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 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first paragraph of the "Other animals" section ends with a discussion of minks. Please add the sentence "Concerns were raised that some people were infected by minks." This can be sourced to https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2020/05/second-person-catches-covid-19-from-a-mink-minister-is-preparing-measures/ 147.161.14.48 ( talk) 14:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Obesity is commonly suspected to be a significant risk factor but the article currently seems to say nothing about this. Here's an example of a source: Obesity and impaired metabolic health in patients with COVID-19. I suggest that we put something in the epidemiology section where we currently have sections for sex differences and ethnic differences. Andrew🐉( talk) 11:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
BMI class | hazard ratio (adjusted for age/sex) | hazard ratio (fully adjusted) |
---|---|---|
Not obese | 1.00 (ref) | 1.00 (ref) |
Obese class I (30–34.9 kg/m²) | 1.57 | 1.27 |
Obese class II (35–39.9 kg/m² | 2.01 | 1.56 |
Obese class III (≥ 40 kg/m²) | 2.97 | 2.27 |
As this seems to be the largest cohort studied so far – over 17 million people – these findings seem quite significant. We should list obesity as a risk factor in the article. Andrew🐉( talk) 16:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
If the aliens. Abandoned to Earth "Crown Virus". Do not stop their Vershörung. That, we will make an offer to improve the Wikipedia page in English.
This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2409:4070:18B:2AB4:1CED:4116:D7E9:AB67 ( talk) 09:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
per ...Varga, Zsuzsanna; Flammer, Andreas J.; Steiger, Peter; Haberecker, Martina; Andermatt, Rea; Zinkernagel, Annelies S.; Mehra, Mandeep R.; Schuepbach, Reto A.; Ruschitzka, Frank; Moch, Holger (2 May 2020). "Endothelial cell infection and endotheliitis in COVID-19". The Lancet. pp. 1417–1418. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30937-5. Retrieved 2 June 2020....an unusual respiratory illness(introduces itself into the body, however its symptoms have vascular aspects....?)-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 02:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I thought this would be a good thing to post as adjunct advice for new editors just getting familiar with Wikipedia medical reliable sources.
Peaceray ( talk) 15:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359610120300927
https://theconversation.com/blocking-the-deadly-cytokine-storm-is-a-vital-weapon-for-treating-covid-19-137690 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.207.77 ( talk) 10:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Noting that the first citation is a primary source that has not yet been peer-reviewed that is ineligible for inclusion in this article because if fails to meet WP:MEDRS. Nonetheless, I ask that people keep an eye out for its inclusion in literature reviews or systematic reviews. The second citation is more of a lay summary.
Peaceray ( talk) 19:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
See https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/05/27/science.abc6197.full
Relevant parts: However, a large proportion of the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) appears to be occurring through airborne transmission of aerosols produced by asymptomatic individuals during breathing and speaking (1–3). Aerosols can accumulate, remain infectious in indoor air for hours, and be easily inhaled deep into the lungs.
And: However, many countries have not yet acknowledged airborne transmission as a possible pathway for SARS-CoV-2 (1). Recent studies have shown that in addition to droplets, SARS-CoV-2 may also be transmitted through aerosols.
Aerosol transmission of viruses must be acknowledged as a key factor leading to the spread of infectious respiratory diseases.
And finally: Thus, the option of universal masking is no longer held back by shortages. From epidemiological data, countries that have been most effective in reducing the spread of COVID-19 have implemented universal masking, including Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea.
I know this point is contentious so this source might not be enough. -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 17:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
There is limited evidence for or against the use of masks (medical or other) in healthy individuals in the wider community.[7]. The evidence is clearly in favour at this point. -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 21:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Gtoffoletto: if I wear a mask, it’s my understanding that the mask is only mediocre in protecting myself, but it’s great in protecting others in case I’m asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic, or even if I have the classic symptom of a dry cough, it’s still great at protecting others. Is this the case? FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 21:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
WHO just came out with a statement about the Italians' reckless statement. Who are those "Italians" you speak of and what statement? If you could provide some sources. It sounds like you are saying Italians are reckless which is a generalisation I would object to (as an Italian myself).
DCt values of severe cases were significantly lower than those of mild cases at the time of admission. Now, I'm no expert in RT-PCR but from my understanding lower DCt means more virus detected. It's therefore not my speculation but theirs. In any case I'm not sure why you are pointing that out. It's not something we should add to the article at the moment and I don't think anyone is arguing that.-- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 23:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
"The initial amount of virus you are exposed to can have an effect on outcome"three comments above. Why are you now pretending nobody is arguing that? -- RexxS ( talk) 23:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Gtoffoletto: our article currently uses the following CDC source, which seems good, but I think we need to update the title and date, and most of all, make sure that we’re doing a solid, A-1 job of summarizing it.
—>
"Recommendation Regarding the Use of Cloth Face Coverings, Especially in Areas of Significant Community-Based Transmission".
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 11 February 2020. Retrieved 17 April 2020.{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
< ref name="cdc-cover" > is the ref name (without spaces for the angle brackets of course). FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 20:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@
Gtoffoletto: I think it’s fine to group ECDC, WHO, CDC when they’re saying the same thing, as well as a few other sources such as Harvard Public Health. And when they differ, we just need to be very matter-of-fact about it: “WHO says . . ” “CDC says . . , ” that kind of thing.
Now, if I have any special trait, it’s patience. So, I’m going to first take a good long look at the above CDC source and see how we do summarizing it.
FriendlyRiverOtter (
talk)
13:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
————————————
My summary:
Don’t give up social distancing of 6 feet, but face masks are recommended for when it’s hard to maintain this distance (such as grocery stores) “especially in areas of significant community-based transmission.”
A “significant portion” of persons infected with Coronavirus are asymptomatic. Persons can also spread the virus while pre-symptomatic.
This recommendation can “help people who may have the virus and do not know it from transmitting it to others.” That is, the mask is a benefit to others, and not directly to yourself.
These can be homemade masks.
Please don’t hog surgical masks or N-95 respirators that healthcare workers need. This article states that such “must continue to be reserved for healthcare workers and other medical first responders, as recommended by current CDC guidance.”
And then there is a short video in which U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams shows how to make a mask using an old cloth and two rubber bands.
Title: Recommendations for Cloth Face Covers [shorter than old title]
Date: April 3, 2020
This is currently our reference # 26, although that can change as ones are added or deleted above it.
The updated reference:
CDC (2020-04-03).
"Recommendations for Cloth Face Covers". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved 2020-06-03.{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
———————————-
@ Gtoffoletto: I've been away a couple of days. When I said Italians, I meant their medical officers making the reckless statements. Silvia Stringhini, an epidemiologist (early statements about it just being a "flu"), Dr Alberto Zangrillo, the head of the San Raffaele Hospital in Milan, Matteo Bassetti, head of the infectious diseases clinic at the San Martino hospital, stating the virus is losing it's strength [6] and the WHO had to issue a statement refuting them [7] MartinezMD ( talk) 23:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I am appalled by the use of preprints to support content in this article. The website MedRxiv displays a clear disclaimer:
Caution: Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Lets be clear about this; preprints aren't even suitable for newspapers, let alone an encyclopedia whose purpose is "to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner" ( WP:AIM).
I'm giving notice that tomorrow I intend to place a general sanction on the page to prohibit the use of preprints as sources in this article. This ought to be simply a matter of respecting our guidelines on WP:Reliable sources and WP:MEDRS, but it now seems necessary. I'm naturally willing to hear reasons why discretionary sanctions should not be necessary to enforce our basic sourcing guidelines. -- RexxS ( talk) 21:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
As an example :
This compares similarly to the Korean CDC finding that 20% of patients with confirmed cases remained asymptomatic during their hospital stay.
And not sure early release is quite the same as a pre-print. FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 05:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
As no compelling argument has been brought forward to explain why this article should be an exception to our reliable sourcing requirements, I've imposed the following specific restriction:
I've logged that at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 and included edit notices and a notice on this talk page. After being made aware of the general sanctions applicable to this page, any editor breaching the prohibition may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, as authorised at WP:GS/COVID19#GS.
There are currently three citations (91, 284, 287) sourced to MedRxiv. These should be removed and the text adjusted as necessary to maintain WP:V.
I ask all editors to respect our sourcing guidelines: sources failing WP:MEDRS should not be used to support any biomedical content; sources failing WP:RS should not be used to support any content at all. This is an encyclopedia, and we should not be trying to compete with news outlets to bring the latest information to readers. We have a sister project, Wikinews, whose purpose is to do that. We should be striving to bring the most accurate information as possible to readers, and that means working only within our sourcing policies and guidelines. I hope that editors will remove sources that fail these guidelines and not restore any challenged material without first discussing it on the talk page.
If it proves necessary, I'll consider a further sanction to prohibit the use of primary sources and animal studies to support biomedical content. -- RexxS ( talk) 19:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
"Do we have cases of editors warring to try to include preprints as sources?"Yes.
"Does this mean that if a well-meaning editor who has been alerted to the sanctions due to an unrelated matter accidentally adds a preprint (perhaps not knowing it was such, or perhaps not knowing preprints are disallowed), they could get blocked?"Yes.
"What makes this something we should implement as a general sanction, rather than just something to add to the COVID-19 WikiProject current consensus list?"WP:RS is not a local consensus;it's a project-wide consensus, and in the opinion of at least three administrators, it's needed to protect the smooth running of the project.
I'm confused about this. What does this have to do with DS? I remove pre-prints from articles as a matter of practice. Does this mean you treat pre-prints differently than other unreliable sources? Natureium ( talk) 02:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
makes you think that they are reliable sources for any content at all? JAMA presently makes preprints available for researchers to see what cutting edge research is happening and what effect it might have on their own research. It does not make it available to facilitate amateur reporters seizing on any headline-grabbing findings and attempting to cram them into an encyclopedia.Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
with the qualifier "a preliminary study shows...": One problem is that you can't really say that from a preprint, because a preprint isn't even a reliable source for what the preliminary study actually shows. The problem is not that the study is preliminary, it's that the words in the preprint are preliminary. It needs the review stage to check it's correctly reporting what the preliminary study actually does show. "An unreviewed preliminary claim indicates that a study might show that..." is possibly the strongest level of claim I think we could make from a preprint. And that's no use at all. Oh, and, @ FriendlyRiverOtter: Wikipedia's WP:MEDRS policy and the consensus here are very firmly against you. Preprints will not be used in Medical articles. You need to learn when to listen and move on. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 18:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
insource:medrxiv.org/
currently gives 44 results, but not all are necessarily being used as sources. I'll make a start on removing any that are. --
RexxS (
talk)
20:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
As a pragmatic individual, I added the following Johns Hopkins ref. about Coronavirus and kidney damage:
And then, I deleted the following MedRxiv ref. and summary expressly because it is a pre-print not yet fully peer-reviewed:
Two other MedRxiv sources are currently footnoted 290 and 293. FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 05:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I strongly feel that this doesn’t need specific sanctions, just normal sanctions for edit warring when they are challenged and removed.
One can cite a pre print if it isn’t to make a medical claim for instance, I have inserted several, such as that Wuhans lockdown was arguably successful which stood for at least a week. That was a preprint. Not a medical claim and appropriately balanced. But it was still a preprint in the lead
Just got to enforce edit warring Almaty ( talk) 05:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
In fact I think this article isn’t getting updated as much as it should be and more newcomers would help. Might be time to revisit protection and stuff Almaty ( talk) 05:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
"One can cite a pre print if it isn’t to make a medical claim for instance". No you can't. They don't even pass WP:RS and are unsuitable to support any content outside of an article about pre-prints. I'd be grateful if you'd stop encouraging other editors to breach GS restrictions and our sourcing policies and guidelines. If you insert a pre-print again, you'll be sanctioned.
an admin applying guidelines blindly". This page is littered with attacks from Iluvalar on our sourcing guidelines, and with tendentious comments aimed at the admin actions I've taken so far. I'm willing to topic ban him myself, but no doubt we'd get more drama with wikilawyering about what constitutes WP:INVOLVED. -- RexxS ( talk) 20:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
According to this recent news report the chinese government is "tightening its grip" on covid research. This has been a controversial measure, that could censor both "bad research" and research that suggests negligence of the chinese regarding the origin of the spread of the virus. Although I appreciate the spirit of the sanctions measure, I suggest that we relax it regarding preprints from chinese scientists in the eventual case that RS report that they were censored by the chinese government, in which case their information can not physically proceed to the peer review stage despite any merit. In other words, I suggest we reconsider an exception to the rule of being harsh on citing preprints (the details of this relaxation we can discuss later) given that there is an exceptional situation (according to Nature) that could be distorting the regular channels of science publication in China. Forich ( talk) 04:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't know what I think about some of the arguments here. You have arguments that go preprints are terrible and always bad, etc etc etc. But at the same time, the process of scientific publication and review of it has changed due to covid. You have faster publicaction, with less oversight, and a far larger body of scientists watching what is going on.
This article addresses this change in the publication process: https://undark.org/2020/04/01/scientific-publishing-covid-19/
"In the context of an outbreak, Michael Johansson, a biologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and an epidemiology lecturer at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, wrote in an email to Undark that “traditional review methods are too slow.”"
'A month later, Sarvenaz Sarabipour, a postdoctoral fellow at Johns Hopkins University, and eight other scientists published a rebuttal arguing that given responsible reporting practices, “preprints pose no greater risk to the public’s understanding of science than do peer-reviewed articles.”'
“In one respect, what seemed like a failure of preprints was actually a success, because within 24 hours, the error had been spotted by the community,” said Sever, “and then within about 48 hours [the authors] made a formal withdrawal.” The paper is still on the bioRxiv website, under a bright red banner explaining that it has been withdrawn.
Sever said that even in cases where the preprint isn’t egregiously misleading, the community is still pretty good at picking up on smaller mistakes, like an incomplete methods section or a dataset that wasn’t posted.
-- Talpedia ( talk) 04:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The second paragraph of our Prevention section ends with:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)———————————————
It first talks about ("Rt") being less than 1 and then basically talks about R - 1 needing to be less than 0. For the time being, I think we’d be better off without this second sentence. FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 02:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Some sources did a rule of 3 over data from particular regions (NYC and Bergamo). These are problematic because of age distribution in particular area can vary significantly . The amount of susceptible people from old age is particularly high in NYC. Also we can't exclude that NYC got flooded in cases and they experienced an exceptional situation. So it's not as simple as a rule of 3. I don't think the quality of the sources really hold in comparison with the others we have in that chapter. Iluvalar ( talk) 19:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Can we add the likes of https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/ to ensure internationalisation of this section? Matching the better international selection of journals in the "Medical Journals" section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.125.129.111 ( talk) 11:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
1 Covid19 vaccine- https://www.newshelp.in/covid19-vaccine/ 2409:4063:2286:6594:C16:905:9C88:CC7 ( talk) 01:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Can a confirmed user please take a look at 'Vitamin K found in some cheeses could help fight Covid-19, study suggests' from the Guardian. See https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jun/05/vitamin-k-could-help-fight-coronavirus-study-suggests 2A00:23C6:3B82:8500:65C0:8AC4:F52B:A77A ( talk) 22:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wuhan coronavirus. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#Wuhan coronavirus until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect COV-19. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#COV-19 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Covid 19 virus. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#Covid 19 virus until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 2020 virus. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#2020 virus until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rename to COVID-19 because it is the most common name, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Common_names. 2604:3D08:D180:4500:11F5:FBE1:D602:BAA8 ( talk) 18:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
– — ° ′ ″ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · §
2604:3D08:D180:4500:11F5:FBE1:D602:BAA8 (
talk)
18:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2406:3003:2005:2B34:203E:88F9:C59C:3046 ( talk) 08:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Not done. No edit details included. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 08:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
The notes at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 #Application notes remind editors that:
I remain concerned at the number of biomedical claims in some sections of this article that are sourced to primary studies or news outlets. MEDRS contains the following paragraph:
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, for example early lab results which don't hold in later clinical trials.
It would be an improvement to remove biomedical claims that are sourced to primary studies, as well as those studies, and I believe that we should be taking that task seriously now. -- RexxS ( talk) 00:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Biomedical information requires sources complying with this guideline, whereas general information in the same article may not. For example, an article on Dr Foster's Magic Purple Pills could contain the following:
* Dr Foster's pills cure everything (Strong MEDRS sourcing required)
* Dr Foster's pills were invented by Dr Archibald Foster and released onto the market in 2015 (RS sourcing)
* The pills are purple and triangular, packaged one to a box (RS sourcing) as no-one ever manages to swallow a second one (MEDRS)
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 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first paragraph of the "Other animals" section ends with a discussion of minks. Please add the sentence "Concerns were raised that some people were infected by minks." This can be sourced to https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2020/05/second-person-catches-covid-19-from-a-mink-minister-is-preparing-measures/ 147.161.14.48 ( talk) 14:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Obesity is commonly suspected to be a significant risk factor but the article currently seems to say nothing about this. Here's an example of a source: Obesity and impaired metabolic health in patients with COVID-19. I suggest that we put something in the epidemiology section where we currently have sections for sex differences and ethnic differences. Andrew🐉( talk) 11:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
BMI class | hazard ratio (adjusted for age/sex) | hazard ratio (fully adjusted) |
---|---|---|
Not obese | 1.00 (ref) | 1.00 (ref) |
Obese class I (30–34.9 kg/m²) | 1.57 | 1.27 |
Obese class II (35–39.9 kg/m² | 2.01 | 1.56 |
Obese class III (≥ 40 kg/m²) | 2.97 | 2.27 |
As this seems to be the largest cohort studied so far – over 17 million people – these findings seem quite significant. We should list obesity as a risk factor in the article. Andrew🐉( talk) 16:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
If the aliens. Abandoned to Earth "Crown Virus". Do not stop their Vershörung. That, we will make an offer to improve the Wikipedia page in English.
This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2409:4070:18B:2AB4:1CED:4116:D7E9:AB67 ( talk) 09:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
per ...Varga, Zsuzsanna; Flammer, Andreas J.; Steiger, Peter; Haberecker, Martina; Andermatt, Rea; Zinkernagel, Annelies S.; Mehra, Mandeep R.; Schuepbach, Reto A.; Ruschitzka, Frank; Moch, Holger (2 May 2020). "Endothelial cell infection and endotheliitis in COVID-19". The Lancet. pp. 1417–1418. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30937-5. Retrieved 2 June 2020....an unusual respiratory illness(introduces itself into the body, however its symptoms have vascular aspects....?)-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 02:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I thought this would be a good thing to post as adjunct advice for new editors just getting familiar with Wikipedia medical reliable sources.
Peaceray ( talk) 15:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359610120300927
https://theconversation.com/blocking-the-deadly-cytokine-storm-is-a-vital-weapon-for-treating-covid-19-137690 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.207.77 ( talk) 10:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Noting that the first citation is a primary source that has not yet been peer-reviewed that is ineligible for inclusion in this article because if fails to meet WP:MEDRS. Nonetheless, I ask that people keep an eye out for its inclusion in literature reviews or systematic reviews. The second citation is more of a lay summary.
Peaceray ( talk) 19:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
See https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/05/27/science.abc6197.full
Relevant parts: However, a large proportion of the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) appears to be occurring through airborne transmission of aerosols produced by asymptomatic individuals during breathing and speaking (1–3). Aerosols can accumulate, remain infectious in indoor air for hours, and be easily inhaled deep into the lungs.
And: However, many countries have not yet acknowledged airborne transmission as a possible pathway for SARS-CoV-2 (1). Recent studies have shown that in addition to droplets, SARS-CoV-2 may also be transmitted through aerosols.
Aerosol transmission of viruses must be acknowledged as a key factor leading to the spread of infectious respiratory diseases.
And finally: Thus, the option of universal masking is no longer held back by shortages. From epidemiological data, countries that have been most effective in reducing the spread of COVID-19 have implemented universal masking, including Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea.
I know this point is contentious so this source might not be enough. -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 17:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
There is limited evidence for or against the use of masks (medical or other) in healthy individuals in the wider community.[7]. The evidence is clearly in favour at this point. -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 21:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Gtoffoletto: if I wear a mask, it’s my understanding that the mask is only mediocre in protecting myself, but it’s great in protecting others in case I’m asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic, or even if I have the classic symptom of a dry cough, it’s still great at protecting others. Is this the case? FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 21:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
WHO just came out with a statement about the Italians' reckless statement. Who are those "Italians" you speak of and what statement? If you could provide some sources. It sounds like you are saying Italians are reckless which is a generalisation I would object to (as an Italian myself).
DCt values of severe cases were significantly lower than those of mild cases at the time of admission. Now, I'm no expert in RT-PCR but from my understanding lower DCt means more virus detected. It's therefore not my speculation but theirs. In any case I'm not sure why you are pointing that out. It's not something we should add to the article at the moment and I don't think anyone is arguing that.-- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 23:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
"The initial amount of virus you are exposed to can have an effect on outcome"three comments above. Why are you now pretending nobody is arguing that? -- RexxS ( talk) 23:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Gtoffoletto: our article currently uses the following CDC source, which seems good, but I think we need to update the title and date, and most of all, make sure that we’re doing a solid, A-1 job of summarizing it.
—>
"Recommendation Regarding the Use of Cloth Face Coverings, Especially in Areas of Significant Community-Based Transmission".
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 11 February 2020. Retrieved 17 April 2020.{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
< ref name="cdc-cover" > is the ref name (without spaces for the angle brackets of course). FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 20:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@
Gtoffoletto: I think it’s fine to group ECDC, WHO, CDC when they’re saying the same thing, as well as a few other sources such as Harvard Public Health. And when they differ, we just need to be very matter-of-fact about it: “WHO says . . ” “CDC says . . , ” that kind of thing.
Now, if I have any special trait, it’s patience. So, I’m going to first take a good long look at the above CDC source and see how we do summarizing it.
FriendlyRiverOtter (
talk)
13:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
————————————
My summary:
Don’t give up social distancing of 6 feet, but face masks are recommended for when it’s hard to maintain this distance (such as grocery stores) “especially in areas of significant community-based transmission.”
A “significant portion” of persons infected with Coronavirus are asymptomatic. Persons can also spread the virus while pre-symptomatic.
This recommendation can “help people who may have the virus and do not know it from transmitting it to others.” That is, the mask is a benefit to others, and not directly to yourself.
These can be homemade masks.
Please don’t hog surgical masks or N-95 respirators that healthcare workers need. This article states that such “must continue to be reserved for healthcare workers and other medical first responders, as recommended by current CDC guidance.”
And then there is a short video in which U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams shows how to make a mask using an old cloth and two rubber bands.
Title: Recommendations for Cloth Face Covers [shorter than old title]
Date: April 3, 2020
This is currently our reference # 26, although that can change as ones are added or deleted above it.
The updated reference:
CDC (2020-04-03).
"Recommendations for Cloth Face Covers". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved 2020-06-03.{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
———————————-
@ Gtoffoletto: I've been away a couple of days. When I said Italians, I meant their medical officers making the reckless statements. Silvia Stringhini, an epidemiologist (early statements about it just being a "flu"), Dr Alberto Zangrillo, the head of the San Raffaele Hospital in Milan, Matteo Bassetti, head of the infectious diseases clinic at the San Martino hospital, stating the virus is losing it's strength [6] and the WHO had to issue a statement refuting them [7] MartinezMD ( talk) 23:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I am appalled by the use of preprints to support content in this article. The website MedRxiv displays a clear disclaimer:
Caution: Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Lets be clear about this; preprints aren't even suitable for newspapers, let alone an encyclopedia whose purpose is "to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner" ( WP:AIM).
I'm giving notice that tomorrow I intend to place a general sanction on the page to prohibit the use of preprints as sources in this article. This ought to be simply a matter of respecting our guidelines on WP:Reliable sources and WP:MEDRS, but it now seems necessary. I'm naturally willing to hear reasons why discretionary sanctions should not be necessary to enforce our basic sourcing guidelines. -- RexxS ( talk) 21:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
As an example :
This compares similarly to the Korean CDC finding that 20% of patients with confirmed cases remained asymptomatic during their hospital stay.
And not sure early release is quite the same as a pre-print. FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 05:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
As no compelling argument has been brought forward to explain why this article should be an exception to our reliable sourcing requirements, I've imposed the following specific restriction:
I've logged that at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 and included edit notices and a notice on this talk page. After being made aware of the general sanctions applicable to this page, any editor breaching the prohibition may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, as authorised at WP:GS/COVID19#GS.
There are currently three citations (91, 284, 287) sourced to MedRxiv. These should be removed and the text adjusted as necessary to maintain WP:V.
I ask all editors to respect our sourcing guidelines: sources failing WP:MEDRS should not be used to support any biomedical content; sources failing WP:RS should not be used to support any content at all. This is an encyclopedia, and we should not be trying to compete with news outlets to bring the latest information to readers. We have a sister project, Wikinews, whose purpose is to do that. We should be striving to bring the most accurate information as possible to readers, and that means working only within our sourcing policies and guidelines. I hope that editors will remove sources that fail these guidelines and not restore any challenged material without first discussing it on the talk page.
If it proves necessary, I'll consider a further sanction to prohibit the use of primary sources and animal studies to support biomedical content. -- RexxS ( talk) 19:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
"Do we have cases of editors warring to try to include preprints as sources?"Yes.
"Does this mean that if a well-meaning editor who has been alerted to the sanctions due to an unrelated matter accidentally adds a preprint (perhaps not knowing it was such, or perhaps not knowing preprints are disallowed), they could get blocked?"Yes.
"What makes this something we should implement as a general sanction, rather than just something to add to the COVID-19 WikiProject current consensus list?"WP:RS is not a local consensus;it's a project-wide consensus, and in the opinion of at least three administrators, it's needed to protect the smooth running of the project.
I'm confused about this. What does this have to do with DS? I remove pre-prints from articles as a matter of practice. Does this mean you treat pre-prints differently than other unreliable sources? Natureium ( talk) 02:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
makes you think that they are reliable sources for any content at all? JAMA presently makes preprints available for researchers to see what cutting edge research is happening and what effect it might have on their own research. It does not make it available to facilitate amateur reporters seizing on any headline-grabbing findings and attempting to cram them into an encyclopedia.Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
with the qualifier "a preliminary study shows...": One problem is that you can't really say that from a preprint, because a preprint isn't even a reliable source for what the preliminary study actually shows. The problem is not that the study is preliminary, it's that the words in the preprint are preliminary. It needs the review stage to check it's correctly reporting what the preliminary study actually does show. "An unreviewed preliminary claim indicates that a study might show that..." is possibly the strongest level of claim I think we could make from a preprint. And that's no use at all. Oh, and, @ FriendlyRiverOtter: Wikipedia's WP:MEDRS policy and the consensus here are very firmly against you. Preprints will not be used in Medical articles. You need to learn when to listen and move on. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 18:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
insource:medrxiv.org/
currently gives 44 results, but not all are necessarily being used as sources. I'll make a start on removing any that are. --
RexxS (
talk)
20:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
As a pragmatic individual, I added the following Johns Hopkins ref. about Coronavirus and kidney damage:
And then, I deleted the following MedRxiv ref. and summary expressly because it is a pre-print not yet fully peer-reviewed:
Two other MedRxiv sources are currently footnoted 290 and 293. FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 05:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I strongly feel that this doesn’t need specific sanctions, just normal sanctions for edit warring when they are challenged and removed.
One can cite a pre print if it isn’t to make a medical claim for instance, I have inserted several, such as that Wuhans lockdown was arguably successful which stood for at least a week. That was a preprint. Not a medical claim and appropriately balanced. But it was still a preprint in the lead
Just got to enforce edit warring Almaty ( talk) 05:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
In fact I think this article isn’t getting updated as much as it should be and more newcomers would help. Might be time to revisit protection and stuff Almaty ( talk) 05:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
"One can cite a pre print if it isn’t to make a medical claim for instance". No you can't. They don't even pass WP:RS and are unsuitable to support any content outside of an article about pre-prints. I'd be grateful if you'd stop encouraging other editors to breach GS restrictions and our sourcing policies and guidelines. If you insert a pre-print again, you'll be sanctioned.
an admin applying guidelines blindly". This page is littered with attacks from Iluvalar on our sourcing guidelines, and with tendentious comments aimed at the admin actions I've taken so far. I'm willing to topic ban him myself, but no doubt we'd get more drama with wikilawyering about what constitutes WP:INVOLVED. -- RexxS ( talk) 20:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
According to this recent news report the chinese government is "tightening its grip" on covid research. This has been a controversial measure, that could censor both "bad research" and research that suggests negligence of the chinese regarding the origin of the spread of the virus. Although I appreciate the spirit of the sanctions measure, I suggest that we relax it regarding preprints from chinese scientists in the eventual case that RS report that they were censored by the chinese government, in which case their information can not physically proceed to the peer review stage despite any merit. In other words, I suggest we reconsider an exception to the rule of being harsh on citing preprints (the details of this relaxation we can discuss later) given that there is an exceptional situation (according to Nature) that could be distorting the regular channels of science publication in China. Forich ( talk) 04:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't know what I think about some of the arguments here. You have arguments that go preprints are terrible and always bad, etc etc etc. But at the same time, the process of scientific publication and review of it has changed due to covid. You have faster publicaction, with less oversight, and a far larger body of scientists watching what is going on.
This article addresses this change in the publication process: https://undark.org/2020/04/01/scientific-publishing-covid-19/
"In the context of an outbreak, Michael Johansson, a biologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and an epidemiology lecturer at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, wrote in an email to Undark that “traditional review methods are too slow.”"
'A month later, Sarvenaz Sarabipour, a postdoctoral fellow at Johns Hopkins University, and eight other scientists published a rebuttal arguing that given responsible reporting practices, “preprints pose no greater risk to the public’s understanding of science than do peer-reviewed articles.”'
“In one respect, what seemed like a failure of preprints was actually a success, because within 24 hours, the error had been spotted by the community,” said Sever, “and then within about 48 hours [the authors] made a formal withdrawal.” The paper is still on the bioRxiv website, under a bright red banner explaining that it has been withdrawn.
Sever said that even in cases where the preprint isn’t egregiously misleading, the community is still pretty good at picking up on smaller mistakes, like an incomplete methods section or a dataset that wasn’t posted.
-- Talpedia ( talk) 04:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The second paragraph of our Prevention section ends with:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)———————————————
It first talks about ("Rt") being less than 1 and then basically talks about R - 1 needing to be less than 0. For the time being, I think we’d be better off without this second sentence. FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 02:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Some sources did a rule of 3 over data from particular regions (NYC and Bergamo). These are problematic because of age distribution in particular area can vary significantly . The amount of susceptible people from old age is particularly high in NYC. Also we can't exclude that NYC got flooded in cases and they experienced an exceptional situation. So it's not as simple as a rule of 3. I don't think the quality of the sources really hold in comparison with the others we have in that chapter. Iluvalar ( talk) 19:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Can we add the likes of https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/ to ensure internationalisation of this section? Matching the better international selection of journals in the "Medical Journals" section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.125.129.111 ( talk) 11:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
1 Covid19 vaccine- https://www.newshelp.in/covid19-vaccine/ 2409:4063:2286:6594:C16:905:9C88:CC7 ( talk) 01:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Can a confirmed user please take a look at 'Vitamin K found in some cheeses could help fight Covid-19, study suggests' from the Guardian. See https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jun/05/vitamin-k-could-help-fight-coronavirus-study-suggests 2A00:23C6:3B82:8500:65C0:8AC4:F52B:A77A ( talk) 22:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wuhan coronavirus. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#Wuhan coronavirus until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect COV-19. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#COV-19 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Covid 19 virus. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#Covid 19 virus until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 2020 virus. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#2020 virus until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rename to COVID-19 because it is the most common name, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Common_names. 2604:3D08:D180:4500:11F5:FBE1:D602:BAA8 ( talk) 18:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
– — ° ′ ″ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · §
2604:3D08:D180:4500:11F5:FBE1:D602:BAA8 (
talk)
18:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2406:3003:2005:2B34:203E:88F9:C59C:3046 ( talk) 08:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Not done. No edit details included. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 08:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
The notes at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 #Application notes remind editors that:
I remain concerned at the number of biomedical claims in some sections of this article that are sourced to primary studies or news outlets. MEDRS contains the following paragraph:
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, for example early lab results which don't hold in later clinical trials.
It would be an improvement to remove biomedical claims that are sourced to primary studies, as well as those studies, and I believe that we should be taking that task seriously now. -- RexxS ( talk) 00:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Biomedical information requires sources complying with this guideline, whereas general information in the same article may not. For example, an article on Dr Foster's Magic Purple Pills could contain the following:
* Dr Foster's pills cure everything (Strong MEDRS sourcing required)
* Dr Foster's pills were invented by Dr Archibald Foster and released onto the market in 2015 (RS sourcing)
* The pills are purple and triangular, packaged one to a box (RS sourcing) as no-one ever manages to swallow a second one (MEDRS)