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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Interferon-lambda 4 is an antiviral protein that protects humans against infections at epithelial surfaces such as the respiratory tract. There are hitherto surprisingly few cases of COVID-19 among subjects of African descent. Similarly, there was minor, if any, spread of the SARS coronavirus among Africans in the 2003 epidemic.
Genetic studies show that many subjects of African descent can produce interferon-lambda 4, whereas a large proportion of subjects of East Asian descent cannot produce this antiviral protein. It may thus be hypothesized that Africans are protected against COVID-19 as they naturally produce an antiviral protein that cannot be mounted by most East Asians. The variable degree of continental spread of the COVID-19 and the SARS coronaviruses may thus be explained by the racial difference of protection at epithelial surfaces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.24.58 ( talk) 20:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
TheFineTruthComb, please stop edit-warring. You added content, I removed it, but you are now repeatedly re-adding it. As per WP:BRD, if someone disputes your addition, you should discuss the matter on the Talk page and seek consensus.
The underlying problem is that you are ignoring WP:MEDRS, which states, "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies." See also WP:MEDREV. Content about the management of a condition should not be cited to magazine articles. We should also be avoiding primary research studies if possible. Bondegezou ( talk) 22:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Bondegezou Thanks for your feedback. I'm not just edit waring. I have added new references each time to try and make it more acceptable. I'm trying to find a way to write about this complex subject.
I am happy to modify or alter the approach to how this is written but you seem to be implying this cannot be written about for a significant period of time when the event has hopefully passed and more detailed scientific research can be done. Hopefully we can find a way to balance the fact this is very new information and as such some times scientifically unreliable with the fact it is the most imprortant virus related event on the planet for 100 years. Any guidance on how to do this or where to read on how to do this is much appreciated.
To comment on a couple of your reference requests one by one:
"Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews)" -Obviously given that Covid-19 only appeared on December 31st there will not be any of these for at least 6 months.
"guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies." - There are references from the "Beijing branch of China’s National Health Commission" and some hospitals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFineTruthComb ( talk • contribs) 22:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Could someone double-check the psychological section please. Whispyhistory ( talk) 18:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if we can call it a respiratory disease entirely? [1] -- Almaty ( talk) 05:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
References
MRC outbreak research centre has come out with new estimates for both case fatality rate and infection fatality ratio: https://twitter.com/MRC_Outbreak/status/1226765905306234881, https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/news--wuhan-coronavirus/ (COI declaration: spouse is co-author of https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-2019-nCoV-severity-10-02-2020.pdf)
The difference in these numbers is infection fatality ratio refers to overall mortality rate for *all* cases, including people who have very mild cases and do not go to hospital. This is by definition estimated .
Case fatality rate refers to people who have a confirmed case of the disease. This is necessarily higher because their condition is more severe; and it varies quite a lot, hence the difference between confirmed cases outside mainland China, which have been caught by screening people for mild illness, and in Hubei province where the outbreak is the most severe. Mvolz ( talk) 08:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum and this page is for discussing improvements to the article. Graham Beards ( talk) 18:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Several articles discuss this topic. To date, CDC has not specified which products are effective but had an article on this topic. I am travelling and have only a smartphone so cannot edit the article but someone should include this topic. Peter K Burian ( talk)
lopinavir/ritonavir are undergoing clinical trials, are the recommended treatment in Beijing, have been administered in Thailand, Malaysia, and South Korea, can be currently claimed for using health insurance in South Korea and have some significant health experts quoting how they have a positive effect. Furthermore, there is research giving the mode of action by which they help relieve symptoms. They seem like they should be present in this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFineTruthComb ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I did edit this on the weekend but it came back - I think logically we should state the symptoms first and then state that it may be asymptomatic in the lead. -- Almaty ( talk) 08:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
The article states that "[t]he disease is the cause of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak", but isn't it actually the other way around? As in, SARS-CoV-2 causing the COVID-19 outbreak? -- 80.34.223.192 ( talk) 12:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Should we use
"The virus is primarily transmitted via respiratory droplets from infected individuals when they cough, sneeze or exhale."
or
"It is primarily spread between people via respiratory droplets from infected individuals when they cough or sneeze."
Exhaling does not commonly produce respiratory droplets.
This is supported by the CDC [2] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
The virus seems to be transmitted mainly via respiratory droplets that people sneeze, cough, or exhale.Probably better sources are needed either way. Boud ( talk) 21:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
See COVID-19#Chloroquine and check for wording compatibility with WP:MEDRS in the present context.
It would be nice if at least a preprint on BiorXiv came out as something that medical researchers could look at as opposed to a press conference reported by Xinhua (with an anecdote for convincing the layperson, which I did not include in the text). The time scale for peer review and meta-review will presumably be a few months.
If chloroquine turns out to be effective as suggested by the press conference, then the death rate should drop rapidly: chloroquine is cheap and most likely already in good supply in the warmer areas of China. Boud ( talk) 23:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Speculative proposals and early-stage research should not be cited to imply wide acceptance. For example, results of an early-stage clinical trial would not be appropriate in the Treatment section on a disease because future treatments have little bearing on current practice. The results might – in some cases – be appropriate for inclusion in an article specifically dedicated to the treatment in question or to the researchers or businesses involved in it. Such information, particularly when citing secondary sources, may be appropriate in research sections of disease articles. To prevent misunderstanding, the text should clearly identify the level of research cited (e.g., "first-in-human safety testing").
Speculative proposals and early-stage research should not be citedwould be misleading. For good reason, it says
Speculative proposals and early-stage research should not be cited to imply wide acceptance(bold added). Did the removed text imply wide acceptance? No.
Which is attempted at the moment?
Eradication of infectious diseases — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 ( talk) 05:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
We currently have a section called Prognosis followed by a section called Epidemiology, but they cover much the same content, with slightly different numbers. Should we merge or more clearly differentiate? Bondegezou ( talk) 09:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
We should use the words referenced in the paper when naming the symptoms of COVID-19. In the cited paper for symptoms, they are listed as "Fever", "fatigue" and "dry cough", among others, while in the article "fatigue" is referenced as "tiredness." Using wording congruent to the paper is important and at the same time, tiredness seems rather like an oversimplification of what fatigue is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetsunamisam ( talk • contribs) 05:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I would like to reccomend that
"Chinese health authorities recommend the use of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) to prevent or treat the disease."
be changed to something along the lines of
"Chinese health authorities recommend the use of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) in addition to standard medical supportive care to prevent or treat the disease."
This is a minor change but helps reduce the somewhat misleading wording of the current phrasing, which, in particular to someone not reading carefully (unfortunately a common occurence these days), could leave the impression that Chinese health authorities are *only* recommending TCM, rather than what they actually lay out in their diagnostic and treatment plans, which is to use TCM in conjunction with antivirals and other supportive, evidence-based treatments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neonpixii ( talk • contribs) 17:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
This is an authoritative US Government registry of clinical trials. Although the trials as self-reported, I do not see why it cannot be used as a reference. There is no independent 3rd party source for clinical trials, since they are invisible unless the sponsors report them. -- Zeamays ( talk) 16:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Ozzie10aaaa: that was a big revert. Would you like to talk through your concerns? The additional citation and clarifying mask recommendations seem like slamdunks to me. Re-organising the management section to bring together advice rather than repeating similar advice from each country seems sensible to me. Bondegezou ( talk) 12:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Trying to read in simple English is cumbersome and doesn't flow easily. It conveys too little information across more words and is generally more vague. We are presuming that any reader of normal Wikipedia would have reasonable literacy skills and would have come across healthcare information before, so there's no reason to remove "normal" words from this article. These complex words and phrases are similar to legal doublets in that they convey a complex meaning that would otherwise take many words to explain. I agree that there are words which can be too complex (PCR test was the example I used last time), but even these terms can be used if written within context.
I think that anyone who is unable to read in normal English should be guided to the Simple English Wikipedia article since much of the information here is written in normal prose. The relevant articles on that encyclopedia need to be expanded by the users who constantly write simple English in this article. A URL could be placed at the top of the article to the Simple English Wikipedia article.
Tsukide ( talk) 18:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
In the very first paragraph ot says " It is primarily spread between people by small droplets from infected individuals when they breath or cough." Breath is a noun. Breathe is a verb. You should use the word "breathe" especially when you're talking about something like this. Christianmusician06 ( talk) 18:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
!!! Lopinavir/Ritonavir (Kaletra) ineffective!!!
Source: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thepaper.cn%2FnewsDetail_forward_6097825 https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_6097825
Short: On February 21, the team of Infectious Diseases and Immunology of Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center published its latest coronavirus drug research in the Chinese Journal of Infectious Diseases.
During the discussion, the research team pointed out that neither the lopinavir ritonavir group nor the abidol group was superior to the control group in improving clinical symptoms and accelerating virus clearance. The incidence of adverse reactions in the lopinavir ritonavir group was higher than that in the control group, which may be related to the dose or duration of the drug used. However, because there is no data on the dosage and duration of the two drugs, the study initially adopted a standard 5-day treatment regimen, and the effectiveness of a longer course or a larger dosage regimen needs to be further explored. However, the research team also mentioned that it may be that the two drugs do not have a good inhibitory effect on the new coronavirus. Psilosoph ( talk) 14:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
We should generally write the lead in easier to understand English:
We have "It primarily spreads between people via respiratory droplets from infected individuals as they sneeze or cough."
Which is significantly better than "The primary mode of infection in humans is human-to-human transmission, which generally occurs via respiratory droplets from infected individuals which they sneeze, cough or expire."
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Why would the inclusion of ‘breathe’ be considered redundant? It means something very different from cough or sneeze. More detail doesn’t make it harder to understand, it adds more important details that enhance understanding. Gootyam ( talk) 23:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
"There are no vaccines nor effective treatments, with efforts typically confined to management of symptoms and supportive measures. [1]" Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
References
Thought I'd borrow this heading (is that allowed?). At the end of the first paragraph under epidemiology it says "Pauline Vetter, in an editorial in The BMJ noted that mortality outside of Hubei province seems to be lower than within Hubei". However, I don't believe the source bears that out. What it does say is that most fatalities have been in Hubei province and that it may be possible that environmental factors in the area explain the sustained transmission of the disease in that area, but neither of these match the sentence on Wikipedia. CrisH7 ( talk) 10:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
The article states Transmission can be limited by washing hands, good hygiene, and wearing surgical masks yet two of the cites says they do not recommend wearing masks. CaGlwwWEDymzc7KBQC8u ( talk) 11:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
In the workplace, certified face masks (P2 Australia, N95 US...) are use to give some protection against particulates like crystalline silica dust, asbestos and microbiological aerosols like infectious droplets of COVID-19. Surgical masks are to protect the patient from doctor or a potentially infected person. The media almost universally portrays surgical masks and similar masks (which are also uncertified) for COVID-19 as giving protection to the wearer. However just wearing a proper particulate face mask does not mean a lot of protection. These masks depend on a good facial seal (fit) to be effective. Facial hair makes a good fit impossible. Fake masks abound on Amazon and eBay. Though face masks are not recommended by competent authorities, many people are using the wrong masks. This wiki should briefly explain the choices and link to another wiki explaining the limitations of surgical masks and other non-protective masks. Deeuubee ( talk) 03:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Viral_load - does this make a difference in high infection areas? It is not well written as an article - but seems relevant here, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.240.3.81 ( talk) 02:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I couldn't verify the sentence using source given. On the other hand, according to WHO..."Serological testing may be useful to confirm immunologic response to a pathogen from a specific viral group, e.g. coronavirus. Best results from serologic testing requires the collection of paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phase) from cases under investigation" WHO, p4 Cinadon 36 23:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Please participate in the RfC on a change to the table of coronavirus cases + deaths per country. Xenagoras ( talk) 19:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
says when to use masks - perhaps we shoudl encorporate this rather than speculate why or why not to use them. Saying masks are not recommended (as the article says now) is not true -they are recommended by WHO in particular circumsatnces, these ones. Other health authorities might recommend certain masks and in certain cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.240.3.81 ( talk) 09:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
PLEASE make the following changes:
replace reference 25 with this one: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks
PLEASE add this reference for general public not wearing a mask in this Coronavirus: WHO holds briefing on Covid-19 outbreak – as it happened https:// youtu . be/26iWUiSHYtg
as the current ref 24 is not about and does not mention masks REF 25 also does not say anything about the general public wearing masks, but the new one here from youtube is the WHO saying this about masks at around 52min
I heard that the incubation period might be 1 to 27 days, instead of 1 to 14 days. On WHO's website, they said that the incubation period is 1 to 14 days, but I don't know when they last updated the website. Sylvia.pa ( talk) 09:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to reframe the Alternative Medicine section to make it clear that TCM has not been established as an effective or safe treatment for the coronavirus. That info is in the last sentence, but could it be in the first? Here's what I'm thinking:
I'd just hate to see someone opt for pseudoscience instead of getting real medical treatment. -- BevansDesign1 ( talk) 19:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I see this isn’t mentioned. Has it been debunked? - Scarpy ( talk) 19:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Whoever has edit permissions, please correct:
The CDC recommends that healthcare providers first gown, then put on a mask or respirator. This is >>>THAN<<< followed by goggles or a face shield, and finally gloves that cover the wrists of the isolation gown.[81] MreeBiPolar ( talk) 15:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Read the source references! They are testing antivirals.(please sign your posts)
Is this the right wording? I would say that the cause of the outbreak is the virus (SARS-CoV-2), and that the outbreak is the spreading of the disease. I suppose in one sense the characteristics of the disease (infectiousness) are causing the outbreak, but seeing as the outbreak is also "causing" instances of the disease, it still feels like a weird tautology. Would you say "the disease influenza is the cause of flu outbreaks"? Perhaps, but maybe "[Covid-19] is the disease which was spread in the 2019 coronavirus outbreak" would be better? 81.106.108.123 ( talk) 01:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Signs and symptoms: "Diarrhea or upper respiratory symptoms (e.g. sneezing, runny nose, sore throat) are less frequent."
Main outbreak topic: "Unlike other coronaviruses, including SARS and MERS, COVID-19 patients may also develop gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhoea." ( citation)
Based on the latest NEJM report, it looks like many of these don't support a COVID-19 diagnosis. From the list, only sore throat registered at a significant 13.9%.
The way I read it, nasal congestion (4.8%), nausea or vomiting (5%), and diarrhea (3.8%) seem to be in line with the general population and thus more likely to indicate an infection is not COVID-19.
The paragraph that includes all percentages is great. I'm just concerned about WP:SYNTH in the presentation of "less frequent" and rare symptoms.
- Wikmoz ( talk) 08:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Not sure if this fits in with the Wikipedia style book but I'd suggest moving the Prognosis section much further up the page. Given the hysteria that seems to be developing - the clearly stated prognosis of a fatality rate of around 2% (of which at least some, maybe the majority, are in relatively high risk groups) would be a useful counter to the "France has started rationing face masks" type of headline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.80.243.239 ( talk) 21:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I started an RfC concerning pointing to the template namespace in the COVID 19 navbox. See Template talk:COVID-19#RfC on linking to template namespace to participate. Bait30 Talk? 18:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add section
Origin As per published report from WHO it is a zoonotic virus and probably originated from bats but intermediate carriers are not detected. This can lead to catastrophic disaster if the same group of bat can expand across different geographies. [1] DBigFacts ( talk) 13:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
References
As per earlier talk, I've created a draft disambiguation page. Please check & edit
Draft:Coronavirus_(Disambiguation)
What happens next? Robertpedley ( talk) 18:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I've seen several sources claiming that COVID-19 can cause long-term/permanent damage even in survivors, including fibrosis. Anyone want to add this? 72.209.60.95 ( talk) 04:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Which areas are mostlty affected Yash Sharma qwe123 ( talk) 05:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Curious to see JAMA (cited as reference 125 under the heading Research/Antiviral) tagged as "better source needed". Is this perhaps an accidental tagging? Wayne 23:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "outbreak was first idenhttp://backreaction.blogspot.com/tified on 31 December 2019" to "outbreak was first identified on 1 December 2019" Grishkin ( talk) 04:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
It would be great to cover and date stamp some of the AI efforts / claims reported by the Wall Street Journal today: https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/biotech-companies-tap-ai-to-speed-path-to-coronavirus-treatments-11583451564 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.148.105.170 ( talk) 23:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I think people should drink more hot fluids to build immunity against flu and corona virus - hot water, tea, coffee, milk, porridge, black tea with ginger, turmeric and cinamon. Also to eat more onions, garlic, tomatoes, carrots for immunity. Also not to use much air conditioner in hot weather - keeping ac temperetures at 25 degrees centigrade and above is safe so your body doesnt get too cold. Also sit more in open air than closed rooms.
Tangawizi (ginger tea) sold in tz on streets is very good for immunity.
Also keep at home - Vicks and Jivan San Jivan (indian herb) to be mixed for hot steam vapour inhaling to cure flu. Steam is considered the best cure for flu. Nafizbnasser ( talk) 21:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I deleted a paragraph [9]. It seems to me that there were numerous issue: "According to WHO, based on analysis of 44,000 cases": I think it is not WHO but a Chinese organization "The Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia Emergency Response Epidemiology Team" [10]. "and 3.7% of cases are fatal": It also seems wrong. The article says "overall case fatality rate of 2.3%". There is only one "3.7" number in the article and that is not the correct "overall case fatality rate". Why do such an errors appear in a prominent article? Or am I misunderstanding something? — fnielsen ( talk) 23:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
"No deaths had occurred under the age of 10 as of 26 February 2020" is based solely on data (or lack thereof) from China's CDC. It may be premature to assume that no deaths under age 10 have occurred. It looks more like China just chose not to report any numbers in that age range. Numerous articles have raised suspicion over the accuracy of China's reporting, many suggesting that underreporting of COVID-19 in China is politically motivated, perhaps to deflect criticism of their handling of the outbreak and deficiencies in their healthcare system infrastructure, and/or to convince their own citizens to return to work. One obviously glaring statistic that casts suspicion on China's COVID-19 reporting is the large discrepancy in the reported death rate in China vs. the rest of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.219.121 ( talk) 20:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
where are oseltamivir and peramivir etc ?? in trial treatments section ~ av8dok
The UK now has two confirmed cases of community transmission, one a woman in her 70s and the other a man in his 80s, both had underlying conditions and both have since died.
BBC News - Coronavirus: Man in 80s is second person to die of virus in UK https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51771815 Margo ( talk) 06:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Duke-NUS along with Arcturus is also working on a vaccine
104.128.175.161 ( talk) 03:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I searched dozens of papers for key characteristics of the COVID19. I need help for SARS, MERS. Seasonal flu is just for personal reference and is expected to be removed soon. If you have info for a cell, contribution welcome. Yug (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Virus | SARS-CoV-2 [a] | MERS-CoV | SARS-CoV | H1N1, H3N2 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Disease | COVID-19 | Middle East respiratory syndrome | Severe acute respiratory syndrome | Seasonal flu |
Epidemiology | ||||
Detection date | December 2019 | June 2012 | November 2002 | Endemic (n.a.) |
Detection place | Wuhan, China | Jeddah, Saudi Arabia | Guangdong, China | Endemic (n.a.) |
Confirmed cases | 88,585 [b] | 2494 | 8096 | 5~15,000,000/y |
Case fatality rate | 3,043 [b] (3.44%) | 858 (37%) | 744 (10%) | 290-650,000 (0.1%) |
Basic reproduction number | 2.2 (95% CI:1.4–3.9)
[2]
[3]
2.68 (95% CI:2.47–2.86) [4] |
1.3 | ||
Serial interval period | 7.5±3.4 days (95% CI:5.3–19) [2] | |||
Demographic | ||||
Age average | 49 | 56 | 39.9 | |
Age range | 21–76 | 14–94 | 1–91 | |
Male:female ratio | 2.7:1 | 3.3:1 | 1:1.25 | |
Health-care workers | 16 [c] | 9.8% | 23.1% | |
Symptoms | ||||
Fever | 40 (98%) | 98% | 99–100% | |
Dry cough | 31 (76%) | 47% | 29–75% | |
Dyspnea/short breath | 22 (55%) | 72% | 40–42% | |
Diarrhea | 1 (3%) | 26% | 20–25% | |
Sore throat | 0 | 21% | 13–25% | |
Ventilatory support | 9.8% | 80% | 14–20% | |
Prognostic/Evolution | ||||
Incubation | 5.5 days (1–14)
[5]
[6] or
5.2 days (95% CI:4.1–7.0) [2] |
2-4 days | ||
Onset | Day 0 | Day 0 | ||
First medical visit | +4.6 days (95% CI:4.1–5.1) [2] | |||
Hospital admission | +7.0 days (4.0–8.0) [7] or | |||
Dyspnea/short breath | +8.0 days (5.0–13.0) [7] | |||
ARDS | +9.0 days (8.0–14.0) [7] | |||
Mechanical ventilation / ICU | +10.5 days (7.0–14.0) [7] | |||
Recovery | +22.2 days (95% CI:18–83) [8] | |||
Dead | +14 days (6–41)
[9] or
hospitalization + 12.4 [10] +22.3 days (95% CI:18–82) [8] |
|||
Notes |
Yug (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
References
https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf This is a good source ( Angunnu ( talk) 11:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC))
https://www.who.int/csr/don/24-february-2020-mers-saudi-arabia/en/ For MERS ( Angunnu ( talk) 11:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC))
Interesting but wouldn't it violate WP:SYNTHESIS? Cinadon 36 15:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
"the world could independently develop polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests to detect infection by the virus.[13][55][56][57][58][59][60]" Is there any particular reason for so many refs? If I recall correctly, I removed some of them, but they have been re-inserted somehow. Cinadon 36 15:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
There's a reference to yicaiglobal which on Feb 25th stated that "China is producing [...] 350,000 antibody test kits each day" But 2 days later we have sciencemag.org saying "In what appears to be a first, disease trackers in Singapore have used an experimental antibody test for COVID-19 to confirm that a suspected patient was infected with the coronavirus. [...] Researchers around the world are racing to develop antibody tests,".
Either there was a huge miss of information from China to Singapore & others or the yicaiglobal article is wrong. Wrong either in that they misreported the officials or the officials said something which was not a reflection of reality.
Bearing WP:MEDRS in mind I'm not sure what we should do. Just remove the reference, or qualify it? -- TFJamMan ( talk) 11:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
From an epidemiological and predictive point of view, it is essential to know whether past patients can be re-infected. What do we know about that? There is nothing in here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederic Y Bois ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Any reasonable explanation for this. Most of that passage doesn't cite medical sources anyway. - ☣ Tourbillon A ? 11:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for opening a discussion. Here is my view:
I have created Coronavirus vaccine, as this will inevitably be needed to line up with our existing articles about developed and experimental vaccines. BD2412 T 18:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I've just restored {{ medical resources}} and the ICD-10 code, as it was slowly removed over a number of days after an IP added "not mentioned at target". Effectively marking it as "citation needed" but via the use of a comment tag. My problem with that is:
With that said, the 2019 version of ICD-10 does state COVID-19 at U07.1, so I've requested the URL at {{ ICD10}} is updated to fix the verification "problem". Little pob ( talk) 09:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I removed a paragraph, because it resembled a list created by various sources, some of them non-RS. We should strive to find an article that presents this specific topic (research on antivirals) rather than using a dozen of questionable sources. Here is the text I removed.
Antivirals being tested include chloroquine, [1] darunavir, [2] galidesivir, [3] interferon beta, [4] better source needed the lopinavir/ritonavir combination, [5] [1] the RNA polymerase inhibitor remdesivir, [4] [6] [7] and triazavirin. [8] [9] better source needed Umifenovir (Arbidol) and darunavir were proposed by the National Health Commission. [10] better source needed
References
LiDeClerq
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).clinicaltrialsarena
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Any feedback is welcomed. Cinadon 36 17:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
1. The article says "Time from exposure to onset of symptoms is generally between two and 14 days, with an average of five days." and then it says "The incubation period ranges from 1 to 14 days, with an estimated median incubation period of 5 to 6 days". The information should be consistent.
2. The article says "The disease is caused by the virus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), previously referred to as the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)". Does it mean that the current "novel coronavirus" is incorrect?
ICE77 ( talk) 07:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Dekimasu:, I have noticed that you deleted one of my recent additions. [16] You are right, the info is not about the cause of COVID19. It is about the pathophysiology of the disease and I think it is a pretty important aspect. So I intent to re-introduce it, under the new section "pathophysiology". What concerns me, and lead me to placing that piece of text under "cause" section, is that I wanted to avoid fragmentation of the article into several sections. Anyway, I 'd like your opinion before I proceed to any changes. Cinadon 36 14:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I am uploading my scientific artwork, currently published - https://www.statpearls.com/as/pulmonary/52171/, to add to this wikiarticle.
I have additional images from the above article, will add all of them soon.
Image 1 - Transmission of SARS-CoV 2 [ [17]]
Rbsingh91 —Preceding
undated comment added
00:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Why is "Wuhan coronavirus" not listed under Other Names? It looks like some substantial basis of this page was actually from a page in January substantively named "Wuhan coronavirus," and omitting a term used for months by variety of news organizations, including the Times and CNN, reads in context like a political decision, not an encyclopedic one. -- Bighardsun ( talk) 02:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
It is very bad for the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on COVID19 - i.e. one of the primary sources for information on the disease for the entire planet - to mention "runny nose" in the symptom list without a very strong caveat, when it almost definitely indicates hayfever or a rhinovirus. Rhinorrhea doesn't even appear in the WHO-China report as an observed symptom.
This is the version that I submitted, based on a careful reading of the literature, that has been reverted:
-- The Cunctator ( talk) 03:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
References
Huang24Jan2020
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).CDC2020Sym
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).:2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Hessen27Jan2020
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).WHO report 28 February 2020
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).whoqa
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Hi everyone,
I found graph in connection to the reference 99 http://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/article/id/e53946e2-c6c4-41e9-9a9b-fea8db1a8f51 interesting, so I spent some time making an expanded version (attached to post). What do you think, would it be a good contribution to this article?
Best, Lejoon ( talk) 20:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
It makes everything too small. We should have this as three separate graphs in a gallery. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Can you make the bars wider so the numbers on top are bigger? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
There are accusations that China is altering, underreporting and trying to hide the real toll of coronavirus. [2] 194.247.60.2 ( talk) 09:44, 13 March 2020 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Interferon-lambda 4 is an antiviral protein that protects humans against infections at epithelial surfaces such as the respiratory tract. There are hitherto surprisingly few cases of COVID-19 among subjects of African descent. Similarly, there was minor, if any, spread of the SARS coronavirus among Africans in the 2003 epidemic.
Genetic studies show that many subjects of African descent can produce interferon-lambda 4, whereas a large proportion of subjects of East Asian descent cannot produce this antiviral protein. It may thus be hypothesized that Africans are protected against COVID-19 as they naturally produce an antiviral protein that cannot be mounted by most East Asians. The variable degree of continental spread of the COVID-19 and the SARS coronaviruses may thus be explained by the racial difference of protection at epithelial surfaces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.24.58 ( talk) 20:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
TheFineTruthComb, please stop edit-warring. You added content, I removed it, but you are now repeatedly re-adding it. As per WP:BRD, if someone disputes your addition, you should discuss the matter on the Talk page and seek consensus.
The underlying problem is that you are ignoring WP:MEDRS, which states, "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies." See also WP:MEDREV. Content about the management of a condition should not be cited to magazine articles. We should also be avoiding primary research studies if possible. Bondegezou ( talk) 22:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Bondegezou Thanks for your feedback. I'm not just edit waring. I have added new references each time to try and make it more acceptable. I'm trying to find a way to write about this complex subject.
I am happy to modify or alter the approach to how this is written but you seem to be implying this cannot be written about for a significant period of time when the event has hopefully passed and more detailed scientific research can be done. Hopefully we can find a way to balance the fact this is very new information and as such some times scientifically unreliable with the fact it is the most imprortant virus related event on the planet for 100 years. Any guidance on how to do this or where to read on how to do this is much appreciated.
To comment on a couple of your reference requests one by one:
"Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews)" -Obviously given that Covid-19 only appeared on December 31st there will not be any of these for at least 6 months.
"guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies." - There are references from the "Beijing branch of China’s National Health Commission" and some hospitals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFineTruthComb ( talk • contribs) 22:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Could someone double-check the psychological section please. Whispyhistory ( talk) 18:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if we can call it a respiratory disease entirely? [1] -- Almaty ( talk) 05:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
References
MRC outbreak research centre has come out with new estimates for both case fatality rate and infection fatality ratio: https://twitter.com/MRC_Outbreak/status/1226765905306234881, https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/news--wuhan-coronavirus/ (COI declaration: spouse is co-author of https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-2019-nCoV-severity-10-02-2020.pdf)
The difference in these numbers is infection fatality ratio refers to overall mortality rate for *all* cases, including people who have very mild cases and do not go to hospital. This is by definition estimated .
Case fatality rate refers to people who have a confirmed case of the disease. This is necessarily higher because their condition is more severe; and it varies quite a lot, hence the difference between confirmed cases outside mainland China, which have been caught by screening people for mild illness, and in Hubei province where the outbreak is the most severe. Mvolz ( talk) 08:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum and this page is for discussing improvements to the article. Graham Beards ( talk) 18:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Several articles discuss this topic. To date, CDC has not specified which products are effective but had an article on this topic. I am travelling and have only a smartphone so cannot edit the article but someone should include this topic. Peter K Burian ( talk)
lopinavir/ritonavir are undergoing clinical trials, are the recommended treatment in Beijing, have been administered in Thailand, Malaysia, and South Korea, can be currently claimed for using health insurance in South Korea and have some significant health experts quoting how they have a positive effect. Furthermore, there is research giving the mode of action by which they help relieve symptoms. They seem like they should be present in this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFineTruthComb ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I did edit this on the weekend but it came back - I think logically we should state the symptoms first and then state that it may be asymptomatic in the lead. -- Almaty ( talk) 08:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
The article states that "[t]he disease is the cause of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak", but isn't it actually the other way around? As in, SARS-CoV-2 causing the COVID-19 outbreak? -- 80.34.223.192 ( talk) 12:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Should we use
"The virus is primarily transmitted via respiratory droplets from infected individuals when they cough, sneeze or exhale."
or
"It is primarily spread between people via respiratory droplets from infected individuals when they cough or sneeze."
Exhaling does not commonly produce respiratory droplets.
This is supported by the CDC [2] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
The virus seems to be transmitted mainly via respiratory droplets that people sneeze, cough, or exhale.Probably better sources are needed either way. Boud ( talk) 21:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
See COVID-19#Chloroquine and check for wording compatibility with WP:MEDRS in the present context.
It would be nice if at least a preprint on BiorXiv came out as something that medical researchers could look at as opposed to a press conference reported by Xinhua (with an anecdote for convincing the layperson, which I did not include in the text). The time scale for peer review and meta-review will presumably be a few months.
If chloroquine turns out to be effective as suggested by the press conference, then the death rate should drop rapidly: chloroquine is cheap and most likely already in good supply in the warmer areas of China. Boud ( talk) 23:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Speculative proposals and early-stage research should not be cited to imply wide acceptance. For example, results of an early-stage clinical trial would not be appropriate in the Treatment section on a disease because future treatments have little bearing on current practice. The results might – in some cases – be appropriate for inclusion in an article specifically dedicated to the treatment in question or to the researchers or businesses involved in it. Such information, particularly when citing secondary sources, may be appropriate in research sections of disease articles. To prevent misunderstanding, the text should clearly identify the level of research cited (e.g., "first-in-human safety testing").
Speculative proposals and early-stage research should not be citedwould be misleading. For good reason, it says
Speculative proposals and early-stage research should not be cited to imply wide acceptance(bold added). Did the removed text imply wide acceptance? No.
Which is attempted at the moment?
Eradication of infectious diseases — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 ( talk) 05:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
We currently have a section called Prognosis followed by a section called Epidemiology, but they cover much the same content, with slightly different numbers. Should we merge or more clearly differentiate? Bondegezou ( talk) 09:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
We should use the words referenced in the paper when naming the symptoms of COVID-19. In the cited paper for symptoms, they are listed as "Fever", "fatigue" and "dry cough", among others, while in the article "fatigue" is referenced as "tiredness." Using wording congruent to the paper is important and at the same time, tiredness seems rather like an oversimplification of what fatigue is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetsunamisam ( talk • contribs) 05:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I would like to reccomend that
"Chinese health authorities recommend the use of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) to prevent or treat the disease."
be changed to something along the lines of
"Chinese health authorities recommend the use of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) in addition to standard medical supportive care to prevent or treat the disease."
This is a minor change but helps reduce the somewhat misleading wording of the current phrasing, which, in particular to someone not reading carefully (unfortunately a common occurence these days), could leave the impression that Chinese health authorities are *only* recommending TCM, rather than what they actually lay out in their diagnostic and treatment plans, which is to use TCM in conjunction with antivirals and other supportive, evidence-based treatments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neonpixii ( talk • contribs) 17:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
This is an authoritative US Government registry of clinical trials. Although the trials as self-reported, I do not see why it cannot be used as a reference. There is no independent 3rd party source for clinical trials, since they are invisible unless the sponsors report them. -- Zeamays ( talk) 16:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Ozzie10aaaa: that was a big revert. Would you like to talk through your concerns? The additional citation and clarifying mask recommendations seem like slamdunks to me. Re-organising the management section to bring together advice rather than repeating similar advice from each country seems sensible to me. Bondegezou ( talk) 12:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Trying to read in simple English is cumbersome and doesn't flow easily. It conveys too little information across more words and is generally more vague. We are presuming that any reader of normal Wikipedia would have reasonable literacy skills and would have come across healthcare information before, so there's no reason to remove "normal" words from this article. These complex words and phrases are similar to legal doublets in that they convey a complex meaning that would otherwise take many words to explain. I agree that there are words which can be too complex (PCR test was the example I used last time), but even these terms can be used if written within context.
I think that anyone who is unable to read in normal English should be guided to the Simple English Wikipedia article since much of the information here is written in normal prose. The relevant articles on that encyclopedia need to be expanded by the users who constantly write simple English in this article. A URL could be placed at the top of the article to the Simple English Wikipedia article.
Tsukide ( talk) 18:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
In the very first paragraph ot says " It is primarily spread between people by small droplets from infected individuals when they breath or cough." Breath is a noun. Breathe is a verb. You should use the word "breathe" especially when you're talking about something like this. Christianmusician06 ( talk) 18:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
!!! Lopinavir/Ritonavir (Kaletra) ineffective!!!
Source: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thepaper.cn%2FnewsDetail_forward_6097825 https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_6097825
Short: On February 21, the team of Infectious Diseases and Immunology of Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center published its latest coronavirus drug research in the Chinese Journal of Infectious Diseases.
During the discussion, the research team pointed out that neither the lopinavir ritonavir group nor the abidol group was superior to the control group in improving clinical symptoms and accelerating virus clearance. The incidence of adverse reactions in the lopinavir ritonavir group was higher than that in the control group, which may be related to the dose or duration of the drug used. However, because there is no data on the dosage and duration of the two drugs, the study initially adopted a standard 5-day treatment regimen, and the effectiveness of a longer course or a larger dosage regimen needs to be further explored. However, the research team also mentioned that it may be that the two drugs do not have a good inhibitory effect on the new coronavirus. Psilosoph ( talk) 14:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
We should generally write the lead in easier to understand English:
We have "It primarily spreads between people via respiratory droplets from infected individuals as they sneeze or cough."
Which is significantly better than "The primary mode of infection in humans is human-to-human transmission, which generally occurs via respiratory droplets from infected individuals which they sneeze, cough or expire."
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Why would the inclusion of ‘breathe’ be considered redundant? It means something very different from cough or sneeze. More detail doesn’t make it harder to understand, it adds more important details that enhance understanding. Gootyam ( talk) 23:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
"There are no vaccines nor effective treatments, with efforts typically confined to management of symptoms and supportive measures. [1]" Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
References
Thought I'd borrow this heading (is that allowed?). At the end of the first paragraph under epidemiology it says "Pauline Vetter, in an editorial in The BMJ noted that mortality outside of Hubei province seems to be lower than within Hubei". However, I don't believe the source bears that out. What it does say is that most fatalities have been in Hubei province and that it may be possible that environmental factors in the area explain the sustained transmission of the disease in that area, but neither of these match the sentence on Wikipedia. CrisH7 ( talk) 10:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
The article states Transmission can be limited by washing hands, good hygiene, and wearing surgical masks yet two of the cites says they do not recommend wearing masks. CaGlwwWEDymzc7KBQC8u ( talk) 11:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
In the workplace, certified face masks (P2 Australia, N95 US...) are use to give some protection against particulates like crystalline silica dust, asbestos and microbiological aerosols like infectious droplets of COVID-19. Surgical masks are to protect the patient from doctor or a potentially infected person. The media almost universally portrays surgical masks and similar masks (which are also uncertified) for COVID-19 as giving protection to the wearer. However just wearing a proper particulate face mask does not mean a lot of protection. These masks depend on a good facial seal (fit) to be effective. Facial hair makes a good fit impossible. Fake masks abound on Amazon and eBay. Though face masks are not recommended by competent authorities, many people are using the wrong masks. This wiki should briefly explain the choices and link to another wiki explaining the limitations of surgical masks and other non-protective masks. Deeuubee ( talk) 03:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Viral_load - does this make a difference in high infection areas? It is not well written as an article - but seems relevant here, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.240.3.81 ( talk) 02:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I couldn't verify the sentence using source given. On the other hand, according to WHO..."Serological testing may be useful to confirm immunologic response to a pathogen from a specific viral group, e.g. coronavirus. Best results from serologic testing requires the collection of paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phase) from cases under investigation" WHO, p4 Cinadon 36 23:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Please participate in the RfC on a change to the table of coronavirus cases + deaths per country. Xenagoras ( talk) 19:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
says when to use masks - perhaps we shoudl encorporate this rather than speculate why or why not to use them. Saying masks are not recommended (as the article says now) is not true -they are recommended by WHO in particular circumsatnces, these ones. Other health authorities might recommend certain masks and in certain cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.240.3.81 ( talk) 09:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
PLEASE make the following changes:
replace reference 25 with this one: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks
PLEASE add this reference for general public not wearing a mask in this Coronavirus: WHO holds briefing on Covid-19 outbreak – as it happened https:// youtu . be/26iWUiSHYtg
as the current ref 24 is not about and does not mention masks REF 25 also does not say anything about the general public wearing masks, but the new one here from youtube is the WHO saying this about masks at around 52min
I heard that the incubation period might be 1 to 27 days, instead of 1 to 14 days. On WHO's website, they said that the incubation period is 1 to 14 days, but I don't know when they last updated the website. Sylvia.pa ( talk) 09:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to reframe the Alternative Medicine section to make it clear that TCM has not been established as an effective or safe treatment for the coronavirus. That info is in the last sentence, but could it be in the first? Here's what I'm thinking:
I'd just hate to see someone opt for pseudoscience instead of getting real medical treatment. -- BevansDesign1 ( talk) 19:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I see this isn’t mentioned. Has it been debunked? - Scarpy ( talk) 19:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Whoever has edit permissions, please correct:
The CDC recommends that healthcare providers first gown, then put on a mask or respirator. This is >>>THAN<<< followed by goggles or a face shield, and finally gloves that cover the wrists of the isolation gown.[81] MreeBiPolar ( talk) 15:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Read the source references! They are testing antivirals.(please sign your posts)
Is this the right wording? I would say that the cause of the outbreak is the virus (SARS-CoV-2), and that the outbreak is the spreading of the disease. I suppose in one sense the characteristics of the disease (infectiousness) are causing the outbreak, but seeing as the outbreak is also "causing" instances of the disease, it still feels like a weird tautology. Would you say "the disease influenza is the cause of flu outbreaks"? Perhaps, but maybe "[Covid-19] is the disease which was spread in the 2019 coronavirus outbreak" would be better? 81.106.108.123 ( talk) 01:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Signs and symptoms: "Diarrhea or upper respiratory symptoms (e.g. sneezing, runny nose, sore throat) are less frequent."
Main outbreak topic: "Unlike other coronaviruses, including SARS and MERS, COVID-19 patients may also develop gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhoea." ( citation)
Based on the latest NEJM report, it looks like many of these don't support a COVID-19 diagnosis. From the list, only sore throat registered at a significant 13.9%.
The way I read it, nasal congestion (4.8%), nausea or vomiting (5%), and diarrhea (3.8%) seem to be in line with the general population and thus more likely to indicate an infection is not COVID-19.
The paragraph that includes all percentages is great. I'm just concerned about WP:SYNTH in the presentation of "less frequent" and rare symptoms.
- Wikmoz ( talk) 08:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Not sure if this fits in with the Wikipedia style book but I'd suggest moving the Prognosis section much further up the page. Given the hysteria that seems to be developing - the clearly stated prognosis of a fatality rate of around 2% (of which at least some, maybe the majority, are in relatively high risk groups) would be a useful counter to the "France has started rationing face masks" type of headline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.80.243.239 ( talk) 21:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I started an RfC concerning pointing to the template namespace in the COVID 19 navbox. See Template talk:COVID-19#RfC on linking to template namespace to participate. Bait30 Talk? 18:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add section
Origin As per published report from WHO it is a zoonotic virus and probably originated from bats but intermediate carriers are not detected. This can lead to catastrophic disaster if the same group of bat can expand across different geographies. [1] DBigFacts ( talk) 13:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
References
As per earlier talk, I've created a draft disambiguation page. Please check & edit
Draft:Coronavirus_(Disambiguation)
What happens next? Robertpedley ( talk) 18:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I've seen several sources claiming that COVID-19 can cause long-term/permanent damage even in survivors, including fibrosis. Anyone want to add this? 72.209.60.95 ( talk) 04:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Which areas are mostlty affected Yash Sharma qwe123 ( talk) 05:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Curious to see JAMA (cited as reference 125 under the heading Research/Antiviral) tagged as "better source needed". Is this perhaps an accidental tagging? Wayne 23:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "outbreak was first idenhttp://backreaction.blogspot.com/tified on 31 December 2019" to "outbreak was first identified on 1 December 2019" Grishkin ( talk) 04:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
It would be great to cover and date stamp some of the AI efforts / claims reported by the Wall Street Journal today: https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/biotech-companies-tap-ai-to-speed-path-to-coronavirus-treatments-11583451564 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.148.105.170 ( talk) 23:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I think people should drink more hot fluids to build immunity against flu and corona virus - hot water, tea, coffee, milk, porridge, black tea with ginger, turmeric and cinamon. Also to eat more onions, garlic, tomatoes, carrots for immunity. Also not to use much air conditioner in hot weather - keeping ac temperetures at 25 degrees centigrade and above is safe so your body doesnt get too cold. Also sit more in open air than closed rooms.
Tangawizi (ginger tea) sold in tz on streets is very good for immunity.
Also keep at home - Vicks and Jivan San Jivan (indian herb) to be mixed for hot steam vapour inhaling to cure flu. Steam is considered the best cure for flu. Nafizbnasser ( talk) 21:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I deleted a paragraph [9]. It seems to me that there were numerous issue: "According to WHO, based on analysis of 44,000 cases": I think it is not WHO but a Chinese organization "The Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia Emergency Response Epidemiology Team" [10]. "and 3.7% of cases are fatal": It also seems wrong. The article says "overall case fatality rate of 2.3%". There is only one "3.7" number in the article and that is not the correct "overall case fatality rate". Why do such an errors appear in a prominent article? Or am I misunderstanding something? — fnielsen ( talk) 23:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
"No deaths had occurred under the age of 10 as of 26 February 2020" is based solely on data (or lack thereof) from China's CDC. It may be premature to assume that no deaths under age 10 have occurred. It looks more like China just chose not to report any numbers in that age range. Numerous articles have raised suspicion over the accuracy of China's reporting, many suggesting that underreporting of COVID-19 in China is politically motivated, perhaps to deflect criticism of their handling of the outbreak and deficiencies in their healthcare system infrastructure, and/or to convince their own citizens to return to work. One obviously glaring statistic that casts suspicion on China's COVID-19 reporting is the large discrepancy in the reported death rate in China vs. the rest of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.219.121 ( talk) 20:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
where are oseltamivir and peramivir etc ?? in trial treatments section ~ av8dok
The UK now has two confirmed cases of community transmission, one a woman in her 70s and the other a man in his 80s, both had underlying conditions and both have since died.
BBC News - Coronavirus: Man in 80s is second person to die of virus in UK https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51771815 Margo ( talk) 06:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Duke-NUS along with Arcturus is also working on a vaccine
104.128.175.161 ( talk) 03:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I searched dozens of papers for key characteristics of the COVID19. I need help for SARS, MERS. Seasonal flu is just for personal reference and is expected to be removed soon. If you have info for a cell, contribution welcome. Yug (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Virus | SARS-CoV-2 [a] | MERS-CoV | SARS-CoV | H1N1, H3N2 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Disease | COVID-19 | Middle East respiratory syndrome | Severe acute respiratory syndrome | Seasonal flu |
Epidemiology | ||||
Detection date | December 2019 | June 2012 | November 2002 | Endemic (n.a.) |
Detection place | Wuhan, China | Jeddah, Saudi Arabia | Guangdong, China | Endemic (n.a.) |
Confirmed cases | 88,585 [b] | 2494 | 8096 | 5~15,000,000/y |
Case fatality rate | 3,043 [b] (3.44%) | 858 (37%) | 744 (10%) | 290-650,000 (0.1%) |
Basic reproduction number | 2.2 (95% CI:1.4–3.9)
[2]
[3]
2.68 (95% CI:2.47–2.86) [4] |
1.3 | ||
Serial interval period | 7.5±3.4 days (95% CI:5.3–19) [2] | |||
Demographic | ||||
Age average | 49 | 56 | 39.9 | |
Age range | 21–76 | 14–94 | 1–91 | |
Male:female ratio | 2.7:1 | 3.3:1 | 1:1.25 | |
Health-care workers | 16 [c] | 9.8% | 23.1% | |
Symptoms | ||||
Fever | 40 (98%) | 98% | 99–100% | |
Dry cough | 31 (76%) | 47% | 29–75% | |
Dyspnea/short breath | 22 (55%) | 72% | 40–42% | |
Diarrhea | 1 (3%) | 26% | 20–25% | |
Sore throat | 0 | 21% | 13–25% | |
Ventilatory support | 9.8% | 80% | 14–20% | |
Prognostic/Evolution | ||||
Incubation | 5.5 days (1–14)
[5]
[6] or
5.2 days (95% CI:4.1–7.0) [2] |
2-4 days | ||
Onset | Day 0 | Day 0 | ||
First medical visit | +4.6 days (95% CI:4.1–5.1) [2] | |||
Hospital admission | +7.0 days (4.0–8.0) [7] or | |||
Dyspnea/short breath | +8.0 days (5.0–13.0) [7] | |||
ARDS | +9.0 days (8.0–14.0) [7] | |||
Mechanical ventilation / ICU | +10.5 days (7.0–14.0) [7] | |||
Recovery | +22.2 days (95% CI:18–83) [8] | |||
Dead | +14 days (6–41)
[9] or
hospitalization + 12.4 [10] +22.3 days (95% CI:18–82) [8] |
|||
Notes |
Yug (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
References
https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf This is a good source ( Angunnu ( talk) 11:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC))
https://www.who.int/csr/don/24-february-2020-mers-saudi-arabia/en/ For MERS ( Angunnu ( talk) 11:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC))
Interesting but wouldn't it violate WP:SYNTHESIS? Cinadon 36 15:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
"the world could independently develop polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests to detect infection by the virus.[13][55][56][57][58][59][60]" Is there any particular reason for so many refs? If I recall correctly, I removed some of them, but they have been re-inserted somehow. Cinadon 36 15:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
There's a reference to yicaiglobal which on Feb 25th stated that "China is producing [...] 350,000 antibody test kits each day" But 2 days later we have sciencemag.org saying "In what appears to be a first, disease trackers in Singapore have used an experimental antibody test for COVID-19 to confirm that a suspected patient was infected with the coronavirus. [...] Researchers around the world are racing to develop antibody tests,".
Either there was a huge miss of information from China to Singapore & others or the yicaiglobal article is wrong. Wrong either in that they misreported the officials or the officials said something which was not a reflection of reality.
Bearing WP:MEDRS in mind I'm not sure what we should do. Just remove the reference, or qualify it? -- TFJamMan ( talk) 11:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
From an epidemiological and predictive point of view, it is essential to know whether past patients can be re-infected. What do we know about that? There is nothing in here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederic Y Bois ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Any reasonable explanation for this. Most of that passage doesn't cite medical sources anyway. - ☣ Tourbillon A ? 11:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for opening a discussion. Here is my view:
I have created Coronavirus vaccine, as this will inevitably be needed to line up with our existing articles about developed and experimental vaccines. BD2412 T 18:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I've just restored {{ medical resources}} and the ICD-10 code, as it was slowly removed over a number of days after an IP added "not mentioned at target". Effectively marking it as "citation needed" but via the use of a comment tag. My problem with that is:
With that said, the 2019 version of ICD-10 does state COVID-19 at U07.1, so I've requested the URL at {{ ICD10}} is updated to fix the verification "problem". Little pob ( talk) 09:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I removed a paragraph, because it resembled a list created by various sources, some of them non-RS. We should strive to find an article that presents this specific topic (research on antivirals) rather than using a dozen of questionable sources. Here is the text I removed.
Antivirals being tested include chloroquine, [1] darunavir, [2] galidesivir, [3] interferon beta, [4] better source needed the lopinavir/ritonavir combination, [5] [1] the RNA polymerase inhibitor remdesivir, [4] [6] [7] and triazavirin. [8] [9] better source needed Umifenovir (Arbidol) and darunavir were proposed by the National Health Commission. [10] better source needed
References
LiDeClerq
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).clinicaltrialsarena
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Any feedback is welcomed. Cinadon 36 17:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
1. The article says "Time from exposure to onset of symptoms is generally between two and 14 days, with an average of five days." and then it says "The incubation period ranges from 1 to 14 days, with an estimated median incubation period of 5 to 6 days". The information should be consistent.
2. The article says "The disease is caused by the virus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), previously referred to as the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)". Does it mean that the current "novel coronavirus" is incorrect?
ICE77 ( talk) 07:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Dekimasu:, I have noticed that you deleted one of my recent additions. [16] You are right, the info is not about the cause of COVID19. It is about the pathophysiology of the disease and I think it is a pretty important aspect. So I intent to re-introduce it, under the new section "pathophysiology". What concerns me, and lead me to placing that piece of text under "cause" section, is that I wanted to avoid fragmentation of the article into several sections. Anyway, I 'd like your opinion before I proceed to any changes. Cinadon 36 14:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I am uploading my scientific artwork, currently published - https://www.statpearls.com/as/pulmonary/52171/, to add to this wikiarticle.
I have additional images from the above article, will add all of them soon.
Image 1 - Transmission of SARS-CoV 2 [ [17]]
Rbsingh91 —Preceding
undated comment added
00:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Why is "Wuhan coronavirus" not listed under Other Names? It looks like some substantial basis of this page was actually from a page in January substantively named "Wuhan coronavirus," and omitting a term used for months by variety of news organizations, including the Times and CNN, reads in context like a political decision, not an encyclopedic one. -- Bighardsun ( talk) 02:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
It is very bad for the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on COVID19 - i.e. one of the primary sources for information on the disease for the entire planet - to mention "runny nose" in the symptom list without a very strong caveat, when it almost definitely indicates hayfever or a rhinovirus. Rhinorrhea doesn't even appear in the WHO-China report as an observed symptom.
This is the version that I submitted, based on a careful reading of the literature, that has been reverted:
-- The Cunctator ( talk) 03:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
References
Huang24Jan2020
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).CDC2020Sym
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).:2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Hessen27Jan2020
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).WHO report 28 February 2020
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).whoqa
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Hi everyone,
I found graph in connection to the reference 99 http://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/article/id/e53946e2-c6c4-41e9-9a9b-fea8db1a8f51 interesting, so I spent some time making an expanded version (attached to post). What do you think, would it be a good contribution to this article?
Best, Lejoon ( talk) 20:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
It makes everything too small. We should have this as three separate graphs in a gallery. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Can you make the bars wider so the numbers on top are bigger? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
There are accusations that China is altering, underreporting and trying to hide the real toll of coronavirus. [2] 194.247.60.2 ( talk) 09:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
References