changes the antibody needed to fight/kill the pathogen. The number of serotypes is very important from a vaccination perspective. It's the difference between the disease being easy to vaccinate (measles - 1 serotype), versus having to change vaccines every year (flu - medium # of serotypes), versus the disease being impractical to vaccinate (rhinovirus aka common cold - high # of serotypes). I suspect the # of serotypes for COVID is 1, but I googled hard, and I couldn't find an article that explicitly stated this. Nevertheless, I believe it important to include a sentence on serotypes in this article. Maybe it will inspire somebody to find an article and specify the #.
Any objections? If comments are positive, I'll go ahead and add this, and you guys can edit the details once it's in the article. Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 17:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Apokrif ( talk) 13:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Editorialised to include the example sentence. It seems it could be either, though in this case, I find "do" to be more phonically pleasing than "does". — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) ( 🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 02:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)In [One in a hundred students take/takes drugs], however, the head is plural, but the verb can be singular as well as plural.
References
In the Virology section, variants of the virus are discussed. (Arguably this belongs in Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, but e.g. Cluster 5 is covered in this disease article, not in that virus article.)
The variant N501Y, now prevalent in London, allegedly no more lethal but significantly more contagious than former strands, appears not to be mentioned in Wikipedia at all. Of course, a good source would be needed.-- Nø ( talk) 10:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I posted the results of a " natural experiment" in South Korea that found that recent spread of COVID-19 had occurred in a restaurant from a host to a 16-year old victim, at a distance of 20' apart, and during a maximum 5-minute exposure at that distance. A good-faith editor removed my edit as representing only a single example and therefore not sufficiently significant and perhaps conclusionary. In fact, the P.R.C. CDC had noted the likely insufficiency of a six-foot distance as early as late January, 2020. I'll add those cites. South Korea found an early instance of a superspreader who was a member of a large congregation of a denomination, denialists that preached that illness had causation in "sin." Historical superspreaders have their own Wikipedia articles, of course, including Gaëtan Dugas and Mary Mallon being among the most famous. The editor had deleted my well-sourced and notable details, as emanating from only a single instance, and therefore not worthy of mention. Another editor deleted partial documentation of a study that determined that the presence of a frequent residual fragment of Western European Neanderthal DNA made such victims of COVID-19 much more susceptible to highly negative outcomes of infection, produced more likely hospitalizations, fatalities, and markedly constrained the success of conventional inpatient treatment producing significantly more negative responses and outcomes despite intense treatment. In removing my text the editor removed the international collaborative context, especially the work of Svante Pääbo (a Swedish/Estonian scientist who could succeed his father in receiving the Nobel prize) in the development of the hypothesis and its confirmation, that good faith editor terming it "fluff." Activist ( talk) 23:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
While I could see a case made that the case studies of greater distances of infection than 6' depending on airflow (see also: [3]), it does need to be placed in the proper context and lower prominence than the recommendations of various public health organizations. The simplest solution for all of this, however, would be to find a reliable secondary source showing consensus on the topic. I expect a secondary source stating that transmission >6' is possible but rare can be found, I think it's less likely we'll find one on the Neanderthal finding. Bakkster Man ( talk) 17:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)If conclusions are worth mentioning (such as large randomized clinical trials with surprising results), they should be described appropriately as from a single study... If no reviews on the subject are published in a reasonable amount of time, then the content and primary source should be removed.
Someone seems to keep changing sentences like The virus may also spread via
contaminated surfaces
to The virus may also spread via
fomites (contaminated surfaces)
.
MOS:JARGON is pretty clear about this: Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do
. I'm going to change back to plain English and I urge whoever is doing this to familiarize themselves with the MOS advice on this. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk 23:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Avoid excessive wikilinking (linking within Wikipedia) as a substitute for parenthetic explanations such as the one in this sentence.Which seems to me to encourage the use of parenthetical "simple" descriptions. I don't have an opinion on their use or disuse in this article. But I did want to point out that the policy is not particularly clear on this issue. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 07:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do.MY read would be that we should add a parenthetical explanation for the word 'fomite' if we're directly quoting a source which uses that word, and otherwise the more common alternative of contaminated surfaces (with the wl to the article people can read more) is most appropriate. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following to the History#Possible earlier cases section after the existing text there
However conclusions from the study were questioned because such antibody tests can show up a lot of false positives, and at the time in the area there also wasn't a dramatic uptick in pneumonia-like cases corresponding to the study's ratio of positives. [1]
Explanation:
The section is based on a single reference, a news report by the site "Lovin malta", which is reporting on another news report by 112 Ukraine, which is affiliated with Viktor Medvedchuk. There are more credible sites reporting on this.
If you read about it in Live Science they include commentary:
But it's hard to imagine that a substantial fraction of the population was infected with SARS-CoV-2 in September in Italy without a dramatic uptick in pneumonia-like cases then. For instance, in Spain, far less than 10% of the population tested positive for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in the summer, despite the fact that 28,000 people had died from COVID-19 up to that point, according to a survey published in August in the journal The Lancet.
"I would be very cautious," about these findings, said Dr. George Rutherford, professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco, who was also not a part of the study. The results "have to be confirmed with different antibody tests," that look for the prevalence of antibodies that target other parts of the coronavirus.
His previous experience has shown that such antibody tests for the coronavirus' RBD can create a lot of false positives, Rutherford told Live Science. And because this is "such an unexpected finding," it should be confirmed with other antibody tests such as those that look for antibodies against another one of the coronavirus' proteins, an outer coat called a "nucleocapsid," which is also unique to the novel coronavirus, he said.
So it only makes sense to mention that as well.
-- 176.72.77.137 ( talk) 08:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
References
You can change the wording. Can someone at least comment? -- 176.72.77.137 ( talk) 00:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I spotted a double "such as such as" in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.197.217.12 ( talk • contribs)
I was just reading the subsection Medications on Remdesivir and found that it did not flow well. I think the subsection would benefit from a reordering of the sentences, with attention to the chronology, and with some slight adjustment to the wording. The current 3rd paragraph could be used to open the subsection. It would also benefit from being inverted, and a brief description of what Remdesivir is, such as: "a broad-spectrum antiviral medication". The first sentence would then read as:
On 1 May 2020, Remdesivir, a broad-spectrum antiviral medication, was given an emergency use authorization (EUA) for people hospitalized with severe COVID-19 by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Then it would flow into the next sentence refering 28 August 2020 with the word "By" leading in:
By 28 August 2020, the FDA broadened the EUA for remdesivir to include all hospitalized patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, irrespective of the severity of their disease.
Then the sentence starting: "In Australia and the European Union" could be tagged on the end as this might benefit from a chronological context as 3 of the 4 sources for this sentence are dated August 2020. The next sentence of the 2nd paragraph would read:
The same month, remdesivir (Veklury) was indicated in Australia and the European Union for the treatment of COVID-19 in adults and adolescents aged twelve years and older with body weight at least 40 kilograms (88 lb) with pneumonia requiring supplemental oxygen.
The 3rd paragraph could start "Remdesivir was approved for medical use in the United States in October 2020 but should be combine with the sentence starting "As of late October 2020, Remdesivir was the only drug..." as these sentences say more or less the same thing. The third paragraph could look something like:
As of late October 2020, Remdesivir was the only treatment for COVID-19 approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for medical use in the United States. It is indicated for use in adults and adolescents aged twelve years and older with body weight at least 40 kilograms (88 lb) for the treatment of COVID-19 requiring hospitalization.
The reworked subsection would close with the last remaining sentence, only preceded by the word "In":
In late November 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) made a conditional recommendation against treatment with remdesivir for hospitalized patients, regardless of severity (based on data from the Solidarity Trial).
I've moved the text around in most of the above, but they largely say the same thing. I am hoping that this proposed order might flow better, and better reflect how things developed chronologically speaking. I look forward to hearing what you think of this. SpookiePuppy ( talk) 00:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.145.37.2 ( talk) 14:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
There a big gap here between transmission abundant details and incubation (=the first days of the progression). I can't find any texts regarding passage through airways, landing sites, spike engagement with ACE2, cell penetration, etc. and timelines thereto (minute-by-minute, hour-by-hour). I wouldn't mind even more granular timings (seconds).
Everything I've learned so far about that has been in scattered bits and pieces in articles here and there, and I'm really puzzled*.
I came here to get a sketch and some better sources, and find neither. Somebody who knows something about that subset of the etiology and knows their way around the literature, formal and informal, might want to fill that in. Thank you. _____
*I'm surprised to not even find a one-minute youTube video on this very interesting topic. Just about everything else under the sun is covered. JohndanR ( talk) 22:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
The first case was identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. It has since spread worldwide, leading to an ongoing pandemic.
This suggest the virus is from Wuhan and started in December 2019. This is not confirmed. Please reword this segment.
172.98.159.139 ( talk) 16:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
172.98.159.139 ( talk) 18:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the Duration from 5 days to 10 months+...to just short to long term. Also to added references beside the duration section. [1]
Because most people can recovered in 1 to 2 weeks. But are there some people which can have longer effects like lingering or symptoms which comes and go. 80.233.48.106 ( talk) 18:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
References
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
B11K. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 16#B11K until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,
Rosguill
talk 18:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Does Wikipedia have legal exposure for failing to include Ivermectin as a treatment option? Ivermectin has USFDA approval and has the same USNIH rating as other medications that Wikipedia considers acceptable for COVID-19.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 01:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)