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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
@ Symphony Regalia: Is it really necessary to cite "Wuhan" three times in the opening sentence? Why the insistence? I think this does not improve the article.
How everyone feels about this?
Cheers,
Feelthhis ( talk) 03:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Symphony Regalia is a POV pushing time waster who loves to WP:BLUDGEON discussions, and who has been blocked twice for wasting everyone's time, there's no point engaging with him. His behaviour borders on being worthy of a topic ban. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I do not envy those who have to balance accurate reflection of consensus and page stability. Considering the situation so far, what do you think we should do next, Feelthhis? Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 20:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Feelthhis. Wuhan is mentioned because the virus originated in Wuhan, and because several names of the virus have Wuhan in it. If you're referring to attempts to censor the name Wuhan virus, then it is necessary that it remain, because it was and still is used in a wide variety of reliable sources. Even if it were never used again, it was used in so widely in RS means that it would be unencyclopedic to remove it. Note that Wikipedia is not censored: Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. Symphony Regalia ( talk) 09:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Since we're discussing location-based name-related edits, I've undone Special:Diff/957712550 and returned a wikilink to "Terminology" from "See also". Unlike the film, the wikilink only applies to "Terminology", not the article more broadly. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 16:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
During the initial outbreak in Wuhan, China, the virus was commonly referred to as the "coronavirus" or "Wuhan coronavirus",[28][29][30] or "Wuhan virus".[31][32]and b)
The general public often call both SARS-CoV-2 and the disease it causes "coronavirus".Are you absolutely decided that you are not letting go your POV? I don't want to edit war with you. If your answer is yes, then I'll ask for help for dispute resolution, is that ok with you? (ps: ref [32] does not use "Wuhan virus", it uses "2019-nCoV virus").
During the initial outbreak in Wuhan, China, the virus was commonly referred to as "coronavirus" or "Wuhan coronavirus"[25][26][27].and b)
The general public often call "coronavirus" both the virus and the disease it causes.
"… (COVID-19), a respiratory illness …"
If I understand correctly, the disease is no longer so narrowly defined; there may be illnesses that are not respiratory.
Grahamperrin ( talk) 06:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
There have been media reports ( Newsweek, NY Times) on a few papers ( Scripps, Cell) talking about if the G614 mutation (referred to in the media as European strain/clade or Italian strain) makes it up to ten times more transmissible than D614 (Chinese strain, Wuhan strain), or if the observed transmission differences are largely due to the differing epidemiological responses. Could somebody who knows what they are talking about add this to the section on mutations? - Featous ( talk) 14:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
In this phrase "Bats were initially considered to be the most likely natural reservoir of SARS-CoV-2, but differences between the bat coronavirus sampled at the time and SARS-CoV-2 suggested that humans were infected via an intermediate host." there is a non sequitur because the premise being true (bats are the natural reservoir) and the conclusion (humans were infected via an intermediate host) are not mutually excludable. In other words, we can not say "BUT there is an intermediate host" following "Bats are the natural reservoir", because the BUT seems to negate the premise. Forich ( talk) 16:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
A natural reservoir and intermediate host are different. What they are implying is that there is a suspicion that it went from bats (res host) to pangolin (intermediate), then to humans. Do not confuse the vocabulary. In another circumstance, there may not even be an intermediate (direct transmission from reservoir host). Asifwhale ( talk) 01:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I think it makes sense. Bats were the initial candidate. But. There could be an intermediary. Asifwhale ( talk) 02:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The "source of the spillover" has not been 100% identified yet. Asifwhale ( talk) 02:57, 12 July 2020 (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. |
There is an assertion that the particle size of SARS-CoV-2 virions are between "50-200nm" in diameter, however, the cited article for this information cites another article, and no claims as to the size of the virion are made in this tertiary source. I suggest finding another source for this information that directly states through the research it is presenting the size of the SARS-CoV-2 virion. Mircobiofred ( talk) 17:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
~ Amkgp
💬 10:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Perhaps mention that some
look quite like
(much closer than
etc.)
See also https://www.newcastleherald.com.au/story/6754383/the-fruit-that-looks-like-coronavirus/
Jidanni ( talk) 09:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps such models from nature would be useful in schools in developing countries, where there are no audio visual materials, but plenty of such trees. Jidanni ( talk) 00:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the bottom of the section "Infection and transmission", there is an incorrectly capitalised instance of COVID-19 (i.e. only the C is capitalised, as if it were a word and not an acronym). Please can this be corrected? DesertPipeline ( talk) 04:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
US President Donald Trump has also referred to COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 as "Kung Flu", which is also worth documenting, as there is already a sentence relating to Donald Trump's naming of SARS-CoV-2.He has also referred to it as the "China virus" as well.
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19 § Very general taking stock of our COVID-19 coverage so far. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 07:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
This recent paper in a pretty solid journal: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202000091
...makes the case that serial passage in a lab should be considered a viable pathway of emergence since it mimics the same molecular processes that occur out in the wild when a virus jumps species. So if a virus can "accidentally" jump species in nature, of course they can be guided to jump species in a lab. Which this paper explains has been done a bunch with flu viruses, making them much more virulent, and leading to a ban on this kind of "gain-of-function" research. But that ban was lifted in 2017, and now virologists seem to be ignoring serial passage as a possible source for the virus, maybe since there's so much funding tied up in it. And of course viruses can leak out of labs, that's been a constant issue since work with them started basically.
Harvard2TheBigHouse ( talk) 11:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Karlsirot ( talk) 21:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Our policies on this are clear. As a primary study, this paper is not acceptable as a source. Whether or not the findings are credible, incredible or fringe is irrelevant. Until there are secondary sources, which I doubt will emerge, this paper should be ignored. With regard to the comment "anonymous editors with no demonstrated scientific pedigree whatsoever", that's just rude. We don't require our volunteers to be qualified in anything; we expect them to become familiar with our guidelines and policies, and be nice to one another. Graham Beards ( talk) 08:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Karlsirot ( talk) 18:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
"Progenitor virus in a lab, or from bats infecting a commercial mink farm", then concluding: "more evidence is required before a conclusive judgement can be made one way or the other". I don't see how such speculative paper is WP:DUE for anything at this point.The above
This is Wikipedia, not the "letters" page of Natureis also very relevant in relation to
I thought Wikipedia was a place for unbiased truth: Wikipedia is only the place to make a summary of mainstream knowledge. It does not serve its purposes to promote unnecessary uncertainty about the origin until there is solid evidence for that and that reliable sources have widely reported about it. — Paleo Neonate – 07:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
In the summary as well as later in the article there is mention of a July 3rd, 2020 research paper that claims to link major genetic risk factor for human infection with SARS-CoV-2 was inherited from archaic Neanderthals 60,000 years ago. This paper is cited as a source: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.03.186296v1 . There is a bright yellow banner at the top of the cited page that clearly states "these are preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed. They should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or be reported in news media as established information." Yet this page (along with many news articles) are using language that heavily implies these are conclusive findings. Until this paper has passed peer review, this information should at the very least be clearly noted as unreviewed and/or preliminary, and not presented as definitive information.
I really don't think it even belongs here until it has gone through review. But I have in the past, opted to appended a note stating it is unreviewed information, as it has shown up in places in this article. However the page is locked now.
What do you all think?
Spoonlesscorey ( talk) 21:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I think this controversial, but otherwise well-written preprint can be mentioned in the article in the paragraph starting with "It is unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 was genetically engineered"
205.175.106.163 ( talk) 00:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Came here for something else, but the first thing I see under "terminology" is "See also: Trump administration communication during the COVID-19 pandemic § Terminology" - wtf? The US really seems to be the center of the world for a lot of people here... Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#An_American_or_European_perspective_may_exist
37.209.66.137 ( talk) 08:02, 17 September 2020 (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. |
2403:6200:8813:AF44:489E:CEFD:7AE5:DD69 ( talk) 13:10, 27 September 2020 (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. |
I highly disagree that the introduction to SARS-CoV-2 should have ambiguity on the origins of the virus. Even in the WHO link the comment references, it states clearly bats are the origin, and high virus genome similarity. At this point, there is a plethora of evidence to confirm covid19 originated from bats/pangolins in wuhan, hubei (links below), and propagating any uncertainty is doing readers an injustice.
Quote directly from article - "There is no evidence yet to link an intermediate animal reservoir, such as a pangolin, to its introduction to humans.[21][22]"
Thanks - Elliot (Vanderbilt Neuroscience 2015 B.S. , Pfizer Vaccine Research & Development)
Sources for support of clear zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7405836/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7384689/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7260568/ Guitarguy180 ( talk) 20:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
It is believed to have zoonotic origins and has close genetic similarity to bat coronaviruses, suggesting it emerged from a bat-borne virus. Rather, the sentence in question was misworded. All the sources you've cited use intermediate host; none use intermediate reservoir. Those first source presents uncertainty regarding the identities of any intermediate hosts, most visibly in Fig 6. The second doesn't mention intermediate hosts but does say:
Of interest, the approximately 96% similarity of the SARS-CoV-2 at the whole-genome level to a bat coronavirus strongly suggests the latter as the point of origin,[Zhang et al 2020] although there is some controversy over this.[Cyranoski 2020]. The last paper:
Although it still remains unclear which animal is the intermediary host, it is well-known that bats are the main reservoirs for these types of virus and they probably emerged in one of the local wild-animal farms (Giri et al., 2020; Lorusso et al., 2020).Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 06:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Covid-19 virus news about transmission and reinfection was added recently to the main article - but later reverted - the added edit was as follows:
In October 2020, medical researchers concluded the Covid-19 virus can remain on common surfaces for up to 28 days. [1]
In October 2020, medical scientists reported, for the first time in the U.S. and fifth worldwide, confirming evidence of reinfection twice with the Covid-19 virus in the same person. [2] [3]
Question: Is the above edit worth re-adding to the main article (or some other related article) or not? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 12:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
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. |
Change the text "and the name HCoV-19 was included in some research articles" in the second paragraph of the Terminology section to "and some research articles also used the term 'human coronavirus 2019' (hCoV-19 or HCoV-19)" or equivalent. Kilopylae ( talk) 09:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't "It is believed to have zoonotic origins" which is found in the lead contradict with other sentences in the Reservoir and zoonotic origin section that say "The original source of viral transmission to humans remains unclear" and "research indicates that visitors may have introduced the virus to the market". - Shiftchange ( talk) 20:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The Virology section of the article mentions people "who tested positive for viral RNA". It would be useful to add some info about the methods used for the detection of the virus infection. -- Rprpr ( talk) 09:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
The 'Terminology' section makes no mention of the reasoning behind the naming of the disease.
I think the WHO's explanation for why they renamed it from SARS should be emphasised:
"From a risk communications perspective, using the name SARS can have unintended consequences in terms of creating unnecessary fear for some populations, especially in Asia which was worst affected by the SARS outbreak in 2003."
"For that reason and others, WHO has begun referring to the virus as “the virus responsible for COVID-19” or “the COVID-19 virus” when communicating with the public. Neither of these designations are intended as replacements for the official name of the virus as agreed by the ICTV."
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/naming-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-2019)-and-the-virus-that-causes-it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.191.240.200 ( talk) 09:48, 12 November 2020 (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 remove "There is no evidence yet to link an intermediate host, such as a pangolin, to its introduction to humans." from the introduction. Both of the sources are from February! We barely knew anything about this virus nine months ago (it had appeared only six weeks earlier), so anything dating from February is utterly unreliable for representing what we currently know about it.
Of course, if there are much newer sources saying the same thing, it would be all right to use them in place of the old sources, but that's a fix too complicated for this simple "please change X to Y" request. 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:2057:7B5D:2971:7529 ( talk) 13:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. Neither of those sources appears to have been retracted by their publishers. If you have a newer source with contradictory information, please provide it. We don't delete reliable sources just because they have aged. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 22:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Please fix the English in "there was significant genetic differences each SARS-CoV-2 variant between infections". Debresser ( talk) 12:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I think reference should be made to the work of virologist Jonathan Latham and geneticist Allison Wilson:
https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/the-case-is-building-that-covid-19-had-a-lab-origin/
https://bioscienceresource.org/a-proposed-origin-for-sars-cov-2-and-the-covid-19-pandemic/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.220.12 ( talk) 15:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
See also:
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202005.0322/v2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.220.12 ( talk) 15:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The final sentence currently reads: "Many recoveries from confirmed infections go unreported, but at least 38,717,768 people have recovered from confirmed infections."
I would argue that this perpetuates the idea that the 'recovery rate' means something interesting, whereas it is merely a very vague indicator of the age of the epidemic. Early on - most people 'ever confirmed to be infected' are 'still ill' - and it's really bound to go down over time, with all sorts of artefacts due to features of the data gathering system which have nothing to do with epidemiology per se. Nothing meaningful can be gleaned from tracking recovery rates, even though many govts and members of the press do so. As a final sentence it attracts special prominence, but I definitely recommend removing rather than moving somewhere else, where it would still be spurious. Alexwelte ( talk) 13:53, 26 November 2020 (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 earliest case of infection currently known is dated back to September 2019 in Italy/>
Unexpected detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the prepandemic period in Italy https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0300891620974755 24.113.11.216 ( talk) 18:34, 1 December 2020 (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. |
On 11 February 2020, the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses adopted the official name "severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" (SARS-CoV-2).[21] the above excerpt is not properly cited. the citation linked does not mention this anywhere. Mbsyl ( talk) 01:52, 10 December 2020 (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. |
Structural biology: Besides ACE-2 and TMPRSS2, neuropilin-1 (NRP1) is thought to be another SARS-CoV-2 infection mediator. NRP1 is a transmembrane receptor to which the viral spike protein is thought to bind after it is primed by cleavage at the furin-cleavage site. Cleavage by furin exposes a C-terminal motif (CendR) which binds to and activates NRP1 receptor leading to cell entry. NRP1-expressing cells are found in the central nervous system and in the respiratory and oropharyngeal epithelium, and they are thought to act as mediators of neurological manifestations seen in SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Common and Uncommon Symptoms:
Some of the common symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection are fever, cough and fatigue. Some of the less common symptoms include aches and pains, diarrhoea, conjunctivitis, headache, loss of taste and smell, skin rash, and discolouration of hands or toes. Some uncommon symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in children are Kawasaki disease, which causes inflammation of the blood vessels, toxic shock syndrome, which can lead to multiple organ failure and chilblain-like lesions on fingers and toes. Uncommon symptoms in young adults include thrombotic vascular events (blood clots), systemic inflammation, and various neurological complications such as meningitis, brain swelling, and inflammation of the spinal cord.
Post-recovery, uncommon symptoms after 95 days can include ringing in the ears, dramatic mood swings, unusual fatigue and other CNS related ailments.
Merlion2812 (
talk) 14:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
ReferenceCite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).:
Belouzard S, Millet JK, Licitra BN, Whittaker GR (2012) Mechanisms of coronavirus cell entry mediated by the viral spike protein. Viruses 4:1011–1033 .
https://doi.org/10.3390/v4061011
Cantuti-Castelvetri L, Ojha R, Pedro L, Djannatian M, Franz J, Kuivanen S, Kallio K, Kaya T, Anastasina M, Smura T, Levanov L, Szirovicza L, Tobi A, Kallio-Kokko H, Österlund P, Joensuu M, Meunier F, Butcher S, Winkler MS, Mollenhauer B, Helenius A, Gokce O, Teesalu T, Hepojoki J, Vapalahti O, Stadelmann C, Balistreri G, Simons M (2020a) Neuropilin-1 facilitates SARS-CoV-2 cell entry and provides a possible pathway into the central nervous system. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.07.137802
Cantuti-Castelvetri L, Ojha R, Pedro LD, Djannatian M, Franz J, Kuivanen S, van der Meer F, Kallio K, Kaya T, Anastasina M, Smura T, Levanov L, Szirovicza L, Tobi A, Kallio-Kokko H, Österlund P, Joensuu M, Meunier FA, Butcher SJ, Winkler MS, Mollenhauer B, Helenius A, Gokce O, Teesalu T, Hepojoki J, Vapalahti O, Stadelmann C, Balistreri G, Simons M (2020b) Neuropilin-1 facilitates SARS-CoV-2 cell entry and infectivity. Science 2985:1–9 . https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd2985
Davies J, Randeva HS, Chatha K, Hall M, Spandidos DA, Karteris E, Kyrou I (2020) Neuropilin‑1 as a new potential SARS‑CoV‑2 infection mediator implicated in the neurologic features and central nervous system involvement of COVID‑19. Mol Med Rep 22:4221–4226 . https://doi.org/10.3892/mmr.2020.11510 Decaro N, Lorusso A (2020) Novel human coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2): A lesson from animal coronaviruses. Vet Microbiol 244:108693 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2020.108693
Esakandari H, Nabi-afjadi M, Fakkari-afjadi J, Farahmandian N, Miresmaeili S, Bahreini E (2020) A comprehensive review of COVID-19 characteristics. 2:1–10Wrapp D, Wang N, Corbett KS, Goldsmith JA, Hsieh CL, Abiona O, Graham BS, McLellan JS (2020) Cryo-EM structure of the 2019-nCoV spike in the prefusion conformation. Science (80- ) 367:1260–1263 . https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax0902
Bozorgmehr K, Narayan L, Radhakrishna R (2020) Supplementary web appendix. Lancet 6736:19802008. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61514-6.WEB-ONLY
Bradley BT, Maioli H, Johnston R, Chaudhry I, Fink SL, Xu H, Najafian B, Deutsch G, Lacy JM, Williams T, Yarid N, Marshall DA (2020) Histopathology and ultrastructural findings of fatal COVID-19 infections in Washington State: a case series. Lancet 396:320–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31305-2
Ellul MA, Benjamin L, Singh B, Lant S, Michael BD, Easton A, Kneen R, Defres S, Sejvar J, Solomon T (2020) Neurological associations of COVID-19. Lancet Neurol 19:767–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/S14744422(20)30221-0
Guarneri C, Rullo EV, Pavone P, Berretta M, Ceccarelli M, Natale A, Nunnari G (2020) Silent COVID-19: what your skin can reveal. Lancet Infect Dis 2019:30402 . https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30402-3
Jiang L, Tang K, Levin M, Irfan O, Morris SK, Wilson K, Klein JD, Bhutta ZA (2020) COVID-19 and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children and adolescents. Lancet Infect Dis 3099. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099(20)30651-4
Jin JM, Bai P, He W, Wu F, Liu XF, Han DM, Liu S, Yang JK (2020) Gender Differences in Patients With COVID-19:Focus on Severity and Mortality. Front Public Heal 8:1–6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00152 Menni C, Sudre CH, Steves CJ, Ourselin S, Spector TD (2020) Quantifying additional COVID-19 symptoms will save lives. Lancet 395:e107–e108 . https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31281-2
2 Qiu H, Wu J, Hong L, Luo Y, Song Q, Chen D (2020) Clinical and epidemiological features of 36 children with
coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Zhejiang, China: an observational cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis 20:689–696. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30198-5
Tabata S, Imai K, Kawano S, Ikeda M, Kodama T, Miyoshi K, Obinata H, Mimura S, Kodera T, Kitagaki M, Sato M, Suzuki S, Ito T, Uwabe Y, Tamura K (2020) Clinical characteristics of COVID-19 in 104 people with SARSCoV-2 infection on the Diamond Princess cruise ship: a retrospective analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 20:10431050. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30482-5
WHO (2020) Q & A on coronaviruses. In: WHO Q&A coronaviruses.
Yang L, Tu L (2020) Implications of gastrointestinal manifestations of COVID-19. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 5:629–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(20)30132-1
Yelin D, Wirtheim E, Vetter P, Kalil AC, Bruchfeld J, Runold M, Guaraldi G, Mussini C, Gudiol C, Pujol M, Bandera A, Scudeller L, Paul M, Kaiser L, Leibovici L (2020) Long-term consequences of COVID-19: research needs. Lancet Infect Dis 3099:19–20. Merlion2812 ( talk) 14:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I've started Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variants, using the section from this article and the leads of the three main variant articles as a start. Please edit and expand. Fences& Windows 22:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
"Recently, new mutation of this virus was discovered called 501.V2 in South Africa. Scientists believe it causes more severe illness in younger patients and is thought to be more deadlier UK mutated strain. [32]"
The term mutation should be replaced by strand or variant and 501.V2 should link to the 501.V2 Variant. This paragraph could look something like this.
"SARS-CoV-2 has a relatively stable genome and most of its mutations are small and irrelevant. The large amount of active cases (over 20 million active cases as of December 2020) increases the opportunity for larger mutations. Two recent strains offer concerns to the scientific community, VUI – 202012/01 in South Africa and 501.V2 in the UK. Both strains appear to be significantly more contagious, but they do not appear to be more lethal and should be equally vulnerable to current vaccines."
nunocordeiro ( talk) 18:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Does anybody know the # of serotypes that COVID has? I googled and couldn't find a specific #. This sentence may also be relevant: The human immune system produces antibodies that target several regions of the spike protein, so it is thought to be unlikely that a single mutation would make vaccines less effective.
I think more information about COVID serotypes would be good info to include in the "Interaction with immune system" section of this article. –
Novem Linguae (
talk) 14:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200803105246.htm -=-=- 24.7.56.99 ( talk) 17:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey CatPath. I notice you deleted the section "interaction with immune system" today. FYI, bits and pieces from that section show up in 2 other articles: a sentence in Coronavirus disease_2019#Virology, and a paragraph in Variant of Concern 202012/01#Vaccine effectiveness.
You can choose to delete those too if you want. But I'd like to suggest replacing the text with something better instead of deleting it. Even if it's only one sentence.
Because when I first arrived at COVID articles, this was the kind of information I was looking for. I wanted to know the number of serotypes, how many antigens and antibodies there were, things that would help answer the question "does COVID mutate so much that a vaccine will soon be ineffective?" I think it'd be great for our readers if we can get something in there about that.
Thanks a lot. Looking forward to your feedback. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 19:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
What is the mass of a SARS-CoV-2 virion? Have there been any estimates of its global mass?
kencf0618 ( talk) 12:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Merlion2812's edit request last month mentioned host neuropilin-1 (NRP1) may be involved in viral entry and listed some sources. Are those sources WP:MEDRS? Cantuti-Castelvetri et al and Davies et al are the most relevant ones out of those Merlion2812 gave. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 03:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
SARS-CoV-2 may also use basigin to assist in cell entry (Wang et al 2020). Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 16:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
If conclusions are worth mentioning (such as large randomized clinical trials with surprising results), they should be described appropriately as from a single study. So the question is, how important are these investigations to mention, are they WP:FRINGE, and can we phrase them in a way that doesn't imply WP:UNDUE? I'd suggest a single sentence indicating targets of research without secondary sources confirming them (Basigin and NRP1) could be appropriate, but a simpler solution might be to only mention the seeming consensus position of TMPRSS2 and ACE2. Bakkster Man ( talk) 17:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@ CatPath: hello! The article uses a different reference formatting convention; see Help:LDR. I noticed you undid my edit to stick with LDR; do you plan to seek consensus to change the convention in this article? Cheers, Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 16:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11729122 explains this and gives sources for better images.Someone can check the copyright on them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.30.115 ( talk) 11:44, 11 January 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. |
change image2 = 2019-nCoV-CDC-23312 without background.png to image2 = SARS-CoV-2 (CDC-23312).png
Comment: The illustration is outdated; see CDC's webpage phil.cdc.gov/details.aspx?pid=23312. SARS-CoV-2 does not have hemagglutinin esterase proteins shown in the figure; see jaanajurvansuu.medium.com/spot-the-difference-in-sars-cov-2-98bfa0f4da9c. Jaana2021 ( talk) 12:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion on the lab leak theory of SARS-CoV-2 and some editors there have commented that it pertains more here in the virus entry, instead of the current location (the entry on the Wuhan Institute of Virology). Please take a look here, comments are welcome. Forich ( talk) 16:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The sentence on Epidemiology that I added is based on a report in an Italian daily newspaper and the British Journal of Dermatology which is ahead of print. Are edits supposed to be coming ONLY from systematic reviews? If not, the requirement of an authoritative biomedical source is met.
See my edit:
"A University of Milan study has found the virus in the skin tissue of a dermatosis patient, who was asymptomatic, in November 2019. [1]Cite error: A<ref>
tag is missing the closing</ref>
(see the help page). WHO had earlier claimed that this possibility was "unlikely". [2]"
References
The article does not address the important issue of isolation of SARSCOV2 properly. Did they separate the proposed virus from non-virus material or did they create a mixture of samples, cell culture and other materials and when the cells died claimed to have 'found the virus'? Which one is it? -- 105.8.4.53 ( talk) 12:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Could this statement in the article be clarified re. MOS:WEASEL? It is not made clear in any of the sources exactly what individuals or organizations are criticising him. Citation 41 refers to statements given by Michael J. Ryan (doctor) & Tedros Adhanom discouraging the use of the term "Chinese virus". The cited article contains no reference to Donald Trump outside of editorial analysis, which as a source is only reliable for statements directly attributed to the editor or author (see WP:RSEDITORIAL) [1] Meanwhile, citation 42 vaguely describes "Chinese complaints that he has created a negative stigma". [2] Citation 43 is of specific concern as it is incorrectly cited (not attributed to publisher ABC News), and as with 41, Trump is only referenced through editorial analysis and there are no attributed statements in the article that accuse him of what the headline subject suggests. [3] Once again, editorials as a source are only reliable for statements directly attributed to the editor or author ( WP:RSEDITORIAL).
I would have applied the " who?" tag but I am unfortunately relatively new to Wikipedia editing and the article is bluelocked for obvious reasons. I'd appreciate any feedback or opinions regarding this topic. (22:48 UTC, 30th March 2021)
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. |
change U.S. President to Former U.S. President 193.197.66.45 ( talk) 20:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Currently, the information about the reservoir and zoonotic origin is included as a subsection of "Virology". This is a limiting classification, given that:
For example, epidemiological, veterinary and zoological investigations, and forensic sampling are the disciplines that contribute the most to scientific understanding of zoonotic origins, which is supplemented by virology.
I propose that we create a new section called "Origin and evolutionary history" and that we migrate most if not all of the information currently located in the reservoir and zoonotic origin subsection. Forich ( talk) 10:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
why doesn't a discussion of reservoirs belong underneath a virology sub-heading, and what are examples of zoonotic ramifications which don't fit as part of virology? Ideally some example sources that the information you think should be added but doesn't fit the current article structure might be helpful for understanding the need for the structural change.
RE: Bakkster Man,
wikipedia already has some suggestions in the manual of style (WP:MEDORDER) that would be the first place I'd suggest looking for this kind of nominal structure.
Thanks for the wiki source, I was not aware of it and will read it before commenting further. Forich ( talk) 17:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
If we added an "Origin and evolutionary history" category (not under "Virology"?), would it just include the resevoir and zoonotic discussion, or would it envelop the "phylogenics and taxonomy" and "variants" sections?
If you do so, could I kindly ask you please check that the text accurately summarizes the sources and that the sources comply with WP:MEDRS? I've tried fixing both issues multiple times, but Asifwhale kept reverting despite talk page discussions. I have neither the time nor the inclination to edit war or fall afoul of the general sanctions
I propose we add this phrase: "Results from Chang et al. (2021) suggested that most of the population in Wuhan remained uninfected during the early outbreak of COVID-19. They also report an extremely low antibody prevalence among blood donors during the early phase of the outbreak in Shenzhen and Shijiazhuang.". Source here. Forich ( talk) 07:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
According to a MEDRS "the first known case of infection dates to 8 December 2019". Source: Hu et al. (2020). However, we currently say in the article that "The earliest case of infection currently known is dated to 1 December 2019, although an earlier case could have occurred on 17 November 2019.". But the source for this claim is not a MEDRS. I propose we stick to the Dec 8 date, as supported by the MEDRS Hu et al. (2020). Forich ( talk) 16:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
May I suggest two small edits to the first bullet under Variants: From: The Variant of Concern 202012/01 (VOC 202012/01) is believed to have emerged in the United Kingdom in September. To : The Variant of Concern 202012/01 (VOC 202012/01) was first detected in the United Kingdom in September 2020.
Reason: Change 1: due to the very high rate of testing in the United Kingdom new variants are more likely to be found. Change 2: add year after September to improve clarity.
Forgive me if I have transgressed any talk rules - this is only my second proposed edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by REDOUBTEDIT ( talk • contribs) 21:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
This variant is estimated to have first emerged in the UK during September 2020.So unless there's a citation to the contrary ( Lineage B.1.1.7#Detection has a few sentences to this effect, but cites news articles rather than WP:MEDRS secondary sources, might be a place to dig for something meaningful), I think "believed to have emerged" is accurate for this specific lineage. I've added the year after September, and cleaned up the references to the UK and South African detected variants. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
where r0 is essentially given, consider putting r0 in (r0) as appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:98A:4080:3680:EDBC:6F40:7E7:C9B7 ( talk) 23:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved, most participants in this discussion believe that the longer name is more in line with article titles policy, particularly consistency. ( non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 11:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 → SARS-CoV-2 – One year after the virus that cause COVID-19 was named and declare pandemic, it seems that more reliable sources, even for medical ones like BMC are more refer the virus aa shortened name rather than full name. I believe that there will be more opposer for that move because WP:MEDTITLE argument becaue IMO, the article's lead needs to retain the full name but article title will be moved to shortened name. 114.125.47.159 ( talk) 04:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
sufficient information to identify the topic(see example given: State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations → Rhode Island, not SoRIaPP or RI). While the "COVID" in COVID-19 is unambiguous (per WP:ACROTITLE), "SARS" is not. [9] While this direct topic didn't come up in a short move discussion last year, [10] I would propose that the use of a title beginning the ambiguous acronym SARS would be worth avoiding across all related pages. Particularly given consistency with other virus article titles. If sufficient examples of virus article titles using acronyms (especially if beginning with shared acronyms), I could be persuaded to change my vote. Bakkster Man ( talk) 17:29, 12 March 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, change the virusbox Jaana2021 ( talk) 13:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Mathglot, I see that you manually undid work I did yesterday to fix transclusion problems in this article. The COVID-19 Pandemic article transcludes several sections from this article. Transcluded content sometimes includes references. Since the transclusion includes only the targeted section, that section must be self-conained. More specifically, it must contain the reference definitions it uses and the references can't be elsewhere in the article or in the {{ references}} tag itself.
When you reverted my fixes, you re-introduced visible "undefined reference errors" to the COVID-19 Pandemic artilce. You might have damaged other articles, as well.
It's not clear to me what your goal is in moving the reference definitions to the {{ references}} tag. If it's absolutely necessary, another solution must be found in order to keep the transcluding articles intact. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 12:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi All, per Diannaa's request, a quick note that I copied a number of paragraphs and research here into the article Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. That copying was later transformed by more competent editors into transclusion (if that's the right term?). My goal was to ensure that readers eager to learn about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 would be actually informed about the state of current scientific understanding — and thanks to your hard work here, I think they now will be. Cheers, - Darouet ( talk) 13:06, 26 March 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. |
change U.S. President to Former U.S. President 193.197.66.45 ( talk) 20:42, 12 April 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. |
Reservoir and zoonotic origin: "A March 2021 WHO report on a joint WHO-China study stated stated that human spillover...". Please change "stated stated" to "stated".
I would also suggest to remove the unused IJID-interm-host entry from the ref list. The currently used one WHO_GlobalOrigin_China seems way more updated: relevant diff. Alternatively just comment it out for eventual future use. This relates to the same section, a couple of paragraphs lower. Personuser ( talk) 23:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
"The general public often calls both the virus and the disease it causes, "coronavirus"."
Could the term "COVID" also be mentioned here? I have heard and seen the term COVID be used more than "coronavirus" nowadays..-- HighlyLogicalVulcan ( talk) 13:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
This article is about the virus that causes COVID-19.I'm not sure we need more than that on this page. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Also colloquially known simply as the coronavirus...Get's across that it's a colloquial name, makes it clear it's an alternative rather than the primary, and corrects the name bolding to include 'the'. Bakkster Man ( talk) 13:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I thank all of the reasonable and hard-working editors who have been meticulously updating this extremely important article, which is well-structured and well-written, and its related companion articles. Acwilson9 ( talk) 08:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I came upon Frutos, Roger; Gavotte, Laurent; Devaux, Christian A. (18 March 2021). "Understanding the origin of COVID-19 requires to change the paradigm on zoonotic emergence from the spillover model to the viral circulation model". Infection, Genetics and Evolution. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2021.104812. ISSN 1567-1348. while looking for something else. After making an overview of existing hypotheses (they do mention "A parallel ‘digital pandemic’ (overcommunication on more or less probable ‘scientific hypothesis’) developed on social networks, bringing opinions and conspiracy theories, generating anxiety and irrational behavior."), the authors propose not a zoonotic spillover (as is the current consensus) but instead a "circulation model" where the virus did not suddenly jump but might have already been circulating for a while. It is a review from a reputable MEDLINE-indexed journal. Does anybody know of other papers which mention this? I'd include it as is but due to the fact it is the only paper I have found so far that would make this a minority position so possibly UNDUE. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)Please help to reconcile the contradictory claims documented at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Origins of SARS-CoV-2. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:19, 12 May 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 introductory section, the second to last sentence is outdated and potentially spreads dangerous misinformation: "The virus primarily spreads between people through close contact and via respiratory droplets produced from coughs or sneezes. [1] [2]"
The references cited here are from January and February 2020, and are out of date. We now know that SARS-COV-2 is spread primarily via aerosols, not the kinds of droplets produced by coughing or sneezing. See the updated CDC guidance from May 2021: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covid-spreads.html; and the updated WHO guidance: https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-how-is-it-transmitted. At the very least, the sentence should be updated to be more inclusive of the ways that it spreads, something like:
"The virus primarily spreads between people through close contact and via aerosols produced when talking or breathing, and to a lesser extent from respiratory droplets generated from coughs or sneezes." 130.154.3.250 ( talk) 13:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
The virus primarily spreads between people through close contact and via aerosols and respiratory droplets that are exhaled when talking, breathing, or otherwise exhaling, as well as those produced from coughs or sneezes.Thanks for catching that outdated info, by the way. Hyperion35 ( talk) 13:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Per WP: MOS:
Dates, years, and other chronological items should be linked only when they are relevant to the subject and likely to be useful to a reader
. This phrase
By 22 January 2020, a group in China working with the full virus genome and a group in the United States using reverse genetics methods independently and experimentally demonstrated that ACE2 could act as the receptor for SARS‑CoV‑2
can be replaced with "By January 2020..." with no loss of specificity for the reader. The addition of the exact day (or hour) adds very little information. Perhaps it was informative at the time it was edited for the first time and events were developing fast but, now, more than a year later, having the date "22 January" for this non-chronological piece of information looks overkill to me and interrupts the flow of readability. Pinging @ Hyperion35: who reverted this edit. Forich ( talk) 20:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
The opening of the article currently lists an estimated base reproduction of around 3, but later sections of the article cite a much higher number. 135.180.132.137 ( talk) 04:52, 23 May 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 replace
The [[basic reproduction number]] (<math>R_0</math>) of the virus has been estimated to be around 5.7.<ref name="high contagiousness" /> This means each infection from the virus is expected to result in 5.7 new infections when no members of the community are [[immunity (medical)|immune]] and no [[infection control|preventive measures]] are taken.
with
A meta-analisis from november 2020 estimated the [[basic reproduction number]] (<math>R_0</math>) of the virus to be between 2.39 and 3.44.<ref name="reproNumber"/> This means each infection from the virus is expected to result in 2.39 to 3.44 new infections when no members of the community are [[immunity (medical)|immune]] and no [[infection control|preventive measures]] are taken.
and
<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Billah MA, Miah MM, Khan MN | title = Reproductive number of coronavirus: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on global level evidence | journal = PLOS ONE | volume = 15 | issue = 11 | pages = e0242128 | date = 2020-11-11 | pmid = 33175914 | pmc = 7657547 | doi = 10.1371/journal.pone.0242128 | bibcode = 2020PLoSO..1542128B }}</ref>
with
<ref name="reproNumber">{{cite journal | vauthors = Billah MA, Miah MM, Khan MN | title = Reproductive number of coronavirus: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on global level evidence | journal = PLOS ONE | volume = 15 | issue = 11 | pages = e0242128 | date = 2020-11-11 | pmid = 33175914 | pmc = 7657547 | doi = 10.1371/journal.pone.0242128 | bibcode = 2020PLoSO..1542128B }}</ref>
per Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Conflicting_R0_estimates. While it seems reasonable to point out how these estimates may change, the Transmission_of_COVID-19 article covers their history using the same refs and, while it's true that this number has been estimated to 5.7, using two different numbers in different parts of this article seems just confusing. The ref name is debatable and I couldn't check if the syntax really works. Personuser ( talk) 03:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Lab Leak Again -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:53, 24 May 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. |
Change "Use Commonwealth English" to "EngvarB" per tfd outcome Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#To_convert 81.2.252.231 ( talk) 03:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Please join this broad discussion on how we discuss and explain COVID origins. Bakkster Man ( talk) 18:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Informal hatting: as I began the below discussion without enough knowledge of the relevant policies, the discussion grew too long and complicated to be of much use. Please join the better-structured discussion over at WikiProject COVID-19. SSSheridan ( talk) 20:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't have my 500 edits yet, so I'm here to suggest some citations to use at the [citation needed] around the laboratory-leak hypothesis.
I'm not here to debate the origins of the virus, just to try to improve the quality of a couple of sentences, so please bear with me without biting my head off. I think we can all agree that the article would be improved if the following sentence gets its citation:
Now, this sentence is combining two different things: 1) claims by virologists that the virus likely leaked from the Institute, and 2) calls for further investigations into the matter. The former is indeed restricted to a minority of virologists; but the latter has been called for by the WHO Director-General (Tedros):
Given this, the above-quoted sentence should be divided in two: 1) a small number of virologists have supported the laboratory leak hypothesis, and 2) some, including the WHO Director-General, have called for more extensive investigations into the possibility of a laboratory leak origin.
For (1), the few scientists who have supported the laboratory leak hypothesis, I suggest the following citations:
To be clear: I'm aware that this is not peer-reviewed science. I am aware that Nicholas Wade and Robert Redfield have had some unsavory views. But we're just looking for a citation about "some scientists supporting the laboratory leak hypothesis."
Now, for (2): some have called for further investigation into the laboratory leak possibility:
Primary sources of calls for further investigation:
Secondary sources covering the above calls:
Given all of the above, I propose the following replacement:
to
My apologies if this draft sounds too pro-lab-leak; I have attempted to simply write a version which tells the bare facts. You (the more experienced editors) are obviously welcome to edit as appropriate. SSSheridan ( talk) 20:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I am concerned that "expressed dissatisfactoon with the extent of the assessment" makes it sound as though he disagrees with the conclusion that a lab leak was unlikely. It was my understanding that Tedros agrees with the conclusion that a leak was "extremely unlikely", he was simply calling for more investigation. As you say, it is important to distinguish beteeen those ideas. Hyperion35 ( talk) 20:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
The current wording does not reflect that change, unless SSSheridan can give a specific example. Bakkster Man ( talk) 13:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I welcome your report, which advances our understanding in important ways. It also raises further questions that will need to be addressed by further studies, as the team itself notes in the report.I'd actually argue the opposite, that Tedros was being savvy in criticizing China's lack of openness for being unable to rule out this possibility. Or, to be more specific here, the Tedros comment doesn't change that the natural origin is considered the most likely explanation by the mainstream.
To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.So we've already cleared that second bar, this is a view that early this year was not considered significant enough ('a tiny minority') to even mention on the article, and now it is. So it's a finer question of how we word it so as not to make it appear more prominent than it is. IMO we mostly do this well, by placing it as the contrarian opinion to the mainstream.
the certainty with which it has been rejected is quite galling to my old-fashioned Popperian sense of scientific (un)certainty. So, there's two responses to this. One is that our own instincts don't matter, that we only report the sources, followed by an alphabet soup of Wikilawyering. This is probably the correct response, however to answer your actual question with a real response, public health is complicated, orders of magnitude more complicated than just prscticing medicine, which is also incredibly complicated. It is easy for intuition to lead you astray, especially in the absence of important underlying facts (this is why critical thinking alone is insufficient). I can see how some people look at this and wonder why the scientific community has been so insistent that a zoonotic event is the most likely origin, but this is because we have been predicting that this would happen, based on prior events and multiple lines of evidence, for decades. A lab leak, by contrast, really is an extraordinary claim as compared to a bat coronavirus jumping to humans in the wild, via an intermediate mammal, resulting in a deadly outbreak, for the third time in the past 20 years. Hyperion35 ( talk) 14:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
"A few individuals, including a small number of virologists, have claimed, with only circumstantial evidence, that the virus may have leaked from the Institute, and called for further investigations into the matter.[93][94] Most virologists who have studied coronaviruses consider the possibility very remote,[95][96] and the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO-China study stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely".[97][75]"
|
Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.I suspect this may be the disconnect we're having in the above discussion. The more directly related policy is WP:FRINGE, regarding how we deal with non-mainstream topics. Particularly WP:FRINGELEVEL:
Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball: While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community (e.g., plate tectonics), it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections. If the status of a given idea changes, then Wikipedia changes to reflect that change. Wikipedia primarily focuses on the state of knowledge today, documenting the past when appropriate (identifying it as such), and avoiding speculation about the future.At the moment the lab leak theory, as best we can source ( WP:V), is the minority view. So for now, we take the view that the information we present must be framed relative to the mainstream view, and kept to a level that doesn't imply WP:UNDUE weight by being more wordy than the explanation of the mainstream. And, if and when we can verify that it's no longer the minority view, we will change how we write about it (just as we began to as the WHO report was published).
While I tend to weight the evidence differently, I think it's a pretty rational conclusion for someone to come to: I (and my inner Popper) am a bit embarrassed that I gave the impression of having "concluded" anything. I have no idea! And I'm not just saying "I have no idea" to try to sound moderate. My only opinion here is that the lab leak hypothesis is not whacky, is a significant minority opinion backed by non-fringe sources, and that the current wording still frames it as though it is a conspiracy theory of ill repute.
Even if you convince me the lab leak is the most reasonable and likely explanation, that's insufficient to put it in the article.But I wasn't trying to convince anyone. I realize that the name check, asking about the interpretation of primary sources, was misleading. I wrote the name check in a peak of self-doubt: the simplest explanation for the disparity between what I was reading and how it was being discussed here was, simply, that I was badly misunderstanding things. The name check was a genuine invitation to set me right.
Informal hatting: as I began the above discussion without enough knowledge of the relevant policies, the discussion grew too long and complicated to be of much use. Please join the better-structured discussion over at WikiProject COVID-19. SSSheridan ( talk) 20:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
At Shi Zhengli, IPs and editors are inserting [15] [16] the comment that Zhi Zhengli "admitted" that coronavirus research at the WIV had been conducted in BSL-2 labs during an interview with Science Magazine. The implication is that poor safety by Shi or the WIV may have caused the outbreak. This inserted text is taken from a new article [17] written in the The Washington Post that uses almost identical language:
In the interview, she admitted that some coronavirus research was conducted at biosafety level 2, not the more restrictive BSL-4.
However, if you go to the original Science Magazine interview [18] including the extended interview from which the Washington Post quotes [19], you can see that what Shi (and Science Magazine) say is quite different: far from "admitting" that the WIV uses BSL-2 labs, Shi explains why her group now uses BSL-4 labs for their work:
Q: Given that coronavirus research in most places is done in BSL-2 or BSL-3 labs--and indeed, you WIV didn't even have an operational BSL-4 until recently--why would you do any coronavirus experiments under BSL-4 conditions?
A: The coronavirus research in our laboratory is conducted in BSL-2 or BSL-3 laboratories.
After the BSL-4 laboratory in our institute has been put into operation, in accordance with the management regulations of BSL-4 laboratory, we have trained the scientific researchers in the BSL-4 laboratory using the low-pathogenic coronaviruses as model viruses, which aims to prepare for conducting the experimental activities of highly pathogenic microorganisms.
After the COVID-19 outbreak, our country has stipulated that the cultivation and the animal infection experiments of SARS-CoV-2 should be carried out in BSL-3 laboratory or above. Since the BSL-3 laboratories in our institute do not have the hardware conditions to conduct experiments on non-human primates, and in order to carry out the mentioned research, our institute had applied to the governmental authorities and obtained the qualification to conduct experiments on SARS-CoV-2 for Wuhan P4 laboratory, in which the rhesus monkey animal model, etc. have been carried out.
I've tried to make this clear in this edit [20], but I want to make sure I'm getting this right. It seems that Shi's group used to use BSL-2 and BSL-3 like everyone else, but since the pandemic, as of July 31 at least, her group was now using BSL-4 for some coronavirus research because of new regulations drafted by the Chinese government, after the start of the pandemic. Am I reading this correctly? - Darouet ( talk) 06:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
it's unfair to label all lab-leak scenarios as "conspiracy theories"} ← and this is happening where? Alexbrn ( talk) 10:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Also, it sounds from the article interview as though SARS-COV-2 still only requires BSL 3 even after the pandemic, which would imply that the lab has always had sufficient (BSL 3) protocols for handling this virus.
But you see the problems here, right? Even this much requires us to interpret and synthesize from this interview, and that's not appropriate. This is exactly why some of us have repeatedly insisted on the MEDRS standard so that we can avoid these situations where we either quote from a newspaper source that clearly misrepresented an interview, or we try to interpret an ambiguous response to an interview question ourselves. Hyperion35 ( talk) 13:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
@ Symphony Regalia: Is it really necessary to cite "Wuhan" three times in the opening sentence? Why the insistence? I think this does not improve the article.
How everyone feels about this?
Cheers,
Feelthhis ( talk) 03:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Symphony Regalia is a POV pushing time waster who loves to WP:BLUDGEON discussions, and who has been blocked twice for wasting everyone's time, there's no point engaging with him. His behaviour borders on being worthy of a topic ban. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I do not envy those who have to balance accurate reflection of consensus and page stability. Considering the situation so far, what do you think we should do next, Feelthhis? Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 20:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Feelthhis. Wuhan is mentioned because the virus originated in Wuhan, and because several names of the virus have Wuhan in it. If you're referring to attempts to censor the name Wuhan virus, then it is necessary that it remain, because it was and still is used in a wide variety of reliable sources. Even if it were never used again, it was used in so widely in RS means that it would be unencyclopedic to remove it. Note that Wikipedia is not censored: Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. Symphony Regalia ( talk) 09:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Since we're discussing location-based name-related edits, I've undone Special:Diff/957712550 and returned a wikilink to "Terminology" from "See also". Unlike the film, the wikilink only applies to "Terminology", not the article more broadly. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 16:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
During the initial outbreak in Wuhan, China, the virus was commonly referred to as the "coronavirus" or "Wuhan coronavirus",[28][29][30] or "Wuhan virus".[31][32]and b)
The general public often call both SARS-CoV-2 and the disease it causes "coronavirus".Are you absolutely decided that you are not letting go your POV? I don't want to edit war with you. If your answer is yes, then I'll ask for help for dispute resolution, is that ok with you? (ps: ref [32] does not use "Wuhan virus", it uses "2019-nCoV virus").
During the initial outbreak in Wuhan, China, the virus was commonly referred to as "coronavirus" or "Wuhan coronavirus"[25][26][27].and b)
The general public often call "coronavirus" both the virus and the disease it causes.
"… (COVID-19), a respiratory illness …"
If I understand correctly, the disease is no longer so narrowly defined; there may be illnesses that are not respiratory.
Grahamperrin ( talk) 06:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
There have been media reports ( Newsweek, NY Times) on a few papers ( Scripps, Cell) talking about if the G614 mutation (referred to in the media as European strain/clade or Italian strain) makes it up to ten times more transmissible than D614 (Chinese strain, Wuhan strain), or if the observed transmission differences are largely due to the differing epidemiological responses. Could somebody who knows what they are talking about add this to the section on mutations? - Featous ( talk) 14:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
In this phrase "Bats were initially considered to be the most likely natural reservoir of SARS-CoV-2, but differences between the bat coronavirus sampled at the time and SARS-CoV-2 suggested that humans were infected via an intermediate host." there is a non sequitur because the premise being true (bats are the natural reservoir) and the conclusion (humans were infected via an intermediate host) are not mutually excludable. In other words, we can not say "BUT there is an intermediate host" following "Bats are the natural reservoir", because the BUT seems to negate the premise. Forich ( talk) 16:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
A natural reservoir and intermediate host are different. What they are implying is that there is a suspicion that it went from bats (res host) to pangolin (intermediate), then to humans. Do not confuse the vocabulary. In another circumstance, there may not even be an intermediate (direct transmission from reservoir host). Asifwhale ( talk) 01:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I think it makes sense. Bats were the initial candidate. But. There could be an intermediary. Asifwhale ( talk) 02:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The "source of the spillover" has not been 100% identified yet. Asifwhale ( talk) 02:57, 12 July 2020 (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. |
There is an assertion that the particle size of SARS-CoV-2 virions are between "50-200nm" in diameter, however, the cited article for this information cites another article, and no claims as to the size of the virion are made in this tertiary source. I suggest finding another source for this information that directly states through the research it is presenting the size of the SARS-CoV-2 virion. Mircobiofred ( talk) 17:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
~ Amkgp
💬 10:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Perhaps mention that some
look quite like
(much closer than
etc.)
See also https://www.newcastleherald.com.au/story/6754383/the-fruit-that-looks-like-coronavirus/
Jidanni ( talk) 09:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps such models from nature would be useful in schools in developing countries, where there are no audio visual materials, but plenty of such trees. Jidanni ( talk) 00:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the bottom of the section "Infection and transmission", there is an incorrectly capitalised instance of COVID-19 (i.e. only the C is capitalised, as if it were a word and not an acronym). Please can this be corrected? DesertPipeline ( talk) 04:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
US President Donald Trump has also referred to COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 as "Kung Flu", which is also worth documenting, as there is already a sentence relating to Donald Trump's naming of SARS-CoV-2.He has also referred to it as the "China virus" as well.
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19 § Very general taking stock of our COVID-19 coverage so far. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 07:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
This recent paper in a pretty solid journal: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202000091
...makes the case that serial passage in a lab should be considered a viable pathway of emergence since it mimics the same molecular processes that occur out in the wild when a virus jumps species. So if a virus can "accidentally" jump species in nature, of course they can be guided to jump species in a lab. Which this paper explains has been done a bunch with flu viruses, making them much more virulent, and leading to a ban on this kind of "gain-of-function" research. But that ban was lifted in 2017, and now virologists seem to be ignoring serial passage as a possible source for the virus, maybe since there's so much funding tied up in it. And of course viruses can leak out of labs, that's been a constant issue since work with them started basically.
Harvard2TheBigHouse ( talk) 11:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Karlsirot ( talk) 21:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Our policies on this are clear. As a primary study, this paper is not acceptable as a source. Whether or not the findings are credible, incredible or fringe is irrelevant. Until there are secondary sources, which I doubt will emerge, this paper should be ignored. With regard to the comment "anonymous editors with no demonstrated scientific pedigree whatsoever", that's just rude. We don't require our volunteers to be qualified in anything; we expect them to become familiar with our guidelines and policies, and be nice to one another. Graham Beards ( talk) 08:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Karlsirot ( talk) 18:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
"Progenitor virus in a lab, or from bats infecting a commercial mink farm", then concluding: "more evidence is required before a conclusive judgement can be made one way or the other". I don't see how such speculative paper is WP:DUE for anything at this point.The above
This is Wikipedia, not the "letters" page of Natureis also very relevant in relation to
I thought Wikipedia was a place for unbiased truth: Wikipedia is only the place to make a summary of mainstream knowledge. It does not serve its purposes to promote unnecessary uncertainty about the origin until there is solid evidence for that and that reliable sources have widely reported about it. — Paleo Neonate – 07:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
In the summary as well as later in the article there is mention of a July 3rd, 2020 research paper that claims to link major genetic risk factor for human infection with SARS-CoV-2 was inherited from archaic Neanderthals 60,000 years ago. This paper is cited as a source: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.03.186296v1 . There is a bright yellow banner at the top of the cited page that clearly states "these are preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed. They should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or be reported in news media as established information." Yet this page (along with many news articles) are using language that heavily implies these are conclusive findings. Until this paper has passed peer review, this information should at the very least be clearly noted as unreviewed and/or preliminary, and not presented as definitive information.
I really don't think it even belongs here until it has gone through review. But I have in the past, opted to appended a note stating it is unreviewed information, as it has shown up in places in this article. However the page is locked now.
What do you all think?
Spoonlesscorey ( talk) 21:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I think this controversial, but otherwise well-written preprint can be mentioned in the article in the paragraph starting with "It is unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 was genetically engineered"
205.175.106.163 ( talk) 00:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Came here for something else, but the first thing I see under "terminology" is "See also: Trump administration communication during the COVID-19 pandemic § Terminology" - wtf? The US really seems to be the center of the world for a lot of people here... Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#An_American_or_European_perspective_may_exist
37.209.66.137 ( talk) 08:02, 17 September 2020 (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. |
2403:6200:8813:AF44:489E:CEFD:7AE5:DD69 ( talk) 13:10, 27 September 2020 (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. |
I highly disagree that the introduction to SARS-CoV-2 should have ambiguity on the origins of the virus. Even in the WHO link the comment references, it states clearly bats are the origin, and high virus genome similarity. At this point, there is a plethora of evidence to confirm covid19 originated from bats/pangolins in wuhan, hubei (links below), and propagating any uncertainty is doing readers an injustice.
Quote directly from article - "There is no evidence yet to link an intermediate animal reservoir, such as a pangolin, to its introduction to humans.[21][22]"
Thanks - Elliot (Vanderbilt Neuroscience 2015 B.S. , Pfizer Vaccine Research & Development)
Sources for support of clear zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7405836/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7384689/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7260568/ Guitarguy180 ( talk) 20:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
It is believed to have zoonotic origins and has close genetic similarity to bat coronaviruses, suggesting it emerged from a bat-borne virus. Rather, the sentence in question was misworded. All the sources you've cited use intermediate host; none use intermediate reservoir. Those first source presents uncertainty regarding the identities of any intermediate hosts, most visibly in Fig 6. The second doesn't mention intermediate hosts but does say:
Of interest, the approximately 96% similarity of the SARS-CoV-2 at the whole-genome level to a bat coronavirus strongly suggests the latter as the point of origin,[Zhang et al 2020] although there is some controversy over this.[Cyranoski 2020]. The last paper:
Although it still remains unclear which animal is the intermediary host, it is well-known that bats are the main reservoirs for these types of virus and they probably emerged in one of the local wild-animal farms (Giri et al., 2020; Lorusso et al., 2020).Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 06:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Covid-19 virus news about transmission and reinfection was added recently to the main article - but later reverted - the added edit was as follows:
In October 2020, medical researchers concluded the Covid-19 virus can remain on common surfaces for up to 28 days. [1]
In October 2020, medical scientists reported, for the first time in the U.S. and fifth worldwide, confirming evidence of reinfection twice with the Covid-19 virus in the same person. [2] [3]
Question: Is the above edit worth re-adding to the main article (or some other related article) or not? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 12:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
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. |
Change the text "and the name HCoV-19 was included in some research articles" in the second paragraph of the Terminology section to "and some research articles also used the term 'human coronavirus 2019' (hCoV-19 or HCoV-19)" or equivalent. Kilopylae ( talk) 09:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't "It is believed to have zoonotic origins" which is found in the lead contradict with other sentences in the Reservoir and zoonotic origin section that say "The original source of viral transmission to humans remains unclear" and "research indicates that visitors may have introduced the virus to the market". - Shiftchange ( talk) 20:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The Virology section of the article mentions people "who tested positive for viral RNA". It would be useful to add some info about the methods used for the detection of the virus infection. -- Rprpr ( talk) 09:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
The 'Terminology' section makes no mention of the reasoning behind the naming of the disease.
I think the WHO's explanation for why they renamed it from SARS should be emphasised:
"From a risk communications perspective, using the name SARS can have unintended consequences in terms of creating unnecessary fear for some populations, especially in Asia which was worst affected by the SARS outbreak in 2003."
"For that reason and others, WHO has begun referring to the virus as “the virus responsible for COVID-19” or “the COVID-19 virus” when communicating with the public. Neither of these designations are intended as replacements for the official name of the virus as agreed by the ICTV."
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/naming-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-2019)-and-the-virus-that-causes-it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.191.240.200 ( talk) 09:48, 12 November 2020 (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 remove "There is no evidence yet to link an intermediate host, such as a pangolin, to its introduction to humans." from the introduction. Both of the sources are from February! We barely knew anything about this virus nine months ago (it had appeared only six weeks earlier), so anything dating from February is utterly unreliable for representing what we currently know about it.
Of course, if there are much newer sources saying the same thing, it would be all right to use them in place of the old sources, but that's a fix too complicated for this simple "please change X to Y" request. 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:2057:7B5D:2971:7529 ( talk) 13:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. Neither of those sources appears to have been retracted by their publishers. If you have a newer source with contradictory information, please provide it. We don't delete reliable sources just because they have aged. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 22:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Please fix the English in "there was significant genetic differences each SARS-CoV-2 variant between infections". Debresser ( talk) 12:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I think reference should be made to the work of virologist Jonathan Latham and geneticist Allison Wilson:
https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/the-case-is-building-that-covid-19-had-a-lab-origin/
https://bioscienceresource.org/a-proposed-origin-for-sars-cov-2-and-the-covid-19-pandemic/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.220.12 ( talk) 15:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
See also:
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202005.0322/v2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.220.12 ( talk) 15:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The final sentence currently reads: "Many recoveries from confirmed infections go unreported, but at least 38,717,768 people have recovered from confirmed infections."
I would argue that this perpetuates the idea that the 'recovery rate' means something interesting, whereas it is merely a very vague indicator of the age of the epidemic. Early on - most people 'ever confirmed to be infected' are 'still ill' - and it's really bound to go down over time, with all sorts of artefacts due to features of the data gathering system which have nothing to do with epidemiology per se. Nothing meaningful can be gleaned from tracking recovery rates, even though many govts and members of the press do so. As a final sentence it attracts special prominence, but I definitely recommend removing rather than moving somewhere else, where it would still be spurious. Alexwelte ( talk) 13:53, 26 November 2020 (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 earliest case of infection currently known is dated back to September 2019 in Italy/>
Unexpected detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the prepandemic period in Italy https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0300891620974755 24.113.11.216 ( talk) 18:34, 1 December 2020 (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. |
On 11 February 2020, the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses adopted the official name "severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" (SARS-CoV-2).[21] the above excerpt is not properly cited. the citation linked does not mention this anywhere. Mbsyl ( talk) 01:52, 10 December 2020 (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. |
Structural biology: Besides ACE-2 and TMPRSS2, neuropilin-1 (NRP1) is thought to be another SARS-CoV-2 infection mediator. NRP1 is a transmembrane receptor to which the viral spike protein is thought to bind after it is primed by cleavage at the furin-cleavage site. Cleavage by furin exposes a C-terminal motif (CendR) which binds to and activates NRP1 receptor leading to cell entry. NRP1-expressing cells are found in the central nervous system and in the respiratory and oropharyngeal epithelium, and they are thought to act as mediators of neurological manifestations seen in SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Common and Uncommon Symptoms:
Some of the common symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection are fever, cough and fatigue. Some of the less common symptoms include aches and pains, diarrhoea, conjunctivitis, headache, loss of taste and smell, skin rash, and discolouration of hands or toes. Some uncommon symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in children are Kawasaki disease, which causes inflammation of the blood vessels, toxic shock syndrome, which can lead to multiple organ failure and chilblain-like lesions on fingers and toes. Uncommon symptoms in young adults include thrombotic vascular events (blood clots), systemic inflammation, and various neurological complications such as meningitis, brain swelling, and inflammation of the spinal cord.
Post-recovery, uncommon symptoms after 95 days can include ringing in the ears, dramatic mood swings, unusual fatigue and other CNS related ailments.
Merlion2812 (
talk) 14:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
ReferenceCite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).:
Belouzard S, Millet JK, Licitra BN, Whittaker GR (2012) Mechanisms of coronavirus cell entry mediated by the viral spike protein. Viruses 4:1011–1033 .
https://doi.org/10.3390/v4061011
Cantuti-Castelvetri L, Ojha R, Pedro L, Djannatian M, Franz J, Kuivanen S, Kallio K, Kaya T, Anastasina M, Smura T, Levanov L, Szirovicza L, Tobi A, Kallio-Kokko H, Österlund P, Joensuu M, Meunier F, Butcher S, Winkler MS, Mollenhauer B, Helenius A, Gokce O, Teesalu T, Hepojoki J, Vapalahti O, Stadelmann C, Balistreri G, Simons M (2020a) Neuropilin-1 facilitates SARS-CoV-2 cell entry and provides a possible pathway into the central nervous system. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.07.137802
Cantuti-Castelvetri L, Ojha R, Pedro LD, Djannatian M, Franz J, Kuivanen S, van der Meer F, Kallio K, Kaya T, Anastasina M, Smura T, Levanov L, Szirovicza L, Tobi A, Kallio-Kokko H, Österlund P, Joensuu M, Meunier FA, Butcher SJ, Winkler MS, Mollenhauer B, Helenius A, Gokce O, Teesalu T, Hepojoki J, Vapalahti O, Stadelmann C, Balistreri G, Simons M (2020b) Neuropilin-1 facilitates SARS-CoV-2 cell entry and infectivity. Science 2985:1–9 . https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd2985
Davies J, Randeva HS, Chatha K, Hall M, Spandidos DA, Karteris E, Kyrou I (2020) Neuropilin‑1 as a new potential SARS‑CoV‑2 infection mediator implicated in the neurologic features and central nervous system involvement of COVID‑19. Mol Med Rep 22:4221–4226 . https://doi.org/10.3892/mmr.2020.11510 Decaro N, Lorusso A (2020) Novel human coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2): A lesson from animal coronaviruses. Vet Microbiol 244:108693 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2020.108693
Esakandari H, Nabi-afjadi M, Fakkari-afjadi J, Farahmandian N, Miresmaeili S, Bahreini E (2020) A comprehensive review of COVID-19 characteristics. 2:1–10Wrapp D, Wang N, Corbett KS, Goldsmith JA, Hsieh CL, Abiona O, Graham BS, McLellan JS (2020) Cryo-EM structure of the 2019-nCoV spike in the prefusion conformation. Science (80- ) 367:1260–1263 . https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax0902
Bozorgmehr K, Narayan L, Radhakrishna R (2020) Supplementary web appendix. Lancet 6736:19802008. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61514-6.WEB-ONLY
Bradley BT, Maioli H, Johnston R, Chaudhry I, Fink SL, Xu H, Najafian B, Deutsch G, Lacy JM, Williams T, Yarid N, Marshall DA (2020) Histopathology and ultrastructural findings of fatal COVID-19 infections in Washington State: a case series. Lancet 396:320–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31305-2
Ellul MA, Benjamin L, Singh B, Lant S, Michael BD, Easton A, Kneen R, Defres S, Sejvar J, Solomon T (2020) Neurological associations of COVID-19. Lancet Neurol 19:767–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/S14744422(20)30221-0
Guarneri C, Rullo EV, Pavone P, Berretta M, Ceccarelli M, Natale A, Nunnari G (2020) Silent COVID-19: what your skin can reveal. Lancet Infect Dis 2019:30402 . https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30402-3
Jiang L, Tang K, Levin M, Irfan O, Morris SK, Wilson K, Klein JD, Bhutta ZA (2020) COVID-19 and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children and adolescents. Lancet Infect Dis 3099. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099(20)30651-4
Jin JM, Bai P, He W, Wu F, Liu XF, Han DM, Liu S, Yang JK (2020) Gender Differences in Patients With COVID-19:Focus on Severity and Mortality. Front Public Heal 8:1–6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00152 Menni C, Sudre CH, Steves CJ, Ourselin S, Spector TD (2020) Quantifying additional COVID-19 symptoms will save lives. Lancet 395:e107–e108 . https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31281-2
2 Qiu H, Wu J, Hong L, Luo Y, Song Q, Chen D (2020) Clinical and epidemiological features of 36 children with
coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Zhejiang, China: an observational cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis 20:689–696. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30198-5
Tabata S, Imai K, Kawano S, Ikeda M, Kodama T, Miyoshi K, Obinata H, Mimura S, Kodera T, Kitagaki M, Sato M, Suzuki S, Ito T, Uwabe Y, Tamura K (2020) Clinical characteristics of COVID-19 in 104 people with SARSCoV-2 infection on the Diamond Princess cruise ship: a retrospective analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 20:10431050. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30482-5
WHO (2020) Q & A on coronaviruses. In: WHO Q&A coronaviruses.
Yang L, Tu L (2020) Implications of gastrointestinal manifestations of COVID-19. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 5:629–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(20)30132-1
Yelin D, Wirtheim E, Vetter P, Kalil AC, Bruchfeld J, Runold M, Guaraldi G, Mussini C, Gudiol C, Pujol M, Bandera A, Scudeller L, Paul M, Kaiser L, Leibovici L (2020) Long-term consequences of COVID-19: research needs. Lancet Infect Dis 3099:19–20. Merlion2812 ( talk) 14:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I've started Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variants, using the section from this article and the leads of the three main variant articles as a start. Please edit and expand. Fences& Windows 22:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
"Recently, new mutation of this virus was discovered called 501.V2 in South Africa. Scientists believe it causes more severe illness in younger patients and is thought to be more deadlier UK mutated strain. [32]"
The term mutation should be replaced by strand or variant and 501.V2 should link to the 501.V2 Variant. This paragraph could look something like this.
"SARS-CoV-2 has a relatively stable genome and most of its mutations are small and irrelevant. The large amount of active cases (over 20 million active cases as of December 2020) increases the opportunity for larger mutations. Two recent strains offer concerns to the scientific community, VUI – 202012/01 in South Africa and 501.V2 in the UK. Both strains appear to be significantly more contagious, but they do not appear to be more lethal and should be equally vulnerable to current vaccines."
nunocordeiro ( talk) 18:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Does anybody know the # of serotypes that COVID has? I googled and couldn't find a specific #. This sentence may also be relevant: The human immune system produces antibodies that target several regions of the spike protein, so it is thought to be unlikely that a single mutation would make vaccines less effective.
I think more information about COVID serotypes would be good info to include in the "Interaction with immune system" section of this article. –
Novem Linguae (
talk) 14:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200803105246.htm -=-=- 24.7.56.99 ( talk) 17:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey CatPath. I notice you deleted the section "interaction with immune system" today. FYI, bits and pieces from that section show up in 2 other articles: a sentence in Coronavirus disease_2019#Virology, and a paragraph in Variant of Concern 202012/01#Vaccine effectiveness.
You can choose to delete those too if you want. But I'd like to suggest replacing the text with something better instead of deleting it. Even if it's only one sentence.
Because when I first arrived at COVID articles, this was the kind of information I was looking for. I wanted to know the number of serotypes, how many antigens and antibodies there were, things that would help answer the question "does COVID mutate so much that a vaccine will soon be ineffective?" I think it'd be great for our readers if we can get something in there about that.
Thanks a lot. Looking forward to your feedback. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 19:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
What is the mass of a SARS-CoV-2 virion? Have there been any estimates of its global mass?
kencf0618 ( talk) 12:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Merlion2812's edit request last month mentioned host neuropilin-1 (NRP1) may be involved in viral entry and listed some sources. Are those sources WP:MEDRS? Cantuti-Castelvetri et al and Davies et al are the most relevant ones out of those Merlion2812 gave. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 03:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
SARS-CoV-2 may also use basigin to assist in cell entry (Wang et al 2020). Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 16:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
If conclusions are worth mentioning (such as large randomized clinical trials with surprising results), they should be described appropriately as from a single study. So the question is, how important are these investigations to mention, are they WP:FRINGE, and can we phrase them in a way that doesn't imply WP:UNDUE? I'd suggest a single sentence indicating targets of research without secondary sources confirming them (Basigin and NRP1) could be appropriate, but a simpler solution might be to only mention the seeming consensus position of TMPRSS2 and ACE2. Bakkster Man ( talk) 17:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@ CatPath: hello! The article uses a different reference formatting convention; see Help:LDR. I noticed you undid my edit to stick with LDR; do you plan to seek consensus to change the convention in this article? Cheers, Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 16:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11729122 explains this and gives sources for better images.Someone can check the copyright on them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.30.115 ( talk) 11:44, 11 January 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. |
change image2 = 2019-nCoV-CDC-23312 without background.png to image2 = SARS-CoV-2 (CDC-23312).png
Comment: The illustration is outdated; see CDC's webpage phil.cdc.gov/details.aspx?pid=23312. SARS-CoV-2 does not have hemagglutinin esterase proteins shown in the figure; see jaanajurvansuu.medium.com/spot-the-difference-in-sars-cov-2-98bfa0f4da9c. Jaana2021 ( talk) 12:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion on the lab leak theory of SARS-CoV-2 and some editors there have commented that it pertains more here in the virus entry, instead of the current location (the entry on the Wuhan Institute of Virology). Please take a look here, comments are welcome. Forich ( talk) 16:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The sentence on Epidemiology that I added is based on a report in an Italian daily newspaper and the British Journal of Dermatology which is ahead of print. Are edits supposed to be coming ONLY from systematic reviews? If not, the requirement of an authoritative biomedical source is met.
See my edit:
"A University of Milan study has found the virus in the skin tissue of a dermatosis patient, who was asymptomatic, in November 2019. [1]Cite error: A<ref>
tag is missing the closing</ref>
(see the help page). WHO had earlier claimed that this possibility was "unlikely". [2]"
References
The article does not address the important issue of isolation of SARSCOV2 properly. Did they separate the proposed virus from non-virus material or did they create a mixture of samples, cell culture and other materials and when the cells died claimed to have 'found the virus'? Which one is it? -- 105.8.4.53 ( talk) 12:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Could this statement in the article be clarified re. MOS:WEASEL? It is not made clear in any of the sources exactly what individuals or organizations are criticising him. Citation 41 refers to statements given by Michael J. Ryan (doctor) & Tedros Adhanom discouraging the use of the term "Chinese virus". The cited article contains no reference to Donald Trump outside of editorial analysis, which as a source is only reliable for statements directly attributed to the editor or author (see WP:RSEDITORIAL) [1] Meanwhile, citation 42 vaguely describes "Chinese complaints that he has created a negative stigma". [2] Citation 43 is of specific concern as it is incorrectly cited (not attributed to publisher ABC News), and as with 41, Trump is only referenced through editorial analysis and there are no attributed statements in the article that accuse him of what the headline subject suggests. [3] Once again, editorials as a source are only reliable for statements directly attributed to the editor or author ( WP:RSEDITORIAL).
I would have applied the " who?" tag but I am unfortunately relatively new to Wikipedia editing and the article is bluelocked for obvious reasons. I'd appreciate any feedback or opinions regarding this topic. (22:48 UTC, 30th March 2021)
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. |
change U.S. President to Former U.S. President 193.197.66.45 ( talk) 20:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Currently, the information about the reservoir and zoonotic origin is included as a subsection of "Virology". This is a limiting classification, given that:
For example, epidemiological, veterinary and zoological investigations, and forensic sampling are the disciplines that contribute the most to scientific understanding of zoonotic origins, which is supplemented by virology.
I propose that we create a new section called "Origin and evolutionary history" and that we migrate most if not all of the information currently located in the reservoir and zoonotic origin subsection. Forich ( talk) 10:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
why doesn't a discussion of reservoirs belong underneath a virology sub-heading, and what are examples of zoonotic ramifications which don't fit as part of virology? Ideally some example sources that the information you think should be added but doesn't fit the current article structure might be helpful for understanding the need for the structural change.
RE: Bakkster Man,
wikipedia already has some suggestions in the manual of style (WP:MEDORDER) that would be the first place I'd suggest looking for this kind of nominal structure.
Thanks for the wiki source, I was not aware of it and will read it before commenting further. Forich ( talk) 17:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
If we added an "Origin and evolutionary history" category (not under "Virology"?), would it just include the resevoir and zoonotic discussion, or would it envelop the "phylogenics and taxonomy" and "variants" sections?
If you do so, could I kindly ask you please check that the text accurately summarizes the sources and that the sources comply with WP:MEDRS? I've tried fixing both issues multiple times, but Asifwhale kept reverting despite talk page discussions. I have neither the time nor the inclination to edit war or fall afoul of the general sanctions
I propose we add this phrase: "Results from Chang et al. (2021) suggested that most of the population in Wuhan remained uninfected during the early outbreak of COVID-19. They also report an extremely low antibody prevalence among blood donors during the early phase of the outbreak in Shenzhen and Shijiazhuang.". Source here. Forich ( talk) 07:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
According to a MEDRS "the first known case of infection dates to 8 December 2019". Source: Hu et al. (2020). However, we currently say in the article that "The earliest case of infection currently known is dated to 1 December 2019, although an earlier case could have occurred on 17 November 2019.". But the source for this claim is not a MEDRS. I propose we stick to the Dec 8 date, as supported by the MEDRS Hu et al. (2020). Forich ( talk) 16:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
May I suggest two small edits to the first bullet under Variants: From: The Variant of Concern 202012/01 (VOC 202012/01) is believed to have emerged in the United Kingdom in September. To : The Variant of Concern 202012/01 (VOC 202012/01) was first detected in the United Kingdom in September 2020.
Reason: Change 1: due to the very high rate of testing in the United Kingdom new variants are more likely to be found. Change 2: add year after September to improve clarity.
Forgive me if I have transgressed any talk rules - this is only my second proposed edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by REDOUBTEDIT ( talk • contribs) 21:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
This variant is estimated to have first emerged in the UK during September 2020.So unless there's a citation to the contrary ( Lineage B.1.1.7#Detection has a few sentences to this effect, but cites news articles rather than WP:MEDRS secondary sources, might be a place to dig for something meaningful), I think "believed to have emerged" is accurate for this specific lineage. I've added the year after September, and cleaned up the references to the UK and South African detected variants. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
where r0 is essentially given, consider putting r0 in (r0) as appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:98A:4080:3680:EDBC:6F40:7E7:C9B7 ( talk) 23:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved, most participants in this discussion believe that the longer name is more in line with article titles policy, particularly consistency. ( non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 11:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 → SARS-CoV-2 – One year after the virus that cause COVID-19 was named and declare pandemic, it seems that more reliable sources, even for medical ones like BMC are more refer the virus aa shortened name rather than full name. I believe that there will be more opposer for that move because WP:MEDTITLE argument becaue IMO, the article's lead needs to retain the full name but article title will be moved to shortened name. 114.125.47.159 ( talk) 04:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
sufficient information to identify the topic(see example given: State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations → Rhode Island, not SoRIaPP or RI). While the "COVID" in COVID-19 is unambiguous (per WP:ACROTITLE), "SARS" is not. [9] While this direct topic didn't come up in a short move discussion last year, [10] I would propose that the use of a title beginning the ambiguous acronym SARS would be worth avoiding across all related pages. Particularly given consistency with other virus article titles. If sufficient examples of virus article titles using acronyms (especially if beginning with shared acronyms), I could be persuaded to change my vote. Bakkster Man ( talk) 17:29, 12 March 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, change the virusbox Jaana2021 ( talk) 13:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Mathglot, I see that you manually undid work I did yesterday to fix transclusion problems in this article. The COVID-19 Pandemic article transcludes several sections from this article. Transcluded content sometimes includes references. Since the transclusion includes only the targeted section, that section must be self-conained. More specifically, it must contain the reference definitions it uses and the references can't be elsewhere in the article or in the {{ references}} tag itself.
When you reverted my fixes, you re-introduced visible "undefined reference errors" to the COVID-19 Pandemic artilce. You might have damaged other articles, as well.
It's not clear to me what your goal is in moving the reference definitions to the {{ references}} tag. If it's absolutely necessary, another solution must be found in order to keep the transcluding articles intact. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 12:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi All, per Diannaa's request, a quick note that I copied a number of paragraphs and research here into the article Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. That copying was later transformed by more competent editors into transclusion (if that's the right term?). My goal was to ensure that readers eager to learn about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 would be actually informed about the state of current scientific understanding — and thanks to your hard work here, I think they now will be. Cheers, - Darouet ( talk) 13:06, 26 March 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. |
change U.S. President to Former U.S. President 193.197.66.45 ( talk) 20:42, 12 April 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. |
Reservoir and zoonotic origin: "A March 2021 WHO report on a joint WHO-China study stated stated that human spillover...". Please change "stated stated" to "stated".
I would also suggest to remove the unused IJID-interm-host entry from the ref list. The currently used one WHO_GlobalOrigin_China seems way more updated: relevant diff. Alternatively just comment it out for eventual future use. This relates to the same section, a couple of paragraphs lower. Personuser ( talk) 23:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
"The general public often calls both the virus and the disease it causes, "coronavirus"."
Could the term "COVID" also be mentioned here? I have heard and seen the term COVID be used more than "coronavirus" nowadays..-- HighlyLogicalVulcan ( talk) 13:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
This article is about the virus that causes COVID-19.I'm not sure we need more than that on this page. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Also colloquially known simply as the coronavirus...Get's across that it's a colloquial name, makes it clear it's an alternative rather than the primary, and corrects the name bolding to include 'the'. Bakkster Man ( talk) 13:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I thank all of the reasonable and hard-working editors who have been meticulously updating this extremely important article, which is well-structured and well-written, and its related companion articles. Acwilson9 ( talk) 08:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I came upon Frutos, Roger; Gavotte, Laurent; Devaux, Christian A. (18 March 2021). "Understanding the origin of COVID-19 requires to change the paradigm on zoonotic emergence from the spillover model to the viral circulation model". Infection, Genetics and Evolution. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2021.104812. ISSN 1567-1348. while looking for something else. After making an overview of existing hypotheses (they do mention "A parallel ‘digital pandemic’ (overcommunication on more or less probable ‘scientific hypothesis’) developed on social networks, bringing opinions and conspiracy theories, generating anxiety and irrational behavior."), the authors propose not a zoonotic spillover (as is the current consensus) but instead a "circulation model" where the virus did not suddenly jump but might have already been circulating for a while. It is a review from a reputable MEDLINE-indexed journal. Does anybody know of other papers which mention this? I'd include it as is but due to the fact it is the only paper I have found so far that would make this a minority position so possibly UNDUE. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)Please help to reconcile the contradictory claims documented at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Origins of SARS-CoV-2. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:19, 12 May 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 introductory section, the second to last sentence is outdated and potentially spreads dangerous misinformation: "The virus primarily spreads between people through close contact and via respiratory droplets produced from coughs or sneezes. [1] [2]"
The references cited here are from January and February 2020, and are out of date. We now know that SARS-COV-2 is spread primarily via aerosols, not the kinds of droplets produced by coughing or sneezing. See the updated CDC guidance from May 2021: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covid-spreads.html; and the updated WHO guidance: https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-how-is-it-transmitted. At the very least, the sentence should be updated to be more inclusive of the ways that it spreads, something like:
"The virus primarily spreads between people through close contact and via aerosols produced when talking or breathing, and to a lesser extent from respiratory droplets generated from coughs or sneezes." 130.154.3.250 ( talk) 13:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
The virus primarily spreads between people through close contact and via aerosols and respiratory droplets that are exhaled when talking, breathing, or otherwise exhaling, as well as those produced from coughs or sneezes.Thanks for catching that outdated info, by the way. Hyperion35 ( talk) 13:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Per WP: MOS:
Dates, years, and other chronological items should be linked only when they are relevant to the subject and likely to be useful to a reader
. This phrase
By 22 January 2020, a group in China working with the full virus genome and a group in the United States using reverse genetics methods independently and experimentally demonstrated that ACE2 could act as the receptor for SARS‑CoV‑2
can be replaced with "By January 2020..." with no loss of specificity for the reader. The addition of the exact day (or hour) adds very little information. Perhaps it was informative at the time it was edited for the first time and events were developing fast but, now, more than a year later, having the date "22 January" for this non-chronological piece of information looks overkill to me and interrupts the flow of readability. Pinging @ Hyperion35: who reverted this edit. Forich ( talk) 20:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
The opening of the article currently lists an estimated base reproduction of around 3, but later sections of the article cite a much higher number. 135.180.132.137 ( talk) 04:52, 23 May 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 replace
The [[basic reproduction number]] (<math>R_0</math>) of the virus has been estimated to be around 5.7.<ref name="high contagiousness" /> This means each infection from the virus is expected to result in 5.7 new infections when no members of the community are [[immunity (medical)|immune]] and no [[infection control|preventive measures]] are taken.
with
A meta-analisis from november 2020 estimated the [[basic reproduction number]] (<math>R_0</math>) of the virus to be between 2.39 and 3.44.<ref name="reproNumber"/> This means each infection from the virus is expected to result in 2.39 to 3.44 new infections when no members of the community are [[immunity (medical)|immune]] and no [[infection control|preventive measures]] are taken.
and
<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Billah MA, Miah MM, Khan MN | title = Reproductive number of coronavirus: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on global level evidence | journal = PLOS ONE | volume = 15 | issue = 11 | pages = e0242128 | date = 2020-11-11 | pmid = 33175914 | pmc = 7657547 | doi = 10.1371/journal.pone.0242128 | bibcode = 2020PLoSO..1542128B }}</ref>
with
<ref name="reproNumber">{{cite journal | vauthors = Billah MA, Miah MM, Khan MN | title = Reproductive number of coronavirus: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on global level evidence | journal = PLOS ONE | volume = 15 | issue = 11 | pages = e0242128 | date = 2020-11-11 | pmid = 33175914 | pmc = 7657547 | doi = 10.1371/journal.pone.0242128 | bibcode = 2020PLoSO..1542128B }}</ref>
per Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Conflicting_R0_estimates. While it seems reasonable to point out how these estimates may change, the Transmission_of_COVID-19 article covers their history using the same refs and, while it's true that this number has been estimated to 5.7, using two different numbers in different parts of this article seems just confusing. The ref name is debatable and I couldn't check if the syntax really works. Personuser ( talk) 03:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Lab Leak Again -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:53, 24 May 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. |
Change "Use Commonwealth English" to "EngvarB" per tfd outcome Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#To_convert 81.2.252.231 ( talk) 03:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Please join this broad discussion on how we discuss and explain COVID origins. Bakkster Man ( talk) 18:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Informal hatting: as I began the below discussion without enough knowledge of the relevant policies, the discussion grew too long and complicated to be of much use. Please join the better-structured discussion over at WikiProject COVID-19. SSSheridan ( talk) 20:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't have my 500 edits yet, so I'm here to suggest some citations to use at the [citation needed] around the laboratory-leak hypothesis.
I'm not here to debate the origins of the virus, just to try to improve the quality of a couple of sentences, so please bear with me without biting my head off. I think we can all agree that the article would be improved if the following sentence gets its citation:
Now, this sentence is combining two different things: 1) claims by virologists that the virus likely leaked from the Institute, and 2) calls for further investigations into the matter. The former is indeed restricted to a minority of virologists; but the latter has been called for by the WHO Director-General (Tedros):
Given this, the above-quoted sentence should be divided in two: 1) a small number of virologists have supported the laboratory leak hypothesis, and 2) some, including the WHO Director-General, have called for more extensive investigations into the possibility of a laboratory leak origin.
For (1), the few scientists who have supported the laboratory leak hypothesis, I suggest the following citations:
To be clear: I'm aware that this is not peer-reviewed science. I am aware that Nicholas Wade and Robert Redfield have had some unsavory views. But we're just looking for a citation about "some scientists supporting the laboratory leak hypothesis."
Now, for (2): some have called for further investigation into the laboratory leak possibility:
Primary sources of calls for further investigation:
Secondary sources covering the above calls:
Given all of the above, I propose the following replacement:
to
My apologies if this draft sounds too pro-lab-leak; I have attempted to simply write a version which tells the bare facts. You (the more experienced editors) are obviously welcome to edit as appropriate. SSSheridan ( talk) 20:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I am concerned that "expressed dissatisfactoon with the extent of the assessment" makes it sound as though he disagrees with the conclusion that a lab leak was unlikely. It was my understanding that Tedros agrees with the conclusion that a leak was "extremely unlikely", he was simply calling for more investigation. As you say, it is important to distinguish beteeen those ideas. Hyperion35 ( talk) 20:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
The current wording does not reflect that change, unless SSSheridan can give a specific example. Bakkster Man ( talk) 13:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I welcome your report, which advances our understanding in important ways. It also raises further questions that will need to be addressed by further studies, as the team itself notes in the report.I'd actually argue the opposite, that Tedros was being savvy in criticizing China's lack of openness for being unable to rule out this possibility. Or, to be more specific here, the Tedros comment doesn't change that the natural origin is considered the most likely explanation by the mainstream.
To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.So we've already cleared that second bar, this is a view that early this year was not considered significant enough ('a tiny minority') to even mention on the article, and now it is. So it's a finer question of how we word it so as not to make it appear more prominent than it is. IMO we mostly do this well, by placing it as the contrarian opinion to the mainstream.
the certainty with which it has been rejected is quite galling to my old-fashioned Popperian sense of scientific (un)certainty. So, there's two responses to this. One is that our own instincts don't matter, that we only report the sources, followed by an alphabet soup of Wikilawyering. This is probably the correct response, however to answer your actual question with a real response, public health is complicated, orders of magnitude more complicated than just prscticing medicine, which is also incredibly complicated. It is easy for intuition to lead you astray, especially in the absence of important underlying facts (this is why critical thinking alone is insufficient). I can see how some people look at this and wonder why the scientific community has been so insistent that a zoonotic event is the most likely origin, but this is because we have been predicting that this would happen, based on prior events and multiple lines of evidence, for decades. A lab leak, by contrast, really is an extraordinary claim as compared to a bat coronavirus jumping to humans in the wild, via an intermediate mammal, resulting in a deadly outbreak, for the third time in the past 20 years. Hyperion35 ( talk) 14:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
"A few individuals, including a small number of virologists, have claimed, with only circumstantial evidence, that the virus may have leaked from the Institute, and called for further investigations into the matter.[93][94] Most virologists who have studied coronaviruses consider the possibility very remote,[95][96] and the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO-China study stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely".[97][75]"
|
Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.I suspect this may be the disconnect we're having in the above discussion. The more directly related policy is WP:FRINGE, regarding how we deal with non-mainstream topics. Particularly WP:FRINGELEVEL:
Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball: While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community (e.g., plate tectonics), it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections. If the status of a given idea changes, then Wikipedia changes to reflect that change. Wikipedia primarily focuses on the state of knowledge today, documenting the past when appropriate (identifying it as such), and avoiding speculation about the future.At the moment the lab leak theory, as best we can source ( WP:V), is the minority view. So for now, we take the view that the information we present must be framed relative to the mainstream view, and kept to a level that doesn't imply WP:UNDUE weight by being more wordy than the explanation of the mainstream. And, if and when we can verify that it's no longer the minority view, we will change how we write about it (just as we began to as the WHO report was published).
While I tend to weight the evidence differently, I think it's a pretty rational conclusion for someone to come to: I (and my inner Popper) am a bit embarrassed that I gave the impression of having "concluded" anything. I have no idea! And I'm not just saying "I have no idea" to try to sound moderate. My only opinion here is that the lab leak hypothesis is not whacky, is a significant minority opinion backed by non-fringe sources, and that the current wording still frames it as though it is a conspiracy theory of ill repute.
Even if you convince me the lab leak is the most reasonable and likely explanation, that's insufficient to put it in the article.But I wasn't trying to convince anyone. I realize that the name check, asking about the interpretation of primary sources, was misleading. I wrote the name check in a peak of self-doubt: the simplest explanation for the disparity between what I was reading and how it was being discussed here was, simply, that I was badly misunderstanding things. The name check was a genuine invitation to set me right.
Informal hatting: as I began the above discussion without enough knowledge of the relevant policies, the discussion grew too long and complicated to be of much use. Please join the better-structured discussion over at WikiProject COVID-19. SSSheridan ( talk) 20:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
At Shi Zhengli, IPs and editors are inserting [15] [16] the comment that Zhi Zhengli "admitted" that coronavirus research at the WIV had been conducted in BSL-2 labs during an interview with Science Magazine. The implication is that poor safety by Shi or the WIV may have caused the outbreak. This inserted text is taken from a new article [17] written in the The Washington Post that uses almost identical language:
In the interview, she admitted that some coronavirus research was conducted at biosafety level 2, not the more restrictive BSL-4.
However, if you go to the original Science Magazine interview [18] including the extended interview from which the Washington Post quotes [19], you can see that what Shi (and Science Magazine) say is quite different: far from "admitting" that the WIV uses BSL-2 labs, Shi explains why her group now uses BSL-4 labs for their work:
Q: Given that coronavirus research in most places is done in BSL-2 or BSL-3 labs--and indeed, you WIV didn't even have an operational BSL-4 until recently--why would you do any coronavirus experiments under BSL-4 conditions?
A: The coronavirus research in our laboratory is conducted in BSL-2 or BSL-3 laboratories.
After the BSL-4 laboratory in our institute has been put into operation, in accordance with the management regulations of BSL-4 laboratory, we have trained the scientific researchers in the BSL-4 laboratory using the low-pathogenic coronaviruses as model viruses, which aims to prepare for conducting the experimental activities of highly pathogenic microorganisms.
After the COVID-19 outbreak, our country has stipulated that the cultivation and the animal infection experiments of SARS-CoV-2 should be carried out in BSL-3 laboratory or above. Since the BSL-3 laboratories in our institute do not have the hardware conditions to conduct experiments on non-human primates, and in order to carry out the mentioned research, our institute had applied to the governmental authorities and obtained the qualification to conduct experiments on SARS-CoV-2 for Wuhan P4 laboratory, in which the rhesus monkey animal model, etc. have been carried out.
I've tried to make this clear in this edit [20], but I want to make sure I'm getting this right. It seems that Shi's group used to use BSL-2 and BSL-3 like everyone else, but since the pandemic, as of July 31 at least, her group was now using BSL-4 for some coronavirus research because of new regulations drafted by the Chinese government, after the start of the pandemic. Am I reading this correctly? - Darouet ( talk) 06:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
it's unfair to label all lab-leak scenarios as "conspiracy theories"} ← and this is happening where? Alexbrn ( talk) 10:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Also, it sounds from the article interview as though SARS-COV-2 still only requires BSL 3 even after the pandemic, which would imply that the lab has always had sufficient (BSL 3) protocols for handling this virus.
But you see the problems here, right? Even this much requires us to interpret and synthesize from this interview, and that's not appropriate. This is exactly why some of us have repeatedly insisted on the MEDRS standard so that we can avoid these situations where we either quote from a newspaper source that clearly misrepresented an interview, or we try to interpret an ambiguous response to an interview question ourselves. Hyperion35 ( talk) 13:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)