This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/arambaut/status/1216026183118344196 JuanTamad ( talk) 23:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Evolution of the novel coronavirus from the ongoing Wuhan outbreak and modeling of its spike protein for risk of human transmission from SCIENCE CHINA Life Sciences.Since I am not a medical major and my English is not good, I ask other colleagues for help.Ask wikis who are good at related fields to make appropriate additions based on the content of the paper contained in this source. Thank you.-- 舞月書生 👉☎️👈∮Strive to be a good Wikipedians. 18:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
biorxiv),Note that this is an unpublished version。-- 舞月書生 👉☎️👈∮Active at zh.wikipedia, strive to be a good Wikipedian. 00:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@ DocJames: would this move be per policy? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 20:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I believe people are also starting to call it "Snake flu" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.27.170.66 ( talk) 21:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Is there any knowledge about the survival time of the virus outside of the animal or human body? It is important to know if for deciding if I can reuse my mask or I can enter a room in which an infected (or probably infected) person was.
They have deciphered the virus, so I think they are making tests of this kind because this is highly important. 09:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)~ You are right but since it is a new virus/disease, the time might be unknown to scientists, doctors, etc. I am not so sure about this as I am not a professional. But it's only my assumption.
For SARS I just checked it was 24 hours living time outside human / animal body. 130.92.100.253 ( talk) 20:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
There's some twitter traffic among virologists about the phylogeny. Probably not snakes, probably bats. May want to edit that section. JuanTamad ( talk) 12:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Something like targeted chemo or radiotherapy could be used as treatment (I understand that this is over the top but I think that it still warrants putting some more information in the Treatment section). I read a news report on it ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aerq4byr7ps) and they say flu antivirals have been tested but I don't know if broad-spectrum antivirals been tested on it yet, and if not perhaps the treatment section should be updated. 2A00:23C5:E41E:1200:D17A:344D:30C7:DA34 ( talk) 15:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
The article states that the outbreak reached Texas in America, but the case has not yet been confirmed to be the Coronavirus, so I would think it would be best to change it so Texas is no longer there in the article. ItsDaBunnyYT ( talk) 01:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I've been kind of keeping an eye on this page throughout the day,and I've noticed some light vandalism. its probably a good idea to get some kind of edit protection going. - T — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6007:46:4551:8B4F:5C74:9DB2 ( talk) 05:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Can we add the information on the exact (or maybe the longest) duration of the flu incubation period? You know, the time since a person was infected by the bacteria until he/she is confirmed to have the flu and must be treated immediately at the hospital. Must be from highly reliable medical-related sources. Chongkian ( talk) 09:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
You are right Chongkian but since it is a new virus/disease, the incubation period might be unknown to scientists, doctors, etc. I am not so sure about this as I am not a professional. But it's only my assumption. Sarthakdangol ( talk) 14:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Xinhua News Agency (official Chinese state-run press agency) has reported that the longest incubation period of the disease is about 14 days. It also seems to be the number quoted on Chinese Wikipedia. Xinhua also mentions that judging from the experience with SARS and MERS, the incubation period may not be contagious.
The Ribbon diagram depicts a homology model of a single viral protein, the protease which cleaves the produced polyprotein into it's constituent proteins, rather than a whole virion or virus particle. The caption should specify this. Skeletoncowboy ( talk) 02:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the photo in the infobox with this one, as it has a more detailed explanation about the virus details, as far as we know for now Lollixzc ( talk) 21:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
"Kung Flu" as an alternate name for Novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV wasn't supported by reference [3], hasn't appeared in any coverage I've seen, and generally has the flavor of a joke, so I've preemptively removed it. If someone wants to add it back, please add a supporting citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:FE10:3BF0:0:0:0:2D ( talk) 19:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
There is a statement in the virology section stating "The virus is infectious even during the incubation period."
While this is stated definitively in the Wikipedia article, this is not a confirmed fact, and has been disputed both by epidemiologists and US officials. ( https://q13fox.com/2020/01/26/china-says-coronavirus-can-spread-before-symptoms-show-calling-into-question-us-containment-strategy/ )
I recommend that this statement be ommited until further information is discovered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.200.137.27 ( talk) 22:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |displayauthors=
ignored (|display-authors=
suggested) (
help)
Guys, locking the article like this at the peak of this whole thing is grossly counterproductive, with so much info streaming in every day. You need to rethink your decision, because how can this article represent "the sum of all human knowledge on the subject" if you wont let people contribute in good faith? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.253.226.193 ( talk) 14:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
What you consider "vandalism" may have been people contributing their honest understanding and knowledge of the developing situation. It is so unfair to let one group judge others for their fair contribution, let alone refer to it in such disparaging terms. After all, what makes any of the knowledge in this article accurate to any extent at all? Scientific degrees, standing or "proper referencing", phlogiston anyone? Because I am well unhappy about it being all snakes the first week and bats the second, can't all those trained scientist tell the difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.253.226.193 ( talk) 08:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Please edit the base pairs count of the CoV-2019 virus or provide a confirming source, it is probably wrong (not 30473 bases). -- 188.62.136.84 ( talk) 14:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
FYI, File: C-Tan-nCov Wuhan strain 01-20200123104509.jpg has been nominated for deletion. -- 67.70.33.184 ( talk) 06:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I understand the point of mentioning an ongoing concern about SARS re-emerging as some background, but is it really the best place to mention it here where we are talking about virology? There just doesn't seem to be enough justification for mentioning a particular group's particular construct over this issue (virus with altered spike protein don't get caught by antibodies and vaccines targeting the original spike protein, yeah imagine the SURPRISE!), and I wonder what the consensus is on keeping/removing it. (The paragraph was copied from the outbreak article, by the way.) -- Artoria 2e5 🌉 12:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
In the 'Reservoir' section, there's mention of the Huanan Seafood Market, but then 4 sentences later it's misspelled as "Hunan". 165.225.50.174 ( talk) 18:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can this page be semi protected and perhaps brought under the watchful eye of an Admin with a science background who understands the difference between news and scientific research. ???? It has the potential to cause fake news issues in the current circumstances. Wikimucker ( talk) 15:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Elhef Thanks for all that but I would point out that a lot of outbreak news is still coming in here thick and fast and really this article should be a science/medicine one with proper citations and relatively little outbreak news to clutter it up. Wikimucker ( talk) 15:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
'open source' research rather than peer reviewedcould be interpreted to mean that. There are some fields, such as high energy physics and cosmology/extragalactic astronomy where almost all research is both green open access and, after a delay of typically 1-12 months for the peer review process, peer-reviewed; the article remains green open access after the peer review, and increasingly often gold open access too. Of course, many open-access and closed-access articles fail peer review. Boud ( talk) 15:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd go in and add them myself, but I've long since forgotten my account details. Could somebody please add commas to the list of countries that have confirmed infections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.123.18 ( talk) 19:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Where are the sources for the classification as Sarbecovirus? this is from February 2019, this virus was not known then, and this and that neither mentioned ›Sarbecovirus‹ nor ›lineage B‹. Of course, there is good reason to think so, but without reference, it is just speculation. NCBI 2697049 classifies this virus as ›unclassified Betacoronavirus‹. – Sivizius ( talk) 00:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
This is the first open source molecular model I've found:
kencf0618 ( talk) 13:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I have changed the image in the taxobox to an image of MERS Cov, as it is in the same genus as 2019 nCov and we don't have an image of 2019 nCov without copyright issues (doubtless one will eventually come out from the cdc though) no images of SARS exist on commons either that aren't under threat of immediate deletion (the image in the taxobox of the coronavirus article was pointed out to me as being taken in 1975 and therefore could not possibly be SARS, but the wording in the image description on commons is misleading). Unlike an image of an animal or a plant, I don't really think that the image in the taxobox matters all that much, as all coronaviruses look roughly the same. Any objections? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 13:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I feel it is worth updating here that I have changed the image to that of a CDC SARS virion image that I just uploaded to commons as it has an 80% similarity to 2019 nCoV Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I suggest to add a sentence about the statement from Daniel R. Lucey, an infectious disease specialist at Georgetown University. About a significant finding. About the first human infections must have occurred in November 2019 and maybe earlier. How about the draft paragraph below? With notable source.
According to
Daniel Lucey at
Georgetown University, the first human infections must have occurred in November 2019 and maybe earlier.
[1]
[2]
References
Francewhoa ( talk) 23:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I suggest to add a sentence about the statement from Daniel R. Lucey, an infectious disease specialist at Georgetown University. About a significant finding. About the seafood market is not the only origin. How about the draft paragraph below? With notable source.
Daniel Lucey, an infectious disease specialist at
Georgetown University, stated that “Now it seems clear that [the] seafood market is not the only origin of the virus”.
[2]
References
Francewhoa ( talk) 23:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The name of the virus should be changed to "2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease". And it should be clarified that the name is an interim name and the final decision on the official name of the virus will be made by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. [1] 6V^X5 ( talk) 21:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Can you insert the file 2019-nCoV-CDC-23312_whitout_background.png instead of 2019-nCoV-CDC-23312.png Dixy52 ( talk) 06:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, the missing parts in the bottom left are few. In that part I simply eliminated with the rubber the remaining white of the automatic selection. I can assure you that I was very careful to keep the entirety of the details by deleting most of the background -- Dixy52 ( talk) 14:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Fixed @ Hemiauchenia: Now the file is 3.73 MB, not 3.5 like the older one but it's still a step forward -- Dixy52 ( talk) 11:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under Epidemiology: "the number is cases is" to be fixed with "the number of cases is" 46.99.37.234 ( talk) 20:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I found links from Indonesian Wikisource: Information about 2019 Novel Coronavirus, (CDC) Because the wikisource has no articles about 2019-nCoV in English it is so interested to add link from Indonesian Wikisource to this article. This article originally published in English by Center of Disease Control in the United States and translated to Indonesian in Wikisource. Because there's no equivalent Wikisource article in English can someone add link from Indonesian wikisource to English Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 ( talk) 11:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add Canada as location of outbreak - Toronto, ON has 3 confirmed cases thus far. 205.189.58.93 ( talk) 13:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
MERS-CoV | SARS-CoV | SARS-CoV-2 | |
---|---|---|---|
Disease | MERS | SARS | COVID-19 |
Outbreaks | 2012 MERS outbreak | 2002–2004 | COVID-19 pandemic |
Epidemiology | |||
Date of first identified case |
June 2012 |
November 2002 |
December 2019 [1] |
Location of first identified case |
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia |
Shunde, China |
Wuhan, China |
Age average | 56 | 44 [2] [a] | 56 [3] |
Sex ratio (M:F) | 3.3:1 | 0.8:1 [4] | 1.6:1 [3] |
Confirmed cases | 2494 | 8096 [5] | 676,609,955 [6] [b] |
Deaths | 858 | 774 [5] | 6,881,955 [6] [b] |
Case fatality rate | 37% | 9.2% | 1.02% [6] |
Symptoms | |||
Fever | 98% | 99–100% | 87.9% [7] |
Dry cough | 47% | 29–75% | 67.7% [7] |
Dyspnea | 72% | 40–42% | 18.6% [7] |
Diarrhea | 26% | 20–25% | 3.7% [7] |
Sore throat | 21% | 13–25% | 13.9% [7] |
Ventilatory use | 24.5% [8] | 14–20% | 4.1% [9] |
Notes |
I found a nest of academic review on https://thelancet.com/coronavirus. Also, I used one of their work (Jan. 24th) to create the following table, on the right. Where should it go ? Can you find the right place for it. Yug (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC) (1am here, I go to bed ! cannot dig further ! XD ) This article has further data on the symtoms and co :
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yug ( talk • contribs)
References
The "source" for it not being identified that it crossed species is 10 days old. Having looked at its genome it is very similar to those that have species jumped, there are a lot among the scientific community that have a lot to say about this and none of them think that it originated from humans. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30154-9/fulltext 2A00:23C5:E41E:1200:F9C0:5AE3:B36E:1A03 ( talk) 23:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Is this word an official part of the name? We need a source for that. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
It is unclear to me what is causing the error, but the top of the taxonomy box currently reads "Taxonomy template does not specify a parent (fix): Incertae sedis/Riboviria". I have not been able to determine what is inserting the "Incertae sedis/Riboviria" text here, but it seems like only having the realm listed as Riboviria should be sufficient in this case. We don't want to be creating Incertae sedis/Riboviria. Can someone figure out how to change this? Dekimasu よ! 05:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Please delete this. I've read the source that is linked, and there is nothing of such a conclusion. The article claims that there are some small parts of the RNA that resemble HIV but thats it. This is just fearmongering — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momowomo2000 ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be best not to assume that because its a consipracy its not true, although if it is true I think that it will only be similar to the conspiracy as they almost always make up more facts or twist them (assuming its not a blatant lie). I think it is very unlikely its a bio-weapon or someones school project gone wrong but I'm not qualified to talk about that, I can tell you that there is a probability greater than zero that a teapot is orbiting mars so I can say the same about this. 2A00:23C5:E41E:1200:F9C0:5AE3:B36E:1A03 ( talk) 23:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
[In virology] CHANGE: Human-to-human transmission of the virus has been confirmed. [1] Reports have emerged that the virus is infectious even during the incubation period, [2] [3] although as of 27 January 2020 officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the United States stated they "don't have any evidence of patients being infectious prior to symptom onset." [4] [5]
TO:
Human-to-human transmission of the virus has been confirmed.
[1] Reports have emerged that the virus is infectious even during the
incubation period,
[2]
[6] with an estimated latency period of 7 days preceeding an infectious but still asymptomatic period of 9 days before becoming clinically symptomatic.
[7] Nonetheless as of 27 January 2020 officials at the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the United States stated they "don't have any evidence of patients being infectious prior to symptom onset."
[8]
[9]
89.206.113.120 (
talk) 03:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
References
auto
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link) Cite error: The named reference "latent" was defined multiple times with different content (see the
help page).
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |displayauthors=
ignored (|display-authors=
suggested) (
help)
New source from The Lancet about the projected spread here [2]. Interesting Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wuhan seafood market pneumonia. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 67.70.33.184 ( talk) 17:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Out of 213 patients confirmed dead, 187 is confirmed recovered. And while lethality typically takes place earlier in the progress of a disease, these two numbers are indicative of how lethal the infection. This section is describing very much in detail all the pertinent information in this regard except for potential mortality rates:
"As of 31 January 2020 (02:30 UTC), there were 9,776 confirmed cases of infection, of which 9,658 were within mainland China.[15] Cases outside China, to date, were people who have either travelled from Wuhan, or were in direct contact with someone who travelled from the area.[16] The number of deaths was 213 as of 31 January 2020 (02:30 UTC).[15][17] Human-to-human spread was first confirmed in Guangdong, China, on 20 January 2020[18] and has subsequently been confirmed in Germany, Taiwan, Japan, the United States and the United Kingdom.[19][20]"
SOMEONE PELASE REPLACE THIS LINE:
The number of deaths was 213 as of 31 January 2020 (02:30 UTC).[15][17]
TO THIS LINE
The number of deaths was 213 while the number of recoveries was 187 as of 31 January 2020 (02:30 UTC).[15][17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B049:8066:48AE:30A9:D0D7:D404 ( talk) 19:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
You can help expand this article with text translated from
the corresponding article in Chinese. (February 2020) Click [show] for important translation instructions.
|
I expanded the chinese wikipedia page, wish someone can help add valuable researches including non peer reviewed preliminary papers on bioRxiv and etc. in enwp. 复读姬 ( talk) 21:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
"New coronavirus may be transmitted through the feces. Now this issue should be taken very seriously, because the virus is found in the feces, and whether the feces are infected with the virus is highly vigilant. In some places in Hubei and Jiangxi, there is indeed a habit of using toilet bowls, and they are still washed in fish ponds, which really needs to be brought to the attention of prevention and control." (South Plus)
Sorry for late reply
This
edit request to
Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Researchers from NTNU created database with 120 safe-in-man broad-spectrum antiviral agents and identified 31 drug candidates for treatment of 2019-nCoV ( https://drugvirus.info). [1] Aianevsk ( talk) 20:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
This
edit request to
Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please delete "Projects studying the effectiveness of Hepatitis C treatment sofosbuvir, a RNA-dependent RNA polymerase inhibitor, were also started in late January 2020.[82]" because This preprint has been retracted. I assume it is rejected by the Lancet and therefore not available anymore.
Please delete "82 Elfiky, Abdo (28 January 2020). "Sofosbuvir Can Inhibit the Newly Emerged Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in Wuhan, China". (Preprints with the Lancet, Powered by SSRN). SSRN 3523869 Check Dirk Jochmans ( talk) 12:36, 4 February 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 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/arambaut/status/1216026183118344196 JuanTamad ( talk) 23:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Evolution of the novel coronavirus from the ongoing Wuhan outbreak and modeling of its spike protein for risk of human transmission from SCIENCE CHINA Life Sciences.Since I am not a medical major and my English is not good, I ask other colleagues for help.Ask wikis who are good at related fields to make appropriate additions based on the content of the paper contained in this source. Thank you.-- 舞月書生 👉☎️👈∮Strive to be a good Wikipedians. 18:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
biorxiv),Note that this is an unpublished version。-- 舞月書生 👉☎️👈∮Active at zh.wikipedia, strive to be a good Wikipedian. 00:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@ DocJames: would this move be per policy? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 20:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I believe people are also starting to call it "Snake flu" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.27.170.66 ( talk) 21:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Is there any knowledge about the survival time of the virus outside of the animal or human body? It is important to know if for deciding if I can reuse my mask or I can enter a room in which an infected (or probably infected) person was.
They have deciphered the virus, so I think they are making tests of this kind because this is highly important. 09:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)~ You are right but since it is a new virus/disease, the time might be unknown to scientists, doctors, etc. I am not so sure about this as I am not a professional. But it's only my assumption.
For SARS I just checked it was 24 hours living time outside human / animal body. 130.92.100.253 ( talk) 20:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
There's some twitter traffic among virologists about the phylogeny. Probably not snakes, probably bats. May want to edit that section. JuanTamad ( talk) 12:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Something like targeted chemo or radiotherapy could be used as treatment (I understand that this is over the top but I think that it still warrants putting some more information in the Treatment section). I read a news report on it ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aerq4byr7ps) and they say flu antivirals have been tested but I don't know if broad-spectrum antivirals been tested on it yet, and if not perhaps the treatment section should be updated. 2A00:23C5:E41E:1200:D17A:344D:30C7:DA34 ( talk) 15:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
The article states that the outbreak reached Texas in America, but the case has not yet been confirmed to be the Coronavirus, so I would think it would be best to change it so Texas is no longer there in the article. ItsDaBunnyYT ( talk) 01:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I've been kind of keeping an eye on this page throughout the day,and I've noticed some light vandalism. its probably a good idea to get some kind of edit protection going. - T — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6007:46:4551:8B4F:5C74:9DB2 ( talk) 05:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Can we add the information on the exact (or maybe the longest) duration of the flu incubation period? You know, the time since a person was infected by the bacteria until he/she is confirmed to have the flu and must be treated immediately at the hospital. Must be from highly reliable medical-related sources. Chongkian ( talk) 09:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
You are right Chongkian but since it is a new virus/disease, the incubation period might be unknown to scientists, doctors, etc. I am not so sure about this as I am not a professional. But it's only my assumption. Sarthakdangol ( talk) 14:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Xinhua News Agency (official Chinese state-run press agency) has reported that the longest incubation period of the disease is about 14 days. It also seems to be the number quoted on Chinese Wikipedia. Xinhua also mentions that judging from the experience with SARS and MERS, the incubation period may not be contagious.
The Ribbon diagram depicts a homology model of a single viral protein, the protease which cleaves the produced polyprotein into it's constituent proteins, rather than a whole virion or virus particle. The caption should specify this. Skeletoncowboy ( talk) 02:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the photo in the infobox with this one, as it has a more detailed explanation about the virus details, as far as we know for now Lollixzc ( talk) 21:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
"Kung Flu" as an alternate name for Novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV wasn't supported by reference [3], hasn't appeared in any coverage I've seen, and generally has the flavor of a joke, so I've preemptively removed it. If someone wants to add it back, please add a supporting citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:FE10:3BF0:0:0:0:2D ( talk) 19:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
There is a statement in the virology section stating "The virus is infectious even during the incubation period."
While this is stated definitively in the Wikipedia article, this is not a confirmed fact, and has been disputed both by epidemiologists and US officials. ( https://q13fox.com/2020/01/26/china-says-coronavirus-can-spread-before-symptoms-show-calling-into-question-us-containment-strategy/ )
I recommend that this statement be ommited until further information is discovered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.200.137.27 ( talk) 22:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |displayauthors=
ignored (|display-authors=
suggested) (
help)
Guys, locking the article like this at the peak of this whole thing is grossly counterproductive, with so much info streaming in every day. You need to rethink your decision, because how can this article represent "the sum of all human knowledge on the subject" if you wont let people contribute in good faith? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.253.226.193 ( talk) 14:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
What you consider "vandalism" may have been people contributing their honest understanding and knowledge of the developing situation. It is so unfair to let one group judge others for their fair contribution, let alone refer to it in such disparaging terms. After all, what makes any of the knowledge in this article accurate to any extent at all? Scientific degrees, standing or "proper referencing", phlogiston anyone? Because I am well unhappy about it being all snakes the first week and bats the second, can't all those trained scientist tell the difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.253.226.193 ( talk) 08:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Please edit the base pairs count of the CoV-2019 virus or provide a confirming source, it is probably wrong (not 30473 bases). -- 188.62.136.84 ( talk) 14:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
FYI, File: C-Tan-nCov Wuhan strain 01-20200123104509.jpg has been nominated for deletion. -- 67.70.33.184 ( talk) 06:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I understand the point of mentioning an ongoing concern about SARS re-emerging as some background, but is it really the best place to mention it here where we are talking about virology? There just doesn't seem to be enough justification for mentioning a particular group's particular construct over this issue (virus with altered spike protein don't get caught by antibodies and vaccines targeting the original spike protein, yeah imagine the SURPRISE!), and I wonder what the consensus is on keeping/removing it. (The paragraph was copied from the outbreak article, by the way.) -- Artoria 2e5 🌉 12:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
In the 'Reservoir' section, there's mention of the Huanan Seafood Market, but then 4 sentences later it's misspelled as "Hunan". 165.225.50.174 ( talk) 18:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can this page be semi protected and perhaps brought under the watchful eye of an Admin with a science background who understands the difference between news and scientific research. ???? It has the potential to cause fake news issues in the current circumstances. Wikimucker ( talk) 15:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Elhef Thanks for all that but I would point out that a lot of outbreak news is still coming in here thick and fast and really this article should be a science/medicine one with proper citations and relatively little outbreak news to clutter it up. Wikimucker ( talk) 15:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
'open source' research rather than peer reviewedcould be interpreted to mean that. There are some fields, such as high energy physics and cosmology/extragalactic astronomy where almost all research is both green open access and, after a delay of typically 1-12 months for the peer review process, peer-reviewed; the article remains green open access after the peer review, and increasingly often gold open access too. Of course, many open-access and closed-access articles fail peer review. Boud ( talk) 15:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd go in and add them myself, but I've long since forgotten my account details. Could somebody please add commas to the list of countries that have confirmed infections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.123.18 ( talk) 19:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Where are the sources for the classification as Sarbecovirus? this is from February 2019, this virus was not known then, and this and that neither mentioned ›Sarbecovirus‹ nor ›lineage B‹. Of course, there is good reason to think so, but without reference, it is just speculation. NCBI 2697049 classifies this virus as ›unclassified Betacoronavirus‹. – Sivizius ( talk) 00:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
This is the first open source molecular model I've found:
kencf0618 ( talk) 13:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I have changed the image in the taxobox to an image of MERS Cov, as it is in the same genus as 2019 nCov and we don't have an image of 2019 nCov without copyright issues (doubtless one will eventually come out from the cdc though) no images of SARS exist on commons either that aren't under threat of immediate deletion (the image in the taxobox of the coronavirus article was pointed out to me as being taken in 1975 and therefore could not possibly be SARS, but the wording in the image description on commons is misleading). Unlike an image of an animal or a plant, I don't really think that the image in the taxobox matters all that much, as all coronaviruses look roughly the same. Any objections? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 13:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I feel it is worth updating here that I have changed the image to that of a CDC SARS virion image that I just uploaded to commons as it has an 80% similarity to 2019 nCoV Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I suggest to add a sentence about the statement from Daniel R. Lucey, an infectious disease specialist at Georgetown University. About a significant finding. About the first human infections must have occurred in November 2019 and maybe earlier. How about the draft paragraph below? With notable source.
According to
Daniel Lucey at
Georgetown University, the first human infections must have occurred in November 2019 and maybe earlier.
[1]
[2]
References
Francewhoa ( talk) 23:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I suggest to add a sentence about the statement from Daniel R. Lucey, an infectious disease specialist at Georgetown University. About a significant finding. About the seafood market is not the only origin. How about the draft paragraph below? With notable source.
Daniel Lucey, an infectious disease specialist at
Georgetown University, stated that “Now it seems clear that [the] seafood market is not the only origin of the virus”.
[2]
References
Francewhoa ( talk) 23:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The name of the virus should be changed to "2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease". And it should be clarified that the name is an interim name and the final decision on the official name of the virus will be made by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. [1] 6V^X5 ( talk) 21:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Can you insert the file 2019-nCoV-CDC-23312_whitout_background.png instead of 2019-nCoV-CDC-23312.png Dixy52 ( talk) 06:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, the missing parts in the bottom left are few. In that part I simply eliminated with the rubber the remaining white of the automatic selection. I can assure you that I was very careful to keep the entirety of the details by deleting most of the background -- Dixy52 ( talk) 14:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Fixed @ Hemiauchenia: Now the file is 3.73 MB, not 3.5 like the older one but it's still a step forward -- Dixy52 ( talk) 11:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under Epidemiology: "the number is cases is" to be fixed with "the number of cases is" 46.99.37.234 ( talk) 20:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I found links from Indonesian Wikisource: Information about 2019 Novel Coronavirus, (CDC) Because the wikisource has no articles about 2019-nCoV in English it is so interested to add link from Indonesian Wikisource to this article. This article originally published in English by Center of Disease Control in the United States and translated to Indonesian in Wikisource. Because there's no equivalent Wikisource article in English can someone add link from Indonesian wikisource to English Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 ( talk) 11:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add Canada as location of outbreak - Toronto, ON has 3 confirmed cases thus far. 205.189.58.93 ( talk) 13:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
MERS-CoV | SARS-CoV | SARS-CoV-2 | |
---|---|---|---|
Disease | MERS | SARS | COVID-19 |
Outbreaks | 2012 MERS outbreak | 2002–2004 | COVID-19 pandemic |
Epidemiology | |||
Date of first identified case |
June 2012 |
November 2002 |
December 2019 [1] |
Location of first identified case |
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia |
Shunde, China |
Wuhan, China |
Age average | 56 | 44 [2] [a] | 56 [3] |
Sex ratio (M:F) | 3.3:1 | 0.8:1 [4] | 1.6:1 [3] |
Confirmed cases | 2494 | 8096 [5] | 676,609,955 [6] [b] |
Deaths | 858 | 774 [5] | 6,881,955 [6] [b] |
Case fatality rate | 37% | 9.2% | 1.02% [6] |
Symptoms | |||
Fever | 98% | 99–100% | 87.9% [7] |
Dry cough | 47% | 29–75% | 67.7% [7] |
Dyspnea | 72% | 40–42% | 18.6% [7] |
Diarrhea | 26% | 20–25% | 3.7% [7] |
Sore throat | 21% | 13–25% | 13.9% [7] |
Ventilatory use | 24.5% [8] | 14–20% | 4.1% [9] |
Notes |
I found a nest of academic review on https://thelancet.com/coronavirus. Also, I used one of their work (Jan. 24th) to create the following table, on the right. Where should it go ? Can you find the right place for it. Yug (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC) (1am here, I go to bed ! cannot dig further ! XD ) This article has further data on the symtoms and co :
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yug ( talk • contribs)
References
The "source" for it not being identified that it crossed species is 10 days old. Having looked at its genome it is very similar to those that have species jumped, there are a lot among the scientific community that have a lot to say about this and none of them think that it originated from humans. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30154-9/fulltext 2A00:23C5:E41E:1200:F9C0:5AE3:B36E:1A03 ( talk) 23:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Is this word an official part of the name? We need a source for that. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
It is unclear to me what is causing the error, but the top of the taxonomy box currently reads "Taxonomy template does not specify a parent (fix): Incertae sedis/Riboviria". I have not been able to determine what is inserting the "Incertae sedis/Riboviria" text here, but it seems like only having the realm listed as Riboviria should be sufficient in this case. We don't want to be creating Incertae sedis/Riboviria. Can someone figure out how to change this? Dekimasu よ! 05:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Please delete this. I've read the source that is linked, and there is nothing of such a conclusion. The article claims that there are some small parts of the RNA that resemble HIV but thats it. This is just fearmongering — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momowomo2000 ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be best not to assume that because its a consipracy its not true, although if it is true I think that it will only be similar to the conspiracy as they almost always make up more facts or twist them (assuming its not a blatant lie). I think it is very unlikely its a bio-weapon or someones school project gone wrong but I'm not qualified to talk about that, I can tell you that there is a probability greater than zero that a teapot is orbiting mars so I can say the same about this. 2A00:23C5:E41E:1200:F9C0:5AE3:B36E:1A03 ( talk) 23:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
[In virology] CHANGE: Human-to-human transmission of the virus has been confirmed. [1] Reports have emerged that the virus is infectious even during the incubation period, [2] [3] although as of 27 January 2020 officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the United States stated they "don't have any evidence of patients being infectious prior to symptom onset." [4] [5]
TO:
Human-to-human transmission of the virus has been confirmed.
[1] Reports have emerged that the virus is infectious even during the
incubation period,
[2]
[6] with an estimated latency period of 7 days preceeding an infectious but still asymptomatic period of 9 days before becoming clinically symptomatic.
[7] Nonetheless as of 27 January 2020 officials at the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the United States stated they "don't have any evidence of patients being infectious prior to symptom onset."
[8]
[9]
89.206.113.120 (
talk) 03:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
References
auto
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link) Cite error: The named reference "latent" was defined multiple times with different content (see the
help page).
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |displayauthors=
ignored (|display-authors=
suggested) (
help)
New source from The Lancet about the projected spread here [2]. Interesting Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wuhan seafood market pneumonia. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 67.70.33.184 ( talk) 17:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Out of 213 patients confirmed dead, 187 is confirmed recovered. And while lethality typically takes place earlier in the progress of a disease, these two numbers are indicative of how lethal the infection. This section is describing very much in detail all the pertinent information in this regard except for potential mortality rates:
"As of 31 January 2020 (02:30 UTC), there were 9,776 confirmed cases of infection, of which 9,658 were within mainland China.[15] Cases outside China, to date, were people who have either travelled from Wuhan, or were in direct contact with someone who travelled from the area.[16] The number of deaths was 213 as of 31 January 2020 (02:30 UTC).[15][17] Human-to-human spread was first confirmed in Guangdong, China, on 20 January 2020[18] and has subsequently been confirmed in Germany, Taiwan, Japan, the United States and the United Kingdom.[19][20]"
SOMEONE PELASE REPLACE THIS LINE:
The number of deaths was 213 as of 31 January 2020 (02:30 UTC).[15][17]
TO THIS LINE
The number of deaths was 213 while the number of recoveries was 187 as of 31 January 2020 (02:30 UTC).[15][17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B049:8066:48AE:30A9:D0D7:D404 ( talk) 19:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
You can help expand this article with text translated from
the corresponding article in Chinese. (February 2020) Click [show] for important translation instructions.
|
I expanded the chinese wikipedia page, wish someone can help add valuable researches including non peer reviewed preliminary papers on bioRxiv and etc. in enwp. 复读姬 ( talk) 21:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
"New coronavirus may be transmitted through the feces. Now this issue should be taken very seriously, because the virus is found in the feces, and whether the feces are infected with the virus is highly vigilant. In some places in Hubei and Jiangxi, there is indeed a habit of using toilet bowls, and they are still washed in fish ponds, which really needs to be brought to the attention of prevention and control." (South Plus)
Sorry for late reply
This
edit request to
Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Researchers from NTNU created database with 120 safe-in-man broad-spectrum antiviral agents and identified 31 drug candidates for treatment of 2019-nCoV ( https://drugvirus.info). [1] Aianevsk ( talk) 20:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
This
edit request to
Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please delete "Projects studying the effectiveness of Hepatitis C treatment sofosbuvir, a RNA-dependent RNA polymerase inhibitor, were also started in late January 2020.[82]" because This preprint has been retracted. I assume it is rejected by the Lancet and therefore not available anymore.
Please delete "82 Elfiky, Abdo (28 January 2020). "Sofosbuvir Can Inhibit the Newly Emerged Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in Wuhan, China". (Preprints with the Lancet, Powered by SSRN). SSRN 3523869 Check Dirk Jochmans ( talk) 12:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)