This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
There has been wikidiscussions on what is the established date of the Wuhan index case in mainstream scientific reports. The current version of the page does not include any information on the index case. Previous to this lack of information the article said the index case emerged on Dec 1 2020, based on a a non-ideal RS (a book from a non-specialist that tangentially deals with the index case). The "Dec 1"-source was dicussed here, where I reasonably argued that it was a weak source with a consensus that it was not ideal.
There are two MEDRS that say the index case happened on Dec 8 2020, which coincidentally is a late date that goes against the lab leak hypothesis (I've been accused of POV editing and this edit is a counterexample). The MEDRS are Hu et al (2020), and the WHO report. RandomCanadian please stop disrupting the inclusion of this fact, there are DS sanctions in place for this page, I believe you are aware of them. I propose we use this two MEDRS supplemented by citing also the Washington post recent article on it, as long as it goes in the same direction and MEDRS does allow to cite RS along MEDRS in this case.
Forich (
talk) 20:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
The earliest known person with symptoms was later discovered to have fallen ill on 1 December 2019, and that person did not have visible connections with the later wet market cluster.[43][44] However, an earlier case of infection could have occurred on 17 November.[45] Of the early cluster of cases reported that month, two-thirds were found to have a link with the market.[46][47][48] Molecular clock analysis suggests that the index case is likely to have been infected with the virus between mid-October and mid-November 2019.[49][50]
There is considerable disagreement among experts in MEDRSes about this December index case, and some agreement MEDRSes suggest that there likely is no single index case.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The considerable pre-Huanan seafood market circulation of the virus in Wuhan, and the existence of the A and B variant clades, both point to multiple introductions of the virus into the human population.– Novem Linguae ( talk) 02:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The following text is from a podcast (This Week in Virology #760, may 26th 2021) with three members of the WHO team.
-Marion Koopmans: "a lot of the work tried, the epi work, really aimed at trying to dig back, so what was the earliest case, that is recognized. That was the process. Now the earliest confirmed recognized case is a person that survived, a person that we also met, but the epi work suggest that there have been many more cases that have not been recognized, there is also no sequence data for those. And that's part of the digging back that you would want to do."
-Rich Kondit: "So what were the earliest cases and to what extent or not do they have any association with the market?"
-Thea Kolsen Fischer: "So the first, the earliest now recognized case had an onset date of December 8th with no contact with neither the Huanan wet market or other markets. The closest kind of market contact was a mother who had cooked for the [first] case and who has bought some of her cooking ingredients at an unnamed market. But the [first] person had no contact with markets."
The WHO report, our best source on the matter, says there were three alleged cases from befor Dec 8th, but they qualify them as "excludable on the basis of the clinical features of their illnesses".
So according to this information, again, the best source we have, a tweaked version that follows the one from RandomCanadian would look like:
The earliest known person with symptoms was later discovered to have fallen ill on
18 December 2019, and that person did not have visible connections with the later wet market cluster. However,anat leastonethree earlier cases of infection could have occurred before the 8th of december. Of the early cluster of cases reported that month, two-thirds were found to have a link with the market. Molecular clock analysis suggests that the index case is likely to have been infected with the virus between mid-October and mid-November 2019
Forich ( talk) 21:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
The earliest known person with symptoms was later discovered to have fallen ill in early December 2019, and that person did not have visible connections with the later wet market cluster. However, a few earlier cases of infection could have occurred.[45] Of the early cluster of cases reported that month, two-thirds were found to have a link with the market.[46][47][48] Molecular clock analysis suggests that the index case is likely to have been infected with the virus between mid-October and mid-November 2019.[49][50]
"Uncertainty still persists around the origin of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the resulting COVID-19 disease. While an origin as a zoonotic spillover in the Huanan Seafood Market, Wuhan, sometime during early December, 2019, has been proposed [1], this has been called into question [2–4]. This uncertainty arises due to both the presence of earlier potential COVID-19 cases, and the fact that most phylogenetic analyses put the most recent ancestor at between mid-November and early December, 2019 [5].
The paper, written by a large group of Chinese researchers from several institutions, offers details about the first 41 hospitalized patients who had confirmed infections with what has been dubbed 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). In the earliest case, the patient became ill on 1 December 2019 and had no reported link to the seafood market, the authors report. “No epidemiological link was found between the first patient and later cases,” they state. Their data also show that, in total, 13 of the 41 cases had no link to the marketplace. “That’s a big number, 13, with no link,” says Daniel Lucey, an infectious disease specialist at Georgetown University.
This is not MEDRS. Forich ( talk) 21:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
According to the government data seen by the Post, a 55 year-old from Hubei province could have been the first person to have contracted Covid-19 on November 17. From that date onwards, one to five new cases were reported each day. By December 15, the total number of infections stood at 27 – the first double-digit daily rise was reported on December 17 – and by December 20, the total number of confirmed cases had reached 60.
SCMP is not MEDRS. Forich ( talk) 21:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
The earliest date of symptoms for COVID-19, according to a study performed by Huang et al. (2020) and published in the Lancet journal, was December 1, 2019. However, there are other sources (Bryner, 2020; Davidson, 2020) claiming that individuals with similar symptoms may have presented themselves to hospital as early as November. According to the report, by South China Morning Post (Ma, 2020), the first person who presented similar cases was a male patient of 55-year old from the province of Hubei. However, Chinese doctors only came to realize that they were dealing with a new and serious virus late December, when similar symptoms continued to increase every day, and mostly originating from Wuhan. According to the article in Lancet, the first patient, and whom they insist may be the first case, was reported on December 1, 2019, and whom did not have direct link with the Wuhan Seafood Market that has been associated with the origin of the virus. This finding interestingly matches with Ma (2020) who also argues that the November 2019 case was not from Wuhan. The story as to the origin of the virus has fueled much political and social divides and is expected to evolve as further efforts are poured into understanding this crisis.
This source is not a MEDRS because Zaheer Allam, the author of the chapter and book, is an architect that specializes in political economy. He is neither a virologist nor an epidemiologist. The book itself is about the political economy of the pandemic. Forich ( talk) 21:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I just went WP:Bold and fixed the information. The burden is on editors trying to use different information or with a history of reverting my edit (@ RandomCanadian:, @ Shibbolethink:, @ Alexbrn:) to find MEDRS sources, otherwise please abstain from reverting. Forich ( talk) 21:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
FCS : furin-like cleavage site -- 92.184.104.9 ( talk) 18:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add Template:Outdated to the "Infection and transmission" section. It reports only 2020 information. The idea of aerosol transmission is presented as not-yet-confirmed. There are 47 citations before the start of the "Reinfection" subsection: 1 dates from 2010, 41 date from 2020, and just 5 date from 2021. And of those 5, 2 are a case study of a specific person, 1 talks about animals that can get infected, and 2 talk about particles emitted during talking. Most or all items in this section should be relying on 2021 data, because the science is getting updated so fast through extensive research. 174.206.39.24 ( talk) 11:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
here are some links to find high quality MEDRS about this topic (SARS-CoV-2 transmission): Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL -- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 23:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, if I'm using the talk page the wrong way, but since the article is protected and I couldn't make the edit myself, I would appreciate it, if an experienced member could just fix this little typo.
It's really self-explanatory, there's just a missing "n" in "Demark" that needs to be added. It's in the last sentence of the paragraph in chapter 4.1.1 (Phylogenetics -> Variants).
Thank you very much!
XLix ( talk) 22:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
The first paragraph in the Epidemiology section is a near-duplicate to the previous paragraph (in the previous section). I believe it should be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WhamboMPS ( talk • contribs) 15:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
The "epidemiology" section start with "xVery few drugs" (erroneous "x") Technicolour-dreamboat ( talk) 12:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for September 3, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-09-03. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2) is the virus that causes COVID-19, the respiratory illness responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic. Like other coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-2 has four structural proteins, known by the letters S ( spike), E ( envelope), M ( membrane), and N ( nucleocapsid); the N protein holds the RNA genome, and the S, E, and M proteins together create the viral envelope. This colourised transmission electron micrograph shows SARS-CoV-2 virus particles emerging from the surface of cells cultured in a laboratory. The crown-like spikes on the outer edge of the virus particles give coronaviruses their name, derived from Latin corona, 'crown'. Photograph credit: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Rocky Mountain Laboratories
Recently featured:
|
This
edit request to
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the lead, replace Virus with Emergent virus. 79.70.190.198 ( talk) 08:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. I think it's better to link to the actual virus article.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 13:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)AFAIK there have been no estimations of the global viral mass of SARS‑CoV‑2, or the mass of a single virion for that matter. What are we dealing with here, a few kilos or what? kencf0618 ( talk) 03:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
X... Coronaviruses infect humans, other mammals, and avian species, including livestock and companion animals.
Y... Coronaviruses infect humans, other mammals, including livestock and companion animals, and avian species.
NOTE: This is a trivial edit. The string 'livestock and companion animals' relates to 'other mammals', not 'avian species'. Cheers. Kevbo ( talk) 04:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Why are we allowing the use of the Laos bats preprint? It was inserted in this edit . I suggest we remove it until it passes peer review. Forich ( talk) 04:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I love how roughly half the length of this article comprises carefully cited and documented references. Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this article; every Wikipedia article should be this good — PowerPCG5 ( talk) 09:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the second paragraph of the section titled “Infection and transmission,” please make the text “RNA shedding” into a wiki link that points to Viral shedding.
Tylercrompton ( talk) 23:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on this subject, so I cannot judge the completeness and veracity of this report from the US government itself. I leave it to others to decide if a digest of this should be included in the article, or if a footnote should be added.
The expert summary by a geneticist: https://merogenomics.ca/blog/en/145/Understanding-the-Risk-of-Bat-Coronavirus-Emergence-a-Merogenomics-NIH-grant-review
The actual documents from the NIH: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21055989-understanding-risk-bat-coronavirus-emergence-grant-notice access seems faster here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21055989/understanding-risk-bat-coronavirus-emergence-grant-notice.pdf
The actual document is 528 pages, but you can start by doing a search for the 24 occurrences of hACE2, reading the accompanying paragraphs, and seeing if you feel it worth your time to delve deeper.
My understanding is that, if true, the USA's NIH sponsored contractor EcoHealth and its principal investigator Dr. Peter Daszak to create versions of bat corona viruses that can infect cells via human ACE2 receptors (hACE2 receptors). This was an outgrowth of an innocent experiment to see if there were wild bat corona viruses that can infect humans.
The hACE2 work was apparently done in Wuhan, China.
Presumably the release was totally accidental. (Possibly, the lab was certified as BCL3 instead of BCL4, as it should have been for airborne viruses lethal to humans.)
I'm not an expert on this subject, so I cannot judge the completeness and veracity of this report from the US government itself. I leave it to others to decide if a digest of this should be included in the article, or if a footnote should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:A57B:9870:C550:BE5:2934:91E7 ( talk) 05:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The diagram depicting the structure of SARS-COVID-19 has an error in the note beneath the diagram. It claims the picture is an “atom”. It is a virus made of molecules. 2600:100C:B017:9372:C27:BC92:5330:9DE3 ( talk) 13:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I see we are still quoting directly from the research square preprint of the BANAL strains found in Laos. This was discussed in previous archived threads of this talk page, and several editors agreed that it was best to pause any mention of the information from the preprint until and if the paper passes peer review properly. The diff that uses the preprint is this one. By the way I could not verify the 96.8% figure anywhere in the preprint, so it means that we are incurring in two breaches of policy here by allowing that sentence. Forich ( talk) 04:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to mention COVID Moonshot in the "Treatment and drug development" section? I just released a Wikipedia article on the initiative: They are particularly interesting as an alternative (international collaborative crowd-sourced open-science open data no patents) approach to drug development, but they aren't yet doing clinical trials. I was thinking of something like the following, if it is acceptable to mention them. -- MaryMO (AR) ( talk) 20:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add Template:Outdated to the "Infection and transmission" section. It reports only 2020 information. The idea of aerosol transmission is presented as not-yet-confirmed. There are 47 citations before the start of the "Reinfection" subsection: 1 dates from 2010, 41 date from 2020, and just 5 date from 2021. And of those 5, 2 are a case study of a specific person, 1 talks about animals that can get infected, and 2 talk about particles emitted during talking. Most or all items in this section should be relying on 2021 data, because the science is getting updated so fast through extensive research. 174.206.39.24 ( talk) 11:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
here are some links to find high quality MEDRS about this topic (SARS-CoV-2 transmission): Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL -- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 23:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, if I'm using the talk page the wrong way, but since the article is protected and I couldn't make the edit myself, I would appreciate it, if an experienced member could just fix this little typo.
It's really self-explanatory, there's just a missing "n" in "Demark" that needs to be added. It's in the last sentence of the paragraph in chapter 4.1.1 (Phylogenetics -> Variants).
Thank you very much!
XLix ( talk) 22:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for September 3, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-09-03. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2) is the virus that causes COVID-19, the respiratory illness responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic. Like other coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-2 has four structural proteins, known by the letters S ( spike), E ( envelope), M ( membrane), and N ( nucleocapsid); the N protein holds the RNA genome, and the S, E, and M proteins together create the viral envelope. This colourised transmission electron micrograph shows SARS-CoV-2 virus particles emerging from the surface of cells cultured in a laboratory. The crown-like spikes on the outer edge of the virus particles give coronaviruses their name, derived from Latin corona, 'crown'. Photograph credit: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Rocky Mountain Laboratories
Recently featured:
|
The "epidemiology" section start with "xVery few drugs" (erroneous "x") Technicolour-dreamboat ( talk) 12:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
AFAIK there have been no estimations of the global viral mass of SARS‑CoV‑2, or the mass of a single virion for that matter. What are we dealing with here, a few kilos or what? kencf0618 ( talk) 03:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the lead, replace Virus with Emergent virus. 79.70.190.198 ( talk) 08:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. I think it's better to link to the actual virus article.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 13:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)NEWS (3 December 2021): Apparently - there's a significantly *higher mortality risk* for COVID survivors after 1-year of onset. [2] [3] - QUESTION: Worth considering for the main article? - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 18:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
Time for a major rewrite of this section:
The first known infections from SARS‑CoV‑2 were discovered in Wuhan, China. The original source of viral transmission to humans remains unclear, as does whether the virus became pathogenic before or after the spillover event. Because many of the early infectees were workers at the Huanan Seafood Market, it has been suggested that the virus might have originated from the market. However, other research indicates that visitors may have introduced the virus to the market, which then facilitated rapid expansion of the infections. A March 2021 WHO-convened report stated that human spillover via an intermediate animal host was the most likely explanation, with direct spillover from bats next most likely. Introduction through the food supply chain and the Huanan Seafood Market was considered another possible, but less likely, explanation. An analysis in December 2021, however, said that the index case had been misidentified and that the preponderance of early cases linked to the Huanan Market, specifically a section where raccoon dogs were caged, argued for it being the source.
Major points of improvement:
Forich ( talk) 03:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Michael Worobey, an expert on the origins of influenza and H.I.V., has traced the epidemiological origin of the early cases in Wuhan, suggesting that the index case (i.e. the first known case) was a vendor at the Huanan Seafood Market, which contrast with other public accounts that register as the index case an accountant who lived many miles from it.
References
Two discussions here, the "Epidemiological tracing of early cases" and "Higher mortality risk for COVID survivors?" were removed by a random IP address in this edit and were thus not properly archived or examined for further discussion. I have brought them back and something should be done about that annoying IP in the meantime. Mewnst ( talk) 11:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change:
It mainly enters human cells by
To:
It enters human cells by
According to the two citations provided [1] [2], while SARS‑CoV‑2 viral entry depends on multiple factors, binding to ACE2 is the only way it enters human cells. -- Xarm Endris ( talk) 17:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't seem to be able to edit, so am commenting here: The section Virology / Structure gives a diameter of the particles as 50-200 nm, and cites a reference. However, that reference just says they viruss "envelop" particles of that size range (which doesn't even make sense) and then cites a single reference for that, which doesn't support that in any way. So my suggestion would be to either remove the diameter range or else find a reference to support it. I'm looking but haven't found one yet. Thanks! Joe Betts-LaCroix ( talk) 22:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
In section Virology/Structure a total virus mass of 0.1-1kg is stated. The given reference [142] (Sender et al., 2020) however states a mass range of 0.1-10kg. 89.160.8.66 ( talk) 11:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:SARS-CoV-2 scanning electron microscope image.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for February 22, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-02-22. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 11:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a strain of coronavirus that causes COVID-19, the respiratory disease responsible for the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. This scanning electron micrograph shows SARS-CoV-2 virions (gold) emerging from the surface of cells cultured in a laboratory. The virus particles depicted were isolated from a patient in the United States. Photograph credit: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
Recently featured:
|
"Preliminary research indicates that the virus may remain viable on plastic (polypropylene) and stainless steel (AISI 304) for up to three days, but it does not survive on cardboard for more than one day or on copper for more than four hours." appears well out-of-date(?) as I thought I saw a journal article relating to research in Australia, now itself quite a while ago but several months later than this 'preliminary' research that suggested the virus could survive for up to 28 days on steel, perhaps in a dark environment undisturbed and in cold winter weather. I also think it could be on plastic for up to 5 or 7 days - virus in one piece of research I seem to remember (no idea where any of it is now) could not be detected on the seventh day. It appears to me the initial research is no longer the position that we know now and, in short, is likely out-of-date. However I do not know whether the extended time periods necessarily showed that the virus, where it was still found, was viable. In addition though, I haven't seen any evidence as to whether the time periods of survival of viable virus are different, possibly longer, with Omicron etc. (logic to me as a layperson might suggest that perhaps it could last longer on surfaces when Omicron appears to be able to remain present in unventilated indoor spaces in the air for quite a lot longer than the original virus (in excess of 2 1/2 days as opposed to up to 16 hours originally) but I suspect with SARS-CoV-2 it might confound what I think might be logical, as it usually turns out to do things 'unexpected' by (some) scientists that I expect it will do because it will be unusual and different to what has been previously encountered - I think, if anyone has assumptions, the assumptions are usually wrong). aspaa ( talk) 03:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
The last sentence of the first paragraph:
"As described by the US National Institutes of Health, it is the successor to SARS-CoV-1, the virus that caused the 2002–2004 SARS outbreak.[16]"
is misleading and should be removed.
Although the cited reference does use the word "successor", the usage seems to imply that SARS-CoV2 is derived from SARS-CoV1. There is no evidence for this and substantial reason to believe that it is false (chiefly, that SARS-CoV1 was eradicated in 2004 and hasn't been seen anywhere in the world since then).
I suggest simply erasing this sentence, or, if it is deemed necessary to refer to SARS-CoV1, substituting:
"An unrelated coronavirus, now designated SARS-CoV1, caused the SARS epidemic of 2002-2004 and was eradicated in 2004." References for this information (refs 4 and 5 copied from the Wikipedia article on SARS1):
Chan-Yeung M, Xu RH (November 2003). "SARS: epidemiology". Respirology. 8 Suppl (s1): S9-14. doi:10.1046/j.1440-1843.2003.00518.x. PMC 7169193. PMID 15018127.
"SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome)". NHS Choices. UK National Health Service. 3 October 2014. Archived from the original on 11 March 2016. Retrieved 8 March 2016. Since 2004, there haven't been any known cases of SARS reported anywhere in the world.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.52.207.45 ( talk) 16:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
During human-to-human transmission, between 200 and 800 infectious SARS‑CoV‑2 virions are thought to initiate a new infection.
What variant is this talking about? None of the references is recent: source #1 is from 11 May 2020 (very early), source #2 is from 9 December 2020 (early), and source #3 is from 20 May 2010 (what is this even doing here?). I don't understand the charts in #2, so I don't know if it means the original variant or the Alpha variant, but none of these sources can possibly be talking about Delta, Omicron, or lesser-known variants. Since this information is very much outdated, reliant on sources that are too old to reflect current research, and probably not applicable to the variants that are all over the place now, I think it ought to be removed completely. 49.198.51.54 ( talk) 07:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
You can’t affirm that the virus came from China without prove, so that information is wrong 191.183.196.31 ( talk) 15:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Infection and Transmission:
The degree to which the virus is infectious during the
incubation period is uncertain, but research has indicated that the
pharynx reaches peak
viral load approximately four days after infection
Source:
Pharyngeal virus shedding was very high during the first week of symptoms, with a peak at 7.11 × 108 RNA copies per throat swab on day 4. ...
The earliest swabs were taken on day 1 of symptoms, which were often very mild or prodromal.
Current text indicates pharyngeal viral load peaks 4 days after infection rather than onset of symptoms.
Suggested change:
The degree to which the virus is infectious during the
incubation period is uncertain, but research has indicated that the
pharynx reaches peak
viral load approximately four days after the onset of symptoms
Peaceandlonglife (
talk) 14:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
OK, I didn't explain it will before, and didn't have references. Virologists have been worried about Chinese farms as sources of new viruses for years. The discussion about zoonotic vs. lab misses the fact that farms are not close to natural, and not supposed to be labs. A quick Google search find a Nature article that calls a Chinese farm a cauldron of virus mixing. [3] This was the first one that came up, and from September 2019, so barely before Covid-19. I am not writing this as a WP:SOAPBOX, and no suggestions regarding lab origins or not, but for better understanding of virus origins. In 2019, there was much interest in pandemic flu viruses, but not (yet) corona viruses. Gah4 ( talk) 04:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
References
Regardless of one's views about the merits of the zoonotic hypothesis for SARS-COV2 the fact that some prominent scientists think the issue is unresolved is a fact. Facts like this, with appropriate documentation, are suitable for noting in an article about the virus. Does anyone disagree with this? StN ( talk) 18:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.and
We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it. Given that, besides a few opinion letters, most secondary sources (i.e. reviews and the like) by experts in the topic area overwhelmingly favour a zoonotic origin (many sources take it for granted, and the few sources that focus specifically on the origins of the virus are rather unambiguous as well), then this would indeed appear to be a prime case
where including [the opposing theory] would unduly legitimize it. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 18:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
I edited this article to reflect the fact that the unequivocal assertion that the SARS_Cov2 virus is of zoonotic origin is not universally accepted by experts in the field. I did not mention any other theory, but only cited letters and commentaries by some of those experts in the most respected scientific journals in the world. I was accused of advancing conspiracy theories, but although my edits each time were to different respected sources (each time with no alternative theory mentioned by me) other editors requested that I be banned from editing the article, and I was for 48 hours. After the ban expired, I edited the article again, this time linking to another Wikipedia article that indicated that the conclusion in this one was controversial. That article is already linked to in this one, but in a context that conceals the controversy that is its main subject. An editor used that innocuous edit to get me banned for a week, this time from editing Wikipedia at all. Since then, the World Health Organization has issued a report saying a laboratory manipulation and leak of the virus remains a viable scenario for the virus. Since the most active editors on the page consider this a conspiracy theory, I am reluctant to cite the WHO report, since I don't wish to get banned again. The blanket assertion, with no qualification, that the virus is of natural origin is itself a POV. Any advice User:Bbb23? StN ( talk) 18:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
At the present time, currently available epidemiological and sequencing data suggest ancestral strains to SARS-CoV-2 have a zoonotic origin with the closest genetically related viruses being beta coronaviruses, identified in Rhinolophus bats in China in 2013 (96.1%) and Laos in 2020 (96.8%). However, so far neither the virus progenitors nor the natural/intermediate hosts or spill-over event to humans have been identified.
Determine the occupational hazards intrinsic to laboratories working with SARS-like CoV and the nature of the studies performed before the first reported COVID-19 cases in Wuhan and whether they involved reverse engineering or gain-of-function, genetic manipulation or animal studies with strains of SARS-like CoV.
suggest. I think it supports StN and Palpable's proposed changes. According to high-quality sources, the natural reservoir is most likely bats, and the spillover was most likely a natural occurrence, but the intermediate host and time and place of the first spillover are far from certain and there is a minority view that the spillover was research related. ScrumptiousFood ( talk) 17:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
The references provided for the assertion that the virus is of zoonontic origin were from 2020, and the removal of this unequivocal statement was reverted twice based on those old, controversial papers. A recent review in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2202769119 indicates that this view is not the consensus. Leaving out the assertion does not commit to either side. StN ( talk) 23:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I have reverted assertions that the virus is of zoonotic origins since there is no consensus about this. I have not proposed an alternative. It is inaccurate to say that there is a consensus. I have cited a paper that indicates there is not a consensus. Please don't change this unless an authoritative paper stating that zoonoses is generally accepted can be cited. StN ( talk) 01:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
The statement that "It has been suggested to be of zoonotic origins, but some experts consider this unsettled" is uncontroversial and well supported by articles in Science and Nature. Removing it from the article is unwarranted and contrary to Wikipedia policy. StN ( talk) 19:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
the suggestions of zoonotic origin are purely speculativeis not to be found in any of them, and appears very much to be your own opinion. Sadly for you, Wikipedia doesn't care about your (or my) opinion. It cares about what is published in reputable reliable sources. If you think it isn't true, too bad, but that is not Wikipedia's problem. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
There is absolutely no conclusion as of yet to the origins of COVID-19. You should not be stated that it zoonotic in origin. Wikiwowie ( talk) 01:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
The subgenus Sarbecovirus of beta-CoVs, such as SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2, had spread to humans, most likely via intermediate hosts.). Also agree that
That said, some of the fringe crusaders here have gone full battleground. Logical argument is stalled with strawmanning and wikilawyering.is quite over the line. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. CollectiveSolidarity ( non-admin closure) ( talk) 00:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
There are many good reasons why these pages should be moved to their widely used abbreviations. To start with the obvious, these are their
WP:COMMONNAMEs universally used by reliable sources and the public, which should replace the extremely lengthy and rarely-used
WP:OFFICIALNAMEs per
WP:CONCISE,
WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, and
WP:ACROTITLE. It's hard to imagine that any reader would take the time to type in Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
(5 words) or Severe acute respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus
(6 words) into the search bar. Before any members of
WP:COVID-19 jump in and point me to {{
Current COVID-19 Project Consensus}}, rest assured I have read that page and understand that the current consensus of the WikiProject is to use the full name. But
WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, and I see
the last RM discussion was over a year ago. Most editors who objected to a page move there did so on the grounds of
WP:CONSISTENT, so to address that concern I'm requesting any related pages to be moved as well. This also makes them consistent with
COVID-19,
SARS, and
MERS, all of which were moved following successful RMs with similar arguments (
Talk:COVID-19/Archive 17 § Requested move 1 March 2021,
Talk:SARS § Requested move 8 December 2021, and
Talk:MERS § Requested move 15 December 2021).
InfiniteNexus (
talk) 00:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. No support and several opposed after nearly three days. This proposal doesn't have traction. — BarrelProof ( talk) 20:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
– Please see the similar just-closed RMs at Talk:SARS-related coronavirus#Requested move 9 July 2022 and Talk:MERS-related coronavirus#Requested move 19 July 2022. These two articles were recently renamed (from titles different from what I am suggesting here). However, I suggest that the names that I propose would be more WP:RECOGNIZEable for most readers. I previously made these same title suggestions in the recent RM at Talk:SARS-CoV-2#Requested move 21 June 2022, but there was no reaction to my suggestions at the time, as the focus of that discussion was about whether to abbreviate SARS and MERS or not. I think the current titles are now overly abbreviated to a degree that makes them difficult for many readers to recognize. — BarrelProof ( talk) 00:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Considering the fact that the WHO has called the lab leak a possibility, it is completely ridiculous to dismiss it as a fringe minority opinion. Aren't we supposed to trust and cite what the experts have to say? BTW, the article on the COVID-19 disease itself mentions the lab leak as a possibility. X-Editor ( talk) 03:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The SAGO notes that there has not been any new data made available to evaluate the laboratory as a pathway of SARS-CoV-2 into the human population and recommends further investigations into this and all other possible pathways. The SAGO will remain open to any and all scientific evidence that becomes available in the future to allow for comprehensive testing of all reasonable hypotheses.
3.1.1 Early investigation studies, with a few suggestions;
3.1.2 Human studieswith over half a dozen suggestions;
3.1.3 Animal and environmental studiessimilarly;
3.1.4 Genomics and phylogenetics studies; and then, yes, finally;
3.1.5 The possibility of a breach in biosafety or biosecurity measures). A call for further studies (without all of the "increasingly active consideration" editorialising) seems really all there is to it. Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 would probably be the correct article to summarise this. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 04:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
In June 2022, the WHO released an additional report advocating for more investigations in the various possible pathways of emergence., as per the bit quoted above (and the rest of the initial summary), to avoid a silly-game of chinese telephone between what the original report is saying and what the news are click-baiting from it. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 04:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
"premature" for the WHO's report to rule out a potential link between a laboratory leakand called on China to provide additional data). We don't need to emphasise stuff which hasn't really changed. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 04:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
ItThis still sets up the following sentence with its link to the Investigations article, and mirrors the language used by SAGO. Bakkster Man ( talk) 17:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)is of zoonotic origins andhas close genetic similarity to bat coronaviruses, suggestingit emerged froma bat-borne virus ancestor.
At the present time, currently available epidemiological and sequencing data suggest ancestral strains to SARS-CoV-2 have a zoonotic origin with the closest genetically related viruses being beta coronaviruses, identified in Rhinolophus bats in China in 2013 (96.1%) and Laos in 2020 (96.8%). However, so far neither the virus progenitors nor the natural/intermediate hosts or spill-over event to humans have been identified.
Available evidence indicates that the virus is of zoonotic origin, and has close genetic similarity to bat coronaviruses, suggesting a bat-borne viral ancestor.RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
It is of zoonotic origins [...]with
Available evidence indicates that it is of zoonotic origin [...]. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
the thing from which something comes, or the place where it began:), does not mean "immediate parent", else we would be writing this differently. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
origins [plural] - used to describe the particular way in which something started to exist or someone started their life: The story has obscure origins
the thing from which something comes, or the place where it began:
it is just as valid to say that there is no or very little evidence to deny a lab leak.I think that's the textbook example of affirming a disjunct. Something not being proven false does not mean that there is no evidence against it, only that the evidence against it does not allow to make a definitive conclusion on the premises. Both the SAGO report and other sources (the Holmes et al. critical review; other recent sources like the papers I mentioned earlier, for ex. [25]) say that what evidence we do have (as SAGO phrases it, " epidemiological and sequencing data"; the evidence that Sars-COV-2 was circulating outside of China earlier than thought presented in other sources; the fact that the first detected outbreak in Wuhan was not near the lab but likely involved or was amplified by the wildlife market, ...) suggests an origin with no lab involved. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
"Available evidence indicates that it is most likely of zoonotic origins..." What evidence is that? Identifying infected humans in a seafood market where no infected animals have been found does not constitute such evidence, as many commentators in citable sources have noted. Evidence for zoonotic origins requires identifying infected nonlaboratory animals. StN ( talk) 15:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I propose we create a new article on the Spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus as it has become notable by itself. The Spike protein has been discussed as vital for the entry process of the cell, vital for the fabrication of vaccines across platforms, and vital to understand possible effects on the immune system because of its shedding. One natural starting point can be the virology sections from this entry, which I can use to write a draft in user space. Opinions? Forich ( talk) 21:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I propose we consciously embark on making this an A-Class article. The criteria are:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate
. Do any of the wikiprojects involved in this entry have an A-Class assessment departments? Forich ( talk) 16:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
'Atomic model of the external structure of the SARS-CoV-2 virion. Each "ball" is an atom.'
Despite the rather confusing description of the source stating this also: Each "ball" depicted is not an individual Atom but rather a Chemical compound consisting of multiple different chemically bonded atoms.
I have never seen the individual structures of the viral envelope referred to as 'atoms' before, though it it possible that is simply an archaic convention among virologists that I am unaware of.
At any rate though, the link in the caption for this image does direct to the Wikipedia article for atoms.
Would anyone mind correcting for the above? I believe that I am unable to do so myself given the (understandable) protected status of this article. 2A02:A443:AF4E:1:D5A2:151D:A66C:5A5 ( talk) 20:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
In the "Phylogenetics and taxonomy" section, the claim is made: "The furin cleavage site PRRAR↓ is identical to that of the feline coronavirus, an alphacoronavirus 1 strain." However, the source cited for this statement contradicts this claim. According to the source, there are two variants of feline coronavirus. FECV, which is milder, and FIPV which can be fatal, and that the mild variant has an optimized furin cleavage site, whereas the severe variant has a mutated or even missing furin cleavage site:
For example, the feline enteric coronavirus (FECV), responsible for a milder and localized form of enteric infection in the infected cat, carried a highly optimized furin cleavage site at S1/S2. In contrast, in the spike protein of the feline infectious peritonitis virus (FIPV), that caused systemic infection and death of the infected cat, the polybasic insert was either completely lost or found mutated.
It goes on to state that the mild form (FECV) has a furin cleavage site with the sequence RRARR↓ (note that this does not match the sequence PRRAR↓ which the Wikipedia article claims is identical):
The presence of a furin cleavage site RRARR↓S in the feline spike protein of the less infectious strain FECV and the presence of PRRAR↓S in the SARS-CoV-2 prompted us to analyse the sequences more carefully.
It also states that of the two feline coronavirus variants, SARS-CoV-2's cleavage site is more similar to the mild variant's site (which as shown above does not have an identical furin cleavage site):
Thus the polybasic insert of CoV-2 spike protein is closer to that of the spike protein of the milder feline coronavirus but carries crucial substitutions that are either uncommon or are disfavored in classical Furin substrates.
This clearly shows that the cited paper does not support the claim made in this article that the PRRAR↓ furin cleavage site present in SARS-CoV-2 is identical to the furin cleavage site in the feline coronavirus. It even appears that not only is the claim not supported by that source, but that the claim may even be incorrect (according to the statements from the source). Moulding ( talk) 21:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
For instance, a similar P-R-R-A-R motif in the spike of a feline CoV has been observed to be encoded with a CGG-CGA for the double Arginine (Bank-Wolf et al. 2014). In this case, a single mutation could change the CGG-CGA to a CGG-CGG.— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 21:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I changed the lead to clarify that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne. Sparkie82 ( t• c) 23:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Pardon the newb comment but I’m used to making small edits as I read Wikipedia articles, but it looks like this article isn’t editable to me.
In Origins it says “… published on Nature …”, should be “in”. Hambolger ( talk) 14:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
SARS-CoV-2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add "{{Update section|date=April 2023}}" after "{{Main|Variants of SARS-CoV-2}}"
Why? The variants section is very much out of date. The statement "Nextstrain divides the variants into five clades (19A, 19B, 20A, 20B, and 20C), while GISAID divides them into seven (L, O, V, S, G, GH, and GR)." is out of date since at least March 2021 when there were already new GISAID clades GV and GRV, see https://gisaid.org/resources/statements-clarifications/clade-and-lineage-nomenclature-aids-in-genomic-epidemiology-of-active-hcov-19-viruses/ AncientWalrus ( talk) 20:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
SARS-CoV-2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Reference 87 is not correct to support the following statement: Introduction through the food supply chain and the Huanan Seafood Market was considered another possible, but less likely, explanation.
. The provided reference is Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) but should be WHO-convened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2: China Part.
Please replace the reference with this one: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-convened-global-study-of-origins-of-sars-cov-2-china-part-joint-report.pdf AncientWalrus ( talk) 11:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
From the article's intro: "Available evidence indicates that it is most likely of zoonotic origin and has close genetic similarity to bat coronaviruses, suggesting it emerged from a bat-borne virus."
The citation provided there though (#18) is dated 2020, when the pandemic was still quite new, and our understanding of the virus and its origins were much more limited. We now have US government agencies, like the Energy Dept in the recent report, saying that a lab leak origin is more likely. So I would suggest that this part of the intro be updated, rewritten, and much newer citations used. - 2003:CA:871C:D28:77AA:E11E:9B4:E4E6 ( talk) 11:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Found a review of early detections, including viral DNA from a skin sample in Italy November 12, 2019. https://gh.bmj.com/content/7/3/e008386.long Sennalen ( talk) 21:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
So yes, it's certainly possible these are real, but they are also very far from proven. The sequencing data does also predict an emergence into humans in late October/early November based on mutation rates: [29] [30] [31] — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 22:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)laboratory evidence for early circulation is often dismissed and labelled as a result of false-positive testing. Antibody detection results can indeed be affected by the presence in sera of antibodies which, although able to recognise SARS-CoV-2 antigens, were induced by other agents.12 However, the presence of SARS-CoV-2 neutralising activity in these sera and the fact that several patients presented more than one class of antibodies recognising SARS-CoV-2 suggest that, although some cross-reactivity should be taken into account, at least some of the sera could contain antibodies induced by a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection... PCR-based methods are highly sensitive and, therefore, more prone to false-positive results.
The whole paragraph about putative early detections of SARS-CoV-2 genome fragments in Italy in the autumn of 2019 should be removed. It is entirely based on primary research. While it may appear that the most cited reference is a review, that review article was written by the same authors who did the original research the review is reviewing.
For a topic with such extensive secondary and tertiary coverage in reputable science journalism, such a not-widely cited review does not justify a paragraph in this article.
I already touched on this briefly in the higher up topic
Early origin. Thanks @
Bon courage for getting started on this
here but I think we should go much further by removing it altogether. If at all, it should get a minor mention in the separate origins article.
AncientWalrus (
talk) 12:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Whether identifiable cases appeared earlier than December, 2019, is unknown.in a long article. None of the reports were published in top journals either. The best independent coverage I could find is Wired which closes with
But it’s clear that the evidence so far isn’t the most robust. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” says Jonathan Stoye, a virologist at the Francis Crick Institute. “I’m not convinced that a dodgy piece of data on top of another dodgy piece of data on top of another dodgy piece of data leads one to a firm conclusion.”AncientWalrus ( talk) 13:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
The fact that this page doesn’t even mention the possibility that the virus originated in a lab is baffling, given that there are a number of credible experts who have stated it is plausible, not to mention the U.S. intelligence agencies who’ve concluded it’s probable. The complete omission of this viewpoint calls into question the neutrality and objectivity of the entire article. 68.12.22.29 ( talk) 04:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
most likely of zoonotic originis what the reliable sources say. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The lead states "Available evidence indicates that it is most likely of zoonotic origin," which is untrue.AncientWalrus ( talk) 18:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The article does discuss origin scenarios:It also doesn't mention non-lab origins. In fact, it makes no suggestion about the origin. It does mention the seafood market, but does not, as the CIA likes to say, confirm or deny such explanations. Some people (but mostly not the article) mention natural origin.
A March 2021 WHO-convened report stated that human spillover via an intermediate animal host was the most likely explanation, with direct spillover from bats next most likely.
Introduction through the food supply chain and the Huanan Seafood Market was considered another possible, but less likely, explanation.
An analysis in November 2021, however, said that the earliest-known case had been misidentified and that the preponderance of early cases linked to the Huanan Market argued for it being the source.
[the theory of a laboratory incident] was not given balanced considerationand further stating:
We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data. This letter was discussed in secondary sources, e.g. WSJ.
Saying that "This theory is not supported by evidence." or that "there is zero evidence for it" is objectively false
no evidence exists to support such a notion" [32] and "
there is no good evidence" [33] and "
there's not a single piece of data suggesting" that the lab leak is true. [34] — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Bloom, however, asserts that the evidence for a market origin for the current coronavirus pandemic is not conclusive, and both a laboratory origin and natural spillover should be viewed as possible causes of future pandemics.WaPo (this is from 2023, your first two sources are from 2021). AncientWalrus ( talk) 16:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
The lead states "Available evidence indicates that it is most likely of zoonotic origin," which is untrue
The lead states "Available evidence indicates that it is most likely of zoonotic origin," which is untrue
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
There has been wikidiscussions on what is the established date of the Wuhan index case in mainstream scientific reports. The current version of the page does not include any information on the index case. Previous to this lack of information the article said the index case emerged on Dec 1 2020, based on a a non-ideal RS (a book from a non-specialist that tangentially deals with the index case). The "Dec 1"-source was dicussed here, where I reasonably argued that it was a weak source with a consensus that it was not ideal.
There are two MEDRS that say the index case happened on Dec 8 2020, which coincidentally is a late date that goes against the lab leak hypothesis (I've been accused of POV editing and this edit is a counterexample). The MEDRS are Hu et al (2020), and the WHO report. RandomCanadian please stop disrupting the inclusion of this fact, there are DS sanctions in place for this page, I believe you are aware of them. I propose we use this two MEDRS supplemented by citing also the Washington post recent article on it, as long as it goes in the same direction and MEDRS does allow to cite RS along MEDRS in this case.
Forich (
talk) 20:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
The earliest known person with symptoms was later discovered to have fallen ill on 1 December 2019, and that person did not have visible connections with the later wet market cluster.[43][44] However, an earlier case of infection could have occurred on 17 November.[45] Of the early cluster of cases reported that month, two-thirds were found to have a link with the market.[46][47][48] Molecular clock analysis suggests that the index case is likely to have been infected with the virus between mid-October and mid-November 2019.[49][50]
There is considerable disagreement among experts in MEDRSes about this December index case, and some agreement MEDRSes suggest that there likely is no single index case.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The considerable pre-Huanan seafood market circulation of the virus in Wuhan, and the existence of the A and B variant clades, both point to multiple introductions of the virus into the human population.– Novem Linguae ( talk) 02:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The following text is from a podcast (This Week in Virology #760, may 26th 2021) with three members of the WHO team.
-Marion Koopmans: "a lot of the work tried, the epi work, really aimed at trying to dig back, so what was the earliest case, that is recognized. That was the process. Now the earliest confirmed recognized case is a person that survived, a person that we also met, but the epi work suggest that there have been many more cases that have not been recognized, there is also no sequence data for those. And that's part of the digging back that you would want to do."
-Rich Kondit: "So what were the earliest cases and to what extent or not do they have any association with the market?"
-Thea Kolsen Fischer: "So the first, the earliest now recognized case had an onset date of December 8th with no contact with neither the Huanan wet market or other markets. The closest kind of market contact was a mother who had cooked for the [first] case and who has bought some of her cooking ingredients at an unnamed market. But the [first] person had no contact with markets."
The WHO report, our best source on the matter, says there were three alleged cases from befor Dec 8th, but they qualify them as "excludable on the basis of the clinical features of their illnesses".
So according to this information, again, the best source we have, a tweaked version that follows the one from RandomCanadian would look like:
The earliest known person with symptoms was later discovered to have fallen ill on
18 December 2019, and that person did not have visible connections with the later wet market cluster. However,anat leastonethree earlier cases of infection could have occurred before the 8th of december. Of the early cluster of cases reported that month, two-thirds were found to have a link with the market. Molecular clock analysis suggests that the index case is likely to have been infected with the virus between mid-October and mid-November 2019
Forich ( talk) 21:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
The earliest known person with symptoms was later discovered to have fallen ill in early December 2019, and that person did not have visible connections with the later wet market cluster. However, a few earlier cases of infection could have occurred.[45] Of the early cluster of cases reported that month, two-thirds were found to have a link with the market.[46][47][48] Molecular clock analysis suggests that the index case is likely to have been infected with the virus between mid-October and mid-November 2019.[49][50]
"Uncertainty still persists around the origin of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the resulting COVID-19 disease. While an origin as a zoonotic spillover in the Huanan Seafood Market, Wuhan, sometime during early December, 2019, has been proposed [1], this has been called into question [2–4]. This uncertainty arises due to both the presence of earlier potential COVID-19 cases, and the fact that most phylogenetic analyses put the most recent ancestor at between mid-November and early December, 2019 [5].
The paper, written by a large group of Chinese researchers from several institutions, offers details about the first 41 hospitalized patients who had confirmed infections with what has been dubbed 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). In the earliest case, the patient became ill on 1 December 2019 and had no reported link to the seafood market, the authors report. “No epidemiological link was found between the first patient and later cases,” they state. Their data also show that, in total, 13 of the 41 cases had no link to the marketplace. “That’s a big number, 13, with no link,” says Daniel Lucey, an infectious disease specialist at Georgetown University.
This is not MEDRS. Forich ( talk) 21:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
According to the government data seen by the Post, a 55 year-old from Hubei province could have been the first person to have contracted Covid-19 on November 17. From that date onwards, one to five new cases were reported each day. By December 15, the total number of infections stood at 27 – the first double-digit daily rise was reported on December 17 – and by December 20, the total number of confirmed cases had reached 60.
SCMP is not MEDRS. Forich ( talk) 21:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
The earliest date of symptoms for COVID-19, according to a study performed by Huang et al. (2020) and published in the Lancet journal, was December 1, 2019. However, there are other sources (Bryner, 2020; Davidson, 2020) claiming that individuals with similar symptoms may have presented themselves to hospital as early as November. According to the report, by South China Morning Post (Ma, 2020), the first person who presented similar cases was a male patient of 55-year old from the province of Hubei. However, Chinese doctors only came to realize that they were dealing with a new and serious virus late December, when similar symptoms continued to increase every day, and mostly originating from Wuhan. According to the article in Lancet, the first patient, and whom they insist may be the first case, was reported on December 1, 2019, and whom did not have direct link with the Wuhan Seafood Market that has been associated with the origin of the virus. This finding interestingly matches with Ma (2020) who also argues that the November 2019 case was not from Wuhan. The story as to the origin of the virus has fueled much political and social divides and is expected to evolve as further efforts are poured into understanding this crisis.
This source is not a MEDRS because Zaheer Allam, the author of the chapter and book, is an architect that specializes in political economy. He is neither a virologist nor an epidemiologist. The book itself is about the political economy of the pandemic. Forich ( talk) 21:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I just went WP:Bold and fixed the information. The burden is on editors trying to use different information or with a history of reverting my edit (@ RandomCanadian:, @ Shibbolethink:, @ Alexbrn:) to find MEDRS sources, otherwise please abstain from reverting. Forich ( talk) 21:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
FCS : furin-like cleavage site -- 92.184.104.9 ( talk) 18:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add Template:Outdated to the "Infection and transmission" section. It reports only 2020 information. The idea of aerosol transmission is presented as not-yet-confirmed. There are 47 citations before the start of the "Reinfection" subsection: 1 dates from 2010, 41 date from 2020, and just 5 date from 2021. And of those 5, 2 are a case study of a specific person, 1 talks about animals that can get infected, and 2 talk about particles emitted during talking. Most or all items in this section should be relying on 2021 data, because the science is getting updated so fast through extensive research. 174.206.39.24 ( talk) 11:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
here are some links to find high quality MEDRS about this topic (SARS-CoV-2 transmission): Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL -- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 23:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, if I'm using the talk page the wrong way, but since the article is protected and I couldn't make the edit myself, I would appreciate it, if an experienced member could just fix this little typo.
It's really self-explanatory, there's just a missing "n" in "Demark" that needs to be added. It's in the last sentence of the paragraph in chapter 4.1.1 (Phylogenetics -> Variants).
Thank you very much!
XLix ( talk) 22:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
The first paragraph in the Epidemiology section is a near-duplicate to the previous paragraph (in the previous section). I believe it should be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WhamboMPS ( talk • contribs) 15:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
The "epidemiology" section start with "xVery few drugs" (erroneous "x") Technicolour-dreamboat ( talk) 12:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for September 3, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-09-03. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2) is the virus that causes COVID-19, the respiratory illness responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic. Like other coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-2 has four structural proteins, known by the letters S ( spike), E ( envelope), M ( membrane), and N ( nucleocapsid); the N protein holds the RNA genome, and the S, E, and M proteins together create the viral envelope. This colourised transmission electron micrograph shows SARS-CoV-2 virus particles emerging from the surface of cells cultured in a laboratory. The crown-like spikes on the outer edge of the virus particles give coronaviruses their name, derived from Latin corona, 'crown'. Photograph credit: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Rocky Mountain Laboratories
Recently featured:
|
This
edit request to
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the lead, replace Virus with Emergent virus. 79.70.190.198 ( talk) 08:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. I think it's better to link to the actual virus article.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 13:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)AFAIK there have been no estimations of the global viral mass of SARS‑CoV‑2, or the mass of a single virion for that matter. What are we dealing with here, a few kilos or what? kencf0618 ( talk) 03:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
X... Coronaviruses infect humans, other mammals, and avian species, including livestock and companion animals.
Y... Coronaviruses infect humans, other mammals, including livestock and companion animals, and avian species.
NOTE: This is a trivial edit. The string 'livestock and companion animals' relates to 'other mammals', not 'avian species'. Cheers. Kevbo ( talk) 04:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Why are we allowing the use of the Laos bats preprint? It was inserted in this edit . I suggest we remove it until it passes peer review. Forich ( talk) 04:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I love how roughly half the length of this article comprises carefully cited and documented references. Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this article; every Wikipedia article should be this good — PowerPCG5 ( talk) 09:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the second paragraph of the section titled “Infection and transmission,” please make the text “RNA shedding” into a wiki link that points to Viral shedding.
Tylercrompton ( talk) 23:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on this subject, so I cannot judge the completeness and veracity of this report from the US government itself. I leave it to others to decide if a digest of this should be included in the article, or if a footnote should be added.
The expert summary by a geneticist: https://merogenomics.ca/blog/en/145/Understanding-the-Risk-of-Bat-Coronavirus-Emergence-a-Merogenomics-NIH-grant-review
The actual documents from the NIH: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21055989-understanding-risk-bat-coronavirus-emergence-grant-notice access seems faster here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21055989/understanding-risk-bat-coronavirus-emergence-grant-notice.pdf
The actual document is 528 pages, but you can start by doing a search for the 24 occurrences of hACE2, reading the accompanying paragraphs, and seeing if you feel it worth your time to delve deeper.
My understanding is that, if true, the USA's NIH sponsored contractor EcoHealth and its principal investigator Dr. Peter Daszak to create versions of bat corona viruses that can infect cells via human ACE2 receptors (hACE2 receptors). This was an outgrowth of an innocent experiment to see if there were wild bat corona viruses that can infect humans.
The hACE2 work was apparently done in Wuhan, China.
Presumably the release was totally accidental. (Possibly, the lab was certified as BCL3 instead of BCL4, as it should have been for airborne viruses lethal to humans.)
I'm not an expert on this subject, so I cannot judge the completeness and veracity of this report from the US government itself. I leave it to others to decide if a digest of this should be included in the article, or if a footnote should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:A57B:9870:C550:BE5:2934:91E7 ( talk) 05:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The diagram depicting the structure of SARS-COVID-19 has an error in the note beneath the diagram. It claims the picture is an “atom”. It is a virus made of molecules. 2600:100C:B017:9372:C27:BC92:5330:9DE3 ( talk) 13:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I see we are still quoting directly from the research square preprint of the BANAL strains found in Laos. This was discussed in previous archived threads of this talk page, and several editors agreed that it was best to pause any mention of the information from the preprint until and if the paper passes peer review properly. The diff that uses the preprint is this one. By the way I could not verify the 96.8% figure anywhere in the preprint, so it means that we are incurring in two breaches of policy here by allowing that sentence. Forich ( talk) 04:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to mention COVID Moonshot in the "Treatment and drug development" section? I just released a Wikipedia article on the initiative: They are particularly interesting as an alternative (international collaborative crowd-sourced open-science open data no patents) approach to drug development, but they aren't yet doing clinical trials. I was thinking of something like the following, if it is acceptable to mention them. -- MaryMO (AR) ( talk) 20:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add Template:Outdated to the "Infection and transmission" section. It reports only 2020 information. The idea of aerosol transmission is presented as not-yet-confirmed. There are 47 citations before the start of the "Reinfection" subsection: 1 dates from 2010, 41 date from 2020, and just 5 date from 2021. And of those 5, 2 are a case study of a specific person, 1 talks about animals that can get infected, and 2 talk about particles emitted during talking. Most or all items in this section should be relying on 2021 data, because the science is getting updated so fast through extensive research. 174.206.39.24 ( talk) 11:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
here are some links to find high quality MEDRS about this topic (SARS-CoV-2 transmission): Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL -- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 23:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, if I'm using the talk page the wrong way, but since the article is protected and I couldn't make the edit myself, I would appreciate it, if an experienced member could just fix this little typo.
It's really self-explanatory, there's just a missing "n" in "Demark" that needs to be added. It's in the last sentence of the paragraph in chapter 4.1.1 (Phylogenetics -> Variants).
Thank you very much!
XLix ( talk) 22:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for September 3, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-09-03. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2) is the virus that causes COVID-19, the respiratory illness responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic. Like other coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-2 has four structural proteins, known by the letters S ( spike), E ( envelope), M ( membrane), and N ( nucleocapsid); the N protein holds the RNA genome, and the S, E, and M proteins together create the viral envelope. This colourised transmission electron micrograph shows SARS-CoV-2 virus particles emerging from the surface of cells cultured in a laboratory. The crown-like spikes on the outer edge of the virus particles give coronaviruses their name, derived from Latin corona, 'crown'. Photograph credit: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Rocky Mountain Laboratories
Recently featured:
|
The "epidemiology" section start with "xVery few drugs" (erroneous "x") Technicolour-dreamboat ( talk) 12:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
AFAIK there have been no estimations of the global viral mass of SARS‑CoV‑2, or the mass of a single virion for that matter. What are we dealing with here, a few kilos or what? kencf0618 ( talk) 03:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the lead, replace Virus with Emergent virus. 79.70.190.198 ( talk) 08:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. I think it's better to link to the actual virus article.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 13:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)NEWS (3 December 2021): Apparently - there's a significantly *higher mortality risk* for COVID survivors after 1-year of onset. [2] [3] - QUESTION: Worth considering for the main article? - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 18:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
Time for a major rewrite of this section:
The first known infections from SARS‑CoV‑2 were discovered in Wuhan, China. The original source of viral transmission to humans remains unclear, as does whether the virus became pathogenic before or after the spillover event. Because many of the early infectees were workers at the Huanan Seafood Market, it has been suggested that the virus might have originated from the market. However, other research indicates that visitors may have introduced the virus to the market, which then facilitated rapid expansion of the infections. A March 2021 WHO-convened report stated that human spillover via an intermediate animal host was the most likely explanation, with direct spillover from bats next most likely. Introduction through the food supply chain and the Huanan Seafood Market was considered another possible, but less likely, explanation. An analysis in December 2021, however, said that the index case had been misidentified and that the preponderance of early cases linked to the Huanan Market, specifically a section where raccoon dogs were caged, argued for it being the source.
Major points of improvement:
Forich ( talk) 03:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Michael Worobey, an expert on the origins of influenza and H.I.V., has traced the epidemiological origin of the early cases in Wuhan, suggesting that the index case (i.e. the first known case) was a vendor at the Huanan Seafood Market, which contrast with other public accounts that register as the index case an accountant who lived many miles from it.
References
Two discussions here, the "Epidemiological tracing of early cases" and "Higher mortality risk for COVID survivors?" were removed by a random IP address in this edit and were thus not properly archived or examined for further discussion. I have brought them back and something should be done about that annoying IP in the meantime. Mewnst ( talk) 11:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change:
It mainly enters human cells by
To:
It enters human cells by
According to the two citations provided [1] [2], while SARS‑CoV‑2 viral entry depends on multiple factors, binding to ACE2 is the only way it enters human cells. -- Xarm Endris ( talk) 17:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't seem to be able to edit, so am commenting here: The section Virology / Structure gives a diameter of the particles as 50-200 nm, and cites a reference. However, that reference just says they viruss "envelop" particles of that size range (which doesn't even make sense) and then cites a single reference for that, which doesn't support that in any way. So my suggestion would be to either remove the diameter range or else find a reference to support it. I'm looking but haven't found one yet. Thanks! Joe Betts-LaCroix ( talk) 22:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
In section Virology/Structure a total virus mass of 0.1-1kg is stated. The given reference [142] (Sender et al., 2020) however states a mass range of 0.1-10kg. 89.160.8.66 ( talk) 11:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:SARS-CoV-2 scanning electron microscope image.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for February 22, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-02-22. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 11:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a strain of coronavirus that causes COVID-19, the respiratory disease responsible for the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. This scanning electron micrograph shows SARS-CoV-2 virions (gold) emerging from the surface of cells cultured in a laboratory. The virus particles depicted were isolated from a patient in the United States. Photograph credit: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
Recently featured:
|
"Preliminary research indicates that the virus may remain viable on plastic (polypropylene) and stainless steel (AISI 304) for up to three days, but it does not survive on cardboard for more than one day or on copper for more than four hours." appears well out-of-date(?) as I thought I saw a journal article relating to research in Australia, now itself quite a while ago but several months later than this 'preliminary' research that suggested the virus could survive for up to 28 days on steel, perhaps in a dark environment undisturbed and in cold winter weather. I also think it could be on plastic for up to 5 or 7 days - virus in one piece of research I seem to remember (no idea where any of it is now) could not be detected on the seventh day. It appears to me the initial research is no longer the position that we know now and, in short, is likely out-of-date. However I do not know whether the extended time periods necessarily showed that the virus, where it was still found, was viable. In addition though, I haven't seen any evidence as to whether the time periods of survival of viable virus are different, possibly longer, with Omicron etc. (logic to me as a layperson might suggest that perhaps it could last longer on surfaces when Omicron appears to be able to remain present in unventilated indoor spaces in the air for quite a lot longer than the original virus (in excess of 2 1/2 days as opposed to up to 16 hours originally) but I suspect with SARS-CoV-2 it might confound what I think might be logical, as it usually turns out to do things 'unexpected' by (some) scientists that I expect it will do because it will be unusual and different to what has been previously encountered - I think, if anyone has assumptions, the assumptions are usually wrong). aspaa ( talk) 03:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
The last sentence of the first paragraph:
"As described by the US National Institutes of Health, it is the successor to SARS-CoV-1, the virus that caused the 2002–2004 SARS outbreak.[16]"
is misleading and should be removed.
Although the cited reference does use the word "successor", the usage seems to imply that SARS-CoV2 is derived from SARS-CoV1. There is no evidence for this and substantial reason to believe that it is false (chiefly, that SARS-CoV1 was eradicated in 2004 and hasn't been seen anywhere in the world since then).
I suggest simply erasing this sentence, or, if it is deemed necessary to refer to SARS-CoV1, substituting:
"An unrelated coronavirus, now designated SARS-CoV1, caused the SARS epidemic of 2002-2004 and was eradicated in 2004." References for this information (refs 4 and 5 copied from the Wikipedia article on SARS1):
Chan-Yeung M, Xu RH (November 2003). "SARS: epidemiology". Respirology. 8 Suppl (s1): S9-14. doi:10.1046/j.1440-1843.2003.00518.x. PMC 7169193. PMID 15018127.
"SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome)". NHS Choices. UK National Health Service. 3 October 2014. Archived from the original on 11 March 2016. Retrieved 8 March 2016. Since 2004, there haven't been any known cases of SARS reported anywhere in the world.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.52.207.45 ( talk) 16:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
During human-to-human transmission, between 200 and 800 infectious SARS‑CoV‑2 virions are thought to initiate a new infection.
What variant is this talking about? None of the references is recent: source #1 is from 11 May 2020 (very early), source #2 is from 9 December 2020 (early), and source #3 is from 20 May 2010 (what is this even doing here?). I don't understand the charts in #2, so I don't know if it means the original variant or the Alpha variant, but none of these sources can possibly be talking about Delta, Omicron, or lesser-known variants. Since this information is very much outdated, reliant on sources that are too old to reflect current research, and probably not applicable to the variants that are all over the place now, I think it ought to be removed completely. 49.198.51.54 ( talk) 07:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
You can’t affirm that the virus came from China without prove, so that information is wrong 191.183.196.31 ( talk) 15:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Infection and Transmission:
The degree to which the virus is infectious during the
incubation period is uncertain, but research has indicated that the
pharynx reaches peak
viral load approximately four days after infection
Source:
Pharyngeal virus shedding was very high during the first week of symptoms, with a peak at 7.11 × 108 RNA copies per throat swab on day 4. ...
The earliest swabs were taken on day 1 of symptoms, which were often very mild or prodromal.
Current text indicates pharyngeal viral load peaks 4 days after infection rather than onset of symptoms.
Suggested change:
The degree to which the virus is infectious during the
incubation period is uncertain, but research has indicated that the
pharynx reaches peak
viral load approximately four days after the onset of symptoms
Peaceandlonglife (
talk) 14:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
OK, I didn't explain it will before, and didn't have references. Virologists have been worried about Chinese farms as sources of new viruses for years. The discussion about zoonotic vs. lab misses the fact that farms are not close to natural, and not supposed to be labs. A quick Google search find a Nature article that calls a Chinese farm a cauldron of virus mixing. [3] This was the first one that came up, and from September 2019, so barely before Covid-19. I am not writing this as a WP:SOAPBOX, and no suggestions regarding lab origins or not, but for better understanding of virus origins. In 2019, there was much interest in pandemic flu viruses, but not (yet) corona viruses. Gah4 ( talk) 04:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
References
Regardless of one's views about the merits of the zoonotic hypothesis for SARS-COV2 the fact that some prominent scientists think the issue is unresolved is a fact. Facts like this, with appropriate documentation, are suitable for noting in an article about the virus. Does anyone disagree with this? StN ( talk) 18:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.and
We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it. Given that, besides a few opinion letters, most secondary sources (i.e. reviews and the like) by experts in the topic area overwhelmingly favour a zoonotic origin (many sources take it for granted, and the few sources that focus specifically on the origins of the virus are rather unambiguous as well), then this would indeed appear to be a prime case
where including [the opposing theory] would unduly legitimize it. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 18:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
I edited this article to reflect the fact that the unequivocal assertion that the SARS_Cov2 virus is of zoonotic origin is not universally accepted by experts in the field. I did not mention any other theory, but only cited letters and commentaries by some of those experts in the most respected scientific journals in the world. I was accused of advancing conspiracy theories, but although my edits each time were to different respected sources (each time with no alternative theory mentioned by me) other editors requested that I be banned from editing the article, and I was for 48 hours. After the ban expired, I edited the article again, this time linking to another Wikipedia article that indicated that the conclusion in this one was controversial. That article is already linked to in this one, but in a context that conceals the controversy that is its main subject. An editor used that innocuous edit to get me banned for a week, this time from editing Wikipedia at all. Since then, the World Health Organization has issued a report saying a laboratory manipulation and leak of the virus remains a viable scenario for the virus. Since the most active editors on the page consider this a conspiracy theory, I am reluctant to cite the WHO report, since I don't wish to get banned again. The blanket assertion, with no qualification, that the virus is of natural origin is itself a POV. Any advice User:Bbb23? StN ( talk) 18:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
At the present time, currently available epidemiological and sequencing data suggest ancestral strains to SARS-CoV-2 have a zoonotic origin with the closest genetically related viruses being beta coronaviruses, identified in Rhinolophus bats in China in 2013 (96.1%) and Laos in 2020 (96.8%). However, so far neither the virus progenitors nor the natural/intermediate hosts or spill-over event to humans have been identified.
Determine the occupational hazards intrinsic to laboratories working with SARS-like CoV and the nature of the studies performed before the first reported COVID-19 cases in Wuhan and whether they involved reverse engineering or gain-of-function, genetic manipulation or animal studies with strains of SARS-like CoV.
suggest. I think it supports StN and Palpable's proposed changes. According to high-quality sources, the natural reservoir is most likely bats, and the spillover was most likely a natural occurrence, but the intermediate host and time and place of the first spillover are far from certain and there is a minority view that the spillover was research related. ScrumptiousFood ( talk) 17:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
The references provided for the assertion that the virus is of zoonontic origin were from 2020, and the removal of this unequivocal statement was reverted twice based on those old, controversial papers. A recent review in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2202769119 indicates that this view is not the consensus. Leaving out the assertion does not commit to either side. StN ( talk) 23:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I have reverted assertions that the virus is of zoonotic origins since there is no consensus about this. I have not proposed an alternative. It is inaccurate to say that there is a consensus. I have cited a paper that indicates there is not a consensus. Please don't change this unless an authoritative paper stating that zoonoses is generally accepted can be cited. StN ( talk) 01:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
The statement that "It has been suggested to be of zoonotic origins, but some experts consider this unsettled" is uncontroversial and well supported by articles in Science and Nature. Removing it from the article is unwarranted and contrary to Wikipedia policy. StN ( talk) 19:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
the suggestions of zoonotic origin are purely speculativeis not to be found in any of them, and appears very much to be your own opinion. Sadly for you, Wikipedia doesn't care about your (or my) opinion. It cares about what is published in reputable reliable sources. If you think it isn't true, too bad, but that is not Wikipedia's problem. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
There is absolutely no conclusion as of yet to the origins of COVID-19. You should not be stated that it zoonotic in origin. Wikiwowie ( talk) 01:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
The subgenus Sarbecovirus of beta-CoVs, such as SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2, had spread to humans, most likely via intermediate hosts.). Also agree that
That said, some of the fringe crusaders here have gone full battleground. Logical argument is stalled with strawmanning and wikilawyering.is quite over the line. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. CollectiveSolidarity ( non-admin closure) ( talk) 00:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
There are many good reasons why these pages should be moved to their widely used abbreviations. To start with the obvious, these are their
WP:COMMONNAMEs universally used by reliable sources and the public, which should replace the extremely lengthy and rarely-used
WP:OFFICIALNAMEs per
WP:CONCISE,
WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, and
WP:ACROTITLE. It's hard to imagine that any reader would take the time to type in Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
(5 words) or Severe acute respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus
(6 words) into the search bar. Before any members of
WP:COVID-19 jump in and point me to {{
Current COVID-19 Project Consensus}}, rest assured I have read that page and understand that the current consensus of the WikiProject is to use the full name. But
WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, and I see
the last RM discussion was over a year ago. Most editors who objected to a page move there did so on the grounds of
WP:CONSISTENT, so to address that concern I'm requesting any related pages to be moved as well. This also makes them consistent with
COVID-19,
SARS, and
MERS, all of which were moved following successful RMs with similar arguments (
Talk:COVID-19/Archive 17 § Requested move 1 March 2021,
Talk:SARS § Requested move 8 December 2021, and
Talk:MERS § Requested move 15 December 2021).
InfiniteNexus (
talk) 00:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. No support and several opposed after nearly three days. This proposal doesn't have traction. — BarrelProof ( talk) 20:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
– Please see the similar just-closed RMs at Talk:SARS-related coronavirus#Requested move 9 July 2022 and Talk:MERS-related coronavirus#Requested move 19 July 2022. These two articles were recently renamed (from titles different from what I am suggesting here). However, I suggest that the names that I propose would be more WP:RECOGNIZEable for most readers. I previously made these same title suggestions in the recent RM at Talk:SARS-CoV-2#Requested move 21 June 2022, but there was no reaction to my suggestions at the time, as the focus of that discussion was about whether to abbreviate SARS and MERS or not. I think the current titles are now overly abbreviated to a degree that makes them difficult for many readers to recognize. — BarrelProof ( talk) 00:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Considering the fact that the WHO has called the lab leak a possibility, it is completely ridiculous to dismiss it as a fringe minority opinion. Aren't we supposed to trust and cite what the experts have to say? BTW, the article on the COVID-19 disease itself mentions the lab leak as a possibility. X-Editor ( talk) 03:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The SAGO notes that there has not been any new data made available to evaluate the laboratory as a pathway of SARS-CoV-2 into the human population and recommends further investigations into this and all other possible pathways. The SAGO will remain open to any and all scientific evidence that becomes available in the future to allow for comprehensive testing of all reasonable hypotheses.
3.1.1 Early investigation studies, with a few suggestions;
3.1.2 Human studieswith over half a dozen suggestions;
3.1.3 Animal and environmental studiessimilarly;
3.1.4 Genomics and phylogenetics studies; and then, yes, finally;
3.1.5 The possibility of a breach in biosafety or biosecurity measures). A call for further studies (without all of the "increasingly active consideration" editorialising) seems really all there is to it. Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 would probably be the correct article to summarise this. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 04:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
In June 2022, the WHO released an additional report advocating for more investigations in the various possible pathways of emergence., as per the bit quoted above (and the rest of the initial summary), to avoid a silly-game of chinese telephone between what the original report is saying and what the news are click-baiting from it. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 04:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
"premature" for the WHO's report to rule out a potential link between a laboratory leakand called on China to provide additional data). We don't need to emphasise stuff which hasn't really changed. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 04:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
ItThis still sets up the following sentence with its link to the Investigations article, and mirrors the language used by SAGO. Bakkster Man ( talk) 17:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)is of zoonotic origins andhas close genetic similarity to bat coronaviruses, suggestingit emerged froma bat-borne virus ancestor.
At the present time, currently available epidemiological and sequencing data suggest ancestral strains to SARS-CoV-2 have a zoonotic origin with the closest genetically related viruses being beta coronaviruses, identified in Rhinolophus bats in China in 2013 (96.1%) and Laos in 2020 (96.8%). However, so far neither the virus progenitors nor the natural/intermediate hosts or spill-over event to humans have been identified.
Available evidence indicates that the virus is of zoonotic origin, and has close genetic similarity to bat coronaviruses, suggesting a bat-borne viral ancestor.RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
It is of zoonotic origins [...]with
Available evidence indicates that it is of zoonotic origin [...]. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
the thing from which something comes, or the place where it began:), does not mean "immediate parent", else we would be writing this differently. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
origins [plural] - used to describe the particular way in which something started to exist or someone started their life: The story has obscure origins
the thing from which something comes, or the place where it began:
it is just as valid to say that there is no or very little evidence to deny a lab leak.I think that's the textbook example of affirming a disjunct. Something not being proven false does not mean that there is no evidence against it, only that the evidence against it does not allow to make a definitive conclusion on the premises. Both the SAGO report and other sources (the Holmes et al. critical review; other recent sources like the papers I mentioned earlier, for ex. [25]) say that what evidence we do have (as SAGO phrases it, " epidemiological and sequencing data"; the evidence that Sars-COV-2 was circulating outside of China earlier than thought presented in other sources; the fact that the first detected outbreak in Wuhan was not near the lab but likely involved or was amplified by the wildlife market, ...) suggests an origin with no lab involved. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
"Available evidence indicates that it is most likely of zoonotic origins..." What evidence is that? Identifying infected humans in a seafood market where no infected animals have been found does not constitute such evidence, as many commentators in citable sources have noted. Evidence for zoonotic origins requires identifying infected nonlaboratory animals. StN ( talk) 15:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I propose we create a new article on the Spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus as it has become notable by itself. The Spike protein has been discussed as vital for the entry process of the cell, vital for the fabrication of vaccines across platforms, and vital to understand possible effects on the immune system because of its shedding. One natural starting point can be the virology sections from this entry, which I can use to write a draft in user space. Opinions? Forich ( talk) 21:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I propose we consciously embark on making this an A-Class article. The criteria are:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate
. Do any of the wikiprojects involved in this entry have an A-Class assessment departments? Forich ( talk) 16:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
'Atomic model of the external structure of the SARS-CoV-2 virion. Each "ball" is an atom.'
Despite the rather confusing description of the source stating this also: Each "ball" depicted is not an individual Atom but rather a Chemical compound consisting of multiple different chemically bonded atoms.
I have never seen the individual structures of the viral envelope referred to as 'atoms' before, though it it possible that is simply an archaic convention among virologists that I am unaware of.
At any rate though, the link in the caption for this image does direct to the Wikipedia article for atoms.
Would anyone mind correcting for the above? I believe that I am unable to do so myself given the (understandable) protected status of this article. 2A02:A443:AF4E:1:D5A2:151D:A66C:5A5 ( talk) 20:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
In the "Phylogenetics and taxonomy" section, the claim is made: "The furin cleavage site PRRAR↓ is identical to that of the feline coronavirus, an alphacoronavirus 1 strain." However, the source cited for this statement contradicts this claim. According to the source, there are two variants of feline coronavirus. FECV, which is milder, and FIPV which can be fatal, and that the mild variant has an optimized furin cleavage site, whereas the severe variant has a mutated or even missing furin cleavage site:
For example, the feline enteric coronavirus (FECV), responsible for a milder and localized form of enteric infection in the infected cat, carried a highly optimized furin cleavage site at S1/S2. In contrast, in the spike protein of the feline infectious peritonitis virus (FIPV), that caused systemic infection and death of the infected cat, the polybasic insert was either completely lost or found mutated.
It goes on to state that the mild form (FECV) has a furin cleavage site with the sequence RRARR↓ (note that this does not match the sequence PRRAR↓ which the Wikipedia article claims is identical):
The presence of a furin cleavage site RRARR↓S in the feline spike protein of the less infectious strain FECV and the presence of PRRAR↓S in the SARS-CoV-2 prompted us to analyse the sequences more carefully.
It also states that of the two feline coronavirus variants, SARS-CoV-2's cleavage site is more similar to the mild variant's site (which as shown above does not have an identical furin cleavage site):
Thus the polybasic insert of CoV-2 spike protein is closer to that of the spike protein of the milder feline coronavirus but carries crucial substitutions that are either uncommon or are disfavored in classical Furin substrates.
This clearly shows that the cited paper does not support the claim made in this article that the PRRAR↓ furin cleavage site present in SARS-CoV-2 is identical to the furin cleavage site in the feline coronavirus. It even appears that not only is the claim not supported by that source, but that the claim may even be incorrect (according to the statements from the source). Moulding ( talk) 21:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
For instance, a similar P-R-R-A-R motif in the spike of a feline CoV has been observed to be encoded with a CGG-CGA for the double Arginine (Bank-Wolf et al. 2014). In this case, a single mutation could change the CGG-CGA to a CGG-CGG.— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 21:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I changed the lead to clarify that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne. Sparkie82 ( t• c) 23:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Pardon the newb comment but I’m used to making small edits as I read Wikipedia articles, but it looks like this article isn’t editable to me.
In Origins it says “… published on Nature …”, should be “in”. Hambolger ( talk) 14:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
SARS-CoV-2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add "{{Update section|date=April 2023}}" after "{{Main|Variants of SARS-CoV-2}}"
Why? The variants section is very much out of date. The statement "Nextstrain divides the variants into five clades (19A, 19B, 20A, 20B, and 20C), while GISAID divides them into seven (L, O, V, S, G, GH, and GR)." is out of date since at least March 2021 when there were already new GISAID clades GV and GRV, see https://gisaid.org/resources/statements-clarifications/clade-and-lineage-nomenclature-aids-in-genomic-epidemiology-of-active-hcov-19-viruses/ AncientWalrus ( talk) 20:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
SARS-CoV-2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Reference 87 is not correct to support the following statement: Introduction through the food supply chain and the Huanan Seafood Market was considered another possible, but less likely, explanation.
. The provided reference is Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) but should be WHO-convened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2: China Part.
Please replace the reference with this one: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-convened-global-study-of-origins-of-sars-cov-2-china-part-joint-report.pdf AncientWalrus ( talk) 11:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
From the article's intro: "Available evidence indicates that it is most likely of zoonotic origin and has close genetic similarity to bat coronaviruses, suggesting it emerged from a bat-borne virus."
The citation provided there though (#18) is dated 2020, when the pandemic was still quite new, and our understanding of the virus and its origins were much more limited. We now have US government agencies, like the Energy Dept in the recent report, saying that a lab leak origin is more likely. So I would suggest that this part of the intro be updated, rewritten, and much newer citations used. - 2003:CA:871C:D28:77AA:E11E:9B4:E4E6 ( talk) 11:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Found a review of early detections, including viral DNA from a skin sample in Italy November 12, 2019. https://gh.bmj.com/content/7/3/e008386.long Sennalen ( talk) 21:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
So yes, it's certainly possible these are real, but they are also very far from proven. The sequencing data does also predict an emergence into humans in late October/early November based on mutation rates: [29] [30] [31] — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 22:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)laboratory evidence for early circulation is often dismissed and labelled as a result of false-positive testing. Antibody detection results can indeed be affected by the presence in sera of antibodies which, although able to recognise SARS-CoV-2 antigens, were induced by other agents.12 However, the presence of SARS-CoV-2 neutralising activity in these sera and the fact that several patients presented more than one class of antibodies recognising SARS-CoV-2 suggest that, although some cross-reactivity should be taken into account, at least some of the sera could contain antibodies induced by a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection... PCR-based methods are highly sensitive and, therefore, more prone to false-positive results.
The whole paragraph about putative early detections of SARS-CoV-2 genome fragments in Italy in the autumn of 2019 should be removed. It is entirely based on primary research. While it may appear that the most cited reference is a review, that review article was written by the same authors who did the original research the review is reviewing.
For a topic with such extensive secondary and tertiary coverage in reputable science journalism, such a not-widely cited review does not justify a paragraph in this article.
I already touched on this briefly in the higher up topic
Early origin. Thanks @
Bon courage for getting started on this
here but I think we should go much further by removing it altogether. If at all, it should get a minor mention in the separate origins article.
AncientWalrus (
talk) 12:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Whether identifiable cases appeared earlier than December, 2019, is unknown.in a long article. None of the reports were published in top journals either. The best independent coverage I could find is Wired which closes with
But it’s clear that the evidence so far isn’t the most robust. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” says Jonathan Stoye, a virologist at the Francis Crick Institute. “I’m not convinced that a dodgy piece of data on top of another dodgy piece of data on top of another dodgy piece of data leads one to a firm conclusion.”AncientWalrus ( talk) 13:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
The fact that this page doesn’t even mention the possibility that the virus originated in a lab is baffling, given that there are a number of credible experts who have stated it is plausible, not to mention the U.S. intelligence agencies who’ve concluded it’s probable. The complete omission of this viewpoint calls into question the neutrality and objectivity of the entire article. 68.12.22.29 ( talk) 04:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
most likely of zoonotic originis what the reliable sources say. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The lead states "Available evidence indicates that it is most likely of zoonotic origin," which is untrue.AncientWalrus ( talk) 18:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The article does discuss origin scenarios:It also doesn't mention non-lab origins. In fact, it makes no suggestion about the origin. It does mention the seafood market, but does not, as the CIA likes to say, confirm or deny such explanations. Some people (but mostly not the article) mention natural origin.
A March 2021 WHO-convened report stated that human spillover via an intermediate animal host was the most likely explanation, with direct spillover from bats next most likely.
Introduction through the food supply chain and the Huanan Seafood Market was considered another possible, but less likely, explanation.
An analysis in November 2021, however, said that the earliest-known case had been misidentified and that the preponderance of early cases linked to the Huanan Market argued for it being the source.
[the theory of a laboratory incident] was not given balanced considerationand further stating:
We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data. This letter was discussed in secondary sources, e.g. WSJ.
Saying that "This theory is not supported by evidence." or that "there is zero evidence for it" is objectively false
no evidence exists to support such a notion" [32] and "
there is no good evidence" [33] and "
there's not a single piece of data suggesting" that the lab leak is true. [34] — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Bloom, however, asserts that the evidence for a market origin for the current coronavirus pandemic is not conclusive, and both a laboratory origin and natural spillover should be viewed as possible causes of future pandemics.WaPo (this is from 2023, your first two sources are from 2021). AncientWalrus ( talk) 16:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
The lead states "Available evidence indicates that it is most likely of zoonotic origin," which is untrue
The lead states "Available evidence indicates that it is most likely of zoonotic origin," which is untrue