![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
This section appears to be trying to calculate the IFR themselves. Yah it is one way to look at the numbers but I am not sure we should be doing this ourselves. Expecially the table. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Antibodies | Deaths | Ratio deaths/antibodies | Remarks | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Castiglione d'Adda | (40 of 60) 67% [1] | 1.7% | >1.7%, 2.7% | All deaths |
Gangelt | 14% | 0.06% | 0.4% | False positives issue |
Netherlands | 3% | 0.018%x2 | 1.2% | Incl excess deaths. Plausible spatial distribution |
Santa Clara | 2.8% | 0.004% | 0.14% | False positives statistics issue |
NYC | 19.9% | 0.25% | 1.26% | Incl excess deaths |
NY | 12.3% | 0.083% | 0.67% | Incl excess deaths. Plausible spatial distribution |
Geneva | 5.5% | 0.036% | 0.65% | |
Italy | 10% | 0.067% | 0.67% | |
Los Angeles | 4.1% | 0.022% | 0.56% | False positives statistics issue. Latest death toll |
Belgium | 4.3% | 0.066% | 1.5% | |
Nembro | ? | 1.1% | >1.1% | Incl excess deaths |
Miami-Dade | 6% | 0.013% | 0.22% | False positives statics issue. Latest death count |
While not all infected people develop antibodies, the presence of antibodies may provide information about how many people have been infected.
In the epicentre of the outbreak in Italy, Castiglione d'Adda, a small village of 4500, 80 (1.8%) are already dead. Most people in the village appear to have developed antibodies and possible immunity, most did so without being diagnosed, and many did not have symptoms. [2] [1]
In the German region of Gangelt, where 0.06% of the population has died, 14% have antibodies (15% have been infected and 2% were currently infectious). [3] [4] In Gangelt, the disease was spread by Carnival festivals, and spread to younger people, causing a relatively lower mortality, [5] and not all COVID-19 deaths may have been formally classified as such. Furthermore, the German health system has not been overwhelmed.
In the Netherlands, about 3% may have antibodies, as assessed from blood donors. [6] [7] There, the confirmed deaths from the disease is 0.018% of the population, [8] however the excess deaths with respect to normal circumstances is about twice as high as not all COVID-19 deaths are recorded as such. [9]
In Santa Clara county, 2.8% appear to have developed antibodies. [10] 69 (0.004% of the population) have died from COVID-19. [11]
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
[1] Please review, as it is somewhat non-trivial. Jmv2009 ( talk) 11:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Chance of picking <3 out of 401 when actual likelyhood is 0.0179 is 0.025. Solve[CDF[BinomialDistribution[401, x], 2] == 0.025] [Mathematica/Wolfram Alpha] 1 - InverseBetaRegularized[0.025, 399, 3] Both give 0.0179 [2] For Stanford Santa Clara study.
Now there is a confirmation of this: Joerg Stoye in the comments of the "peer review". Jmv2009 ( talk) 14:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
We need to use proper sources. We have a lowest possible IFR in Lombardy of 0.12% (12,213 dead/10,078,012 people) and NYC 0.16% (13,240 dead / 8,398,748 people). These numbers require every single person in these regions to be infected already and no more to die. Nearly 1000 in that region in Italy are still in ICU and lots are still in ICU in NYC.
We have people who are doing small studies and than making extrapolations that are very highly improbable. This is why we require high quality secondary sources for medical claims. To hit an IFR of 0.12% in NCY reincarnation would need to be discovered and more than 3,000 dead people brought back to life. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
"In Wuhan, a city of 11.08 million, where 3869 (0.03%) have died, "China increases death toll in outbreak city by 50%". BBC News. 2020-04-17. Retrieved 2020-04-19. 2.0 to 3.0% of hospital employees and patients appear to have developed antibodies. "Wuhan anitbody tests show herd immunity is a long way off". HotAir. Retrieved 2020-04-19."
The first source does not mention antibodies and the second source is really really poor. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
References
This section is very much undue weight. It is based on poor sources and trying to lead our readers to make conclusions that the sources are not strong enough to make. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Thoughts about any of these being included:
Analyses of data from China as well as data from those returning on repatriation flights suggest that 40-50% of infections were not identified as cases12. This may include asymptomatic infections, mild disease and a level of under-ascertainment.-- so not just asymptomatic, but also those mild enough to fall under the radar/ get mistaken for a different disease, it seems. This one is the one I am least inclined to add (Mizumoto I am most inclined.).
Also, possibly for the pandemic page, (recent) historical estimates on the role of undocumented (not necessarily asymptomatic) cases in transmission:
We estimate 86% of all infections were undocumented (95% CI: [82%–90%]) prior to 23 January 2020 travel restrictions. Per person, the transmission rate of undocumented infections was 55% of documented infections ([46%–62%]), yet, due to their greater numbers, undocumented infections were the infection source for 79% of documented cases.
Thoughts? -- Calthinus ( talk) 01:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
We already have the sentence " The proportion of infected people who do not display symptoms is currently unknown and being studied, with the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) reporting that 20% of all confirmed cases remained asymptomatic during their hospital stay.[50][51]" User:Calthinus is the proposal to change this and how? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Various studies (cite Miyamoto et al, and Bendavid et al on S Clara -- while removing its existing use) and authorities (cite CDC above, KCDC, and Imperial College study) argue a significant minority of cases may be asymptomatic. Asymptomatic individuals tend to not be tested, and currently our understanding of the roles asymptomatic and presymptomatic cases are not known(cite CDC above, plus Lai et al). As of April 2, the WHO held that there was no documented cases of asymptomatic transmission.-- would this be a good way to summarize the current situation while giving those readers who want to read more the sources to do so? I'm not sure either the Diamond Princess, who-gets-hospitalized-in-South-Korea, and tested cases in China are representative, so significant minority as accurately describing the estimates of 18%, 20%, and 33% would seem to suffice? -- Calthinus ( talk) 01:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
A minority of cases do not develop symptoms at any point in time. These cases tend not to be tested, and currently our understanding of the roles asymptomatic cases are not known(cite CDC above, plus Lai et al). As of April 2, the WHO found no evidence of spread from these cases but that may just reflect the lack of study.Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
So the whole point of antibody testing is to get at the IFR. I have replaced our discussion based on the popular press, pre prints and our own analysis by secondary sources from Our World in Data, the World Health Organization, and CEBM. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
We should not be stating precision in figures that do not justify them. In Coronavirus disease 2019 #Infectious fatality rate, a NYT source says "More than 21 percent of around 1,300 people in New York City who were tested for coronavirus antibodies this week were found to have them, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo said on Thursday."
First of all that's third-hand commentary (NYT quoting Cuomo, who is quoting an unnamed study), a really poor source.
Secondly, the 1,300 people were grocery shoppers, so not representative of any population other than grocery shoppers. Please remember that the denominator of the IFR includes those who died, and none of those were out grocery shopping.
Finally, even if we consider the sample of 1,300 to represent a random sample of grocery shoppers, a calculated fraction of about 20% has a 95% confidence interval of ±2%, so writing "about 21.2%", as our article did, is nonsensically over-precise.
Can we please stop using third-hand newspaper sources, and then extrapolating from them, and just wait for good quality reliable sources who understand statistics to give us usable figures? -- RexxS ( talk) 21:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I propose that we break out COVID-19 antibody testing. All the issues addressed above can then be dealt with on their own talk page. Between the numbers that we do have, the issues with the tests thus developed, and the various proposals to use antibody testing as a "passport" to allow people to return to work, I think there is now enough to support a separate article. BD2412 T 20:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I propose we keep it to the three most prominent symptoms (fever, cough, and shortness of breath). Sure there are a bunch more and we have them in the picture at the top. Sure onset of symptoms can vary a bit and we discuss this in the body of the text. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
But we’re currently not going with the three most prominent ones.
Symptom [CDC Interim Guidance] | Range |
---|---|
Fever (sometimes comes later) | 83–99% |
Cough | 59–82% |
Loss of Appetite | 40–84% |
Fatigue | 44–70% |
Shortness of breath | 31–40% |
Coughing up sputum | 28–33% |
Loss of smell | 15 [other source] to 30% [two connected sources] |
Muscle aches and pains | 11–35% |
Yes, I’ve seen CDC and/or WHO prominently list “shortness of breath” (don’t a ton of different respiratory conditions cause this? Of course). But all the same, I think CDC’s Interim Clinical Guidance is the most specific recent source we have. FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 17:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Doc James: as a medical professional, you know that the onset of symptoms can vary, but the intelligent lay person may not. And their reaction might be, why didn’t you just tell me? So, with fever, we should say “sometimes comes later” or equivalent, at least in the listing of symptoms. And if we ever get a diagram with references (hopefully!), I’d really prefer both. FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 21:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
If we take away the qualifier on fever, in light of:
I mean, if they’re talking about only 44% of hospitalized patients having fever when first admitted, and then we’re giving a figure most of which is in the 90s — going all the way up to 99% which, of course, will really jump out at people! — yep, I’d say we are indeed failing to accurately communicate.
And yes, it really impresses me that The New England Journal of Medicine felt strongly enough to mention this in the abstract.
Alright, let me suggest an experiment. Let’s just get rid of the table and go with text, and try to be shorter and snappier. I’ve thought about bracketing the section beginning and ending with a mention of asymptomatic. But people generally know there can be asymptomatc patients. Let’s try just including it at the end. FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 20:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
And I’m thinking we actually might be better off with the old version of the table:
In cases with symptoms [1] | |
---|---|
Symptoms | % |
Fever [sometimes comes later] |
88 |
Dry cough | 68 |
Fatigue | 38 |
Sputum production | 33 |
Loss of smell | 15 [2] to 30 [3] [4] |
Shortness of breath | 19 |
Muscle or joint pain | 15 |
Sore throat | 14 |
Headache | 14 |
Chills | 11 |
Nausea or vomiting | 5 |
Nasal congestion | 5 |
Diarrhoea | 4 to 31 [5] |
Haemoptysis | 0.9 |
Pink eyes | 0.8 |
This is based on:
And I’d still want to include a qualifier on fever, basically because it has two sources above saying it needs a qualifier. FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 20:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
————
So, one more source saying that fever is not always at the beginning. This is footnote [10] from CDC’s “Interim Clinical Guidance.” FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 23:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The source says "The signs and symptoms of COVID-19 present at illness onset vary, but over the course of the disease, most persons with COVID-19 will experience the following1,4-9: Fever (83–99%) Cough (59–82%) Fatigue (44–70%) Anorexia (40–84%) Shortness of breath (31–40%) Sputum production (28–33%) Myalgias (11–35%)"
So the source supports the table. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
This reference is from Apr 6th. [20] This one is from Mar 16th to 24. [21] IMO it is better to go with the newer source as we learn more about this disease. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@Doc James and @FriendlyRiverOtter - I appreciate the thought that you two have already put into this, regarding both the abridged symptoms in the infobox, and the information in the symptoms section. It just seems to me that the information in the symptoms section is leaving out the experience of so many who have had more mild experiences of the virus, for example, without any fever, or any shortness of breath, etc. but who did indeed have some of these other symptoms. Is there some reason this is omitted? I understand if published information surveying incidence of symptoms in mild cases might be lacking as of yet, but shouldn't there be at least a disclaimer along with that table, just at least mentioning that many are believed to have mild "versions" of the virus, or even remain asymptomatic. From all I have been reading for these few months, 83-99% of people with this virus - who will indeed be otherwise symptomatic - do not all get a fever. I think this specifically is the one number that could be most misleading to many who end up relying on this information to inform their observations. I can try to help find something suitable as a source for such a disclaimer. I'm trying not to be biased by my own and the experiences of about 20 people I know, but it certainly motivates me to add into this discussion here.
To this point, isn't the new CDC information you're citing referencing only studies done only on hospitalized cases, which will be biased towards more severe cases? And those studies are all in China, when we know they're are different strains in the world. Could these strains be causing a different effect? Or different populations be more susceptible to fever as a symptom? I mean this merely as justification for my above idea of a mild/asymptomatic case disclaimer.
Also, it was me who removed the word "early" from the description of loss of smell as a possible symptom because: 1) I did not find that word or its implication in any of the cited sources, 2) I have only read about experiences to the contrary (reddit), and 3) my experience and everyone else I knew that lost smell due to this found it to be the opposite - starting mid symptoms with sense of smell only returning as other symptoms were gone or leaving. Yes 2) is anecdotal, 3) is original research, but 1) is not. Spettro9 ( talk) 07:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Any piece of information that requires explanation is not suitable for inclusion in an infobox, and keeping the number of items in an infobox as small as possible is a benefit to the reader. The symptoms field in the infobox cannot include all the possible information about symptoms, and it's not its job to do so. -- RexxS ( talk) 11:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content.
![]() | This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A review shows that several vitmain (e.g. Vitamin D, C) and trace elements (e.g. Zn and Se)are useful in both prevention and treatment of COVID-19 [22]. Ranil7 ( talk) 20:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
~~ At the moment, no studies have conducted for COVID-19 on the nutrutitional aspects. Many clinical settings have started supplimenting vitamin D, Zinc etc. [6] Ranil7 ( talk) 07:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Comments from non-clinicians are not practical in this kind of epidemic, when you get a solid evidence on vitmain supplimentation on COVID-19, many thousond has to pay the price Ranil7 ( talk) 07:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC) And there is virtually no adverse effect of given doses Ranil7 ( talk) 07:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
References
WHOReport24Feb2020
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Palus
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).entuk-anosmia
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Iacobucci2020
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).:10
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).A WebMD article published on 10 April 2020 referenced JAMA Neurology which stated that
[a] study out of China finds that strokes, altered consciousness and other neurological issues are relatively common in more serious cases of COVID-19.
Looking at 214 cases of severe coronavirus illness treated in Wuhan city during the early phase of the global pandemic, doctors reported that 36.4% of patients displayed neurological symptoms.
Sometimes these symptoms appeared in the relative absence of "typical" symptoms of COVID-19 -- fever, cough, diarrhea -- the team said.
More recently, publications like CNN have noted that the virus "appears to be causing sudden strokes in adults in their 30s and 40s who are not otherwise terribly ill". [2] Has anyone found similar sources reporting as such? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
My very best wishes ( talk) 15:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)A 25 March paper in JAMA Cardiology documented heart damage in nearly 20% of patients out of 416 hospitalized for COVID-19 in Wuhan, China. In another Wuhan study, 44% of 36 patients admitted to the ICU had arrhythmias. The disruption seems to extend to the blood itself. Among 184 COVID-19 patients in a Dutch ICU, 38% had blood that clotted abnormally, and almost one-third already had clots, according to a 10 April paper in Thrombosis Research.
So we have a qualitative confirmation of a linkage to stroke (among a number of other neurological complications), but no insight into the incidence of stroke - it could be one in a million for all we know.Neurological symptoms have been reported in patients affected by COVID-19, such as headache, dizziness, myalgia and anosmia, as well as cases of encephalopathy, encephalitis, necrotising haemorrhagic encephalopathy, stroke, epileptic seizures, rhabdomyolysis and Guillain-Barre syndrome, associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Future epidemiological studies and case records should elucidate the real incidence of these neurological complications, their pathogenic mechanisms and their therapeutic options.
That tells us that people with a history of stroke are more likely to experience severe COVID-19 symptoms, but are no more likely to die from it. Probably. It's really early days to be making definitive statements, and as usual, I advise waiting for more comprehensive reviews to come online. -- RexxS ( talk) 01:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)We pooled studies from published literature to assess the association of a history of stroke with outcomes in patients with COVID-19.
A pooled analysis ... showed a ∼2.5-fold increase in odds of severe COVID-19. While a trend was observed, there was no statistically significant association of stroke with mortality in patients with COVID-19 infection.
That's what the article is really telling you: we don't know yet. If you think that secondary MEDRS sources linking COVID-19 to strokes are so easy to find, why haven't you produced them? James has included what little there is to report so far. -- RexxS ( talk) 04:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)... pathologists are struggling to understand the damage wrought by the coronavirus ... a clear picture is elusive ... Without larger, prospective controlled studies that are only now being launched, scientists must pull information from small studies and case reports, often published at warp speed and not yet peer reviewed ... Some COVID-19 patients have strokes, seizures, confusion, and brain inflammation. Doctors are trying to understand which are directly caused by the virus ... We’re still at the beginning ... We really don’t understand who is vulnerable, why some people are affected so severely, why it comes on so rapidly … and why it is so hard [for some] to recover.
that has already published in multiple RS (and therefor must be included to the page), that is pure nonsense. WP:MEDRS determines whether a source is usable to support a biomedical claim. Mere publication in an RS isn't sufficient, and contributors to medical articles need to be aware of the policies and guidelines that apply. I disagree that the " pop science" article in Science makes any case for a link between Covid-19 and stroke beyond what we already know from the more scholarly sources that I drew to your attention above. -- RexxS ( talk) 20:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Moksha88 you removed "A number of neurological symptoms has been reported including seizures, stroke, encephalitis, and Guillain–Barré syndrome. [5] Cardiovascular-related complications may include heart failure, irregular electrical activity, blood clots, and heart inflammation. [6]" Wondering why? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Moksha88: (as James cocked up the first notification) please have another look at Special:Diff/953952119 and consider self-reverting. I don't think your edit summary is accurate. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |archive-date=
requires |archive-url=
(
help)
Discussion here Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Leaked_from_lab Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
The history section is too short. Shouldn't there be, among other things, a reference to the Wuhan Lab as a possilbe source -- or not -- of covid-19? Even the see-also section doesn't seem to lead to more history. For the lab, see, e.g., https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/04/18/asia-pacific/wuhan-lab-china-coronavirus-controversy/#.XpwZPv0zbIU. Kdammers ( talk) 09:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
"an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field". As an example, the treatment of Flat Earth theories in the article on the Earth is a single sentence, which makes clear their lack of prominence in relation to the mainstream view. if you are looking for a form of words for this article, I suggest that the section Coronavirus disease 2019 #Misinformation already contains sufficient DUE information on "the origin, scale, prevention, treatment and other aspects" as well as a link to Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic for those looking for more detail. -- RexxS ( talk) 17:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
ACS = Acute Cornary Syndrome
—————-
I think it’s okay to use a pre-print as long as the reference clearly indentifies it as such, and in the text itself such as the phrase “a preliminary study.” FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 16:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC) FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 22:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
————————-
——————
———————
And for the more cultural aspects of Coronavirus (which also have big medical consequences of course!), I think it’s fine to use journalistic sources. FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 17:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
This section contains the sentence:
Because the bald percentages in that sentence do not represent the IFR, the topic of the section, I believed the first was misleading and the second confusing. I therefore amended it to read:
Jmv2009 reverted my edit a minute later, with the edit summary Confusion is on purpose, as excess deaths may also need to be considered. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-04-24/is-coronavirus-worse-than-the-flu-blood-studies-say-yes-by-far. Purposeful confusion is not the goal of an encyclopedia, and shouldn't be allowed to remain. We should never be positing raw percentages but always carefully distinguishing between IFR and PFR. We certainly shouldn't be calculating excess deaths as a percentage of population in the same context, as that figure doesn't represent any metric used. Of course we can report excess deaths, but the raw figure is all that needs to be presented to achieve that. Jmv2009's reversion should be undone. -- RexxS ( talk) 16:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
In the "Case fatality rates" table, for some countries instead of the fatality rate by ages wrongly recorded deaths distribution by ages. Please, correct it. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
95.35.206.174 (
talk)
01:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Aerosol emission and superemission during human speech increase with voice loudness: [26] Sciencia58 ( talk) 18:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
This article is about the disease, not the pandemic (and the social reaction to the pandemic), so the protests section should really be removed and put in that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.170.62.208 ( talk) 21:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Coronavirus_disease_2019#Information_technology
AdithyaKL ( talk) 09:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
There has been a lot of speculation in the lay media about possible reinfection. Are there any known viruses that regularly reinfect (non-immunocompromised} people after the primary immune response is complete, and cause clinically significant illness? Thanks, 2600:1702:2670:B530:D09A:C706:C10:EC5E ( talk) 05:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Have restored "Per the World Health Organization, as of April 2020, there is no specific treatment for COVID‑19." per https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses
Emergency authorization in the US, well appropriate to mention, needs to be put into context. Still a lot of questions around the medication. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
It's fine to note that one country has approved the use of remdesivir in an attempt to treat COVID-19, but in the absence of any MEDRS evidence that it has any effect at all, it remains inappropriate to claim the efficacy of the drug in Wikipedia's voice. -- RexxS ( talk) 00:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)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. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Hubei description in the lead. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
04:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Is not a very good source for medical content per this text:
"Low oxygen levels detected using a pulse oximeter are a low cost quick diagnosis method for those with asymptomatic pneumonia relative to CT scans. Patients display acute or silent hypoxia where the oxygen level in blood cells and tissue can drop without any initial warning, even though the individual's chest x-ray shows diffuse pneumonia with an oxygen level below normal. Doctors report cases of silent hypoxia with COVID-19 patients who did not experience shortness of breath or coughing until their oxygen levels had plummeted to such a degree that the patients risked acute respiratory distress (ARDS) and organ failure. [1] In a New York Times opinion piece (20 April 2020), emergency room doctor Richard Levitan reports "a vast majority of Covid pneumonia patients I met had remarkably low oxygen saturations at triage — seemingly incompatible with life — but they were using their cellphones as we put them on monitors." [1]"
For those who climb / study high altitude medicine we all know that these degrees of low oxygen are completely compatible with life. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
References
In the first line it says that it's an "infectious disease" which is a link which directs to the article for "infection." However, my understanding is that - just like SARS - COVID-19 is a respiratory disease. The following article says, "two strains of [this species of coronavirus] have caused outbreaks of severe respiratory diseases in humans: severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV or SARS-CoV-1), which caused the 2002–2004 outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which is causing the 2019–20 pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)" /info/en/?search=Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome-related_coronavirus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.142.94.82 ( talk) 09:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
This section appears to be trying to calculate the IFR themselves. Yah it is one way to look at the numbers but I am not sure we should be doing this ourselves. Expecially the table. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Antibodies | Deaths | Ratio deaths/antibodies | Remarks | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Castiglione d'Adda | (40 of 60) 67% [1] | 1.7% | >1.7%, 2.7% | All deaths |
Gangelt | 14% | 0.06% | 0.4% | False positives issue |
Netherlands | 3% | 0.018%x2 | 1.2% | Incl excess deaths. Plausible spatial distribution |
Santa Clara | 2.8% | 0.004% | 0.14% | False positives statistics issue |
NYC | 19.9% | 0.25% | 1.26% | Incl excess deaths |
NY | 12.3% | 0.083% | 0.67% | Incl excess deaths. Plausible spatial distribution |
Geneva | 5.5% | 0.036% | 0.65% | |
Italy | 10% | 0.067% | 0.67% | |
Los Angeles | 4.1% | 0.022% | 0.56% | False positives statistics issue. Latest death toll |
Belgium | 4.3% | 0.066% | 1.5% | |
Nembro | ? | 1.1% | >1.1% | Incl excess deaths |
Miami-Dade | 6% | 0.013% | 0.22% | False positives statics issue. Latest death count |
While not all infected people develop antibodies, the presence of antibodies may provide information about how many people have been infected.
In the epicentre of the outbreak in Italy, Castiglione d'Adda, a small village of 4500, 80 (1.8%) are already dead. Most people in the village appear to have developed antibodies and possible immunity, most did so without being diagnosed, and many did not have symptoms. [2] [1]
In the German region of Gangelt, where 0.06% of the population has died, 14% have antibodies (15% have been infected and 2% were currently infectious). [3] [4] In Gangelt, the disease was spread by Carnival festivals, and spread to younger people, causing a relatively lower mortality, [5] and not all COVID-19 deaths may have been formally classified as such. Furthermore, the German health system has not been overwhelmed.
In the Netherlands, about 3% may have antibodies, as assessed from blood donors. [6] [7] There, the confirmed deaths from the disease is 0.018% of the population, [8] however the excess deaths with respect to normal circumstances is about twice as high as not all COVID-19 deaths are recorded as such. [9]
In Santa Clara county, 2.8% appear to have developed antibodies. [10] 69 (0.004% of the population) have died from COVID-19. [11]
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
[1] Please review, as it is somewhat non-trivial. Jmv2009 ( talk) 11:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Chance of picking <3 out of 401 when actual likelyhood is 0.0179 is 0.025. Solve[CDF[BinomialDistribution[401, x], 2] == 0.025] [Mathematica/Wolfram Alpha] 1 - InverseBetaRegularized[0.025, 399, 3] Both give 0.0179 [2] For Stanford Santa Clara study.
Now there is a confirmation of this: Joerg Stoye in the comments of the "peer review". Jmv2009 ( talk) 14:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
We need to use proper sources. We have a lowest possible IFR in Lombardy of 0.12% (12,213 dead/10,078,012 people) and NYC 0.16% (13,240 dead / 8,398,748 people). These numbers require every single person in these regions to be infected already and no more to die. Nearly 1000 in that region in Italy are still in ICU and lots are still in ICU in NYC.
We have people who are doing small studies and than making extrapolations that are very highly improbable. This is why we require high quality secondary sources for medical claims. To hit an IFR of 0.12% in NCY reincarnation would need to be discovered and more than 3,000 dead people brought back to life. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
"In Wuhan, a city of 11.08 million, where 3869 (0.03%) have died, "China increases death toll in outbreak city by 50%". BBC News. 2020-04-17. Retrieved 2020-04-19. 2.0 to 3.0% of hospital employees and patients appear to have developed antibodies. "Wuhan anitbody tests show herd immunity is a long way off". HotAir. Retrieved 2020-04-19."
The first source does not mention antibodies and the second source is really really poor. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
References
This section is very much undue weight. It is based on poor sources and trying to lead our readers to make conclusions that the sources are not strong enough to make. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Thoughts about any of these being included:
Analyses of data from China as well as data from those returning on repatriation flights suggest that 40-50% of infections were not identified as cases12. This may include asymptomatic infections, mild disease and a level of under-ascertainment.-- so not just asymptomatic, but also those mild enough to fall under the radar/ get mistaken for a different disease, it seems. This one is the one I am least inclined to add (Mizumoto I am most inclined.).
Also, possibly for the pandemic page, (recent) historical estimates on the role of undocumented (not necessarily asymptomatic) cases in transmission:
We estimate 86% of all infections were undocumented (95% CI: [82%–90%]) prior to 23 January 2020 travel restrictions. Per person, the transmission rate of undocumented infections was 55% of documented infections ([46%–62%]), yet, due to their greater numbers, undocumented infections were the infection source for 79% of documented cases.
Thoughts? -- Calthinus ( talk) 01:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
We already have the sentence " The proportion of infected people who do not display symptoms is currently unknown and being studied, with the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) reporting that 20% of all confirmed cases remained asymptomatic during their hospital stay.[50][51]" User:Calthinus is the proposal to change this and how? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Various studies (cite Miyamoto et al, and Bendavid et al on S Clara -- while removing its existing use) and authorities (cite CDC above, KCDC, and Imperial College study) argue a significant minority of cases may be asymptomatic. Asymptomatic individuals tend to not be tested, and currently our understanding of the roles asymptomatic and presymptomatic cases are not known(cite CDC above, plus Lai et al). As of April 2, the WHO held that there was no documented cases of asymptomatic transmission.-- would this be a good way to summarize the current situation while giving those readers who want to read more the sources to do so? I'm not sure either the Diamond Princess, who-gets-hospitalized-in-South-Korea, and tested cases in China are representative, so significant minority as accurately describing the estimates of 18%, 20%, and 33% would seem to suffice? -- Calthinus ( talk) 01:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
A minority of cases do not develop symptoms at any point in time. These cases tend not to be tested, and currently our understanding of the roles asymptomatic cases are not known(cite CDC above, plus Lai et al). As of April 2, the WHO found no evidence of spread from these cases but that may just reflect the lack of study.Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
So the whole point of antibody testing is to get at the IFR. I have replaced our discussion based on the popular press, pre prints and our own analysis by secondary sources from Our World in Data, the World Health Organization, and CEBM. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
We should not be stating precision in figures that do not justify them. In Coronavirus disease 2019 #Infectious fatality rate, a NYT source says "More than 21 percent of around 1,300 people in New York City who were tested for coronavirus antibodies this week were found to have them, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo said on Thursday."
First of all that's third-hand commentary (NYT quoting Cuomo, who is quoting an unnamed study), a really poor source.
Secondly, the 1,300 people were grocery shoppers, so not representative of any population other than grocery shoppers. Please remember that the denominator of the IFR includes those who died, and none of those were out grocery shopping.
Finally, even if we consider the sample of 1,300 to represent a random sample of grocery shoppers, a calculated fraction of about 20% has a 95% confidence interval of ±2%, so writing "about 21.2%", as our article did, is nonsensically over-precise.
Can we please stop using third-hand newspaper sources, and then extrapolating from them, and just wait for good quality reliable sources who understand statistics to give us usable figures? -- RexxS ( talk) 21:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I propose that we break out COVID-19 antibody testing. All the issues addressed above can then be dealt with on their own talk page. Between the numbers that we do have, the issues with the tests thus developed, and the various proposals to use antibody testing as a "passport" to allow people to return to work, I think there is now enough to support a separate article. BD2412 T 20:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I propose we keep it to the three most prominent symptoms (fever, cough, and shortness of breath). Sure there are a bunch more and we have them in the picture at the top. Sure onset of symptoms can vary a bit and we discuss this in the body of the text. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
But we’re currently not going with the three most prominent ones.
Symptom [CDC Interim Guidance] | Range |
---|---|
Fever (sometimes comes later) | 83–99% |
Cough | 59–82% |
Loss of Appetite | 40–84% |
Fatigue | 44–70% |
Shortness of breath | 31–40% |
Coughing up sputum | 28–33% |
Loss of smell | 15 [other source] to 30% [two connected sources] |
Muscle aches and pains | 11–35% |
Yes, I’ve seen CDC and/or WHO prominently list “shortness of breath” (don’t a ton of different respiratory conditions cause this? Of course). But all the same, I think CDC’s Interim Clinical Guidance is the most specific recent source we have. FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 17:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Doc James: as a medical professional, you know that the onset of symptoms can vary, but the intelligent lay person may not. And their reaction might be, why didn’t you just tell me? So, with fever, we should say “sometimes comes later” or equivalent, at least in the listing of symptoms. And if we ever get a diagram with references (hopefully!), I’d really prefer both. FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 21:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
If we take away the qualifier on fever, in light of:
I mean, if they’re talking about only 44% of hospitalized patients having fever when first admitted, and then we’re giving a figure most of which is in the 90s — going all the way up to 99% which, of course, will really jump out at people! — yep, I’d say we are indeed failing to accurately communicate.
And yes, it really impresses me that The New England Journal of Medicine felt strongly enough to mention this in the abstract.
Alright, let me suggest an experiment. Let’s just get rid of the table and go with text, and try to be shorter and snappier. I’ve thought about bracketing the section beginning and ending with a mention of asymptomatic. But people generally know there can be asymptomatc patients. Let’s try just including it at the end. FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 20:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
And I’m thinking we actually might be better off with the old version of the table:
In cases with symptoms [1] | |
---|---|
Symptoms | % |
Fever [sometimes comes later] |
88 |
Dry cough | 68 |
Fatigue | 38 |
Sputum production | 33 |
Loss of smell | 15 [2] to 30 [3] [4] |
Shortness of breath | 19 |
Muscle or joint pain | 15 |
Sore throat | 14 |
Headache | 14 |
Chills | 11 |
Nausea or vomiting | 5 |
Nasal congestion | 5 |
Diarrhoea | 4 to 31 [5] |
Haemoptysis | 0.9 |
Pink eyes | 0.8 |
This is based on:
And I’d still want to include a qualifier on fever, basically because it has two sources above saying it needs a qualifier. FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 20:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
————
So, one more source saying that fever is not always at the beginning. This is footnote [10] from CDC’s “Interim Clinical Guidance.” FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 23:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The source says "The signs and symptoms of COVID-19 present at illness onset vary, but over the course of the disease, most persons with COVID-19 will experience the following1,4-9: Fever (83–99%) Cough (59–82%) Fatigue (44–70%) Anorexia (40–84%) Shortness of breath (31–40%) Sputum production (28–33%) Myalgias (11–35%)"
So the source supports the table. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
This reference is from Apr 6th. [20] This one is from Mar 16th to 24. [21] IMO it is better to go with the newer source as we learn more about this disease. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@Doc James and @FriendlyRiverOtter - I appreciate the thought that you two have already put into this, regarding both the abridged symptoms in the infobox, and the information in the symptoms section. It just seems to me that the information in the symptoms section is leaving out the experience of so many who have had more mild experiences of the virus, for example, without any fever, or any shortness of breath, etc. but who did indeed have some of these other symptoms. Is there some reason this is omitted? I understand if published information surveying incidence of symptoms in mild cases might be lacking as of yet, but shouldn't there be at least a disclaimer along with that table, just at least mentioning that many are believed to have mild "versions" of the virus, or even remain asymptomatic. From all I have been reading for these few months, 83-99% of people with this virus - who will indeed be otherwise symptomatic - do not all get a fever. I think this specifically is the one number that could be most misleading to many who end up relying on this information to inform their observations. I can try to help find something suitable as a source for such a disclaimer. I'm trying not to be biased by my own and the experiences of about 20 people I know, but it certainly motivates me to add into this discussion here.
To this point, isn't the new CDC information you're citing referencing only studies done only on hospitalized cases, which will be biased towards more severe cases? And those studies are all in China, when we know they're are different strains in the world. Could these strains be causing a different effect? Or different populations be more susceptible to fever as a symptom? I mean this merely as justification for my above idea of a mild/asymptomatic case disclaimer.
Also, it was me who removed the word "early" from the description of loss of smell as a possible symptom because: 1) I did not find that word or its implication in any of the cited sources, 2) I have only read about experiences to the contrary (reddit), and 3) my experience and everyone else I knew that lost smell due to this found it to be the opposite - starting mid symptoms with sense of smell only returning as other symptoms were gone or leaving. Yes 2) is anecdotal, 3) is original research, but 1) is not. Spettro9 ( talk) 07:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Any piece of information that requires explanation is not suitable for inclusion in an infobox, and keeping the number of items in an infobox as small as possible is a benefit to the reader. The symptoms field in the infobox cannot include all the possible information about symptoms, and it's not its job to do so. -- RexxS ( talk) 11:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content.
![]() | This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A review shows that several vitmain (e.g. Vitamin D, C) and trace elements (e.g. Zn and Se)are useful in both prevention and treatment of COVID-19 [22]. Ranil7 ( talk) 20:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
~~ At the moment, no studies have conducted for COVID-19 on the nutrutitional aspects. Many clinical settings have started supplimenting vitamin D, Zinc etc. [6] Ranil7 ( talk) 07:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Comments from non-clinicians are not practical in this kind of epidemic, when you get a solid evidence on vitmain supplimentation on COVID-19, many thousond has to pay the price Ranil7 ( talk) 07:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC) And there is virtually no adverse effect of given doses Ranil7 ( talk) 07:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
References
WHOReport24Feb2020
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Palus
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).entuk-anosmia
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Iacobucci2020
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).:10
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).A WebMD article published on 10 April 2020 referenced JAMA Neurology which stated that
[a] study out of China finds that strokes, altered consciousness and other neurological issues are relatively common in more serious cases of COVID-19.
Looking at 214 cases of severe coronavirus illness treated in Wuhan city during the early phase of the global pandemic, doctors reported that 36.4% of patients displayed neurological symptoms.
Sometimes these symptoms appeared in the relative absence of "typical" symptoms of COVID-19 -- fever, cough, diarrhea -- the team said.
More recently, publications like CNN have noted that the virus "appears to be causing sudden strokes in adults in their 30s and 40s who are not otherwise terribly ill". [2] Has anyone found similar sources reporting as such? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
My very best wishes ( talk) 15:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)A 25 March paper in JAMA Cardiology documented heart damage in nearly 20% of patients out of 416 hospitalized for COVID-19 in Wuhan, China. In another Wuhan study, 44% of 36 patients admitted to the ICU had arrhythmias. The disruption seems to extend to the blood itself. Among 184 COVID-19 patients in a Dutch ICU, 38% had blood that clotted abnormally, and almost one-third already had clots, according to a 10 April paper in Thrombosis Research.
So we have a qualitative confirmation of a linkage to stroke (among a number of other neurological complications), but no insight into the incidence of stroke - it could be one in a million for all we know.Neurological symptoms have been reported in patients affected by COVID-19, such as headache, dizziness, myalgia and anosmia, as well as cases of encephalopathy, encephalitis, necrotising haemorrhagic encephalopathy, stroke, epileptic seizures, rhabdomyolysis and Guillain-Barre syndrome, associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Future epidemiological studies and case records should elucidate the real incidence of these neurological complications, their pathogenic mechanisms and their therapeutic options.
That tells us that people with a history of stroke are more likely to experience severe COVID-19 symptoms, but are no more likely to die from it. Probably. It's really early days to be making definitive statements, and as usual, I advise waiting for more comprehensive reviews to come online. -- RexxS ( talk) 01:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)We pooled studies from published literature to assess the association of a history of stroke with outcomes in patients with COVID-19.
A pooled analysis ... showed a ∼2.5-fold increase in odds of severe COVID-19. While a trend was observed, there was no statistically significant association of stroke with mortality in patients with COVID-19 infection.
That's what the article is really telling you: we don't know yet. If you think that secondary MEDRS sources linking COVID-19 to strokes are so easy to find, why haven't you produced them? James has included what little there is to report so far. -- RexxS ( talk) 04:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)... pathologists are struggling to understand the damage wrought by the coronavirus ... a clear picture is elusive ... Without larger, prospective controlled studies that are only now being launched, scientists must pull information from small studies and case reports, often published at warp speed and not yet peer reviewed ... Some COVID-19 patients have strokes, seizures, confusion, and brain inflammation. Doctors are trying to understand which are directly caused by the virus ... We’re still at the beginning ... We really don’t understand who is vulnerable, why some people are affected so severely, why it comes on so rapidly … and why it is so hard [for some] to recover.
that has already published in multiple RS (and therefor must be included to the page), that is pure nonsense. WP:MEDRS determines whether a source is usable to support a biomedical claim. Mere publication in an RS isn't sufficient, and contributors to medical articles need to be aware of the policies and guidelines that apply. I disagree that the " pop science" article in Science makes any case for a link between Covid-19 and stroke beyond what we already know from the more scholarly sources that I drew to your attention above. -- RexxS ( talk) 20:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Moksha88 you removed "A number of neurological symptoms has been reported including seizures, stroke, encephalitis, and Guillain–Barré syndrome. [5] Cardiovascular-related complications may include heart failure, irregular electrical activity, blood clots, and heart inflammation. [6]" Wondering why? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Moksha88: (as James cocked up the first notification) please have another look at Special:Diff/953952119 and consider self-reverting. I don't think your edit summary is accurate. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |archive-date=
requires |archive-url=
(
help)
Discussion here Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Leaked_from_lab Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
The history section is too short. Shouldn't there be, among other things, a reference to the Wuhan Lab as a possilbe source -- or not -- of covid-19? Even the see-also section doesn't seem to lead to more history. For the lab, see, e.g., https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/04/18/asia-pacific/wuhan-lab-china-coronavirus-controversy/#.XpwZPv0zbIU. Kdammers ( talk) 09:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
"an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field". As an example, the treatment of Flat Earth theories in the article on the Earth is a single sentence, which makes clear their lack of prominence in relation to the mainstream view. if you are looking for a form of words for this article, I suggest that the section Coronavirus disease 2019 #Misinformation already contains sufficient DUE information on "the origin, scale, prevention, treatment and other aspects" as well as a link to Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic for those looking for more detail. -- RexxS ( talk) 17:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
ACS = Acute Cornary Syndrome
—————-
I think it’s okay to use a pre-print as long as the reference clearly indentifies it as such, and in the text itself such as the phrase “a preliminary study.” FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 16:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC) FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 22:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
————————-
——————
———————
And for the more cultural aspects of Coronavirus (which also have big medical consequences of course!), I think it’s fine to use journalistic sources. FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 17:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
This section contains the sentence:
Because the bald percentages in that sentence do not represent the IFR, the topic of the section, I believed the first was misleading and the second confusing. I therefore amended it to read:
Jmv2009 reverted my edit a minute later, with the edit summary Confusion is on purpose, as excess deaths may also need to be considered. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-04-24/is-coronavirus-worse-than-the-flu-blood-studies-say-yes-by-far. Purposeful confusion is not the goal of an encyclopedia, and shouldn't be allowed to remain. We should never be positing raw percentages but always carefully distinguishing between IFR and PFR. We certainly shouldn't be calculating excess deaths as a percentage of population in the same context, as that figure doesn't represent any metric used. Of course we can report excess deaths, but the raw figure is all that needs to be presented to achieve that. Jmv2009's reversion should be undone. -- RexxS ( talk) 16:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
In the "Case fatality rates" table, for some countries instead of the fatality rate by ages wrongly recorded deaths distribution by ages. Please, correct it. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
95.35.206.174 (
talk)
01:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Aerosol emission and superemission during human speech increase with voice loudness: [26] Sciencia58 ( talk) 18:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
This article is about the disease, not the pandemic (and the social reaction to the pandemic), so the protests section should really be removed and put in that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.170.62.208 ( talk) 21:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Coronavirus_disease_2019#Information_technology
AdithyaKL ( talk) 09:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
There has been a lot of speculation in the lay media about possible reinfection. Are there any known viruses that regularly reinfect (non-immunocompromised} people after the primary immune response is complete, and cause clinically significant illness? Thanks, 2600:1702:2670:B530:D09A:C706:C10:EC5E ( talk) 05:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Have restored "Per the World Health Organization, as of April 2020, there is no specific treatment for COVID‑19." per https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses
Emergency authorization in the US, well appropriate to mention, needs to be put into context. Still a lot of questions around the medication. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
It's fine to note that one country has approved the use of remdesivir in an attempt to treat COVID-19, but in the absence of any MEDRS evidence that it has any effect at all, it remains inappropriate to claim the efficacy of the drug in Wikipedia's voice. -- RexxS ( talk) 00:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)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. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Hubei description in the lead. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
04:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Is not a very good source for medical content per this text:
"Low oxygen levels detected using a pulse oximeter are a low cost quick diagnosis method for those with asymptomatic pneumonia relative to CT scans. Patients display acute or silent hypoxia where the oxygen level in blood cells and tissue can drop without any initial warning, even though the individual's chest x-ray shows diffuse pneumonia with an oxygen level below normal. Doctors report cases of silent hypoxia with COVID-19 patients who did not experience shortness of breath or coughing until their oxygen levels had plummeted to such a degree that the patients risked acute respiratory distress (ARDS) and organ failure. [1] In a New York Times opinion piece (20 April 2020), emergency room doctor Richard Levitan reports "a vast majority of Covid pneumonia patients I met had remarkably low oxygen saturations at triage — seemingly incompatible with life — but they were using their cellphones as we put them on monitors." [1]"
For those who climb / study high altitude medicine we all know that these degrees of low oxygen are completely compatible with life. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
References
In the first line it says that it's an "infectious disease" which is a link which directs to the article for "infection." However, my understanding is that - just like SARS - COVID-19 is a respiratory disease. The following article says, "two strains of [this species of coronavirus] have caused outbreaks of severe respiratory diseases in humans: severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV or SARS-CoV-1), which caused the 2002–2004 outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which is causing the 2019–20 pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)" /info/en/?search=Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome-related_coronavirus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.142.94.82 ( talk) 09:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)