![]() | 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
@
Bakkster Man and
MartinezMD: While the
NIH cite did rate the quality of all studies as 'Very low', i.e., "Any estimate of effect is very uncertain", the phrasing there is limited evidence
strikes me as too dismissive and that a more appropriate characterization would be some evidence
. Of the 6 studies cited re Association between vitamin D status and COVID-19 cases
, the first 5 were presented with caveats; but the 6th,
Merzon 2020 was presented without caveats:
Merzon 202 did control for demographic variables and found that people with suboptimal serum vitamin D (<75nmol/L) were more likely to contract COVID-19 than people above the threshold OR 1.5 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.98).
Of the 7 studies cited re Association between vitamin D status and COVID-19 severity
,
… Four studies reported mortality as a standalone outcome.
- 3 studies found that a higher measured vitamin D status (Karahan 2020, linear vitamin D measurement) or supplementation before diagnosis (Annweiler 2020, within a month before or up to a week after diagnosis; Annweiler 2020a, supplemented for a year before diagnosis) were negatively associated with death post COVID-19 diagnosis, OR 0.92 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.98), HR 0.11 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.48) and HR 0.07 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.61, respectively Radujkovic 2020 also found that suboptimal serum vitamin D (<30nmol/L) was associated with higher mortality rate, HR 14.73 (95% CI 4.16 to 52.19).
- [In the 4th study:] However, receiving a vitamin D bolus when diagnosed with COVID-19 was as associated with death as no supplementation (HR 0.37 (95% CI 0.06 to 2.21), Annweiler 2020a).
Humanengr ( talk) 05:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The footnote from the NHS at the end of the article para says There have been some reports about vitamin D reducing the risk of coronavirus (COVID-19).
My suggestion comports with that.
[Adding:] Re other suggestions above and in prior discussions (
here and
here), the NIH did not say the evidence was limited
, weak
, unclear
or that there is no good evidence
. That there is some
evidence (per NHS) is the primary point and should be in the body text rather than a footnote.
Rewriting the § in view of this — using the same sources (with some reordering and paring):
In October 2020, the UK National Health Service noted "There have been some reports vitamin D reduces the risk of coronavirus (COVID-19)" along with the following recommendation:
- It's important to take vitamin D as you may have been indoors more than usual this year.
- You should take 10 micrograms (400 IU) of vitamin D a day between October and early March to keep your bones and muscles healthy. [1]
The US NIH has noted, however, that there is no evidence vitamin D is an effective treatment for COVID-19. [2]
The Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health recommends a healthy diet, being physically active, managing psychological stress, and getting enough sleep. [3]
Humanengr ( talk) 13:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
In October 2020, the UK National Health Service noted that "There have been some reports vitamin D reduces the risk of coronavirus (COVID-19). But there is currently not enough evidence to support taking vitamin D to prevent or treat coronavirus" along with the following recommendation: …. With that I'd also remove the 'however' from the NIH sentence. Humanengr ( talk) 03:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
there's no good evidence of any benefit from vitamin D. To avoid misrepresentation, we should begin with what they said verbatim:
In October 2020, the UK National Health Service noted:
- It's important to take vitamin D as you may have been indoors more than usual this year.
- You should take 10 micrograms (400 IU) of vitamin D a day between October and early March to keep your bones and muscles healthy.
- There have been some reports about vitamin D reducing the risk of coronavirus (COVID-19). But there is currently not enough evidence to support taking vitamin D to prevent or treat coronavirus. [4]
"The NIH said, regarding the association between vitamin D status and COVID-19 cases or severity, that "any estimate of effect is very uncertain". Humanengr ( talk) 03:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
lack of evidence; that misrepresents what the NHS said. To address your point re 'noted', we could start with
In October 2020, the UK National Health Service, in a 'Coronavirus update', stated: …. Re quoting, per WP:QUOTE,
quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words.. That's the best guidance we have for this; else we end up with one of us putting words in the mouth of the agencies. Humanengr ( talk) 04:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Agreed there is currently not enough evidence to support taking vitamin D to prevent or treat coronavirus
. But that does not mean there is a lack of evidence
re vitamin D reducing the risk of coronavirus (COVID-19)
. The referents in those two sentences (reducing the risk of coronavirus (COVID-19)
and preventing or treating coronavirus
) are not coextensive. The former can include reducing the severity of symptoms.
I'm ok with your "there is currently not enough evidence to support taking vitamin D to prevent or treat coronavirus" as long as we preface that with the sense of NHS's first sentence, that "there are some reports about Vitamin D reducing the risk of coronavirus (COVID-19)". Humanengr ( talk) 06:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
It's important to take vitamin D as you may have been indoors more than usual this year. You should take 10 micrograms (400 IU) of vitamin D a day between October and early March to keep your bones and muscles healthy.
"a daily dosage regimen that reduces symptoms"← Source? Alexbrn ( talk) 08:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
a daily dosage regimen has been reported to reduce severity. Several of the 7 studies reviewed by NIH in the 'Association between vitamin D status and COVID-19 severity' § — reported — albeit, with NIH's
Very lowranking, i.e., where the
estimate of effect is very uncertain— that supplementation prior to diagnosis reduces severity. Humanengr ( talk) 08:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Re ‘limited’ vs ‘some’: from the NIH 1st para — “Some studies found a negative association between vitamin D status and COVID-19 incidence.” Humanengr ( talk) 09:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Results associating vitamin D status with COVID-19 severity scores were mixedis misleading as the only negative was Annweiler 2020 reporting
there was no difference when only receiving a bolus when diagnosed.
Supplementation with vitamin D has been found to be negatively associated with both severe COVID-19 and death, although the estimate of effect is "very uncertain".[NIH]. Or more readably:
Vitamin D supplementation has been associated with a reduction in the severity of symptoms and death from COVID-19, although the estimate of effect is "very uncertain".[NIH].
Supplementation for a year was significantly negatively associated with having severe COVID-19 [Annweiler 2020a]; Supplementation before diagnosis (Annweiler 2020); within a month before, up to a week after diagnosis, or for a year before diagnosis [Annweiler 2020a] were negatively associated with death post COVID-19 diagnosis.Humanengr ( talk) 21:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
You should take 10 micrograms (400 IU) of vitamin D a day between October and early March to keep your bones and muscles healthyin this context could imply that the Vitamin D is recommended for COVID specifically, rather than general health. Bakkster Man ( talk) 01:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Although the estimate of effect is very uncertain, vitamin D supplementation has been associated with a reduction in the severity of symptoms and death from COVID-19.[NIH]Humanengr ( talk) 16:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
vitamin D supplementation [prior to diagnosis] has been associated with a reduction in the severity of symptoms and death from COVID-19? Humanengr ( talk) 16:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The lead section of the article summarizes statistics on various levels of symptoms but gives no statistics on death rates. I think it would be advisable to include them. -- 184.147.181.129 ( talk) 03:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Odd that there is no reference in the article to the fact that WHO declared an official pandemic on March 11, 2020.
-- 100.4.145.81 ( talk) 12:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
The article has over 400 citations, similar to a review article. I.e. it states "A person who is infected can transmit the virus to others up to two days before they themselves show symptoms, and even if symptoms never appear.[57]" But, I could not find anything in the linked document that supports the statement! Has anybody actually tried to verify the citations and therefore the respective statements? -Unsigned comment by 94.222.93.65
Under "Signs and Symptoms" in the second paragraph it says
"Most people (81%) develop mild to moderate symptoms (up to mild pneumonia) ...[46] At least a third of the people who are infected with the virus do not develop noticeable symptoms at any point in time"
Am I misunderstanding this? How can 81% develop mild to moderate symptoms but at least a third do not develop noticeable symptoms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PermutationCitizen ( talk • contribs) 8 May 2021 21:46:37 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Can anything relevant be said about the role of the mitochondria in relation to the immune response (see [1], [2])? If yes, it would be worth mentioning it here I think, all the more as I start seeing some non-scientific (des-)information about the role of the mitochondria in COVID-19 and Long Covid on the Internet, so it would be good to be able to put it in context. Thanks -- Chris Howard ( talk) 05:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Lab Leak Again -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC) Guy Macon is spot on, this is what I'm referring to. There is growing consensus regarding that COVID-19 came from a lab, but yet it's still not in the article. Is this Wokepedia?
As has been widely reported in recent days, the hypothesis that Covid-19 might have escaped from a laboratory has been given increased credibility. We should not claim it to be a fact, but nor should we censor it when reliable sources reported it. Unfortunately, some users are now doing the latter - repeatedly deleting any reference to the hypothesis without any valid explanation beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. One user even deleted it with the edit summary "crappy sourcing", which looks rather silly when the source is Science, one of the world's most respected scientific journals. Jeppiz ( talk) 09:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Use Commonwealth English" to "EngvarB" per tfd outcome Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#To_convert 81.2.252.231 ( talk) 03:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-57027829 - should this be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.30.115 ( talk • contribs)
Please join this broad discussion on how we discuss and explain COVID origins. Bakkster Man ( talk) 18:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I think this study should be considered to incorporate into the article, specifically immunity section. https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab495/6287116 Spiralfeel ( talk) 19:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Reuters reported JUNE 26, 2020 "Coronavirus traces found in March 2019 sewage sample, Spanish study shows" see https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-spain-science-idUSKBN23X2HQ Did this get corrected? If not surely it should be in the 'History' section. 143.159.171.46 ( talk) 00:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC) For what it's worth this passed fact checking by USA Today https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/07/07/fact-check-coronavirus-found-march-2019-wastewater-sample/5350878002/ 143.159.171.46 ( talk) 00:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi MartinezMD. I noticed your revert on the COVID-19 page (positive effects of smoking on COVID-19). I understand that this wasn't asserted in the page before. This claim keeps coming up in the media now and then. So, I wanted it called out specifically and debunked. Does it still not make sense to include here? Iciplascarfern ( talk) 14:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
http://doi.org/10.1210/jendso/bvab037 This secondary review article from the University of Oxford summarises six large scale research papers confirming a) the role of sugar (fructose) in the development of severe COVID-19, and b) how this factor is likely to affect vaccine efficacy.
Suggested edit: Under section 6.8 "Healthy diet and lifestyle" at the end of the first paragraph, add "The University of Oxford recommends limited fructose consumption in order to minimise inflammation, a key contributor to morbidity in COVID-19 [1]"
19discus19 ( talk) 13:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
The transmission section has no sources. Does someone know how to fix the problem? -- Guest2625 ( talk) 06:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
There has been new lab leak evidence and has been displayed in the reliable sources like The Daily Telegraph and Financial Times, so why does this article not include these and because of this new evidence why doesn't it label the nature emergence of the virus as a conspiracy theory? The new evidence can be found here. unsigned comment by AccurateJournalist
This article, published on June 3, 2021, says the following:
Should information about this be added to this article? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 07:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the end of the first paragraph of the Pathophysiology section, please add "An envelope protein on COVID-19, as well as providing integrity to the virus, disrupts integrity of the cell-junction proteins in human lung tissue, triggering inflammation and creating opportunities for the virus to enter the blood via the damaged lung tissue." (Or, feel free to workshop this a bit if you want.)
Source: Owens, Brian (June 8, 2021). "How the Coronavirus Attacks the Lungs -- and How We May Be Able to Stop the Damage". Inside Science. Retrieved June 9, 2021. (this source also links to the Nature Communications paper) 92.24.246.11 ( talk) 20:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
Run n Fly (
talk) 19:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the word infectious to contagious 2A00:23C6:748F:2F00:E135:3EFF:DBC:506F ( talk) 08:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Can someone please update the upper end of the duration (which currently says 10+ months) to 14 months known? A recently published article can be used as a source. I don't have the requisite number of edits to make this change myself (which is ironic, because this would be an edit of mine…quite the catch 22)
theZcuber ( talk) 08:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Given that there's currently no reference whatsoever, how would a news article from an otherwise reputable source not be an improvement? It's not like the claim is in dispute. theZcuber ( talk) 11:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
In the section titled Earlier estimates of IFR, the first sentence is:
At an early stage of the pandemic, the World Health Organization reported estimates of IFR between 0.3% and 1%.
This range (0.3% - 1%) is what is stated in the first reference from the end of february 2020 ( WHO Situation Report – 30), however there was a correction the next day in the second reference ( WHO Situation Report – 31) where they replace the lower bound:
Since the publication of modeling estimates in yesterday’s ‘Subject in Focus’, one research group (Ref. 12) has provided a correction of their estimate of the Infection-Fatality Ratio (IFR), with the new estimate being 0.94% (95% confidence interval 0.37-2.9). This replaces the lowest estimate of IFR of 0.33%, but remains below the highest estimate of 1.0% (Ref. 11).
In the correction they don't mention the new lower bound but if I read the papers that the WHO references correctly the new range was about 0.5% - 1%. -- 78.82.228.158 ( talk) 22:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
According to scientific reviews smokers are more likely to require intensive care or die compared to non-smokers,[227][228] air pollution is similarly associated with risk factors,[228] and pre-existing heart and lung diseases[229] and also obesity contributes to an increased health risk of COVID-19.[228][230][231]
into
According to scientific reviews smokers are more likely to require intensive care or die compared to non-smokers[227][228]. Acting on the same ACE2 pulmonary receptors affected by smoking, air pollution has been correlated with the disease. Short term[A] and chronic[B][C] exposure to air pollution seems to enhance morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.[D][E][F] Pre-existing heart and lung diseases[229] and also obesity contributes to an increased health risk of COVID-19.[228][230][231]
A. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039338 B. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd4049 C. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12060795 D. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124487 E. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109861 F. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127973
Ricsnap ( talk) 11:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Ricsnap
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could someone edit the variants section and add information of WHO nomenclature of variants? The source from the WHO website is here - https://www.who.int/en/activities/tracking-SARS-CoV-2-variants/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdulKareem92 ( talk • contribs) 08:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are some undocumented complications, such as fungal infections, and osteonecrosis. 2409:4073:19C:D0B7:359D:15A:FE9B:A35B ( talk) 14:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
The section "Longer-term effects" reads like a majority of people who got COVID will have long-term lung damage (28+ days). It states that "The majority of CT scans performed show lung abnormalities in people tested after 28 days of illness.[257]". Checking the source, the word "majority" never occurs and the only percentage mentioned is 98.1% (quite a bit more than a "majority"). Looking for the number 28 (days), it is also only ever mentioned in relation to this 98.1% figure. The source is about "Studies on radiologic progression of severe COVID-19 infection" (severe cases only) and "the current literature on the clinical and radiologic manifestations of post-recovery COVID-19 toward the end of hospital admission and after discharge" (hospitalized cases only) rather than anyone who had COVID-19. There does not appear to be a study cited that did chest CT scans on non-hospitalized or non-severe COVID-19 cases, i.e. nothing can be said about that group (let alone the asymptomatic group) based on this citation. The current text seems inaccurate to me.
Feel free to improve/alter the suggestion, but looking at other edit requests, I see that one should provide an exact from-to change request. I would propose to replace this text:
The majority of CT scans performed show lung abnormalities in people tested after 28 days of illness.
With:
Among severe cases of hospitalized patients it was found that "up to 98.1% of all chest CTs will show abnormalities at > 28 days since symptom onset".
2.243.40.146 ( talk) 16:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article currently says The virus can cause acute myocardial injury and chronic damage to the cardiovascular system. An acute cardiac injury was found in 12% of infected people admitted to the hospital in Wuhan, China, and is more frequent in severe disease
. It focus too much on acute injury, and has no information on non-acute cardiac injury. I prefer this wording SARS-CoV-2 infection leads to cardiac injury and dysfunction in 20%–30% of hospitalized patients (Guo et al., 2020) and higher rates of mortality in patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disease (Shi et al., 2020; Wu and McGoogan, 2020).
. The quote is from this source.
[1]— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Forich (
talk •
contribs) 04:04, 10 June 2021
References
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
Run n Fly (
talk) 14:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
- COVID-19 and severe illness from COVID-19 disease affects many different organ systems.
- Acute Kidney Injury is the most frequently seen complication in those with severe COVID-19.
- Risk factors for developing severe COVID-19 and complications from COVID-19 include age and male sex.
- Young people with severe disease also have high rates of complications (27%).:
82.24.56.71 ( talk) 18:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
References
I’m genuinely confused why the following has a {{ fact}} tag:
Can anyone explain why? - Aussie Article Writer ( talk) 13:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
https://news.yahoo.com/single-most-qualified-mrna-expert-173600060.html 23.241.29.53 ( talk) 23:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Robert Malone is not the inventor of mRNA technology. Turtleshell3 ( talk) 16:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
In the united states (I don't have information worldwide) right now, the people dying and hospitalised from virus are almost exclusively unvaccinated. This is important information. https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-941fcf43d9731c76c16e7354f5d5e187 97.118.95.85 talk 04:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
In the lead of the article, it says "The first known case was identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019." However, the first case of COVID-19 was on 17 November, 2019: www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3074991/coronavirus-chinas-first-confirmed-covid-19-case-traced-back. This article has even been used as a source on COVID-19 pandemic. -- Cyrobyte ( talk) 04:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
[Prevention | minor edit] add comma after the phrase "regularly wash hands with soap and water" -- H7opolo ( talk) 00:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Please join discussion on WP:NPOV concerns at the Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States article. Prcc27 ( talk) 03:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Missouri county coroner removed covid from death certificates to ‘please’ grieving families, WaPo -- Valjean ( talk) 15:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
In light of US Intelligence and Congressional reports regarding the lab-leak hypothesis, would it be possible to rephrase the history section and clarify that both the natural origin and lab-leak are possible origins of the virus? The present section starts off by stating only the former possibility. Senior Biden administration officials have labelled both hypotheses "equally likely, while a Republican-led committee report states that "the preponderance of the evidence proves the virus did leak from the WIV"
Bipartisan sources for the same:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.236.178.90 ( talk • contribs)
Currently the variants are ordered alpha, beta, delta, gamma. The ordering should be alpha, beta, gamma, delta; consistent with the Greek alphabet. Shazen27 ( talk) 01:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Would it be informative to have a section for Galectins after the Cytokine storm section? There are a growing number of studies and reviews whereby galectins 3 and 9 play a key role in the hyperinflammatory stage in the transition from mild to severe COVID-19. There are currently galectin inhibitors in clinical development for other inflammatory and fibrotic indications, and further investigation into the applicability of these inhibitors to COVID-19 is often proposed. This is an exciting area of recent scientific interest. A sample of articles:
Fpbear ( talk) 07:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I think the last sentence on the SARS-CoV-2 variants para is misleading:
Using whole genome sequencing, epidemiology and modelling suggest the Alpha variant VUI-202012/01 (the first variant under investigation in December 2020) in the B.1.1.7 lineage transmits more easily than other strains.[76]
This could be taken to mean alpha is generally more transmissible then beta, gamma, delta, which might be the face value meaning for a non-specialist. However checking reference 76 the "other strains" generally predate the other variants listed. My suggestion is that as a minimum this is changed to:
transmits more easily than other strains known at the time.[76]
But ideally updated by a specialist using the correct terminologies (strain/variant/...). WelchsUK ( talk) 22:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under 'Diagnosis' the following could be added with an appropriate recently published scientific article as there is still no authentic information added on this page on rapid antigen test (RAT) in patients with COVID-19.
"SARS-CoV-2 can be detected by using rapid antigen (RAT) that directly detects the presence or absence of the antigen. A study on 17,171 suspected COVID-19 patients demonstrating the diagnostic accuracy of RAT kits in diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 revealed that RAT kits show a pooled specificity of 99.4% (95% CI: 99.1–99.8) and sensitivity of 68.4% (95% CI: 60.8–75.9). In this study, nasopharyngeal specimens and symptomatic patient’s samples were more sensitive in RAT, while cycle threshold (Ct) values were found to have an inverse relationship with sensitivity" [Reference]
Reference: SS Khandker, NHH Nik Hashim, ZZ Deris, RH Shueb, MA Islam (August 2021). “Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Antigen Test Kits for Detecting SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 17,171 Suspected COVID-19 Patients”. Journal of Clinical Medicine; 10: 3493. doi: 10.3390/jcm10163493. Ayoncx70 ( talk) 12:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Is something about the new discovery about the glycans going to be added to this article?
76.189.128.198 ( talk) 01:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article is meant to be in Hong Kong English, yet many of the words follow American English spelling conventions. For example, "hospitalisation" and "hospitalization" are both present through the article. This isn't a major flaw, but bringing the grammar and spelling into order with the chosen dialect should be a fast and easy thing to fix. 78.152.233.71 ( talk) 11:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
{{EngvarB}} – for non-specific but not N. American spelling.
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
X:Preventive measures include physical or social distancing, quarantining, ventilation of indoor spaces, covering coughs and sneezes, hand washing, and keeping unwashed hands away from the face.
Y:Preventive measures include physical or social distancing, quarantining, ventilation of indoor spaces,having a good hygiene such as hand washing and sanitation.
Citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7195988/ Khristine16 ( talk) 14:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
The most important strategy for the population to undertake is to frequently wash their hands and use portable hand sanitizer and avoid contact with their face and mouthfrom your source. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 14:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
The first part of the "Transmission" section appears to be transcluded from Transmission of COVID-19. However, the second citation after the sentence "However, infection can occur over longer distances, particularly indoors." does not work properly. The message says "Cite error: The named reference Transmission of COVID-19 :1 was invoked but never defined". MaryMO (AR) ( talk) 15:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
This is the first time I've looked through this article and at a glance I am noticing quite a large number of secondary and tertiary media sources being cited over peer-reviewed primary scientific literature that makes the same claim. For example, why is the sentence "Although one Italian study suggests it was present there as early as September 2019." citing Reuters for the claim instead of this easily-accessed primary source? Why is the article like this? Playing a game of telephone with imperfect sources like the Wall Street Journal over a contentious topic of geopolitical significance seems like an almost guaranteed recipe to spread propaganda and spin. 98.127.81.62 ( talk) 21:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Am I the only one that thinks the sentence
“In the past, many diseases have been named after geographical locations, such as the Spanish flu, Middle East respiratory syndrome, and Zika virus”
is unnecessary? Thank you, WikiJanitorPerson ( talk) 21:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the lead, change Contagious disease to Emerging infectious disease as per CDC and WHO definition. 79.70.190.198 ( talk) 08:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. I think linking to the main article is better and provides more pertinent information.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 13:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)The Intercept ( source) describes experimental work done using humanized mice at the Wuhan University Center for Animal Experiment, which was formerly assumed to have been done at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It appears that a Wikipedia article for the Wuhan University Center for Animal Experiment is needed. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 03:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, thanks for the introductory discussion of disproportionate racial impacts due to COVID-19 this page. I'm considering creating a new page on "Racial Inequalities on impact of the COVID-19 pandemic" which further discusses how specific racial groups are impacted unequally (details on my talk page). Your comments and thoughts would be appreciated. Rshrid ( talk) 17:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
on august 4, 2021 COVID-19 kills Michael James Renfrow time: approx. 8 pm where: Henderson, Nevada that is all of the details i know this was written by Trystan J. Renfrow (Michael renfrow's grandson.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Firepikachu2009 ( talk • contribs) 11:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"change quarantining to home quarantine" Cnmndz ( talk) 07:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I recommend adding "Measures were taken to prevent the spread of Covid-19. In the United States, large gatherings were banned, lockdowns were taking place, and mask mandates were in place." into this paragraph because it sums the precautions that were taken in the United States/around the world. It will make it easier for the readers to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aweger ( talk • contribs) 23:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Symptoms: - Headache - Loss of smell or taste - Nasal congestion/runny nose - Cough - Sore throat - Fever - Breathing difficulties
For the symptoms paragraph, I would recommend making it a bulleted list, so it is easier on the eyes for readers and is easier to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aweger ( talk • contribs) 23:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
I would recommend adding information about the first case of Covid-19. It talks about when we suspected Covid-19 starting, but do not narrow down the actual date. " The first case of Covid-19 in the United States was diagnosed on January 20, 2020." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aweger ( talk • contribs) 00:01, 4 October 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.
Based on the features revealed from covid-19, it is a human made virus that origins from
Wuhan in
China. From where Chinese do not eat bat raw and the virus can't exist in temperature over 30 °C, then this can tell there something same as influenza that does not exist anymore and no one remind it too.
Zaki Frahmand 4 October 2021, 9:40 UTC
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add this text after solidarity trial description. In August 2021 WHO rolled out the next phase Solidarity trial under the name Solidarity PLUS trial in 52 countries. The trial will enroll hospitalized patients and test three drugs for potential treatment of COVID-19. These drugs include artesunate, imatinib and infliximab. Chiirag ( talk) 10:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I've got a question about the death toll. A source tells me that the death toll has already reached 5 million. Can you update the infobox? The link is below.
Thanks for your help. 103.246.36.61 ( talk) 23:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Another question on the reference for link 15, aren't stats from one month into the pandemic a bit old at this point? Shouldn't they be updated by now with more current information? We've had over 17 months of data since then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.180.9.40 ( talk) 20:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, would like to add two medical journal sources for SARS-CoV-2 variants emerging in 2020. Sentence in question is "Several notable variants of SARS-CoV-2 emerged in late 2020." . I also think the wording should be changed from "late 2020" to "throughout 2020" but that's not imperative. The journal links are this one and this one. This should justify the removal of the citation needed template immediately proceeding the full stop. Thanks in advance Obama gaming ( talk) 01:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, would like to see if this journal article fits the Medical Citation Needed proceeding the sentence "After strict quarantines and a mink euthanasia campaign, it is believed to have been eradicated." [regarding the Cluster 5 spread in Denmark]. Relevant statements include "leading to the culling of many millions of mink, in fear that the latter would transmit strains more virulent, more contagious, or resistant to vaccines in development", & "Fearful of seeing SARS-CoV-2 variants selected in mink such as “Cluster 5” spread more easily among people, and to be more deadly or to have a negative impact on the deployment of anti-COVID-19 vaccines, the Danish Government decided to cull 17 million farmed mink". There is also another journal article, albeit only available as a PDF but it's free. Thanks in advance. Addenum: this article also seems very useful. Obama gaming ( talk) 09:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I asked a question a few days ago. A couple of sections above. Can someone please answer this? 103.246.36.61 ( talk) 04:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add reference to this statement: "The disease is mainly transmitted via the respiratory route when people inhale droplets and small airborne particles (that form an aerosol) that infected people breath out as they breathe, talk, cough, sneeze, or sing". [1] Citizenpane2 ( talk) 22:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
References
![]() | 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
@
Bakkster Man and
MartinezMD: While the
NIH cite did rate the quality of all studies as 'Very low', i.e., "Any estimate of effect is very uncertain", the phrasing there is limited evidence
strikes me as too dismissive and that a more appropriate characterization would be some evidence
. Of the 6 studies cited re Association between vitamin D status and COVID-19 cases
, the first 5 were presented with caveats; but the 6th,
Merzon 2020 was presented without caveats:
Merzon 202 did control for demographic variables and found that people with suboptimal serum vitamin D (<75nmol/L) were more likely to contract COVID-19 than people above the threshold OR 1.5 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.98).
Of the 7 studies cited re Association between vitamin D status and COVID-19 severity
,
… Four studies reported mortality as a standalone outcome.
- 3 studies found that a higher measured vitamin D status (Karahan 2020, linear vitamin D measurement) or supplementation before diagnosis (Annweiler 2020, within a month before or up to a week after diagnosis; Annweiler 2020a, supplemented for a year before diagnosis) were negatively associated with death post COVID-19 diagnosis, OR 0.92 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.98), HR 0.11 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.48) and HR 0.07 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.61, respectively Radujkovic 2020 also found that suboptimal serum vitamin D (<30nmol/L) was associated with higher mortality rate, HR 14.73 (95% CI 4.16 to 52.19).
- [In the 4th study:] However, receiving a vitamin D bolus when diagnosed with COVID-19 was as associated with death as no supplementation (HR 0.37 (95% CI 0.06 to 2.21), Annweiler 2020a).
Humanengr ( talk) 05:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The footnote from the NHS at the end of the article para says There have been some reports about vitamin D reducing the risk of coronavirus (COVID-19).
My suggestion comports with that.
[Adding:] Re other suggestions above and in prior discussions (
here and
here), the NIH did not say the evidence was limited
, weak
, unclear
or that there is no good evidence
. That there is some
evidence (per NHS) is the primary point and should be in the body text rather than a footnote.
Rewriting the § in view of this — using the same sources (with some reordering and paring):
In October 2020, the UK National Health Service noted "There have been some reports vitamin D reduces the risk of coronavirus (COVID-19)" along with the following recommendation:
- It's important to take vitamin D as you may have been indoors more than usual this year.
- You should take 10 micrograms (400 IU) of vitamin D a day between October and early March to keep your bones and muscles healthy. [1]
The US NIH has noted, however, that there is no evidence vitamin D is an effective treatment for COVID-19. [2]
The Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health recommends a healthy diet, being physically active, managing psychological stress, and getting enough sleep. [3]
Humanengr ( talk) 13:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
In October 2020, the UK National Health Service noted that "There have been some reports vitamin D reduces the risk of coronavirus (COVID-19). But there is currently not enough evidence to support taking vitamin D to prevent or treat coronavirus" along with the following recommendation: …. With that I'd also remove the 'however' from the NIH sentence. Humanengr ( talk) 03:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
there's no good evidence of any benefit from vitamin D. To avoid misrepresentation, we should begin with what they said verbatim:
In October 2020, the UK National Health Service noted:
- It's important to take vitamin D as you may have been indoors more than usual this year.
- You should take 10 micrograms (400 IU) of vitamin D a day between October and early March to keep your bones and muscles healthy.
- There have been some reports about vitamin D reducing the risk of coronavirus (COVID-19). But there is currently not enough evidence to support taking vitamin D to prevent or treat coronavirus. [4]
"The NIH said, regarding the association between vitamin D status and COVID-19 cases or severity, that "any estimate of effect is very uncertain". Humanengr ( talk) 03:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
lack of evidence; that misrepresents what the NHS said. To address your point re 'noted', we could start with
In October 2020, the UK National Health Service, in a 'Coronavirus update', stated: …. Re quoting, per WP:QUOTE,
quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words.. That's the best guidance we have for this; else we end up with one of us putting words in the mouth of the agencies. Humanengr ( talk) 04:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Agreed there is currently not enough evidence to support taking vitamin D to prevent or treat coronavirus
. But that does not mean there is a lack of evidence
re vitamin D reducing the risk of coronavirus (COVID-19)
. The referents in those two sentences (reducing the risk of coronavirus (COVID-19)
and preventing or treating coronavirus
) are not coextensive. The former can include reducing the severity of symptoms.
I'm ok with your "there is currently not enough evidence to support taking vitamin D to prevent or treat coronavirus" as long as we preface that with the sense of NHS's first sentence, that "there are some reports about Vitamin D reducing the risk of coronavirus (COVID-19)". Humanengr ( talk) 06:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
It's important to take vitamin D as you may have been indoors more than usual this year. You should take 10 micrograms (400 IU) of vitamin D a day between October and early March to keep your bones and muscles healthy.
"a daily dosage regimen that reduces symptoms"← Source? Alexbrn ( talk) 08:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
a daily dosage regimen has been reported to reduce severity. Several of the 7 studies reviewed by NIH in the 'Association between vitamin D status and COVID-19 severity' § — reported — albeit, with NIH's
Very lowranking, i.e., where the
estimate of effect is very uncertain— that supplementation prior to diagnosis reduces severity. Humanengr ( talk) 08:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Re ‘limited’ vs ‘some’: from the NIH 1st para — “Some studies found a negative association between vitamin D status and COVID-19 incidence.” Humanengr ( talk) 09:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Results associating vitamin D status with COVID-19 severity scores were mixedis misleading as the only negative was Annweiler 2020 reporting
there was no difference when only receiving a bolus when diagnosed.
Supplementation with vitamin D has been found to be negatively associated with both severe COVID-19 and death, although the estimate of effect is "very uncertain".[NIH]. Or more readably:
Vitamin D supplementation has been associated with a reduction in the severity of symptoms and death from COVID-19, although the estimate of effect is "very uncertain".[NIH].
Supplementation for a year was significantly negatively associated with having severe COVID-19 [Annweiler 2020a]; Supplementation before diagnosis (Annweiler 2020); within a month before, up to a week after diagnosis, or for a year before diagnosis [Annweiler 2020a] were negatively associated with death post COVID-19 diagnosis.Humanengr ( talk) 21:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
You should take 10 micrograms (400 IU) of vitamin D a day between October and early March to keep your bones and muscles healthyin this context could imply that the Vitamin D is recommended for COVID specifically, rather than general health. Bakkster Man ( talk) 01:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Although the estimate of effect is very uncertain, vitamin D supplementation has been associated with a reduction in the severity of symptoms and death from COVID-19.[NIH]Humanengr ( talk) 16:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
vitamin D supplementation [prior to diagnosis] has been associated with a reduction in the severity of symptoms and death from COVID-19? Humanengr ( talk) 16:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The lead section of the article summarizes statistics on various levels of symptoms but gives no statistics on death rates. I think it would be advisable to include them. -- 184.147.181.129 ( talk) 03:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Odd that there is no reference in the article to the fact that WHO declared an official pandemic on March 11, 2020.
-- 100.4.145.81 ( talk) 12:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
The article has over 400 citations, similar to a review article. I.e. it states "A person who is infected can transmit the virus to others up to two days before they themselves show symptoms, and even if symptoms never appear.[57]" But, I could not find anything in the linked document that supports the statement! Has anybody actually tried to verify the citations and therefore the respective statements? -Unsigned comment by 94.222.93.65
Under "Signs and Symptoms" in the second paragraph it says
"Most people (81%) develop mild to moderate symptoms (up to mild pneumonia) ...[46] At least a third of the people who are infected with the virus do not develop noticeable symptoms at any point in time"
Am I misunderstanding this? How can 81% develop mild to moderate symptoms but at least a third do not develop noticeable symptoms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PermutationCitizen ( talk • contribs) 8 May 2021 21:46:37 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Can anything relevant be said about the role of the mitochondria in relation to the immune response (see [1], [2])? If yes, it would be worth mentioning it here I think, all the more as I start seeing some non-scientific (des-)information about the role of the mitochondria in COVID-19 and Long Covid on the Internet, so it would be good to be able to put it in context. Thanks -- Chris Howard ( talk) 05:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Lab Leak Again -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC) Guy Macon is spot on, this is what I'm referring to. There is growing consensus regarding that COVID-19 came from a lab, but yet it's still not in the article. Is this Wokepedia?
As has been widely reported in recent days, the hypothesis that Covid-19 might have escaped from a laboratory has been given increased credibility. We should not claim it to be a fact, but nor should we censor it when reliable sources reported it. Unfortunately, some users are now doing the latter - repeatedly deleting any reference to the hypothesis without any valid explanation beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. One user even deleted it with the edit summary "crappy sourcing", which looks rather silly when the source is Science, one of the world's most respected scientific journals. Jeppiz ( talk) 09:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Use Commonwealth English" to "EngvarB" per tfd outcome Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#To_convert 81.2.252.231 ( talk) 03:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-57027829 - should this be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.30.115 ( talk • contribs)
Please join this broad discussion on how we discuss and explain COVID origins. Bakkster Man ( talk) 18:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I think this study should be considered to incorporate into the article, specifically immunity section. https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab495/6287116 Spiralfeel ( talk) 19:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Reuters reported JUNE 26, 2020 "Coronavirus traces found in March 2019 sewage sample, Spanish study shows" see https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-spain-science-idUSKBN23X2HQ Did this get corrected? If not surely it should be in the 'History' section. 143.159.171.46 ( talk) 00:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC) For what it's worth this passed fact checking by USA Today https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/07/07/fact-check-coronavirus-found-march-2019-wastewater-sample/5350878002/ 143.159.171.46 ( talk) 00:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi MartinezMD. I noticed your revert on the COVID-19 page (positive effects of smoking on COVID-19). I understand that this wasn't asserted in the page before. This claim keeps coming up in the media now and then. So, I wanted it called out specifically and debunked. Does it still not make sense to include here? Iciplascarfern ( talk) 14:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
http://doi.org/10.1210/jendso/bvab037 This secondary review article from the University of Oxford summarises six large scale research papers confirming a) the role of sugar (fructose) in the development of severe COVID-19, and b) how this factor is likely to affect vaccine efficacy.
Suggested edit: Under section 6.8 "Healthy diet and lifestyle" at the end of the first paragraph, add "The University of Oxford recommends limited fructose consumption in order to minimise inflammation, a key contributor to morbidity in COVID-19 [1]"
19discus19 ( talk) 13:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
The transmission section has no sources. Does someone know how to fix the problem? -- Guest2625 ( talk) 06:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
There has been new lab leak evidence and has been displayed in the reliable sources like The Daily Telegraph and Financial Times, so why does this article not include these and because of this new evidence why doesn't it label the nature emergence of the virus as a conspiracy theory? The new evidence can be found here. unsigned comment by AccurateJournalist
This article, published on June 3, 2021, says the following:
Should information about this be added to this article? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 07:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the end of the first paragraph of the Pathophysiology section, please add "An envelope protein on COVID-19, as well as providing integrity to the virus, disrupts integrity of the cell-junction proteins in human lung tissue, triggering inflammation and creating opportunities for the virus to enter the blood via the damaged lung tissue." (Or, feel free to workshop this a bit if you want.)
Source: Owens, Brian (June 8, 2021). "How the Coronavirus Attacks the Lungs -- and How We May Be Able to Stop the Damage". Inside Science. Retrieved June 9, 2021. (this source also links to the Nature Communications paper) 92.24.246.11 ( talk) 20:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
Run n Fly (
talk) 19:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the word infectious to contagious 2A00:23C6:748F:2F00:E135:3EFF:DBC:506F ( talk) 08:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Can someone please update the upper end of the duration (which currently says 10+ months) to 14 months known? A recently published article can be used as a source. I don't have the requisite number of edits to make this change myself (which is ironic, because this would be an edit of mine…quite the catch 22)
theZcuber ( talk) 08:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Given that there's currently no reference whatsoever, how would a news article from an otherwise reputable source not be an improvement? It's not like the claim is in dispute. theZcuber ( talk) 11:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
In the section titled Earlier estimates of IFR, the first sentence is:
At an early stage of the pandemic, the World Health Organization reported estimates of IFR between 0.3% and 1%.
This range (0.3% - 1%) is what is stated in the first reference from the end of february 2020 ( WHO Situation Report – 30), however there was a correction the next day in the second reference ( WHO Situation Report – 31) where they replace the lower bound:
Since the publication of modeling estimates in yesterday’s ‘Subject in Focus’, one research group (Ref. 12) has provided a correction of their estimate of the Infection-Fatality Ratio (IFR), with the new estimate being 0.94% (95% confidence interval 0.37-2.9). This replaces the lowest estimate of IFR of 0.33%, but remains below the highest estimate of 1.0% (Ref. 11).
In the correction they don't mention the new lower bound but if I read the papers that the WHO references correctly the new range was about 0.5% - 1%. -- 78.82.228.158 ( talk) 22:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
According to scientific reviews smokers are more likely to require intensive care or die compared to non-smokers,[227][228] air pollution is similarly associated with risk factors,[228] and pre-existing heart and lung diseases[229] and also obesity contributes to an increased health risk of COVID-19.[228][230][231]
into
According to scientific reviews smokers are more likely to require intensive care or die compared to non-smokers[227][228]. Acting on the same ACE2 pulmonary receptors affected by smoking, air pollution has been correlated with the disease. Short term[A] and chronic[B][C] exposure to air pollution seems to enhance morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.[D][E][F] Pre-existing heart and lung diseases[229] and also obesity contributes to an increased health risk of COVID-19.[228][230][231]
A. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039338 B. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd4049 C. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12060795 D. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124487 E. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109861 F. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127973
Ricsnap ( talk) 11:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Ricsnap
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could someone edit the variants section and add information of WHO nomenclature of variants? The source from the WHO website is here - https://www.who.int/en/activities/tracking-SARS-CoV-2-variants/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdulKareem92 ( talk • contribs) 08:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are some undocumented complications, such as fungal infections, and osteonecrosis. 2409:4073:19C:D0B7:359D:15A:FE9B:A35B ( talk) 14:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
The section "Longer-term effects" reads like a majority of people who got COVID will have long-term lung damage (28+ days). It states that "The majority of CT scans performed show lung abnormalities in people tested after 28 days of illness.[257]". Checking the source, the word "majority" never occurs and the only percentage mentioned is 98.1% (quite a bit more than a "majority"). Looking for the number 28 (days), it is also only ever mentioned in relation to this 98.1% figure. The source is about "Studies on radiologic progression of severe COVID-19 infection" (severe cases only) and "the current literature on the clinical and radiologic manifestations of post-recovery COVID-19 toward the end of hospital admission and after discharge" (hospitalized cases only) rather than anyone who had COVID-19. There does not appear to be a study cited that did chest CT scans on non-hospitalized or non-severe COVID-19 cases, i.e. nothing can be said about that group (let alone the asymptomatic group) based on this citation. The current text seems inaccurate to me.
Feel free to improve/alter the suggestion, but looking at other edit requests, I see that one should provide an exact from-to change request. I would propose to replace this text:
The majority of CT scans performed show lung abnormalities in people tested after 28 days of illness.
With:
Among severe cases of hospitalized patients it was found that "up to 98.1% of all chest CTs will show abnormalities at > 28 days since symptom onset".
2.243.40.146 ( talk) 16:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article currently says The virus can cause acute myocardial injury and chronic damage to the cardiovascular system. An acute cardiac injury was found in 12% of infected people admitted to the hospital in Wuhan, China, and is more frequent in severe disease
. It focus too much on acute injury, and has no information on non-acute cardiac injury. I prefer this wording SARS-CoV-2 infection leads to cardiac injury and dysfunction in 20%–30% of hospitalized patients (Guo et al., 2020) and higher rates of mortality in patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disease (Shi et al., 2020; Wu and McGoogan, 2020).
. The quote is from this source.
[1]— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Forich (
talk •
contribs) 04:04, 10 June 2021
References
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
Run n Fly (
talk) 14:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
- COVID-19 and severe illness from COVID-19 disease affects many different organ systems.
- Acute Kidney Injury is the most frequently seen complication in those with severe COVID-19.
- Risk factors for developing severe COVID-19 and complications from COVID-19 include age and male sex.
- Young people with severe disease also have high rates of complications (27%).:
82.24.56.71 ( talk) 18:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
References
I’m genuinely confused why the following has a {{ fact}} tag:
Can anyone explain why? - Aussie Article Writer ( talk) 13:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
https://news.yahoo.com/single-most-qualified-mrna-expert-173600060.html 23.241.29.53 ( talk) 23:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Robert Malone is not the inventor of mRNA technology. Turtleshell3 ( talk) 16:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
In the united states (I don't have information worldwide) right now, the people dying and hospitalised from virus are almost exclusively unvaccinated. This is important information. https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-941fcf43d9731c76c16e7354f5d5e187 97.118.95.85 talk 04:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
In the lead of the article, it says "The first known case was identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019." However, the first case of COVID-19 was on 17 November, 2019: www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3074991/coronavirus-chinas-first-confirmed-covid-19-case-traced-back. This article has even been used as a source on COVID-19 pandemic. -- Cyrobyte ( talk) 04:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
[Prevention | minor edit] add comma after the phrase "regularly wash hands with soap and water" -- H7opolo ( talk) 00:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Please join discussion on WP:NPOV concerns at the Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States article. Prcc27 ( talk) 03:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Missouri county coroner removed covid from death certificates to ‘please’ grieving families, WaPo -- Valjean ( talk) 15:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
In light of US Intelligence and Congressional reports regarding the lab-leak hypothesis, would it be possible to rephrase the history section and clarify that both the natural origin and lab-leak are possible origins of the virus? The present section starts off by stating only the former possibility. Senior Biden administration officials have labelled both hypotheses "equally likely, while a Republican-led committee report states that "the preponderance of the evidence proves the virus did leak from the WIV"
Bipartisan sources for the same:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.236.178.90 ( talk • contribs)
Currently the variants are ordered alpha, beta, delta, gamma. The ordering should be alpha, beta, gamma, delta; consistent with the Greek alphabet. Shazen27 ( talk) 01:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Would it be informative to have a section for Galectins after the Cytokine storm section? There are a growing number of studies and reviews whereby galectins 3 and 9 play a key role in the hyperinflammatory stage in the transition from mild to severe COVID-19. There are currently galectin inhibitors in clinical development for other inflammatory and fibrotic indications, and further investigation into the applicability of these inhibitors to COVID-19 is often proposed. This is an exciting area of recent scientific interest. A sample of articles:
Fpbear ( talk) 07:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I think the last sentence on the SARS-CoV-2 variants para is misleading:
Using whole genome sequencing, epidemiology and modelling suggest the Alpha variant VUI-202012/01 (the first variant under investigation in December 2020) in the B.1.1.7 lineage transmits more easily than other strains.[76]
This could be taken to mean alpha is generally more transmissible then beta, gamma, delta, which might be the face value meaning for a non-specialist. However checking reference 76 the "other strains" generally predate the other variants listed. My suggestion is that as a minimum this is changed to:
transmits more easily than other strains known at the time.[76]
But ideally updated by a specialist using the correct terminologies (strain/variant/...). WelchsUK ( talk) 22:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under 'Diagnosis' the following could be added with an appropriate recently published scientific article as there is still no authentic information added on this page on rapid antigen test (RAT) in patients with COVID-19.
"SARS-CoV-2 can be detected by using rapid antigen (RAT) that directly detects the presence or absence of the antigen. A study on 17,171 suspected COVID-19 patients demonstrating the diagnostic accuracy of RAT kits in diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 revealed that RAT kits show a pooled specificity of 99.4% (95% CI: 99.1–99.8) and sensitivity of 68.4% (95% CI: 60.8–75.9). In this study, nasopharyngeal specimens and symptomatic patient’s samples were more sensitive in RAT, while cycle threshold (Ct) values were found to have an inverse relationship with sensitivity" [Reference]
Reference: SS Khandker, NHH Nik Hashim, ZZ Deris, RH Shueb, MA Islam (August 2021). “Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Antigen Test Kits for Detecting SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 17,171 Suspected COVID-19 Patients”. Journal of Clinical Medicine; 10: 3493. doi: 10.3390/jcm10163493. Ayoncx70 ( talk) 12:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Is something about the new discovery about the glycans going to be added to this article?
76.189.128.198 ( talk) 01:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article is meant to be in Hong Kong English, yet many of the words follow American English spelling conventions. For example, "hospitalisation" and "hospitalization" are both present through the article. This isn't a major flaw, but bringing the grammar and spelling into order with the chosen dialect should be a fast and easy thing to fix. 78.152.233.71 ( talk) 11:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
{{EngvarB}} – for non-specific but not N. American spelling.
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
X:Preventive measures include physical or social distancing, quarantining, ventilation of indoor spaces, covering coughs and sneezes, hand washing, and keeping unwashed hands away from the face.
Y:Preventive measures include physical or social distancing, quarantining, ventilation of indoor spaces,having a good hygiene such as hand washing and sanitation.
Citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7195988/ Khristine16 ( talk) 14:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
The most important strategy for the population to undertake is to frequently wash their hands and use portable hand sanitizer and avoid contact with their face and mouthfrom your source. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 14:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
The first part of the "Transmission" section appears to be transcluded from Transmission of COVID-19. However, the second citation after the sentence "However, infection can occur over longer distances, particularly indoors." does not work properly. The message says "Cite error: The named reference Transmission of COVID-19 :1 was invoked but never defined". MaryMO (AR) ( talk) 15:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
This is the first time I've looked through this article and at a glance I am noticing quite a large number of secondary and tertiary media sources being cited over peer-reviewed primary scientific literature that makes the same claim. For example, why is the sentence "Although one Italian study suggests it was present there as early as September 2019." citing Reuters for the claim instead of this easily-accessed primary source? Why is the article like this? Playing a game of telephone with imperfect sources like the Wall Street Journal over a contentious topic of geopolitical significance seems like an almost guaranteed recipe to spread propaganda and spin. 98.127.81.62 ( talk) 21:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Am I the only one that thinks the sentence
“In the past, many diseases have been named after geographical locations, such as the Spanish flu, Middle East respiratory syndrome, and Zika virus”
is unnecessary? Thank you, WikiJanitorPerson ( talk) 21:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the lead, change Contagious disease to Emerging infectious disease as per CDC and WHO definition. 79.70.190.198 ( talk) 08:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. I think linking to the main article is better and provides more pertinent information.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 13:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)The Intercept ( source) describes experimental work done using humanized mice at the Wuhan University Center for Animal Experiment, which was formerly assumed to have been done at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It appears that a Wikipedia article for the Wuhan University Center for Animal Experiment is needed. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 03:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, thanks for the introductory discussion of disproportionate racial impacts due to COVID-19 this page. I'm considering creating a new page on "Racial Inequalities on impact of the COVID-19 pandemic" which further discusses how specific racial groups are impacted unequally (details on my talk page). Your comments and thoughts would be appreciated. Rshrid ( talk) 17:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
on august 4, 2021 COVID-19 kills Michael James Renfrow time: approx. 8 pm where: Henderson, Nevada that is all of the details i know this was written by Trystan J. Renfrow (Michael renfrow's grandson.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Firepikachu2009 ( talk • contribs) 11:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"change quarantining to home quarantine" Cnmndz ( talk) 07:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I recommend adding "Measures were taken to prevent the spread of Covid-19. In the United States, large gatherings were banned, lockdowns were taking place, and mask mandates were in place." into this paragraph because it sums the precautions that were taken in the United States/around the world. It will make it easier for the readers to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aweger ( talk • contribs) 23:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Symptoms: - Headache - Loss of smell or taste - Nasal congestion/runny nose - Cough - Sore throat - Fever - Breathing difficulties
For the symptoms paragraph, I would recommend making it a bulleted list, so it is easier on the eyes for readers and is easier to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aweger ( talk • contribs) 23:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
I would recommend adding information about the first case of Covid-19. It talks about when we suspected Covid-19 starting, but do not narrow down the actual date. " The first case of Covid-19 in the United States was diagnosed on January 20, 2020." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aweger ( talk • contribs) 00:01, 4 October 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.
Based on the features revealed from covid-19, it is a human made virus that origins from
Wuhan in
China. From where Chinese do not eat bat raw and the virus can't exist in temperature over 30 °C, then this can tell there something same as influenza that does not exist anymore and no one remind it too.
Zaki Frahmand 4 October 2021, 9:40 UTC
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add this text after solidarity trial description. In August 2021 WHO rolled out the next phase Solidarity trial under the name Solidarity PLUS trial in 52 countries. The trial will enroll hospitalized patients and test three drugs for potential treatment of COVID-19. These drugs include artesunate, imatinib and infliximab. Chiirag ( talk) 10:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I've got a question about the death toll. A source tells me that the death toll has already reached 5 million. Can you update the infobox? The link is below.
Thanks for your help. 103.246.36.61 ( talk) 23:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Another question on the reference for link 15, aren't stats from one month into the pandemic a bit old at this point? Shouldn't they be updated by now with more current information? We've had over 17 months of data since then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.180.9.40 ( talk) 20:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, would like to add two medical journal sources for SARS-CoV-2 variants emerging in 2020. Sentence in question is "Several notable variants of SARS-CoV-2 emerged in late 2020." . I also think the wording should be changed from "late 2020" to "throughout 2020" but that's not imperative. The journal links are this one and this one. This should justify the removal of the citation needed template immediately proceeding the full stop. Thanks in advance Obama gaming ( talk) 01:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, would like to see if this journal article fits the Medical Citation Needed proceeding the sentence "After strict quarantines and a mink euthanasia campaign, it is believed to have been eradicated." [regarding the Cluster 5 spread in Denmark]. Relevant statements include "leading to the culling of many millions of mink, in fear that the latter would transmit strains more virulent, more contagious, or resistant to vaccines in development", & "Fearful of seeing SARS-CoV-2 variants selected in mink such as “Cluster 5” spread more easily among people, and to be more deadly or to have a negative impact on the deployment of anti-COVID-19 vaccines, the Danish Government decided to cull 17 million farmed mink". There is also another journal article, albeit only available as a PDF but it's free. Thanks in advance. Addenum: this article also seems very useful. Obama gaming ( talk) 09:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I asked a question a few days ago. A couple of sections above. Can someone please answer this? 103.246.36.61 ( talk) 04:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add reference to this statement: "The disease is mainly transmitted via the respiratory route when people inhale droplets and small airborne particles (that form an aerosol) that infected people breath out as they breathe, talk, cough, sneeze, or sing". [1] Citizenpane2 ( talk) 22:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
References