Talk:COVID-19/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

More about mechanism and treatment thereby

I found this article (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7264656/) which is recent (5 weeks old) which acted as a summary of what research has discovered thus far.

I feel that it seems like a reputable source (115 citations) to refresh some gaps of information of what the science currently says on the page as a whole.

An easy example is section 3.2, which descriptions that role of the ACE2, and even has a nice summary of hypothetical future treatment mechanical goals (Figure 2).

I am new to Wikipedia, so I would love your feedback and a consensus on this approach before I begin suggesting specific edits.

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Well That's Deep (talk • contribs) 21:04, June 11, 2020 (UTC)

I'm impressed by the article. It's quite a comprehensive review and should be usable where we don't have other secondary sources available. It's worth noting that it's published by Wiley, appears to be reviewed ("Received 2020 Apr 15; Revised 2020 Apr 19; Accepted 2020 Apr 22"), and it's released under a CC-BY 4.0 licence. --RexxS (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you RexxS. I would like to submit the following statement for discussion and examination:

A speculative computer-modeled study based on computer modeling, (Liu, W. & Li, H. COVID-19 attacks the 1-beta chain of hemoglobin and captures the porphyrin to inhibit human heme metabolism. ChemRxiv (2020)), which suggests that SARS CoV2 does displace iron atoms from haeme/hemoglobin/RBCs. To quote a reddit-user, “While I understand it’s a computer simulated study, it’s seeming to be corroborated by clinical presentation and warrants further investigation. Often, patients are significantly hypoxic without shortness of breath. In addition to high ferritin and other lab values, it may indicate that COVID-19 is more of a hemoglobinopathy as opposed to a classic viral pneumonia.” Therefore, I suggest an edit which alludes to this theoretical model, while nodding to it’s speculative nature which awaiting further research to confirm or deny this mechanism.

Secondly, there is mounting evidence to suggest the “thrombotic microvasculopathy theory, which proposes pulmonary capillary bed microthrombosis as the mechanism: http://farid.jalali.one/covid19emailpdf.pdf “

Lastly, according to figure 2 of this reviewed study: (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7264656/), “The mechanism of SARS‐CoV‐2 and ACE2 interaction based on renin‐angiotensin‐aldosterone system (RAAS) and potential therapeutic strategies in COVID‐19. SARS‐CoV‐2 invades cells via ACE2 receptor, which may lead to the down‐regulation of ACE2 expression. The down‐regulation of ACE2 expression could destroy the balance between ACE/ACE2 and lead to the tissue injury. Potential therapeutic approaches include a SARS‐CoV‐2 spike protein‐based vaccine and small‐molecule inhibitors to block the interaction between S protein and ACE2”.

Therefore, I believe the page has outdated/vague information regarding the pathophysiology of COVID-19, and needs to remain updated as knowledge increases on the subject, and I believe that each of these three points should be either entirely reputed, or the viewpoint/perspective should be acknowledged.

@Well That's Deep: We should not be using a speculative study to make any biomedical claims. Reddit users have no place as sources either. We need a good secondary source that discusses hemoglobinopathy before we can use it in the article. If a study concludes with "more research needed", it's flag that its conclusions are tentative, and isn't going to be any use for Wikipedia until it's been discussed in secondary sources.

Similarly, we need a bit more evidence than a hypothesis on a private individual's website. I'm sure Farid Jalali is a competent gastroenterologist, but I can't find any evidence that they are experts on COVID-19. if there is mounting evidence for a new hypothesis, it will be discussed in a secondary source at some point.

The mechanism of interaction between SARS‐CoV‐2 and ACE2 receptors is reasonably well described our article, I think. What suggestions to change the present Pathophysiology section would you like to see based on the the review? If you're thinking about the part speculating about potential future therapies, then the Research section would be the appropriate place for it. --RexxS (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2020

A named reference present in the article at the beginning of this month seems to have been mistakenly removed when the section of the article defining the reference was moved into another article. However the reference was referred to elsewhere into the article, leading to cite errors, with the error-producing cites of the missing named reference since being removed.

Please add back the reference '<ref name="CDC Interim Guidance">{{cite web|url=https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance-management-patients.html|title=Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) |date=6 April 2020|website=[[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) |access-date=19 April 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200302201644/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance-management-patients.html|archive-date=2 March 2020|url-status=live}}</ref>'.

The places which cited that reference at the time it was moved are as follows:

• in the infobox after "Fever, cough, fatigue, shortness of breath, loss of smell; sometimes no symptoms at all" before the other citations,
• in the Symptoms of COVID-19 table, after "|+ Symptoms of COVID-19", obviating the need for the citation needed tag,
• after "[[Fever]] is the most common symptom of COVID-19, but is highly variable in severity and presentation, with some older, immunocompromised, or critically ill people not having fever at all." before the other citations,
• after "In one study, only 44% of people had fever when they presented to the hospital, while 89% went on to develop fever at some point during their hospitalization." before the other citation,
• and after "Other common symptoms include [[cough]], [[Anorexia (symptom)|loss of appetite]], [[fatigue]], [[Dyspnea|shortness of breath]], [[sputum|sputum production]], and [[Myalgia|muscle]] and [[Arthralgia|joint pains]].", between the "chinamortality" and "CDC2020Sym" references. Surinna (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Surinna: Thanks for the suggestion. I checked, the cite error appears to be  Already done; in any case I don't think it is necessary to cite yet another source (see WP:CITEBOMB) so  Not done. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense for the spots where there are also other citations. However, the Symptoms of COVID-19 table did not have any other citations and the removal of the cite error left it with no citation at all. That instance at least seems to me as though it should have the citation added back, since it currently has a citation needed tag. Thanks! --Surinna (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

In that case  Done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Information about happy hypoxia

Information related to happy hypoxia can be added if found appropriate in this or other articles. 1, 2, 3 these are some of the examples of references. -- Dr. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 08:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

We want our information to be sourced from good quality secondary sources as outlined at WP:MEDRS. Literature reviews and systematic analyses published in scholarly journals, along with statements from international and national health authorities are the sort of standard we're looking for. Those news reports quoting anecdotal observations are quite a long way short of the sourcing quality we ought to be considering when looking for new content. --RexxS (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok. -- Dr. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 09:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Sex/gender difference

Looking at three current (June 2020) review articles, one review/meta[1] shows no male/female susceptibility difference (1.06/1 m/f ratio) and makes no mention of mortality difference by sex (primarily finding DM, HTN, age). Another[2] also shows no difference in CFR by gender. Third review[3] notes two Chinese reports of more severe illness and fatality in men but suggests it could be from lifestyle choices such as smoking and drinking alcohol. How do we address this section of the article? MartinezMD (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The same as we do for all content:

1. Evaluate the quality of the sources;
2. Discard any low-quality ones;
3. Summarise the sources;
4. If they all agree, write it in Wikipedia's voice;
5. If they disagree, attribute the views without editorialising;
6. Where there is a significant minority view, mention it giving due weight according to its prominence among mainstream sources;
7. Where there is a fringe view, ignore it (other than in articles about that fringe view itself)

Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I was hoping for more of suggestions in terms of phrasing and content. These sources seem reliable enough and of decent quality. They largely agree with only one really addressing the earlier reports of male/female disparity in mortality. Would you suggest we discuss that difference briefly (similar to what I wrote in this first paragraph) or do we toss it all out and say no difference in mortality? That's more what I'm driving at. MartinezMD (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

How about:

• Recent reviews indicate that there is no significant difference in susceptibility or in CFR between genders.{ref}{ref} Although one review notes some evidence of more severe illness and fatality in Chinese men, it suggests that it may be attributable to lifestyle choices such as smoking and drinking alcohol.{ref}"

In other words, use more-or-less what you wrote above. --RexxS (talk) 01:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I made changes. If someone would look over my editing, I would appreciate it.MartinezMD (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Lockdown

The word "lockdown" does not appear in this article and Coronavirus recession is only present under "see also". I propose that we add a short "Lockdown" subsection (or one with some other name) under "Society and culture", to cover this, hatnoted with a {{see main}} template to a suitable target (perhaps Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The handling and societal consequences of the pandemic are dealt with in COVID-19 pandemic where the word "lockdown" appears 48 times so far. HTH --RexxS (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

This is about the disease and already large enough. It's needs trimming, not expansion. MartinezMD (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

No, it does not help; it is not unreasonable for a reader to look for that here; which is why I suggest a short section here outlining such aspects of how the disease has changed society. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

No matter how reasonable it is for a reader to look for information about the pandemic here, it is not practical because the article is already too big. There are many aspects that deserve treatment, but they can't all be accommodated in a top-level article. A link to the full article on the pandemic is present right at the top of this article. --RexxS (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Research section - odd claim

"No medication or vaccine is approved to treat the disease" seems an odd statement. Not only are several drugs being used to treat the disease, presumably with someone's approval; but the statement doesn't appear to have been tested globally. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Andy: The statement is cited to a review from February, so is behind the times. Nevertheless, as far as I'm aware, so far we have: (1) anecdotal uses of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19, with no evidence of efficacy; (2) a single trial of remdesivir that indicated a shortening in recovery time, but no effect on mortality; (3) a report of preliminary results from a single large trial of dexamethasone that indicates a significant reduction in mortality for those with severe symptoms of COVID-19. There remains, as far as I know, nothing that prevents COVID-19 nor that actually treats the disease. It does seem likely that it is possible to mitigate some of its effects, but – welcome as it is – that doesn't really equate to the sort of treatment we're all hoping for. Despite all the press coverage of the studies, we are still lacking any of the secondary sources that we normally associate with WP:MEDRS's standards for making biomedical claims. It is understandable that governments will want to hitch their hopes on to any glimmer of light in these dark times, but drugs that actually treat diseases generally have long development times, and normally require more than a single set of trial results before they are universally approved. It remains to be seen how much of an adoption remdesivir and dexamethasone will receive globally. --RexxS (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have overlooked both of my points. Many people with COVID are being treated with drugs. And there is not a single approval body in the world, but many. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

And you've not spotted the difference between treating a person's symptoms and treating the disease. --RexxS (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I think Pigsonthewing has a point. The current wording does seem misleading, while RexxS is also right about the intent of those words. Perhaps some re-wording is possible? Bondegezou (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I changed the wording a little. See if it helps. MartinezMD (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

17 Diseases Named After Places Or People, Why not Chinese flu or Virus and why should we call Spanish flu, Japanese encephalitis?

17 Diseases Named After Places Or People, Why not Chinese flu or Virus and why should we call Spanish flu if the matters came on china, its not Chinese flu why?

Here are 17 other diseases named after populations or places:

West Nile Virus Named after the West Nile District of Uganda discovered in 1937.

Guinea Worm Named by European explorers for the Guinea coast of West Africa in the 1600s.

Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever Named after the mountain range spreading across western North America first recognized first in 1896 in Idaho.

Lyme Disease Named after a large outbreak of the disease occurred in Lyme and Old Lyme, Connecticut in the 1970s.

Ross River Fever Named after a mosquito found to cause the disease in the Ross River of Queensland, Australia by the 1960s. The first major outbreak occurred in 1928.

Omsk Hemorrhagic Fever Named after its 1940s discovery in Omsk, Russia.

Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever Named in 1976 for the Ebola River in Zaire located in central Africa.

Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) Also known as “camel flu,” MERS was first reported in Saudi Arabia in 2012 and all cases are linked to those who traveled to the Middle Eastern peninsula.

Valley Fever Valley Fever earned its nickname from a 1930s outbreak San Joaquin Valley of California, though its first case came from Argentina.

Marburg Virus Disease Named after Marburg, Germany in 1967.

Norovirus Named after Norwalk, Ohio after an outbreak in 1968.

Zika Fever First discovered in 1947 and named after the Zika Forest in Uganda.

Japanese Encephalitis Named after its first case in Japan in 1871.

German Measles Named after the German doctors who first described it in the 18th century. The disease is also sometimes referred to as “Rubella.”

Spanish Flu While the true origins of the Spanish Flu remain unknown, the disease earned its name after Spain began to report deaths from the flu in its newspapers.

Lassa Fever Named after the being found in Lassa, Nigeria in 1969.

Legionnaire’s Disease Named in 1976 following an outbreak of people contracting the lung infection after attending an American Legion convention in Philadelphia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.Lukes (talk • contribs) 11:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say. That's how Wikipedia works. Reliable sources say it's called COVID-19, so we call it COVID-19. Your argument is not with Wikipedia, it's with reality. Bondegezou (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Tim.Lukes, "Wuhan pneumonia" is mentioned down below in this section. It's just not being given that much weight. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu, Thank you for the information "Wuhan pneumonia" and " Wuhan Acute Respiratory Syndrome (WARS)" is also mentioned in this section. 17:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

WARS

The acronym WARS (Wuhan Acute Respiratory Syndrome) was added to the article, then tagged for needing a better source. I can only find a few mentions. Looks like a few people wanted to follow naming similar to SARS and MERS early in the outbreak, but it didn't stick. I found a letter to the editor (Hong Kong Medical Journal) and a few minor news references, but nothing more. Does this name merit inclusion? MartinezMD (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of an infobox is to present key facts about a topic. Having a large laundry list of so-called "Other names" defeats that by diluting the real key facts which are pushed further down. Frankly, I wouldn't include any of those in the infobox as there's nothing "key" about any of them (with the possible exception of '2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease'). This is just a demonstration of editors' penchant for indiscriminate collecting of trivia, and the "Wuhan Acute Respiratory Syndrome" is the worst of them. This is an encyclopedia, not Facebook. --RexxS (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

New animated GIF — pathogen propagation without, and with, containment measures

(Anchor:propagation comments)

New GIF proposed to replace old cartoonish GIF. This new GIF is modeled after the two red/green GIFs at the far right.

Suggested caption: Without pandemic containment measures—such as social distancing, vaccination, and use of face masks—pathogens can spread exponentially.^[source] This graphic shows how early adoption of containment measures tends to protect wider swaths of the population.

International version

(no text; uploaded 15 June 2020

Proposed to be replaced, sorry

Graphic I uploaded earlier: "Flatten the curve" (FTC) and "raise the line" (RTL) strategies

Graphic I uploaded earlier: Progressively weaker mitigation attempts ...

To the special attention of User:Sdkb & others who commented here in early April to polish the similarly styled red/green GIFs shown at far right. (See the extended discussion at Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019/Archive 5.)

I've created this new "propagation" animation to be less cartoonish and have less empty space in-frame. I considered a circular arrangement rather than the current 16x9, but a circular arrangement, though more symmetrical, would have taken up more vertical space in WP articles.

The international version will be completely without text; I use symbology to reduce text even in this English-language version.

Please comment and provide constructive suggestions for change. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

RCraig09, that new graphic looks great! The main change that I would suggest is that, in its current form, it looks as though people are just appearing as you spread outwards. I think it might be clearer to have face icons be present throughout the frame from the start of each animation. For the "without containment" animation, each face would switch to a virus icon (or a sick face icon) as it spreads outward; for the "with containment" animation, at the start some face icons would have masks and others would not, and the virus would spread outward in the same way as you have now, with the unprotected becoming infected. Does that make sense/how does it sound? Again, overall, great work! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, User:Sdkb. In the "With containment measures" sequence I will assert the masked faces from the beginning, as you suggest.

Especially at thumbnail size, I try to apply the graphic designer's cardinal rules for simplicity/cleanness and readability/distinguishability. That's why I created the two very large 'intro' frames to introduce symbology. I actually experimented with different "face" representations and found them hard to distinguish at thumbnail size, a situation exacerbated in a constantly changing GIF. Accordingly I think I'll avoid multiple "faces", pending other editors' comments.

Substantively, the graphic is about pathogen propagation, rather than people/faces per se. By choice, people in a population are represented by colored areas in the overall rectangle—clean and simple, and preferable over the "dots" in the cartoonish GIF. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I just uploaded Version 3. I think it looks much better, User:Sdkb. The cause-and-effect of masks is more apparent. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the current images are clearer. The cartoonish aspects I see of them is some of the text (of the first image). The second and third graphic don't look cartoonish at all. MartinezMD (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

MartinezMD, I've clarified the captions to the existing images on the right. The red/green graphics are ones I uploaded and, I agree, are non-cartoonish by design. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you. MartinezMD (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Alrightee then! I've enhanced the animation in a few ways, the most notable being the the portrayal of containment measures as including not only face masks but also social distancing and vaccination (the animation isn't limited to COVID-19 in June 2020). Absent any further discussion to the contrary, I'll WP:BOLDly add the animation to appropriate articles. —RCraig09 (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

RCraig09, I fear that portraying all the different types of containment measures makes the graph somewhat more complex and harder to parse. I think it works best as a simple illustration that, when a disease is spreading exponentially, one person taking containment measures can spare several others from getting it, even when those others don't take measures themselves. The masks serve as a fine symbol of "took containment measures"; the specific measures available to take I think might be better specified in the caption. I'm a little confused with the current version as to what exactly it means for a tile to go from green to red—is it the virus infecting a person (in which case why aren't there people on every tile?) or is it the virus spreading over the ground (in which case why isn't social distancing represented by people being spaced farther apart, and why does the virus continue spreading when there aren't people to act as vectors?)? Re to your comment above, if adding people on every tile would make it too cluttered, a solution might be to reduce the number of tiles to make each one larger. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I understand your points. My thoughts:

● The key point is that the graphic shows (a) virus propagation, and (b) containment measures. It does not portray people per se. Short answer: yes, tiles changing from green to red means someone—or some geographic area or some portion of the population—is infected. The tiles represent these things with ~zero visual clutter.

● I understand your concern re complexity. I anguished for hours to balance completeness and conciseness. I actually had a longer list than a mere three containment measures! I'll think some more on it, but the general approach is that something blocks the virus's path, and that "something" can be a mask, a vaccine, or social distancing.

● I try to avoid relying on captions, since I'll be doing an international version with zero text and want the graphic to do the talking.

● Re using fewer-but-larger tiles: I think a minimum of four stages is needed to clearly convey that early containment protects a wider swath of the population.

Thanks again for your thoughts and perceptions and suggestions. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Can we have a picture that also represent herd immunity and not just stop at he first few days of spreading ? Also would be nice if the graph could also show what happen if say in 2023 someone decide to remove his mask. Iluvalar (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Iluvalar. Vaccination, already shown in this animation, is actually a sped-up version up herd immunity. An image or animation portraying herd immunity might be very different from the present animation—which is about containment. The herd immunity article already has this graphic, but I'll think about possible improvements, possibly like this animation. Thanks for your thoughts. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

No I think my main pet peeve about this image is that the masks seems to cast a shadow or protection behind them. While in reality, 40% of the world will catch the virus, mask or not. And as soon as you stop distancing, you roll your dice. All these measure may have helped flattening the curve. But the inevitably of the situation now that we are past the peak is really not depicted correctly here on wikipedia. At least if my opinion is not consensual here yet, it should at the very least starting to be mentioned better. Iluvalar (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Apologies to you, Iluvalar, that I didn't check back here and see comments sooner. . . . Like most graphics, this graphic aims only to convey a fairly specific concept (here, containment measures) rather than exhaustively portray the entire dynamic of a pandemic. It's true that even if Person B was protected by Person A's mask, Person B may still get the virus through a different avenue; however, to comprehensively show this entire process would require a hopelessly complex graphic. I think the "resurgence" graphic (File:20200409 Pandemic resurgence - effect of inadequate mitigation.gif—which is shown below this "containment measures" graphic—strongly suggests future possibilities. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

That graphic leave me the impression that the mitigation have been adequate at some point. That's not my POV either. Iluvalar (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC) Edit: this is not an hard objection to the image in the article. Just a remark that other valid POV are left behind, probably because they sell less newspaper around... Iluvalar (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Two pertinent articles

Here's some new sources. The first is a review, hence a secondary source. The second is a Nature article reporting on a mix of primary & secondary sources.

• Takayama, Kazuo (2020). "In Vitro and Animal Models for SARS-CoV-2 research". Trends in Pharmacological Sciences. Elsevier BV. doi:10.1016/j.tips.2020.05.005. ISSN 0165-6147.
• Mallapaty, Smriti. "Mini organs reveal how the coronavirus ravages the body". Nature. Retrieved 2020-06-22.

Peaceray (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

Change: Joelaroche (talk) 09:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 10:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

There is a crucial error in this text from data sourced in April. It shows up as a first result/answer in Goggle when people query, "when is coronavirus most contagious" and it is factually incorrect since the true answer is unknown.

Current text: "It is most contagious during the first three days after the onset of symptoms, although spread is possible before symptoms appear, and from people who do not show symptoms.[7][22]"

Should be changed to: "Recent data (June 2020) suggests growing evidence of transmission risk from infected people without symptoms (asymptomatic) or before the onset of recognized symptoms (presymptomatic)." Kmeggs (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

What you are proposing is no different than what is already there. It is most contagious after symptoms start, as typically viral load is highest. It also already says it contagious "from people who do not show symptoms." How is your suggestion any different other than leaving out the most contagious time? MartinezMD (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

References

IJERA

I've cut this from the article:

However, according to a study carried out by researchers at the University of Bradford: Genetics is one major key factor to understanding COVID-19 in Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic communities.

I do not agree that the International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications is a suitable publication for sources relating to COVID-19: see their website for a description of their fields of activity. The paper published is not a review, nor a study, but an op-ed piece by its two authors. I am particularly worried by statements in the source like "it is very important for descendants of each human Y-Chromosome DNA haplogroup to stay where their haplogroups belong to, in order to live safe and without developing unrelated health conditions." Is this really the quality of source that we should be using in our medical articles? --RexxS (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

We all agree that the University of Bradford is a reliable public research university and we all agree that the research article is written by experts in their field working at the University of Bradford. I think as you are a retired teacher and not a Geneticist, therefore you find it hard to understand their work. I can see that they do cite sources for other infectious diseases and race, ethnicity and lung function and African ancestry, lung function and the effect of genetics and Vitamin D and the Immune System. So it is better to publish the article for the benefit of the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editsreviews (talk • contribs) 05:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

No. you have to read WP:MEDRS. MartinezMD (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a geneticist, so I'm not entirely sure I understand what's being said, but how does a haplogroup and where it's from impact something like a coronavirus infection, where to my knowledge not too much evolutionary pressure has happened in any human haplogroup? Apparently something like that happened with sickle cell and malaria, so possibly more protection would be afforded by generics from haplogroups originating where that disease is common. Could some trade-off have happened? I'll see if I can read the paper closer. Vecr (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand more now, I think their argument is that people in certain haplogroups have evolved darker skin to protect against skin damage from the sun, and others have evolved lighter skin to better generate vitamin D in places that get less sun exposure, for example in the north. They speculate this could cause a genetic based difference in immune response in relation to COVID-19, though they do cite a source for other infectious diseases. "For example, native populations of Europe including Britain, where there is low ultraviolet (UV) radiation, are genetically designed to have light skin colour as their skin has little melanin pigmentation. The light skin provides the native inhabitants with better UV radiation absorption which helps their body to produce more vitamin D needed by the body for important body functions including better immunity. On the other hand, native populations of the hot/sunny parts of the world where there is high UV radiation, have dark skin colour being rich in melanin pigments. Dark skin protects their body from the damaging effects of UV radiation. Vitamin D‟s classic effects are on calcium and bone homeostasis and deficiency"

Actually, I'd say it's more than speculation (it's more like correlation), but I'm not sure if it's enough to be a medical source in this article. Vecr (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

My other objection, apart from the quality of the source, is that the paper quotes the UK parliamentary office of science and technology as stating that "ethnic health inequalities result from many inter-linking factors and for BME groups, the relative poverty is counted as the main factor" and then contradicts it from the standpoint of their own opinion: "Our understanding is the fact that genetics may also play a major role within the BAME groups being at higher risk of COVED-19 infection." This is why we don't rely on single opinion for biomedical claims. I disagree that their view represents anything more a tiny minority view on the principal factors affecting the BAME population. We should stick to the mainstream, quality secondary sources. --RexxS (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I just went through that paragraph and there is no contradiction as they discuss all the reasons causing the situation. Again I repeat, the University of Bradford is a reliable research university and the article is a scientific discussion. I am sorry to see your comments above which show your limited understanding of a scientific article. Please don't take it personal, you are a 68 years old retired teacher and if your addition is challenged, you simply leave it for professionals like user MartinezMD, who is a medical doctor and he simply suggested to use sources like PubMed. Please do not attempt to force your opinion as this is against Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editsreviews (talk • contribs) 01:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a very clear contradiction as they pluck the reasons for contradicting the experts at POST out of thin air. I'm sure that Bradford is a fine university, but that doesn't make everybody who works there a reliable source. The article in question is not a discussion; it is a an opinion piece by two authors who have no demonstrated expertise in virology or sociology, published in an engineering journal. Of course we would expect geneticists to think genetics is a key factor in almost anything, but the mainstream view about the key factors governing the observed effects of COVID-19 on BAME communities does not include genetics. Please don't make personal attacks: I assure you I am perfectly capable of reading and understanding that paper. It clearly reflects nothing more than the opinions of two people with a very limited area of speciality – and that area is not in the effects of viruses on the human body, nor on the socio-economic consequences.

I will take it personally when an anonymous newcomer with 18 edits presumes to lecture me on how Wikipedia works. We build articles by finding the best sources and summarising them neutrally and with due weight, and you'll find that the definition of an expert on Wikipedia is someone who knows where to find the best sources. I'm sure MartinezMD has done a good job of doing just that, and I'm equally sure that you haven't. --RexxS (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

First of all, please don't forget that you are anonymous too RexxS and you just attacked me personally and tried to make me look small by saying "an anonymous newcomer with 18 edits". What you just said is against Wikipedia policies and I will report you to Wikipedia for your persistent misjudgment, conduct issues and dialog fails. Wikipedia has given me the right to stay anonymous like you or Vecr or MartinezMD or anyone else. In fact by looking at your history of comments, it is so obvious that you easily attack anyone and any source and you act like as if you own the articles here. Wikipedia clearly says that "No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page".

Secondly, I am sorry to see your comments above which again show your limited understanding and poor knowledge. You are a retired teacher, that is what you have said about yourself in your user page, and when you attack the article by saying it is "published in an engineering journal" it means that you have no knowledge regarding the topics of viruses and genetically modified viruses as part of Genetic engineering which is a branch of Biomedical engineering and you don't know that normally these topics are published in engineering journals. You don't even know that it is Genetic engineering that can make a COVID-19 vaccine in virology labs.

Thirdly, I am sorry but it looks like that you take everything personal and also it looks like that you don't agree with the article due to personal reasons. By going back to your comments above, when you said "I do not agree" you first attacked the source and then you mentioned the statement that you are worried about which is "it is very important for descendants of each human Y-Chromosome DNA haplogroup to stay where their haplogroups belong to, in order to live safe and without developing unrelated health conditions.". I just went through the article and I looked for that statement and I found that this is their prevention strategy which will benefit you if you are a member of BAME communities. You later attacked the University of Bradford and their academics. You even attacked geneticists and you published false statements.

Finally, you are not here to Peer review published articles by peer reviewed journals and you don't have the right in anyway to attack universities, academics and scientists or editors here to make them look small, this is disparaging and you will be reported to the Arbitration Committee as this is against Wikipedia policies.

Remember, Wikipedia encourages a civil community. I will also ask the Reliable Sources noticeboard for discussion of whether or not IJERA is reliable for this article. I am reminding you RexxS that you need to behave in a respectful, civil manner in your interactions with others and you should follow Wikipedia policies.

I've attacked nobody. You are a newcomer with a handful of edits and that is a fact. You have cast unwarranted aspersions about my ability to understand what is written in plain English and that needs to stop. You have no idea who I am, what my area of expertise is, what papers I've published, in what journals, and you need to get away from your preconceptions. Concentrate on the content, not the contributor.

You are trying to introduce a fringe theory, published in a predatory, unindexed journal - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications. If you can find genuine reliable sources that support the fringe theory, then we can discuss them. But not using the IJERA. --RexxS (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I think this technically is a secondary source for the genetics/Vitamin D/infection thing, but possibly not for it's relation to COVID-19. Vecr (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The university is not an issue, and not the journal itself. The article is the problem. It is highly speculative and reviews no significant data. Furthermore it makes fairly extreme assertions such as "Sugar can deplete our body from essential immune-supporting nutrients such as zinc, vitamin C, and glutathione. It also feeds parasites in our body and may lead to abnormal tissue and cancerous growth." Much of this is pretty WP:Fringe. There are much better recent studies we can use now to discuss genetics. The NIH just discussed in their public blog the issue of genetics and refers to a moderately large (1980 patients) genetic study published in NEJM, a journal that has the highest impact factor in medicine, about susceptibility. If we want to mention that genetics can play a factor (a fairly harmless statement that applies to most diseases), I would look to maybe using that. MartinezMD (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

References

A cautionary tale

For those who still think it's a good idea to insert content from any "peer-reviewed" source, please read https://www.zbw-mediatalk.eu/2018/12/a-self-expriment-in-fake-science-the-tricks-of-predatory-journals/ and consider carefully the advice given in MEDRS. --RexxS (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'll add that I have read that paper again in detail (having just skimmed it earlier), and I'll also add that my first degree is in biochemistry and I know a bit about genetics and immunology. The paper does not draw valid conclusions from rational analysis, and essentially presents its conclusions ex nihilo with just a veneer of sciency talk about haplogroups etc (including some stuff that descends to GCSE level) to make it sound convincing to someone who doesn't understand the subject. I conclude that it is essentially a fake, a disguised racist screed that essentially just says "Black and brown people should stay where they came from". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2020

Involvement of central and peripheral nervous system has not been studied in clinical settings, however it is expected to be significant not only in the progression of the disease but also in transmission. Millersberg (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Probably needs a secondary source. IMO may be better to wait until there is something that is demonstrated clinically. Will await others' inputs. MartinezMD (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem I perceive is that I've never heard of the publisher, "Indy Pub". Searching shows a catalogue of only five titles, which are "printed on demand". I'm sorry, but I think we need a well-established publisher with a reputation for the quality of its publications before we start using it as a source on Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I've read the small extract available at Google books, and it opens saying "This book was written during the first few weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic". The author is a "medical anatomist" and says the book is based on his belief that "detailed neuranatomic knowledge may help clinicians better understand... etc". It doesn't sound to me to contain any specific knowledge or discoveries regarding Covid-19 itself, just speculation. I'd say it's definitely not a source we can use. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2020

In the article section "Signs and Symptoms", the first paragraph contains a [citation needed]; however, the sentence's claim is supported by source #41, as in the previous sentence, and seems like a summary of the previous sentences that causes unnecessary redundancy — I propose that the sentence either be removed, or the citation for source #41 be applied to both that and the previous sentence. -- Rootless Cosmopolitan (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree and removed the second sentence as redundant.MartinezMD (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus 2 and T-cells

I previously mentioned an early web page here (April 16, 2020) which claimed that SARS-CoV-2 attacks T-cells like HIV. I also saw this article "This HIV/AIDS Specialist Explains Its Similarities — And Differences — To COVID-19". Now there is a report in the NY Times: "How the Coronavirus Short-Circuits the Immune System", which links to this preprint: "Immunologic perturbations in severe COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 infection" and other research reports: "Deep immune profiling of COVID-19 patients reveals patient heterogeneity and distinct immunotypes with implications for therapeutic interventions"; "Decreased T cell populations contribute to the increased severity of COVID-19."; "A consensus Covid-19 immune signature combines immuno-protection with discrete sepsis-like traits associated with poor prognosis". There are reservations about these resuts, which are mentioned in the NY Times article (with a good quote). Would now be a good time to add something about this to this article? As with a lot of observations about this virus, the description of the results would have to be written carefully. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

My reservation is that our biomedical content needs to come from quality secondary sources, not primary studies, news reports and preprints. As interesting as the hypothesis is, without coverage from good secondary sources, I don't think it's time to include it in our article. I'm sure that if the suggestion gains traction and enough studies confirm it, we'll find a review or a statement from the WHO, etc. that covers it.--RexxS (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

As discussed in prior sections, biorxiv sources are not reviewed and completely unreliable. This has to wait for a secondary source, or at the very least, a much more reliable primary. MartinezMD (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The occurence of immune suppression in some severe cases of Covid-19 infection does not appear to be the cause of controversy, rather it is the interpretation of them that is the problem. Sometimes reviewed published papers are incorrect, and certainly not all preprints are completely unreliable. I haven't read the article here in depth, but given how little time this virus has been around, I would not be surprised if some other work cited in it has not been covered in a review article. Perhaps I'm wrong. My feeling is, if these studies are being covered in a newspaper like the NY Times, we probably could say something about them, even if only to describe and link the studies, and say they have not been reviewed, and we should provide balance with the quote from Dr. Carl June, an immunologist at the University of Pennsylvania who was not involved with the work: “It is hard to separate the effects of simply being critically ill and in an I.C.U., which can cause havoc on your immune system. What is missing is a control population infected with another severe virus, like influenza.” --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't take unreliable for inaccurate or wrong. Simply, you can't count on their actual writing. They can be withdrawn or have errors, etc not just be false, prior to review. They should be treated as not existing yet, neither accurate nor inaccurate. MartinezMD (talk) 05:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

But they do exist, and preprints are frequently added to astronomy articles. --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Astronomy articles are not subject to the sourcing requirements of WP:MEDRS. Our coronavirus articles *are* subject to those requirements, and so we do not accept the use of preprints. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Rather than linking the preprints, can a sentence or two be added to the section "Immunopathology" mentioning the article in the NY Times and adding the quote? --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

No, because it's an issue of medical research, and the NY times is not a medical source compliant with WP:MEDRS. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not even that, as we could argue if a medical assertion was made (as opposed to basic science one). It's that there is no urgency to put speculation into an encyclopedia article. This isn't some groundbreaking discovery that you can argue increases the weight of its importance. It can wait and no harm is done. If anything, we avoid the need to go back and correct some error. MartinezMD (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

But the quote from Carl June is presumably from a reliable source, no? --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Is that the quote in NYT? I have to wait a couple days to reset my free articles for the month to read it. I'm not subscribing to 20+ websites, too pricey. Your Forbes link is not considered reliable, WP:FORBESCON, and the others are preprints. Can it not wait until it's published in a reliable peer-reviewed source? MartinezMD (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

"It's that there is no urgency to put speculation into an encyclopedia article. This isn't some groundbreaking discovery that you can argue increases the weight of its importance. It can wait and no harm is done.": Yes, exactly. What we should not be doing is picking up on everything we come across and then trying to find tortuous justifications for including it. We should be adopting the approach of "What information is reliable enough to include in an encyclopedia rather than a news or current affairs outlet?" Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Reference system

The change I made is to what I believe is the preferred way of incorporating citations. It allows newcomers to add the reference materials to the body of text and experienced users to add a reference nickname (e.g.<ref name "This article">) to the body of text and the full reference to the reference list. It makes it easier to see the text you are editing. Otherwise, the full reference descriptions break up the article so much it is hard to add material or edit. Newcomers' citations can easily be moved to the reference section by more experienced users. Please check with an admin before reverting again. Thanks. Stoney1976 (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Friendly warning here... If you make a change and it is reverted, do not do it again without gaining a consensus here first. These Covid-19 articles are under discretionary sanctions, and there is little patience for edit warring. Also, it is not an admin matter to decide on the referencing style used in this article, but there is no universally preferred style. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Furthermore, if you're going to make changes, don't introduce errors. Your series of edits Stoney1976 left a broken citation. MartinezMD (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Also, please read WP:CITEVAR. Schazjmd (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Stoney1976 is now blocked for edit warring for making the change again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Stoney1976, if you're looking to avoid citations taking up space in editing, the WikEd gadget has a feature to hide references in boxes until you hover over them. Alternatively there's the visual editor which renders them as footnotes. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks Tenryuu! I'll try that, though I do like dealing directly with code.Stoney1976 (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• The name of what I was trying to apply is evidently "List defined references." The article about it isn't very clear. It is a system that allows you to name each source and move the bulk of the information about it to the reference section, leaving only the source name (e.g. <ref name="sourcename">) in the body of the article. People can still add basic inline citations, but it allows the option of naming them. I don't NEED to apply it to the article, but it would reduce clutter. It can also identify any errors in the references (both annoying and helpful). I was just trying to improve the page and make it easier to edit. Let me know if you change your minds. In the meantime, I'll focus on content. Stoney1976 (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2020

Rename to "COVID-19;" see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles for why. 2604:3D08:D180:4500:C73:5967:AC2D:5A51 (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

– — ° ′ ″ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § 2604:3D08:D180:4500:C73:5967:AC2D:5A51 (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Has already been covered. COVID-19 is the abbreviation. It links here regardless. MartinezMD (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

You made the same request on June 11. See Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019/Archive 10 #Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2020 for the previous answer, which is the same now. Tendentious editing will inevitably lead to your editing privileges being curtailed. --RexxS (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not see the problem with renaming it to "COVID-19" as it obviously it is a more common name and I did not know what happened to my other request so I added it back. If being an abbreviation is the problem, does that mean I should request a rename for all articles with with abbreviations as the name? 2604:3D08:D180:4500:C73:5967:AC2D:5A51 (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

You can try, but on this article we're using the full name. MartinezMD (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a guidebook

WP:NOTADVICE is quite clear that we may not issue instructions in Wikipedia's voice: "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not." I've removed the disputed text "Medical grade facemasks such as N95 masks should be reserved and prioritised for healthcare workers and first responders." that was re-inserted by Gammapearls claiming consensus: "Undid revision 966010983 by Wikmoz (talk) restoring consensus version". I'd like to see a link to the discussion where that consensus was reached. --RexxS (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Firm agreement from me. That was a near textbook example of instruction/advice being delivered in Wikipedia's voice, and clearly forbidden by WP:NOTADVICE. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

RexxS I wasn't involved in previous discussions about the lede for this article but this line has gone through several rewrites since April, and is a more condensed version of content that has been in the lede for months. If you are going to remove it from the article text, then perhaps you would consider removing it from the lede as well? Gammapearls (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The lead version says "Health officials also stated that...", which is very different from Wikipedia stating it and is therefore not a violation of WP:NOTADVICE. No comment on whether it is otherwise appropriate, or whether the body content should be reintroduced in a NOTADVICE-compliant way. Oh, and a slight puzzlement - the lead should be a condensed version of the body, not the other way round. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gammapearls: if you're going to use consensus as a reason for reverting a sourced change that fixed the NOTADVICE issue, you're going to have to be clear about the consensus you're relying on. I take it you're unable to link to the discussion?

On an article under sanctions, we should not be replacing text that has been challenged by reversion without getting a consensus on the talk page. Personally I think the advice is relevant to the article and should be included, but we can't just leave it in the form you used. --RexxS (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The article text Rexx removed seems to be an earlier version. From May 31: [4]. The "health officials" part is a recent addition. My edit simply reverted new changes because I believed the lede content had consensus. I'm not as familiar with the article history as Rexx. Gammapearls (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gammapearls: the article text I removed was

• Medical grade facemasks such as N95 masks should be reserved and prioritised for healthcare workers and first responders.

That is clearly the text that you inserted two edits earlier, and anyone can see that. When you revert, or make any change, you take responsibility for the text you add to an article. --RexxS (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Since I can't edit, here's a link which mentions complications with the brain by covid-19

This article talks about complications with the brain, they're not written in the disease card: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/scientists-warn-potential-wave-covid-linked-brain-damage-n1233150 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omer abcd (talk • contribs) 21:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Neurologic manifestations are discussed in the Complications section and are supported by this new report in Brain (cited in the NBC article) and this June report in STAT News. Haven't made any changes but the Complications section should be updated to incorporate new research and it's probably worth adding to the infobox. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Need "extended confirmed user" or administrator to add new advice from the CDC regarding prevention:

Please add to end of the section on "Prevention": — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoney1976 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Enhanced ventilation. The CDC recommends ventilation of all public spaces to help dilute and clear out potentially infectious aerosols. This can be achieved by increasing the percentage of outside air, increasing the total airflow to occupied spaces, disabling demand-control ventilation (DCV) controls, and using natural ventilation (e.g., opening windows and doors if possible and safe to do so).

Enhanced filtration. The CDC recommends enhancing filtration in building heating and air conditioning (HVAC) systems as part of an overall risk mitigation plan in conjunction with consideration of "compatibility with HVAC system capabilities for both temperature and humidity control as well as compatibility with outdoor/indoor air quality considerations." It should be designed in consultation with a professional or it may be counterproductive. The CDC recommends increasing air filtration as high as is possible (MERV 13 or 14) without reducing design airflow. This may require replacing the current HVAC system with one that can better handle such filters which create more resistance to air flow. Other recommendations include using appropriate, correctly installed filters, running ventilation systems continuously, and creating separate ventilation zones for higher and lower risk areas of the building (e.g., individual offices on a different zone than office gym).

Another option may be to add freestanding air cleaners, which range in size from tabletop units for homes and restaurants to units for large rooms. The CDC recommends considering portable high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) fan/filtration systems to further clean the air, especially in areas where virus particles are likely to be most concentrated.

UV systems. The CDC recommends ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI) as part of an overall system to help inactivate the virus. This should be done as part of an overall mitigation plan in consultation with a professional because the specifics of the system are critical to safety and effectiveness.

Bathrooms. The CDC recommends that bathroom fans be working and at full capacity when people are in the building. Stoney1976 (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to use the edit request. You are a confirmed user; just start a section with a level 2 heading and make your statements. That will avoid potential for mistakes. MartinezMD (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Now that being said, these recommendations don't seem to go in the "disease" article and are likely better suited in another one of the coronavirus articles. MartinezMD (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I tried to add it myself, but it wouldn't let me at the time because the page had recently experienced some vandalism. I will try again. This seems to be the main COVID-19 article. I'll see if there are any COVID-19 articles focused on prevention/mitigation, but even if there are, I would think that a brief summary of ways to prevent infection would be good to have in the main article. Stoney1976 (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It still says that only "only extended confirmed users and administrators can edit it." It shows me a "source" tab instead of an "edit" tab. Stoney1976 (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

They recently restricted the protection further. 1 month and 500 edits to be able to edit. Make some edits to other articles and get your count to 500. Then you'll be cleared to edit here. MartinezMD (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

In the meantime, please feel free to continue using the edit request template. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Stoney1976 (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Stoney1976: Thanks for the information. Another possible place for this is workplace hazard controls for COVID-19 but we have to breathe at home too. There's also open-air treatment as this is not a new idea. I myself bought a HEPA quality Dyson air filter when the pandemic arose and it's good to see that the CDC are now confirming their utility. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was glad to see the CDC add it too. I was thinking of this information as useful in preventing infection by reducing COVID-19 load/dose/levels in the air at home and at work. There is a problem with infection of "family clusters." This suggests things to consider trying. Someone might not look at the workplace page for suggestions regarding how to prevent infection in the home. At the very least, it would be good to have a brief synopsis of prevention suggestions on this page and links to any more detailed pages about home or workplace solutions. Stoney1976 (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

References

WHO has changed FAQ for transmission

[5]

Please change:

The virus is primarily spread between people during close contact,[a] most often via small droplets produced by coughing,[b] sneezing, and talking.[6][20][22] The droplets usually fall to the ground or onto surfaces rather than travelling through air over long distances,[6] although in some cases they may remain airborne for tens of minutes.

to:

The virus may spread between people when they directly contact each other, or are in close proximity. It is thought to do so via secretions, saliva, or contaminated droplets, which are expelled from the mouth or nose, including when coughing, sneezing, speaking or singing. It may also spread when people touch surfaces contaminated with these secretions or droplets, and then their face. Smaller droplets known as aerosols may also be implicated, notably where there is poor ventilation or crowded indoor spaces. [6] [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.181.162.136 (talk) 07:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm editing the article with a slight tweak based on the latest WHO guidelines:

The virus is primarily spread between people during close contact,[a] most often via small droplets produced by coughing,[b] sneezing, and talking.[6][20][22] The droplets usually fall to the ground or onto surfaces rather than travelling through air over long distances.[6] Transmission may also occur through smaller droplets (called aerosols) that are able to stay suspended in the air for longer periods of time. Aerosol transmission can happen during some medical procedures and potentially in crowded indoor spaces that are inadequately ventilated. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

My edits were trying to fix an existing error

Please take a look at the underlying code in the talk section above. When the system added my requested edit, it created an error that hid a number of sections, including part of my request. I couldn't figure out where the error occurred, so I created a new section and reposted my request. If you want to correct the rest of the problem, please fix the code. It would be much appreciated. Stoney1976 (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Stoney1976, I fixed the issue: it's because you introduced ref tags in #Reference system that didn't have proper closing tags to follow them. In the future, if you wish to discuss ref tags, please at the very least enclose them in nowiki tags like this:

<nowiki><ref name="example"></nowiki>

—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I actually know about ref tags, though I am not immune to typos. I had entered my requested edit via the template the system presented as directed, but somehow when the system added it, something went wrong. I guess I could have made a typo in the edit, but I thought I previewed it before I sent it. Thanks for your efforts either way! Stoney1976 (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

SARS 2's complications relating to blood

It is mainly about its effect on the blood transfusion supply but it has direct links to the pandemic https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhae/article/PIIS2352-3026(20)30186-1/fulltext Anthropophoca (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Problems with risk factors

I can't edit the page since I'm not in the right level, but I'm pretty sure you can delete the viral exposure from the risk factor list, because this is the way to get infected, this is like writing that dying is a risk factor of death. Also, where is the group of people WHO wrote have a gigher risk of developing severe symptoms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omer abcd (talk • contribs) 20:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I removed travel too since it's a true pandemic and every nation has endemic infections. That was an issue earlier in the pandemic when some areas were relatively safe. MartinezMD (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 July 2020

Please take this phrase:

the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends 2 metres (6 ft)

and replace it with:

the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends 6 feet (2 metres)

I understand that the article uses metric, but in this case, the source says "Maintain good social distance (about 6 feet). This is very important in preventing the spread of COVID-19." Since the goal is basically to quote their recommendation, the unit they use ought to be mentioned first, since 2m is just a conversion from that. 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:507E:8161:94B1:9C52 (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

So you would make that sentence inconsistent with itself? The first part before the semicolon cites the WHO recommendation of "1 metre (3 ft) of social distance", so  Not done for purposes of consistency within the article and within that particular sentence of the article. Thank you for your suggestion! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 02:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I get the concern in the spirit of the principle of minimal change but presenting meters first is supported by WP:CALC and MOS:CONVERSIONS. To Paine's point above, presenting feet first would end up being inconsistent within the sentence and an outlier in the article. This exact scenario is actually detailed in the last bullet of WP:UNIT and it looks like it's been coded in the article accordingly using the order flip: {{convert|6|ft|m|0|order=flip}}. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)