This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
The CFR is hugely important and the media seems to have overlooked this critical stat - on the page it is currently listed as 3.4% - but Case Fatality Rates at the very beginning of a data set are not reliable. At the minimum here on Wikipedia we should list both what the current prediction is - 0.7% - versus what the early numbers were.
Page 12, Paragraph 5 and the graph on page 13 shows the progressive fall in CFR
I am happy to do any specific written content if it helps, or someone with more Wikipedia experience might be better to champion this through. Twrobins ( talk) 14:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Some papers (better sources in bold):
FWIW,
"Coronavirus Is Hiding in Plain Sight
For every known case of coronavirus, another five to 10 cases are out there undetected, a new study suggests."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/health/coronavirus-statistics-undetected.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab
March 16, 2020
DMBFFF (
talk)
00:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I started making this over here - should I move that into somewhere better? /info/en/?search=User:Twrobins/cfrdraft/sandbox2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twrobins ( talk • contribs) 06:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Add the official CFR from Spain ( https://www.mscbs.gob.es/profesionales/saludPublica/ccayes/alertasActual/nCov-China/documentos/Actualizacion_52_COVID-19.pdf ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C0:A740:4472:D0CC:902D:D02E:BA84 ( talk) 13:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
New CFR Data from Spain (26.03.2020): https://www.mallorcadiario.com/adjuntos/550771/Actualizacion_56_COVID-19.pdf New CFR Data frim Italy (25.03.2020) : https://www.epicentro.iss.it/coronavirus/bollettino/Infografica_25marzo%20ENG.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C0:A740:4422:580B:5263:7149:22FA ( talk) 13:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
CFR Data from Nederland : https://www.rivm.nl/sites/default/files/2020-03/Epidemiologische%20situatie%20COVID-19%2026%20maart%202020.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C0:A740:4422:580B:5263:7149:22FA ( talk) 14:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
CFR Update from Spain 01.04.2020: https://www.mallorcadiario.com/adjuntos/551082/Actualizacion_62_COVID-19.pdf CFR Update from Italy 01.04.2020: https://www.epicentro.iss.it/coronavirus/bollettino/Infografica_1aprile%20ENG.pdf CFR Update from Nederland 31.03.2020: https://www.rivm.nl/sites/default/files/2020-03/COVID-19_WebSite_rapport_20200331_1145_2.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C0:A71B:CF37:6DF5:792C:2910:32B3 ( talk) 10:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi. There seems to be a notable Canadian COVID-19 research initiative at the Montreal Heart Institute: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-heart-institute-study-colchicine-1.5506930 . I would think it belongs somewhere in the Research section of this article? Or is it not of global import? It seems to me to be a large double-blind study. I had added to the frwiki article on the pandemic in Canada, and then proposed it for the enwiki Canadian article but it didn't seem to fit there, given that it is not a gov't initiative. Regardless of what happens on that page, I thought I'd flag it here in case someone thinks it merits inclusion. There are other refs for it, in addition to the CBC News ref above. thank you, Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Australians trial TB vaccine to fight coronavirus https://www.france24.com/en/20200326-australians-trial-tb-vaccine-to-fight-coronavirus
Map displaying BCG vaccination policy by country. (in 2011) https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Map-displaying-BCG-vaccination-policy-by-country-A-The-country-currently-has-universal_fig2_50892386
In addtion, (1) BCG vaccination history of individuals and actual rates of vaccinated people may differs even in the same group of nations. (2) The BCG strain of vaccine differs in every each nations. (3) In Japan, the mortality rate of persons aged 69 or older (only those from Japan) who are suspicious of not having vaccinated a BCG is significantly higher. (4) In most nations, ones over 40 years old increases the severity rate with age (correlated with a decrease in antibody titer) -- Kyuri1449 ( talk) 04:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
-- Kyuri1449 ( talk) 04:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Watchers of this page might want to also watchlist Tocilizumab, some recent additions [1] there might not comply with MEDRS guidelines. Posting here for maximum exposure. Geogene ( talk) 07:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Everyone,
According to Scientific America, the Coronavirus is believed to have originated in bats in Southeast Asia. It is believed to have jumped species at least once (to pigs or horses), and then jumped species again to humans (in market places). The research was performed by a team led by Wuhan-based virologist Shi Zhengli.
The genomic sequence of the virus—now officially called SARS-CoV-2 because it is related to the SARS pathogen—was 96 percent identical to that of a coronavirus the researchers had identified in horseshoe bats in Yunnan, they reported in a paper published last month in Nature. “It’s crystal clear that bats, once again, are the natural reservoir,” says Daszak, who was not involved in the study.
Also see How China’s “Bat Woman” Hunted Down Viruses from SARS to the New Coronavirus.
I believe the information would make a good addition to the article. What I am less sure about is, where to add the information.
Jeffrey Walton ( talk) 05:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
According to translation of ([183] to English, this sentence:
They also said that the high number of fatalities in Italy is caused by a high percentage of ACE inhibitors used to treat high blood pressure, and at the same time they warn to change medication as it may lead to heart attacks.[183]
should read
They also said that the high number of fatalities in Italy is caused by a high percentage of ACE inhibitors used to treat high blood pressure, and at the same time they warn not to change medication as it may lead to heart attack or stroke. Blacki999 ( talk) 01:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Following a discussion on the pandemic talk page, the Epidemiology section of this topic was updated to present a single global death-to-case ratio. However, the intro paragraph still contains some bad numbers:
There are a few issues:
I'd propose removing these two sentences for now and letting interested readers find their way to Epidemiology for the number. - Wikmoz ( talk) 07:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article lists "Inhaled Nitrous Oxide" as one of the therapeutic methods for ARDS. This is not the case. It is Nitric (not Nitrous) oxide. There is a big difference so please change it. Nitrous oxide (N2O) is laughing gas/an anaesthetic, Nitric Oxide (NO) is not. 2A02:C7D:500A:2600:E83A:7E4:6521:1086 ( talk) 18:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
At "7.1 Reinfection" there is a "citation needed" upperscript after "It is unclear if these cases are the result of reinfection, relapse, or testing error." These are the only 3 possibilities, therefore citation is not needed. I would have deleted myself, but this is 1 of the pages with a serious protection warning, so I thought it best to leave this here. -- Dutchy45 ( talk) 15:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
What does this sentence mean exactly?: "It also implies that the pandemic is China's aggressive gift to the world, when actually thousands of Chinese suffered and died from COVID-19, especially in Wuhan.
" It's strange English and the citations are Fox News and a Salon editorial rather than an authoritative source—not sure what it adds beyond the WHO recommendation to "avoid references to a specific geographical location", which is already mentioned in that section. —
Nizolan (
talk ·
c.)
11:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Why does our article say that the case fatality rate is 4.6% even though this doesn't appear anywhere in the cited source? The cited source says 3.4% or 3%. If we're simply dividing the number of cases by the number of deaths, the cited source says that's probably misleading: "It is tempting to estimate the case fatality rate by dividing the number of known deaths by the number of confirmed cases. The resulting number, however, does not represent the true case fatality rate and might be off by orders of magnitude... While an epidemic is still ongoing, as it is the case with the current novel coronavirus outbreak, this formula is, at the very least, 'naïve' and can be misleading if, at the time of analysis, the outcome is unknown for a non negligible proportion of patients." Since the number of cases is increasing exponentially and there is an average 2 week lag between infection and death, doesn't that mean that a large percentage of the total number of cases have an unknown outcome? It seems like it would be safer to stick to estimates by cited experts rather than doing our own research. Kaldari ( talk) 03:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
> I suggest to insert this in the 'Anti-cytokine strom' chapter, after footnote 261 (the part about ’tocilizumab’):
Anakinra (an active agent of Kineret injection) has also been proved to be useful against cytokine storms footnote: https://www.uab.edu/reporter/know-more/publications/item/8909-here-s-a-playbook-for-stopping-deadly-cytokine-storm-syndrome Footnote: https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/559/smpc
and is also officially tested in Italy as a possible medicine against cytokine strom syndrome. footnote: https://www.bresciaoggi.it/studio-sui-farmaci-parte-oggi-al-civile-e-in-altri-3-ospedali-1.8011673
/info/en/?search=Talk:Coronavirus_disease_2019#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_1_April_2020
Szíjúszún ( talk) 20:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I have found a lot of news stories with statistics on these, but I am not sure if that can be added without MEDRS compliant studies. It is an important detail that should be in the article. b uidh e 01:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
In the current version of the article, nine footnotes throw a "invoked but never defined" error. It seems that for some reason AnomieBOT was not able to complete its usual task to restore the citations orphaned in Special:Diff/948553290. If someone has a moment to sort these out manually, that would be great.
Regards, HaeB ( talk) 11:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, United states tested 0.1% of their population as positive. There could be 1% to 10% infected. At this critical mass we should start hearing about death WITH covid instead of FROM covid. For exemple car accidents. Is there anything about that in the sources yet ? Iluvalar ( talk) 01:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I've read on various websites that COVID is an acronym for Chinese-Originated Viral Infectious Disease. Is this correct?
Regarding; Povidone-I, based on SARS of 2002/3 [2]. Any opinion on nasal inhalation and oropharyngeal wash of PVP-I should be used in the current COVID-19 pandemic to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2 from patients to healthcare workers (and vice versa) and thus reduce the incidence of COVID-19. [3]... in reseach section maybe. Whispyhistory ( talk) 13:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Why isn't this in the article? There are numerous sources reporting this. For example:
Here's a link to the original article: https://gofile.io/?c=D4zfxD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhejhect ( talk • contribs) 16:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Chrisroby2000 ( talk) 23:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
COVID19 was originated from. Wuhan China
Could somebody clarify this statement: Surfaces may be decontaminated with a number of solutions (within one minute of exposure to the disinfectant for a stainless steel surface), including 62–71% ethanol (alcohol used in spirits), 50–100% isopropanol (isopropyl alcohol), 0.1% sodium hypochlorite (bleach), 0.5% hydrogen peroxide and 0.2–7.5% povidone-iodine. I'm pretty sure that's meant to be a list of five different solutions, but if you read it quickly, it sounds like a solution made of those five different things, all mixed together. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest to insert this in the 'Anti-cytokine strom' chapter, agter footnote 253: Anakinra (an active agent of Kineret injection) has also been proved to be useful against cytokine storms footnote: https://www.uab.edu/reporter/know-more/publications/item/8909-here-s-a-playbook-for-stopping-deadly-cytokine-storm-syndrome Footnote: https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/559/smpc
and is also officially tested in Italy as a possible medicine against cytokine strom syndrome. footnote: https://www.bresciaoggi.it/studio-sui-farmaci-parte-oggi-al-civile-e-in-altri-3-ospedali-1.8011673 Szíjúszún ( talk) 00:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking added a name for COVID-19 Disease X. I had added news link from Bloomberg. The only problem is when I put it in the infobox it has some problems with it can someone fix it please Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrusaderToonamiUK ( talk • contribs) 11:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
They are some report that some patients had reduced lung function and may lead to pulmonary fibrosis. So i got a idea. I know you may not agreed but we need page about this
Here is the link about it from Hong Kong: South Morning News Report — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrusaderToonamiUK ( talk • contribs) 14:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Why did you get rid of the global/country cases/death/recover table? 67.246.226.134 ( talk) 12:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
There is a study done investigating the correlation between rates of infection and blood type ( https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.11.20031096v2). The study's results have not be peer-reviewed, but they have drawn comments in the media and on fact-checkers (e.g., http://theconversation.com/coronavirus-are-people-with-blood-group-a-really-at-higher-risk-of-catching-covid-19-134181, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/04/01/fact-check-coronavirus-blood-type-a-more-susceptible/2922465001/, https://www.healthline.com/health-news/does-your-blood-type-increase-your-risk-for-coronavirus#Things-to-keep-in-mind, https://www.sciencealert.com/paper-suggests-certain-blood-types-might-be-slightly-more-susceptible-to-covid-19, https://www.coronavirustoday.com/blood-type-people-might-need-strengthen-personal-protections-sars-cov-2) which mostly caution on promulgating the conclusions. Strangely, I have found no other reports testing for a blood-type/ infection correlation (which would be easy enough to conduct). We should watch the results of peer reviewing of the original study and look for other studies to see if this should be included in our article in one way or another. Kdammers ( talk) 02:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
In Quebec, Canada, University of Montreal chemistry professor Jean-François Masson is currently working on a portable antibody test to determine who has been infected with Covid-19. The test detects antibodies that are produced in response to the virus when the body is fighting it. The test is important for prevention of the virus because it can illuminate many factors, including what fraction of the population (i) will be or is currently immunized, (ii) do or do not develop symptoms, and (iii) will or will not be among the first to receive the eventual vaccine. [1] -- TheoryNeutral ( talk) 18:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
References
Presently, this may be the most disgraceful article on Wikipedia. It's not racist to mention the active measures taken by the Chinese government to suppress early reports of this disease, and punish those who reported cases. I see Wikipedia is allowing itself to be cowed by sock-puppet editors/propagandists from the CPC. The Chinese people are not at fault, and no reasonable people are saying they are. Their leadership is. For those of us who actually care about facts, this is a desecration. Omitting it is two steps removed from "Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia".
2601:18F:4101:4830:D142:D6F7:5353:6DB6 ( talk) 22:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I specifically said that this is not the fault of the Chinese people, just the government. The Chinese government is uniquely responsible and therefore deserving of criticism in this case for the obvious reason that this began in China, and the government's knowing concealment resulted in an unprecedented spreading of the virus. No one is "hating". If you want to make unsubstantiated reactive generalizations, than let me ask you, when did you stop beating your wife? 2601:18F:4101:4830:D142:D6F7:5353:6DB6 ( talk) 01:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC) 2601:18F:4101:4830:D142:D6F7:5353:6DB6 ( talk) 01:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Here are a few reliable sources for my "claim", that the Chinese government covered up the outbreak of this virus, and punished those who reported it. If you'd like more, I can provide you with several dozen more.
In other breaking news, the moon is not made of cheese.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51409801
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/03/world/asia/coronavirus-china-grief-deaths.html
https://www.wsj.com/articles/world-health-coronavirus-disinformation-11586122093
https://www.ft.com/content/efdec278-6d01-11ea-9bca-bf503995cd6f
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/10/wuhan-officials-tried-cover-up-covid-19-sent-it-careening-outward/ 2601:18F:4101:4830:D142:D6F7:5353:6DB6 ( talk) 01:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
User HiLo48 , please read your own posts before chiding others for WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS . You literally entered this discussion by implying I was racist for stating something thoroughly sourced. No one outside of the CPC disputes this info. When other editors pointed out your mistake, you declared that by even discussing the topic they are somehow "making things worse", and proceeded to lump them in with the US President. Who exactly is attributing motive here?
We deal in facts on Wikipedia. If the content put forth is both factual, and pertinent to the article, it is appropriate to include. You taking offense to the facts is entirely irrelevant. If you have source material that disputes the accuracy, provide it. Otherwise please refrain from labeling other editors.
2601:18F:4101:4830:D142:D6F7:5353:6DB6 ( talk) 22:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Your right. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, BBC, Bloomberg, Washington Post, La Times, Boston Globe, and Times of London are all staffed by bigots. Please stop with the strawman. 2601:18F:4101:4830:D142:D6F7:5353:6DB6 ( talk) 02:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To go to Castiglione d'Adda levels of death + immunity, there is a problem. 1.8% death means that about 1.3% will be admitted to the icu for 20 days (e.g. Dutch numbers). With 0.01% of an icu bed per person (Dutch numbers). This means flattening to 1.3%/0.01%*20 days = 2600 days, i.e. forever. Jmv2009 ( talk) 16:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2020/04/tiger-coronavirus-covid19-positive-test-bronx-zoo/ SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect COVID-20. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- / Alex/ 21 14:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, this is Shadowblade08 again, I just had a quick question. Would it be helpful to combine all the different COVID-19 articles into one article, and just have them labeled under different topics? Thanks
Shadowblade08 ( talk) 13:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be no research into the benefits of large doses of vitamin c to assist with the growth and repair benefits can be found in people with the covid 19 and the benefits of repair upon the lungs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.78.43 ( talk) 03:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Recently, a new hypothesis has been put forward according to which vitamin D can help prevent coronavirus disease (Grant, W.B.; Lahore, H.; McDonnell, S.L.; Baggerly, C.A.; French, C.B.; Aliano, J.L.; Bhattoa, H.P. Evidence that Vitamin D Supplementation Could Reduce Risk of Influenza and COVID-19 Infections and Deaths. Nutrients 2020, 12, 988.) - "Results of a community field trial reported herein indicated that 25(OH)D concentrations above 50 ng/ml (125 nmol/l) vs. <20 ng/ml were associated with a 27% reduction in influenza-like illnesses. From the available evidence, we can hypothesize that raising serum 25(OH)D concentrations through vitamin D supplementation could reduce the incidence, severity, and risk of death from influenza, pneumonia, and the current COVID-19 epidemic." (//citation to be excluded if not allowed//)
This is critically important since most of the northern regions (USA, China, Europe) suffer from from chronic vitamin D defficiency. Deficiency in USA may cover even 77% of population (
/info/en/?search=Vitamin_D_deficiency#Epidemiology)
Vitamin D defficiency weakens people's immune system[2][4] which can result in greater susceptibility to acquiring coronavirus and can be associated with worse prognosis in the course of coronavirus and other viral infections.[1][3][5]
Since this article is now semi-protected, can anyone with the appropriate rights edit this article to include this data? Humanity would be grateful.
[1] Grant, W.B.; Lahore, H.; McDonnell, S.L.; Baggerly, C.A.; French, C.B.; Aliano, J.L.; Bhattoa, H.P. Evidence that Vitamin D Supplementation Could Reduce Risk of Influenza and COVID-19 Infections and Deaths. Nutrients 2020, 12, 988.
[2] Hewison, M. An update on vitamin D and human immunity. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2012,76, 315-325, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2265.2011.04261.x.
[3] Lang, P.O.; Aspinall, R. Vitamin D Status and the Host Resistance to Infections: What It Is Currently (Not) Understood. Clin Ther 2017, 39, 930-945, doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2017.04.004.
[4] Schwalfenberg, G.K. A review of the critical role of vitamin D in the functioning of the immune system and the clinical implications of vitamin D deficiency. Mol Nutr Food Res 2011, 55, 96-108, doi:10.1002/mnfr.201000174.
[5] Beard, J.A.; Bearden, A.; Striker, R. Vitamin D and the anti-viral state. J Clin Virol 2011, 50, 194-200, doi:10.1016/j.jcv.2010.12.006.
After looking at the Covid 19 page here's my question to all. Why are all humans not being asked to cover there face when in public or have another person in there space? There appears to be a huge issue with the facts being released in regards to the distance of a breath and. Contamination of others The sneezing and coughing can contaminate so personal protective equipment is required and not being worn by official groups The police in rural nsw have snot been sighted wearing any items bat gloves a poor effort by our pep designed officials — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.78.43 ( talk) 03:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@ Diannaa:, can we have your wisdom on this? The illustration is a property of the nz magazine, as I get it. Cinadon 36 17:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Now to the important stuff. Prevention happens at two levels individual and population. We need to address both and this graph is about population level measures, which are harder for many people to understand by the way. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Doc James I didnt realized that it was created by an expert, I thought it was regular artwork created by a magazine employee. But what do you mean with " we are working with them"? Who are "we"? No need to add a number at the licence, since everybody thinks it is ok. I was also convinced it is ok regarding copyrights, it is obvious that the case is closed. We can re-add this material if there is no objection. (there is no objection by me, I am rather neutral) Cinadon 36 16:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
An additional point: this image is representative of a viral communication process in this pandemic, which is crucial from the perspective of history, which this will thankfully one day be. As such, ultimately a section on this image itself will be needed, capturing the provenance that's discussed here, and including a copy of the CDC one (which would be usable given its the product of US government employees in their work). Hildabast ( talk) 21:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
The figure from Spinoff is misleading and simply does not follow the CDC source it is purported to be based on. In no other reliable scientific sources have I seen a flattened curve that doesn't also show reduced total number of deaths (represented by area under curve). There is no suggestion that intervention must result in cases not exceeding the health care capacity, and it is clearly not possible in a large-scale outbreak (the best you can do is reduce the load). It should not be used. Hzh ( talk) 12:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
a simulation with social distancing in place throughout the epidemic, flattening the curve (green), and the other
a simulation with more effective social distancing in place for a limited period only(blue). The green curve is basically the same as the CDC one with intervention. Both the green and blue curves are the same about social distancing, except that one is more effective (hence sharper fall of cases) but applied only for a limited period (hence increasing later). It is not an alternative, just showing what happens depending on how the intervention is applied. The Spinoff clearly is misinterpreting the sources for both. Hzh ( talk) 17:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The greater the reduction in transmission, the longer and flatter the epidemic curve, hence the risk of increase in cases later when intervention is stopped too soon. Spinoff simply misrepresented the sources to make the diagrams. Hzh ( talk) 23:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean by number of deaths", CFCF was most likely referring to your statement "
...show reduced total number of deaths (represented by area under curve)" in your original post in this section. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
What exactly do you think is the mechanism that would give you the same number of cases?
the total number of infections throughout the course of the epidemic can be lower. Bizarrely, their diagram actually shows the total number infections increased, yet still referenced to CDC. I have no idea which CDC figure they refer to, but it certainly isn't the one shown here which show a decrease. All in all, it would seem that those media sources are unreliable and cannot be considered WP:MEDRS, and they are certainly careless in how they draw the diagrams. Hzh ( talk) 23:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
In the article, ¶10 describes the possible goals, ¶11 explains the unlikelihood of a vaccine in time to effectively reduce morbidity & associated mortality, and ¶12 & 13 discuss social distancing with the goal of: "For the simulations in the main text, the initial conditions are 625 infections, in a population of 60 million, of which 61 reported. Red line: epidemic with case isolation only; green line: same but with social distancing in place indefinitely (25% lower contact rate after 70 days); blue line: same but with stronger social distancing in place for only four months (50% lower contact rate after 80 days). Parameter values as above,with p = 50% symptomatic, 1/a = 2 days to isolation.
" The rest of the Lancet article doesn't really indicate if they believe that social distancing will decrease the number of cases, or just the rate of transmission (though the only explicitly talk about the latter).[preventing] transmission from symptomatic and non-symptomatic cases, hence flattening the epidemic and pushing the peak further into the future... The greater the reduction in transmission, the longer and flatter the epidemic curve
But this doesn't necessarily suggest a decrease in total cases over time. Later, the article says:Early interventions to reduce the average frequency and intensity of exposure to the virus might reduce infection risk, reduce the average viral infectious dose of those exposed, and result in less severe cases who are less infectious.
.The purpose of pre-emptive interventions is to slow the transmission of disease and limit the impact on health services, particularly hospitals and intensive care units,to ensure access to high level care when needed... Reducing the force of infection, particularly early, will delay the epidemic peak, blunt the epidemic peak, spread cases over a longer time, and help to limit the potential for critical care services to be overwhelmed, which may be lifesaving
The goal must be to push it below? You are arguing for using random curves and lines to suit whatever purposes you want, that is surely the definition of OR, and saying that some random curves you drew will appear in literature is WP:CRYSTAL. The point that you are refusing to answer is still why use them when the original is available? Hzh ( talk) 10:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
External image | |
---|---|
https://i2.wp.com/flowingdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/flatten-the-curve-smaller.gif?fit=670%2C565&ssl=1] Animation from Twitter user @axlrdk. Schematic based on a number of different MEDRS-sourced concepts |
Using the 3 to 5% statistic for the Spanish flu death rate is absurd. You don't get to age adjust the death rate for COVID-19 and not age adjust the death rate for the flu. Absurd. I come here for facts. Not facts that are skewed in one direction. If the information for the age adjusted death rate of the Spanish Flu is not available it should not be on this page Sickboy254698 ( talk) 22:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
It seems obvious to me that this image ("flatten the curve") is wrong. It's simply not possible to "flatten the curve" sufficiently to remain below the healthcare system capacity of any country or the lockdown should be kept for 10 years or something. What am I missing? -- RaphaelQS ( talk) 16:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
The "flatten the curve drive" is based on the idea of avoiding overwhelming hospital intensive care unit capacity. Also to allow time for a vaccine to be developed of course. THE hard question which I CANNOT FIND THE ANSWER TO is, "DOES ICU ADMISSION OF SEVERELY ILL COVID-19 PATIENTS IMPROVE THEIR SURVIVAL RATE?" If we knew it does not change outcomes then we would likely not stop/slow society only to allow more of us to endure a futile intervention. Please help look for that answer. Petlif ( talk) 22:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
So "ICU admission improves COVID-19 survival". Does ANYONE have a link to published evidence that ICU improves survival vs. fate just picking survivors regardless? Petlif ( talk) 22:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
What image should we use?
Since I made that comment, a better alternative, option 3, has become available, and is clearly preferable. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 16:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)I'm still not totally comfortable with the series of graphics that has taken over the article. They're accessible, yes, but we can be accessible without being cartoonish, and the extremely informal font in particular just doesn't feel appropriate for an encyclopedia, especially for a page on a serious medical topic. They also don't carry as much informational weight or medical authority — for instance, it's clear that for the "alternatives to social distancing" graphic, the artist just drew an arbitrary line saying "okay, if the response is strong but short-term, I'm going to draw cases going up this much". Compare that to something like the excellent (albeit not freely licensed) article the Washington Post put out about this, which uses some statistics and actual simulation to give the results more credence. I'm not going to say we should remove the graphics since I don't know of anything better currently available to replace them with (and yes, I recognize that criticism is cheap), but I do think we ought to recognize that they aren't the ideal, and if something better is created/found, we ought to be open to replacement.
Yes, they covered things up. But EVERY other country would have done it; of course by different means. An argument people don't consider, is that independent of the source of any outbreak, people in charge will always act carefully and try to contain it before alarming everybody. I'm not defending nor saying that what Chinese leaders did was the best they could have done. But is human nature to try and fix a problem before admitting we are unable to, in this case tell the world "hey, we couldn't handle this silent assassin... we have failed" when you are one of the world's biggest economies. Put yourself in the position of a President. If shit is happening, you maintain it a secret and try to fix it to not cause mass hysteria. When that fails, you'll have to swallow a bitter pill and then tell people about what is happening.
Krakikoko ( talk) 10:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
An icon of a person, usually meaning "Male", so we're not the only ones who make the association. If you wanted to overcome that objection, can I suggest that File:Bimetrical icon person black.svg is more gender neutral. James' dislike of "baby colours" is less of an issue for me, but should you consider redoing the graphic, my normal expectation for regions representing safe/unsafe would be green/red, that would become backgrounds of "pastel green"/"pastel red". Thanks again, and hope that helps. -- RexxS ( talk) 19:46, 5 April 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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
The CFR is hugely important and the media seems to have overlooked this critical stat - on the page it is currently listed as 3.4% - but Case Fatality Rates at the very beginning of a data set are not reliable. At the minimum here on Wikipedia we should list both what the current prediction is - 0.7% - versus what the early numbers were.
Page 12, Paragraph 5 and the graph on page 13 shows the progressive fall in CFR
I am happy to do any specific written content if it helps, or someone with more Wikipedia experience might be better to champion this through. Twrobins ( talk) 14:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Some papers (better sources in bold):
FWIW,
"Coronavirus Is Hiding in Plain Sight
For every known case of coronavirus, another five to 10 cases are out there undetected, a new study suggests."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/health/coronavirus-statistics-undetected.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab
March 16, 2020
DMBFFF (
talk)
00:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I started making this over here - should I move that into somewhere better? /info/en/?search=User:Twrobins/cfrdraft/sandbox2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twrobins ( talk • contribs) 06:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Add the official CFR from Spain ( https://www.mscbs.gob.es/profesionales/saludPublica/ccayes/alertasActual/nCov-China/documentos/Actualizacion_52_COVID-19.pdf ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C0:A740:4472:D0CC:902D:D02E:BA84 ( talk) 13:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
New CFR Data from Spain (26.03.2020): https://www.mallorcadiario.com/adjuntos/550771/Actualizacion_56_COVID-19.pdf New CFR Data frim Italy (25.03.2020) : https://www.epicentro.iss.it/coronavirus/bollettino/Infografica_25marzo%20ENG.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C0:A740:4422:580B:5263:7149:22FA ( talk) 13:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
CFR Data from Nederland : https://www.rivm.nl/sites/default/files/2020-03/Epidemiologische%20situatie%20COVID-19%2026%20maart%202020.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C0:A740:4422:580B:5263:7149:22FA ( talk) 14:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
CFR Update from Spain 01.04.2020: https://www.mallorcadiario.com/adjuntos/551082/Actualizacion_62_COVID-19.pdf CFR Update from Italy 01.04.2020: https://www.epicentro.iss.it/coronavirus/bollettino/Infografica_1aprile%20ENG.pdf CFR Update from Nederland 31.03.2020: https://www.rivm.nl/sites/default/files/2020-03/COVID-19_WebSite_rapport_20200331_1145_2.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C0:A71B:CF37:6DF5:792C:2910:32B3 ( talk) 10:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi. There seems to be a notable Canadian COVID-19 research initiative at the Montreal Heart Institute: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-heart-institute-study-colchicine-1.5506930 . I would think it belongs somewhere in the Research section of this article? Or is it not of global import? It seems to me to be a large double-blind study. I had added to the frwiki article on the pandemic in Canada, and then proposed it for the enwiki Canadian article but it didn't seem to fit there, given that it is not a gov't initiative. Regardless of what happens on that page, I thought I'd flag it here in case someone thinks it merits inclusion. There are other refs for it, in addition to the CBC News ref above. thank you, Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Australians trial TB vaccine to fight coronavirus https://www.france24.com/en/20200326-australians-trial-tb-vaccine-to-fight-coronavirus
Map displaying BCG vaccination policy by country. (in 2011) https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Map-displaying-BCG-vaccination-policy-by-country-A-The-country-currently-has-universal_fig2_50892386
In addtion, (1) BCG vaccination history of individuals and actual rates of vaccinated people may differs even in the same group of nations. (2) The BCG strain of vaccine differs in every each nations. (3) In Japan, the mortality rate of persons aged 69 or older (only those from Japan) who are suspicious of not having vaccinated a BCG is significantly higher. (4) In most nations, ones over 40 years old increases the severity rate with age (correlated with a decrease in antibody titer) -- Kyuri1449 ( talk) 04:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
-- Kyuri1449 ( talk) 04:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Watchers of this page might want to also watchlist Tocilizumab, some recent additions [1] there might not comply with MEDRS guidelines. Posting here for maximum exposure. Geogene ( talk) 07:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Everyone,
According to Scientific America, the Coronavirus is believed to have originated in bats in Southeast Asia. It is believed to have jumped species at least once (to pigs or horses), and then jumped species again to humans (in market places). The research was performed by a team led by Wuhan-based virologist Shi Zhengli.
The genomic sequence of the virus—now officially called SARS-CoV-2 because it is related to the SARS pathogen—was 96 percent identical to that of a coronavirus the researchers had identified in horseshoe bats in Yunnan, they reported in a paper published last month in Nature. “It’s crystal clear that bats, once again, are the natural reservoir,” says Daszak, who was not involved in the study.
Also see How China’s “Bat Woman” Hunted Down Viruses from SARS to the New Coronavirus.
I believe the information would make a good addition to the article. What I am less sure about is, where to add the information.
Jeffrey Walton ( talk) 05:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
According to translation of ([183] to English, this sentence:
They also said that the high number of fatalities in Italy is caused by a high percentage of ACE inhibitors used to treat high blood pressure, and at the same time they warn to change medication as it may lead to heart attacks.[183]
should read
They also said that the high number of fatalities in Italy is caused by a high percentage of ACE inhibitors used to treat high blood pressure, and at the same time they warn not to change medication as it may lead to heart attack or stroke. Blacki999 ( talk) 01:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Following a discussion on the pandemic talk page, the Epidemiology section of this topic was updated to present a single global death-to-case ratio. However, the intro paragraph still contains some bad numbers:
There are a few issues:
I'd propose removing these two sentences for now and letting interested readers find their way to Epidemiology for the number. - Wikmoz ( talk) 07:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article lists "Inhaled Nitrous Oxide" as one of the therapeutic methods for ARDS. This is not the case. It is Nitric (not Nitrous) oxide. There is a big difference so please change it. Nitrous oxide (N2O) is laughing gas/an anaesthetic, Nitric Oxide (NO) is not. 2A02:C7D:500A:2600:E83A:7E4:6521:1086 ( talk) 18:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
At "7.1 Reinfection" there is a "citation needed" upperscript after "It is unclear if these cases are the result of reinfection, relapse, or testing error." These are the only 3 possibilities, therefore citation is not needed. I would have deleted myself, but this is 1 of the pages with a serious protection warning, so I thought it best to leave this here. -- Dutchy45 ( talk) 15:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
What does this sentence mean exactly?: "It also implies that the pandemic is China's aggressive gift to the world, when actually thousands of Chinese suffered and died from COVID-19, especially in Wuhan.
" It's strange English and the citations are Fox News and a Salon editorial rather than an authoritative source—not sure what it adds beyond the WHO recommendation to "avoid references to a specific geographical location", which is already mentioned in that section. —
Nizolan (
talk ·
c.)
11:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Why does our article say that the case fatality rate is 4.6% even though this doesn't appear anywhere in the cited source? The cited source says 3.4% or 3%. If we're simply dividing the number of cases by the number of deaths, the cited source says that's probably misleading: "It is tempting to estimate the case fatality rate by dividing the number of known deaths by the number of confirmed cases. The resulting number, however, does not represent the true case fatality rate and might be off by orders of magnitude... While an epidemic is still ongoing, as it is the case with the current novel coronavirus outbreak, this formula is, at the very least, 'naïve' and can be misleading if, at the time of analysis, the outcome is unknown for a non negligible proportion of patients." Since the number of cases is increasing exponentially and there is an average 2 week lag between infection and death, doesn't that mean that a large percentage of the total number of cases have an unknown outcome? It seems like it would be safer to stick to estimates by cited experts rather than doing our own research. Kaldari ( talk) 03:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
> I suggest to insert this in the 'Anti-cytokine strom' chapter, after footnote 261 (the part about ’tocilizumab’):
Anakinra (an active agent of Kineret injection) has also been proved to be useful against cytokine storms footnote: https://www.uab.edu/reporter/know-more/publications/item/8909-here-s-a-playbook-for-stopping-deadly-cytokine-storm-syndrome Footnote: https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/559/smpc
and is also officially tested in Italy as a possible medicine against cytokine strom syndrome. footnote: https://www.bresciaoggi.it/studio-sui-farmaci-parte-oggi-al-civile-e-in-altri-3-ospedali-1.8011673
/info/en/?search=Talk:Coronavirus_disease_2019#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_1_April_2020
Szíjúszún ( talk) 20:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I have found a lot of news stories with statistics on these, but I am not sure if that can be added without MEDRS compliant studies. It is an important detail that should be in the article. b uidh e 01:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
In the current version of the article, nine footnotes throw a "invoked but never defined" error. It seems that for some reason AnomieBOT was not able to complete its usual task to restore the citations orphaned in Special:Diff/948553290. If someone has a moment to sort these out manually, that would be great.
Regards, HaeB ( talk) 11:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, United states tested 0.1% of their population as positive. There could be 1% to 10% infected. At this critical mass we should start hearing about death WITH covid instead of FROM covid. For exemple car accidents. Is there anything about that in the sources yet ? Iluvalar ( talk) 01:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I've read on various websites that COVID is an acronym for Chinese-Originated Viral Infectious Disease. Is this correct?
Regarding; Povidone-I, based on SARS of 2002/3 [2]. Any opinion on nasal inhalation and oropharyngeal wash of PVP-I should be used in the current COVID-19 pandemic to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2 from patients to healthcare workers (and vice versa) and thus reduce the incidence of COVID-19. [3]... in reseach section maybe. Whispyhistory ( talk) 13:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Why isn't this in the article? There are numerous sources reporting this. For example:
Here's a link to the original article: https://gofile.io/?c=D4zfxD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhejhect ( talk • contribs) 16:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Chrisroby2000 ( talk) 23:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
COVID19 was originated from. Wuhan China
Could somebody clarify this statement: Surfaces may be decontaminated with a number of solutions (within one minute of exposure to the disinfectant for a stainless steel surface), including 62–71% ethanol (alcohol used in spirits), 50–100% isopropanol (isopropyl alcohol), 0.1% sodium hypochlorite (bleach), 0.5% hydrogen peroxide and 0.2–7.5% povidone-iodine. I'm pretty sure that's meant to be a list of five different solutions, but if you read it quickly, it sounds like a solution made of those five different things, all mixed together. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest to insert this in the 'Anti-cytokine strom' chapter, agter footnote 253: Anakinra (an active agent of Kineret injection) has also been proved to be useful against cytokine storms footnote: https://www.uab.edu/reporter/know-more/publications/item/8909-here-s-a-playbook-for-stopping-deadly-cytokine-storm-syndrome Footnote: https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/559/smpc
and is also officially tested in Italy as a possible medicine against cytokine strom syndrome. footnote: https://www.bresciaoggi.it/studio-sui-farmaci-parte-oggi-al-civile-e-in-altri-3-ospedali-1.8011673 Szíjúszún ( talk) 00:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking added a name for COVID-19 Disease X. I had added news link from Bloomberg. The only problem is when I put it in the infobox it has some problems with it can someone fix it please Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrusaderToonamiUK ( talk • contribs) 11:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
They are some report that some patients had reduced lung function and may lead to pulmonary fibrosis. So i got a idea. I know you may not agreed but we need page about this
Here is the link about it from Hong Kong: South Morning News Report — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrusaderToonamiUK ( talk • contribs) 14:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Why did you get rid of the global/country cases/death/recover table? 67.246.226.134 ( talk) 12:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
There is a study done investigating the correlation between rates of infection and blood type ( https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.11.20031096v2). The study's results have not be peer-reviewed, but they have drawn comments in the media and on fact-checkers (e.g., http://theconversation.com/coronavirus-are-people-with-blood-group-a-really-at-higher-risk-of-catching-covid-19-134181, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/04/01/fact-check-coronavirus-blood-type-a-more-susceptible/2922465001/, https://www.healthline.com/health-news/does-your-blood-type-increase-your-risk-for-coronavirus#Things-to-keep-in-mind, https://www.sciencealert.com/paper-suggests-certain-blood-types-might-be-slightly-more-susceptible-to-covid-19, https://www.coronavirustoday.com/blood-type-people-might-need-strengthen-personal-protections-sars-cov-2) which mostly caution on promulgating the conclusions. Strangely, I have found no other reports testing for a blood-type/ infection correlation (which would be easy enough to conduct). We should watch the results of peer reviewing of the original study and look for other studies to see if this should be included in our article in one way or another. Kdammers ( talk) 02:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
In Quebec, Canada, University of Montreal chemistry professor Jean-François Masson is currently working on a portable antibody test to determine who has been infected with Covid-19. The test detects antibodies that are produced in response to the virus when the body is fighting it. The test is important for prevention of the virus because it can illuminate many factors, including what fraction of the population (i) will be or is currently immunized, (ii) do or do not develop symptoms, and (iii) will or will not be among the first to receive the eventual vaccine. [1] -- TheoryNeutral ( talk) 18:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
References
Presently, this may be the most disgraceful article on Wikipedia. It's not racist to mention the active measures taken by the Chinese government to suppress early reports of this disease, and punish those who reported cases. I see Wikipedia is allowing itself to be cowed by sock-puppet editors/propagandists from the CPC. The Chinese people are not at fault, and no reasonable people are saying they are. Their leadership is. For those of us who actually care about facts, this is a desecration. Omitting it is two steps removed from "Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia".
2601:18F:4101:4830:D142:D6F7:5353:6DB6 ( talk) 22:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I specifically said that this is not the fault of the Chinese people, just the government. The Chinese government is uniquely responsible and therefore deserving of criticism in this case for the obvious reason that this began in China, and the government's knowing concealment resulted in an unprecedented spreading of the virus. No one is "hating". If you want to make unsubstantiated reactive generalizations, than let me ask you, when did you stop beating your wife? 2601:18F:4101:4830:D142:D6F7:5353:6DB6 ( talk) 01:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC) 2601:18F:4101:4830:D142:D6F7:5353:6DB6 ( talk) 01:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Here are a few reliable sources for my "claim", that the Chinese government covered up the outbreak of this virus, and punished those who reported it. If you'd like more, I can provide you with several dozen more.
In other breaking news, the moon is not made of cheese.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51409801
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/03/world/asia/coronavirus-china-grief-deaths.html
https://www.wsj.com/articles/world-health-coronavirus-disinformation-11586122093
https://www.ft.com/content/efdec278-6d01-11ea-9bca-bf503995cd6f
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/10/wuhan-officials-tried-cover-up-covid-19-sent-it-careening-outward/ 2601:18F:4101:4830:D142:D6F7:5353:6DB6 ( talk) 01:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
User HiLo48 , please read your own posts before chiding others for WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS . You literally entered this discussion by implying I was racist for stating something thoroughly sourced. No one outside of the CPC disputes this info. When other editors pointed out your mistake, you declared that by even discussing the topic they are somehow "making things worse", and proceeded to lump them in with the US President. Who exactly is attributing motive here?
We deal in facts on Wikipedia. If the content put forth is both factual, and pertinent to the article, it is appropriate to include. You taking offense to the facts is entirely irrelevant. If you have source material that disputes the accuracy, provide it. Otherwise please refrain from labeling other editors.
2601:18F:4101:4830:D142:D6F7:5353:6DB6 ( talk) 22:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Your right. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, BBC, Bloomberg, Washington Post, La Times, Boston Globe, and Times of London are all staffed by bigots. Please stop with the strawman. 2601:18F:4101:4830:D142:D6F7:5353:6DB6 ( talk) 02:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To go to Castiglione d'Adda levels of death + immunity, there is a problem. 1.8% death means that about 1.3% will be admitted to the icu for 20 days (e.g. Dutch numbers). With 0.01% of an icu bed per person (Dutch numbers). This means flattening to 1.3%/0.01%*20 days = 2600 days, i.e. forever. Jmv2009 ( talk) 16:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2020/04/tiger-coronavirus-covid19-positive-test-bronx-zoo/ SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect COVID-20. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- / Alex/ 21 14:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, this is Shadowblade08 again, I just had a quick question. Would it be helpful to combine all the different COVID-19 articles into one article, and just have them labeled under different topics? Thanks
Shadowblade08 ( talk) 13:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be no research into the benefits of large doses of vitamin c to assist with the growth and repair benefits can be found in people with the covid 19 and the benefits of repair upon the lungs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.78.43 ( talk) 03:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Recently, a new hypothesis has been put forward according to which vitamin D can help prevent coronavirus disease (Grant, W.B.; Lahore, H.; McDonnell, S.L.; Baggerly, C.A.; French, C.B.; Aliano, J.L.; Bhattoa, H.P. Evidence that Vitamin D Supplementation Could Reduce Risk of Influenza and COVID-19 Infections and Deaths. Nutrients 2020, 12, 988.) - "Results of a community field trial reported herein indicated that 25(OH)D concentrations above 50 ng/ml (125 nmol/l) vs. <20 ng/ml were associated with a 27% reduction in influenza-like illnesses. From the available evidence, we can hypothesize that raising serum 25(OH)D concentrations through vitamin D supplementation could reduce the incidence, severity, and risk of death from influenza, pneumonia, and the current COVID-19 epidemic." (//citation to be excluded if not allowed//)
This is critically important since most of the northern regions (USA, China, Europe) suffer from from chronic vitamin D defficiency. Deficiency in USA may cover even 77% of population (
/info/en/?search=Vitamin_D_deficiency#Epidemiology)
Vitamin D defficiency weakens people's immune system[2][4] which can result in greater susceptibility to acquiring coronavirus and can be associated with worse prognosis in the course of coronavirus and other viral infections.[1][3][5]
Since this article is now semi-protected, can anyone with the appropriate rights edit this article to include this data? Humanity would be grateful.
[1] Grant, W.B.; Lahore, H.; McDonnell, S.L.; Baggerly, C.A.; French, C.B.; Aliano, J.L.; Bhattoa, H.P. Evidence that Vitamin D Supplementation Could Reduce Risk of Influenza and COVID-19 Infections and Deaths. Nutrients 2020, 12, 988.
[2] Hewison, M. An update on vitamin D and human immunity. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2012,76, 315-325, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2265.2011.04261.x.
[3] Lang, P.O.; Aspinall, R. Vitamin D Status and the Host Resistance to Infections: What It Is Currently (Not) Understood. Clin Ther 2017, 39, 930-945, doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2017.04.004.
[4] Schwalfenberg, G.K. A review of the critical role of vitamin D in the functioning of the immune system and the clinical implications of vitamin D deficiency. Mol Nutr Food Res 2011, 55, 96-108, doi:10.1002/mnfr.201000174.
[5] Beard, J.A.; Bearden, A.; Striker, R. Vitamin D and the anti-viral state. J Clin Virol 2011, 50, 194-200, doi:10.1016/j.jcv.2010.12.006.
After looking at the Covid 19 page here's my question to all. Why are all humans not being asked to cover there face when in public or have another person in there space? There appears to be a huge issue with the facts being released in regards to the distance of a breath and. Contamination of others The sneezing and coughing can contaminate so personal protective equipment is required and not being worn by official groups The police in rural nsw have snot been sighted wearing any items bat gloves a poor effort by our pep designed officials — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.78.43 ( talk) 03:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@ Diannaa:, can we have your wisdom on this? The illustration is a property of the nz magazine, as I get it. Cinadon 36 17:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Now to the important stuff. Prevention happens at two levels individual and population. We need to address both and this graph is about population level measures, which are harder for many people to understand by the way. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Doc James I didnt realized that it was created by an expert, I thought it was regular artwork created by a magazine employee. But what do you mean with " we are working with them"? Who are "we"? No need to add a number at the licence, since everybody thinks it is ok. I was also convinced it is ok regarding copyrights, it is obvious that the case is closed. We can re-add this material if there is no objection. (there is no objection by me, I am rather neutral) Cinadon 36 16:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
An additional point: this image is representative of a viral communication process in this pandemic, which is crucial from the perspective of history, which this will thankfully one day be. As such, ultimately a section on this image itself will be needed, capturing the provenance that's discussed here, and including a copy of the CDC one (which would be usable given its the product of US government employees in their work). Hildabast ( talk) 21:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
The figure from Spinoff is misleading and simply does not follow the CDC source it is purported to be based on. In no other reliable scientific sources have I seen a flattened curve that doesn't also show reduced total number of deaths (represented by area under curve). There is no suggestion that intervention must result in cases not exceeding the health care capacity, and it is clearly not possible in a large-scale outbreak (the best you can do is reduce the load). It should not be used. Hzh ( talk) 12:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
a simulation with social distancing in place throughout the epidemic, flattening the curve (green), and the other
a simulation with more effective social distancing in place for a limited period only(blue). The green curve is basically the same as the CDC one with intervention. Both the green and blue curves are the same about social distancing, except that one is more effective (hence sharper fall of cases) but applied only for a limited period (hence increasing later). It is not an alternative, just showing what happens depending on how the intervention is applied. The Spinoff clearly is misinterpreting the sources for both. Hzh ( talk) 17:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The greater the reduction in transmission, the longer and flatter the epidemic curve, hence the risk of increase in cases later when intervention is stopped too soon. Spinoff simply misrepresented the sources to make the diagrams. Hzh ( talk) 23:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean by number of deaths", CFCF was most likely referring to your statement "
...show reduced total number of deaths (represented by area under curve)" in your original post in this section. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
What exactly do you think is the mechanism that would give you the same number of cases?
the total number of infections throughout the course of the epidemic can be lower. Bizarrely, their diagram actually shows the total number infections increased, yet still referenced to CDC. I have no idea which CDC figure they refer to, but it certainly isn't the one shown here which show a decrease. All in all, it would seem that those media sources are unreliable and cannot be considered WP:MEDRS, and they are certainly careless in how they draw the diagrams. Hzh ( talk) 23:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
In the article, ¶10 describes the possible goals, ¶11 explains the unlikelihood of a vaccine in time to effectively reduce morbidity & associated mortality, and ¶12 & 13 discuss social distancing with the goal of: "For the simulations in the main text, the initial conditions are 625 infections, in a population of 60 million, of which 61 reported. Red line: epidemic with case isolation only; green line: same but with social distancing in place indefinitely (25% lower contact rate after 70 days); blue line: same but with stronger social distancing in place for only four months (50% lower contact rate after 80 days). Parameter values as above,with p = 50% symptomatic, 1/a = 2 days to isolation.
" The rest of the Lancet article doesn't really indicate if they believe that social distancing will decrease the number of cases, or just the rate of transmission (though the only explicitly talk about the latter).[preventing] transmission from symptomatic and non-symptomatic cases, hence flattening the epidemic and pushing the peak further into the future... The greater the reduction in transmission, the longer and flatter the epidemic curve
But this doesn't necessarily suggest a decrease in total cases over time. Later, the article says:Early interventions to reduce the average frequency and intensity of exposure to the virus might reduce infection risk, reduce the average viral infectious dose of those exposed, and result in less severe cases who are less infectious.
.The purpose of pre-emptive interventions is to slow the transmission of disease and limit the impact on health services, particularly hospitals and intensive care units,to ensure access to high level care when needed... Reducing the force of infection, particularly early, will delay the epidemic peak, blunt the epidemic peak, spread cases over a longer time, and help to limit the potential for critical care services to be overwhelmed, which may be lifesaving
The goal must be to push it below? You are arguing for using random curves and lines to suit whatever purposes you want, that is surely the definition of OR, and saying that some random curves you drew will appear in literature is WP:CRYSTAL. The point that you are refusing to answer is still why use them when the original is available? Hzh ( talk) 10:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
External image | |
---|---|
https://i2.wp.com/flowingdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/flatten-the-curve-smaller.gif?fit=670%2C565&ssl=1] Animation from Twitter user @axlrdk. Schematic based on a number of different MEDRS-sourced concepts |
Using the 3 to 5% statistic for the Spanish flu death rate is absurd. You don't get to age adjust the death rate for COVID-19 and not age adjust the death rate for the flu. Absurd. I come here for facts. Not facts that are skewed in one direction. If the information for the age adjusted death rate of the Spanish Flu is not available it should not be on this page Sickboy254698 ( talk) 22:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
It seems obvious to me that this image ("flatten the curve") is wrong. It's simply not possible to "flatten the curve" sufficiently to remain below the healthcare system capacity of any country or the lockdown should be kept for 10 years or something. What am I missing? -- RaphaelQS ( talk) 16:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
The "flatten the curve drive" is based on the idea of avoiding overwhelming hospital intensive care unit capacity. Also to allow time for a vaccine to be developed of course. THE hard question which I CANNOT FIND THE ANSWER TO is, "DOES ICU ADMISSION OF SEVERELY ILL COVID-19 PATIENTS IMPROVE THEIR SURVIVAL RATE?" If we knew it does not change outcomes then we would likely not stop/slow society only to allow more of us to endure a futile intervention. Please help look for that answer. Petlif ( talk) 22:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
So "ICU admission improves COVID-19 survival". Does ANYONE have a link to published evidence that ICU improves survival vs. fate just picking survivors regardless? Petlif ( talk) 22:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
What image should we use?
Since I made that comment, a better alternative, option 3, has become available, and is clearly preferable. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 16:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)I'm still not totally comfortable with the series of graphics that has taken over the article. They're accessible, yes, but we can be accessible without being cartoonish, and the extremely informal font in particular just doesn't feel appropriate for an encyclopedia, especially for a page on a serious medical topic. They also don't carry as much informational weight or medical authority — for instance, it's clear that for the "alternatives to social distancing" graphic, the artist just drew an arbitrary line saying "okay, if the response is strong but short-term, I'm going to draw cases going up this much". Compare that to something like the excellent (albeit not freely licensed) article the Washington Post put out about this, which uses some statistics and actual simulation to give the results more credence. I'm not going to say we should remove the graphics since I don't know of anything better currently available to replace them with (and yes, I recognize that criticism is cheap), but I do think we ought to recognize that they aren't the ideal, and if something better is created/found, we ought to be open to replacement.
Yes, they covered things up. But EVERY other country would have done it; of course by different means. An argument people don't consider, is that independent of the source of any outbreak, people in charge will always act carefully and try to contain it before alarming everybody. I'm not defending nor saying that what Chinese leaders did was the best they could have done. But is human nature to try and fix a problem before admitting we are unable to, in this case tell the world "hey, we couldn't handle this silent assassin... we have failed" when you are one of the world's biggest economies. Put yourself in the position of a President. If shit is happening, you maintain it a secret and try to fix it to not cause mass hysteria. When that fails, you'll have to swallow a bitter pill and then tell people about what is happening.
Krakikoko ( talk) 10:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
An icon of a person, usually meaning "Male", so we're not the only ones who make the association. If you wanted to overcome that objection, can I suggest that File:Bimetrical icon person black.svg is more gender neutral. James' dislike of "baby colours" is less of an issue for me, but should you consider redoing the graphic, my normal expectation for regions representing safe/unsafe would be green/red, that would become backgrounds of "pastel green"/"pastel red". Thanks again, and hope that helps. -- RexxS ( talk) 19:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)