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 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the following text to this Wikipedia article in the Treatment#Medications section:
On January 14, 2021, the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines were updated to remove the recommendation against the use of Ivermectin. [1] (See [2], p.17 for an explanation of NIH recommendation language). The recommendation for Ivermectin is now the same as for the widely-used monoclonal antibodies & convalescent plasma. Ivermectin is an FDA-approved pharmaceutical.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 21:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 21:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Back and forth with blocked editor
|
---|
I actually attached two references. The second reference is for the earlier NIH COVID-19 guidelines. The earlier guidelines contain the phrase: "recommends against the use of Ivermectin...". In the updated guidelines this phrase is removed. More importantly, the recommendation is now equivalent to the recommendations for monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma. Re: Alexbrn. His statement "This drug is not approved for use with COVID-19..." is true but misleading. FDA approval was granted for Ivermectin for use in onchocerciasis and strongyloidiasis. Subsequent off-label use does not require de novo FDA approval. -- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 22:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
The NIH guidelines do in fact contain that language and it is obviously a true statement. The flaw is in your interpretation. The facts are straightforward: (a) FDA approval was granted for the use of Ivermectin for onchocerciasis and strongyloidiasis. (b) Subsequent off-label use of Ivermectin does not require FDA review. In other words: interesting but irrelevant.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 23:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I hope I don't come across as pushing an agenda. I'm not. I am just trying to make an improvement to this article. The list of medications for treatment of COVID-19 seems arbitrary. I will be more specific. Ivermectin like Baricitinib is an FDA approved drug with the neutral NIH endorsement. As it stands however, Wikipedia included Baricitinib in the treatment options while excluding Ivermectin. I strongly suggest keeping as close as possible to governmental guidance on this issue. There is controversy within the medical community on this issue and Wikipedia should steer clear of that. Let me also address your specific concerns. As far as the mention of onchocerciasis and strongyloidiasis; those are mentioned only to make the point that Ivermectin is FDA approved. The misconception is that if Ivermectin was approved for onchocerciasis and strongyloidiasis that it is limited to treatment of those diseases. As every physician in the US knows, all drugs can be used off-label. As such, when Ivermectin was approved for use against onchocerciasis and strongyloidiasis, it was effectively approved for COVID-19. It is a semantic trick to say that Ivermectin was not FDA-approved for treatment of any viruses. Technically, yes, it was not approved for COVID-19. But it's also true that COVID-19 is an approved use for Ivermectin by virtue of the fact that it doesn't matter which disease a given drug was approved for originally. Let me reiterate. Neutrality in editing is important in all articles at Wikipedia. It is extraordinarily important in an article on treatment options for COVID-19.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 02:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
No offence intended. The NIH endorsement is just a useful metric in this particular case. However, I don't want to take a position on which standards Wikipedia should be using for inclusion of medications in this article. -- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 03:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
"And apparently there was discussion on this and editors reached a consensus." Do you know if it is available to read through? I would definitely be interested. -- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 04:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC) There have been multiple discussions about the sources on Ivermectin which you have been part of. In reviewing many of these discussions it's pretty clear you are pushing for inclusion in a way that is not supported by Reliable Sources and there is a general agreement with in those discussions on this. I am not aware of a formal consensus if that's what you're looking for. But meeting the same kind of resistance from multiple experienced editors is troublesome. Littleolive oil ( talk) 01:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC) |
Back and forth with blocked editor
|
---|
The NIH source above is on a webpage entitled "Statement on Ivermectin".-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 13:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC) I am going to make a general summary of my appeal for an edit to this page. Before I do so, I realize it is important to address concerns expressed to me about style. They did not use these words but I think their concern could be summarized as "You are a acting like a bull in a china shop." I am concerned about that and I don't mean to offend the culture of Wikipedia of which I am admittedly only just getting to know. However, I see that Wikipedia finds itself at the intersection of an extraordinary controversy in medicine that it cannot simply wish away. A novel and extremely surprising treatment has come along outside of the normal Pharma pathways. The treatment does not have a promotional division that can overcome hurdles at regulatory agencies. And yet it has. On the strength of its effectiveness alone. At present however, our COVID-19#Treatment#Medications has excluded this medication while it has equal USFDA/USNIH status with medications on that list. In its current state, the Wikipedia reader might come to the conclusion that Ivermectin is inferior to a medication such as Baricitinib which is on the list. Put another way, as it is, the Wikipedia article contradicts the recommendations of the USNIH. There are two reasonable options to remove Wikipedia from this position:
OR
The status quo of this article is a very serious violation of Wikipedia norms of neutrality. More importantly, it is giving incomplete information to the Wikipedia reader. -- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 03:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I think some of the confusion stems from the fact the NIH makes the same statement about Ivermectin as the two monoclonal antibody treatments ("At this time, there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of..."), while one has EUA (monoclonals) but the other does not. Would the addition of a qualifier to the statement regarding availability of monoclonal antibodies to include "EUA" and the inclusion of the statement "At this time, there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of..." reduce ambiguity? Sloorbeadle ( talk) 07:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
A couple of issues with the sentence: "Despite ongoing research, there is still not enough high-quality evidence to recommend so-called early treatment.[177][178]"
A couple of issues with this sentence: "Nevertheless, in the United States, two monoclonal antibody-based therapies are available for early use in cases thought to be at high risk of progression to severe disease.[178]"
Regarding the earlier recommendation of Sloorbeadle: I strongly advise editors to stay away from legal interpretation. The U.S. agencies provide enumerated evaluation systems so that there is no need for interpretation. The USFDA either approves or disapproves the use of a drug/device. The USNIH gives a recommendation to a therapy for COVID-19 at one of four enumerated levels ( [4], page 17). The monoclonal antibody therapies and Ivermectin have equivalent recommendatons/approvals in those two systems.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 16:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Two things: (1) MartinezMD makes a regulatory judgement without a supporting source; that the EUA for Baricitinib gives it a regulatory status superior to that of Ivermectin which has standard USFDA approval. (2) MartinezMD asserts without a supporting source that Baricitinib also has much stronger evidence for benefit. I will abandon my advocacy for the inclusion of Ivermectin if a single credible source can be provided to support either assertion. -- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 01:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
References
|
This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the following to the treatment category
There is a study that if pyronaridin and altesunate(sold under the brand name Pyramax which is a fixed-dose combination medication are used in combination), it will have a therapeutic effect to moderate to severe SARS-COV-2. https://www.cell.com/trends/parasitology/fulltext/S1471-4922(20)30364-0
PaperNerd ( talk) 05:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations.Peaceray ( talk) 06:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
What the french is this? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Tocilizumab&action=edit§ion=8 only list it’s on is an export ban.
Ivermectin info from RCT reviews and even best practice guidelines is censored from this article but not expensive proprietary drugs? WP CoI policy is failing and as a result more people are dying from covid every day. -- 2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:A3 ( talk) 19:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect COVID-019. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 30#COVID-019 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Crazy Boy 826 20:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
A study found that being a health care worker is not associated with poorer outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, but was associated with lower intensive care unit admission rates and a shorter overall hospital length of stay. [1] However, the physical, psychological, and social burden of COVID-19 was found to be significant. Health care workers experienced depression, anxiety, insomnia, frustration and stigmatization. [2] [3]
WKeditorinchief ( talk) 16:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect COVID-20. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 3#COVID-20 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
From this report I've learned that even asymptomatic cases can develop lung damage that is severe and may be permanent (even if it isn't always; there are people who report that it cleared up spontaneously for them after a while). This is absolutely scary stuff. I feel we really need to mention this, to counter all the misinformation and downplaying going on. Neither here nor in Long COVID do I find this laid out clearly. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 15:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
How's this?
Injury to the lungs, by a variety of mechanisms, is the most common problem in COVID-19 "By a variety of mechanisms, the lungs are the organs most affected in COVID-19".
[1] The majority of CT scans performed show lung abnormalities in people tested after 28 days of illness.
[2]
People with advanced age, severe disease, prolonged ICU stays, or who smoke are more likely to have long lasting effects, including pulmonary fibrosis.
[3] Overall, approximately one third of those investigated after 4 weeks will have findings of
pulmonary fibrosis or reduced lung function as measured by
DLCO, even in people who are asymptomatic, but with the suggestion of continuing improvement with the passing of more time.
[1]"
Echoing my math teacher, check my work please. I can add it, with well-proposed revisions, if the editors agree. The sources have a lot of information, but teasing out the appropriate summarized detail is not easy. MartinezMD ( talk) 07:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
References
Recently doctors find fungal infection on rise among those who recovered from Covid-19 Source Rizosome ( talk) 02:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
(i) "A retrospective study found that restrictions on gatherings and education facilities along with business closures were effective in limiting the pandemic. The best manner of adopting and relaxing policies are uncertain, however, as conditions vary across locations and times.[152]"
[152] = Brauner, Jan M.; Mindermann, Sören; Sharma, Mrinank; Johnston, David; Salvatier, John; Gavenčiak, Tomáš; Stephenson, Anna B.; Leech, Gavin; Altman, George; Mikulik, Vladimir; Norman, Alexander John; Monrad, Joshua Teperowski; Besiroglu, Tamay; Ge, Hong; Hartwick, Meghan A.; Teh, Yee Whye; Chindelevitch, Leonid; Gal, Yarin; Kulveit, Jan (15 December 2020). "Inferring the effectiveness of government interventions against COVID-19". Science: eabd9338. doi:10.1126/science.abd9338. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 33323424. S2CID 229282008.
This is an original research article and hence, a primary source. To my understanding it is therefore not WP:MEDRS.
(ii) "Non-cooperation with distancing measures in some areas has contributed to the further spread of the pandemic.[150]" [150]= Ward A (28 April 2020). "Has Sweden found the best response to the coronavirus? Its death rate suggests it hasn't". Vox. Retrieved 30 April 2020.
A news website is to my understanding also not WP:MEDRS. Lucleon ( talk) 22:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
Graham Beards (
talk) 22:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Towards the end of the third paragraph in the beginning of the article, there is a typo. "Serveral testing methods have been developed to diagnose the disease." "Serveral" being the typo. Joolsrules ( talk) 20:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
The data and one of graphs are getting dated. Do we need to cover the epidemiology in full here when we have COVID-19 pandemic? (And please don't suggest anymore transclusions, which make the page difficult to edit). Graham Beards ( talk) 14:07, 10 February 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 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the following text to this Wikipedia article in the Treatment#Medications section:
On January 14, 2021, the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines were updated to remove the recommendation against the use of Ivermectin. [1] (See [2], p.17 for an explanation of NIH recommendation language). The recommendation for Ivermectin is now the same as for the widely-used monoclonal antibodies & convalescent plasma. Ivermectin is an FDA-approved pharmaceutical.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 21:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 21:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Back and forth with blocked editor
|
---|
I actually attached two references. The second reference is for the earlier NIH COVID-19 guidelines. The earlier guidelines contain the phrase: "recommends against the use of Ivermectin...". In the updated guidelines this phrase is removed. More importantly, the recommendation is now equivalent to the recommendations for monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma. Re: Alexbrn. His statement "This drug is not approved for use with COVID-19..." is true but misleading. FDA approval was granted for Ivermectin for use in onchocerciasis and strongyloidiasis. Subsequent off-label use does not require de novo FDA approval. -- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 22:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
The NIH guidelines do in fact contain that language and it is obviously a true statement. The flaw is in your interpretation. The facts are straightforward: (a) FDA approval was granted for the use of Ivermectin for onchocerciasis and strongyloidiasis. (b) Subsequent off-label use of Ivermectin does not require FDA review. In other words: interesting but irrelevant.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 23:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I hope I don't come across as pushing an agenda. I'm not. I am just trying to make an improvement to this article. The list of medications for treatment of COVID-19 seems arbitrary. I will be more specific. Ivermectin like Baricitinib is an FDA approved drug with the neutral NIH endorsement. As it stands however, Wikipedia included Baricitinib in the treatment options while excluding Ivermectin. I strongly suggest keeping as close as possible to governmental guidance on this issue. There is controversy within the medical community on this issue and Wikipedia should steer clear of that. Let me also address your specific concerns. As far as the mention of onchocerciasis and strongyloidiasis; those are mentioned only to make the point that Ivermectin is FDA approved. The misconception is that if Ivermectin was approved for onchocerciasis and strongyloidiasis that it is limited to treatment of those diseases. As every physician in the US knows, all drugs can be used off-label. As such, when Ivermectin was approved for use against onchocerciasis and strongyloidiasis, it was effectively approved for COVID-19. It is a semantic trick to say that Ivermectin was not FDA-approved for treatment of any viruses. Technically, yes, it was not approved for COVID-19. But it's also true that COVID-19 is an approved use for Ivermectin by virtue of the fact that it doesn't matter which disease a given drug was approved for originally. Let me reiterate. Neutrality in editing is important in all articles at Wikipedia. It is extraordinarily important in an article on treatment options for COVID-19.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 02:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
No offence intended. The NIH endorsement is just a useful metric in this particular case. However, I don't want to take a position on which standards Wikipedia should be using for inclusion of medications in this article. -- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 03:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
"And apparently there was discussion on this and editors reached a consensus." Do you know if it is available to read through? I would definitely be interested. -- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 04:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC) There have been multiple discussions about the sources on Ivermectin which you have been part of. In reviewing many of these discussions it's pretty clear you are pushing for inclusion in a way that is not supported by Reliable Sources and there is a general agreement with in those discussions on this. I am not aware of a formal consensus if that's what you're looking for. But meeting the same kind of resistance from multiple experienced editors is troublesome. Littleolive oil ( talk) 01:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC) |
Back and forth with blocked editor
|
---|
The NIH source above is on a webpage entitled "Statement on Ivermectin".-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 13:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC) I am going to make a general summary of my appeal for an edit to this page. Before I do so, I realize it is important to address concerns expressed to me about style. They did not use these words but I think their concern could be summarized as "You are a acting like a bull in a china shop." I am concerned about that and I don't mean to offend the culture of Wikipedia of which I am admittedly only just getting to know. However, I see that Wikipedia finds itself at the intersection of an extraordinary controversy in medicine that it cannot simply wish away. A novel and extremely surprising treatment has come along outside of the normal Pharma pathways. The treatment does not have a promotional division that can overcome hurdles at regulatory agencies. And yet it has. On the strength of its effectiveness alone. At present however, our COVID-19#Treatment#Medications has excluded this medication while it has equal USFDA/USNIH status with medications on that list. In its current state, the Wikipedia reader might come to the conclusion that Ivermectin is inferior to a medication such as Baricitinib which is on the list. Put another way, as it is, the Wikipedia article contradicts the recommendations of the USNIH. There are two reasonable options to remove Wikipedia from this position:
OR
The status quo of this article is a very serious violation of Wikipedia norms of neutrality. More importantly, it is giving incomplete information to the Wikipedia reader. -- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 03:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I think some of the confusion stems from the fact the NIH makes the same statement about Ivermectin as the two monoclonal antibody treatments ("At this time, there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of..."), while one has EUA (monoclonals) but the other does not. Would the addition of a qualifier to the statement regarding availability of monoclonal antibodies to include "EUA" and the inclusion of the statement "At this time, there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of..." reduce ambiguity? Sloorbeadle ( talk) 07:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
A couple of issues with the sentence: "Despite ongoing research, there is still not enough high-quality evidence to recommend so-called early treatment.[177][178]"
A couple of issues with this sentence: "Nevertheless, in the United States, two monoclonal antibody-based therapies are available for early use in cases thought to be at high risk of progression to severe disease.[178]"
Regarding the earlier recommendation of Sloorbeadle: I strongly advise editors to stay away from legal interpretation. The U.S. agencies provide enumerated evaluation systems so that there is no need for interpretation. The USFDA either approves or disapproves the use of a drug/device. The USNIH gives a recommendation to a therapy for COVID-19 at one of four enumerated levels ( [4], page 17). The monoclonal antibody therapies and Ivermectin have equivalent recommendatons/approvals in those two systems.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 16:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Two things: (1) MartinezMD makes a regulatory judgement without a supporting source; that the EUA for Baricitinib gives it a regulatory status superior to that of Ivermectin which has standard USFDA approval. (2) MartinezMD asserts without a supporting source that Baricitinib also has much stronger evidence for benefit. I will abandon my advocacy for the inclusion of Ivermectin if a single credible source can be provided to support either assertion. -- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 01:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
References
|
This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the following to the treatment category
There is a study that if pyronaridin and altesunate(sold under the brand name Pyramax which is a fixed-dose combination medication are used in combination), it will have a therapeutic effect to moderate to severe SARS-COV-2. https://www.cell.com/trends/parasitology/fulltext/S1471-4922(20)30364-0
PaperNerd ( talk) 05:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations.Peaceray ( talk) 06:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
What the french is this? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Tocilizumab&action=edit§ion=8 only list it’s on is an export ban.
Ivermectin info from RCT reviews and even best practice guidelines is censored from this article but not expensive proprietary drugs? WP CoI policy is failing and as a result more people are dying from covid every day. -- 2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:A3 ( talk) 19:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect COVID-019. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 30#COVID-019 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Crazy Boy 826 20:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
A study found that being a health care worker is not associated with poorer outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, but was associated with lower intensive care unit admission rates and a shorter overall hospital length of stay. [1] However, the physical, psychological, and social burden of COVID-19 was found to be significant. Health care workers experienced depression, anxiety, insomnia, frustration and stigmatization. [2] [3]
WKeditorinchief ( talk) 16:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect COVID-20. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 3#COVID-20 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
From this report I've learned that even asymptomatic cases can develop lung damage that is severe and may be permanent (even if it isn't always; there are people who report that it cleared up spontaneously for them after a while). This is absolutely scary stuff. I feel we really need to mention this, to counter all the misinformation and downplaying going on. Neither here nor in Long COVID do I find this laid out clearly. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 15:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
How's this?
Injury to the lungs, by a variety of mechanisms, is the most common problem in COVID-19 "By a variety of mechanisms, the lungs are the organs most affected in COVID-19".
[1] The majority of CT scans performed show lung abnormalities in people tested after 28 days of illness.
[2]
People with advanced age, severe disease, prolonged ICU stays, or who smoke are more likely to have long lasting effects, including pulmonary fibrosis.
[3] Overall, approximately one third of those investigated after 4 weeks will have findings of
pulmonary fibrosis or reduced lung function as measured by
DLCO, even in people who are asymptomatic, but with the suggestion of continuing improvement with the passing of more time.
[1]"
Echoing my math teacher, check my work please. I can add it, with well-proposed revisions, if the editors agree. The sources have a lot of information, but teasing out the appropriate summarized detail is not easy. MartinezMD ( talk) 07:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
References
Recently doctors find fungal infection on rise among those who recovered from Covid-19 Source Rizosome ( talk) 02:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
(i) "A retrospective study found that restrictions on gatherings and education facilities along with business closures were effective in limiting the pandemic. The best manner of adopting and relaxing policies are uncertain, however, as conditions vary across locations and times.[152]"
[152] = Brauner, Jan M.; Mindermann, Sören; Sharma, Mrinank; Johnston, David; Salvatier, John; Gavenčiak, Tomáš; Stephenson, Anna B.; Leech, Gavin; Altman, George; Mikulik, Vladimir; Norman, Alexander John; Monrad, Joshua Teperowski; Besiroglu, Tamay; Ge, Hong; Hartwick, Meghan A.; Teh, Yee Whye; Chindelevitch, Leonid; Gal, Yarin; Kulveit, Jan (15 December 2020). "Inferring the effectiveness of government interventions against COVID-19". Science: eabd9338. doi:10.1126/science.abd9338. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 33323424. S2CID 229282008.
This is an original research article and hence, a primary source. To my understanding it is therefore not WP:MEDRS.
(ii) "Non-cooperation with distancing measures in some areas has contributed to the further spread of the pandemic.[150]" [150]= Ward A (28 April 2020). "Has Sweden found the best response to the coronavirus? Its death rate suggests it hasn't". Vox. Retrieved 30 April 2020.
A news website is to my understanding also not WP:MEDRS. Lucleon ( talk) 22:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
Graham Beards (
talk) 22:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Towards the end of the third paragraph in the beginning of the article, there is a typo. "Serveral testing methods have been developed to diagnose the disease." "Serveral" being the typo. Joolsrules ( talk) 20:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
The data and one of graphs are getting dated. Do we need to cover the epidemiology in full here when we have COVID-19 pandemic? (And please don't suggest anymore transclusions, which make the page difficult to edit). Graham Beards ( talk) 14:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)