Talk:COVID-19/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Vitamin D wording

@Bakkster Man and MartinezMD: While the NIH cite did rate the quality of all studies as 'Very low', i.e., "Any estimate of effect is very uncertain", the phrasing there is limited evidence strikes me as too dismissive and that a more appropriate characterization would be some evidence. Of the 6 studies cited re Association between vitamin D status and COVID-19 cases, the first 5 were presented with caveats; but the 6th, Merzon 2020 was presented without caveats:

Merzon 202 did control for demographic variables and found that people with suboptimal serum vitamin D (<75nmol/L) were more likely to contract COVID-19 than people above the threshold OR 1.5 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.98).

Of the 7 studies cited re Association between vitamin D status and COVID-19 severity,

… Four studies reported mortality as a standalone outcome.

• 3 studies found that a higher measured vitamin D status (Karahan 2020, linear vitamin D measurement) or supplementation before diagnosis (Annweiler 2020, within a month before or up to a week after diagnosis; Annweiler 2020a, supplemented for a year before diagnosis) were negatively associated with death post COVID-19 diagnosis, OR 0.92 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.98), HR 0.11 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.48) and HR 0.07 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.61, respectively Radujkovic 2020 also found that suboptimal serum vitamin D (<30nmol/L) was associated with higher mortality rate, HR 14.73 (95% CI 4.16 to 52.19).
• [In the 4th study:] However, receiving a vitamin D bolus when diagnosed with COVID-19 was as associated with death as no supplementation (HR 0.37 (95% CI 0.06 to 2.21), Annweiler 2020a).

Humanengr (talk) 05:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

In medical context, limited isn't used as a dismissive term. It is meant to be objective i.e. simply not enough in this case. The review grades each article using the NICE guidelines and has rated the evidence quality (table is from the review article) of each of the articles as "Very Low". MartinezMD (talk) 05:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree. "Limited" (or "weak") is fine. Given the wording in the source I think "limited" may be overstating it. I'd prefer "It is unclear whether ..." or "There is no good evidence that ..." given the strong caveating in the source. Alexbrn (talk) 06:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

While I'll leave it up to the others on the specific wording, I do think it's worth pointing out that WP:MEDRS says that we should only take what these national health organizations say, rather than running our own interpretation of the primary studies they based their recommendations on. It doesn't, it doesn't really matter what Merzon 2020 says, only what the NIH interprets the body of evidence to say. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree. "Cite reviews, don't write them." -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The footnote from the NHS at the end of the article para says There have been some reports about vitamin D reducing the risk of coronavirus (COVID-19). My suggestion comports with that.

[Adding:] Re other suggestions above and in prior discussions  (here and here), the NIH did not say the evidence was limited, weak, unclear or that there is no good evidence. That there is some evidence (per NHS) is the primary point and should be in the body text rather than a footnote.

Rewriting the § in view of this — using the same sources (with some reordering and paring):

In October 2020, the UK National Health Service noted "There have been some reports vitamin D reduces the risk of coronavirus (COVID-19)" along with the following recommendation:

It's important to take vitamin D as you may have been indoors more than usual this year.

You should take 10 micrograms (400 IU) of vitamin D a day between October and early March to keep your bones and muscles healthy.

The US NIH has noted, however, that there is no evidence vitamin D is an effective treatment for COVID-19.

The Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health recommends a healthy diet, being physically active, managing psychological stress, and getting enough sleep.

Humanengr (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

From the NHS source "There have been some reports about vitamin D reducing the risk of coronavirus (COVID-19). But there is currently not enough evidence to support taking vitamin D to prevent or treat coronavirus." Not conveying some summary of the key message here (bolded) would be cherry picking. Alexbrn (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

No problem … so let's start with In October 2020, the UK National Health Service noted that "There have been some reports vitamin D reduces the risk of coronavirus (COVID-19). But there is currently not enough evidence to support taking vitamin D to prevent or treat coronavirus" along with the following recommendation: …. With that I'd also remove the 'however' from the NIH sentence. Humanengr (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The "along with" makes it sound like this is further comment from the NHS on COVID-19, when it isn't. So we would have a WP:SYNTHESIS problem. All we know from the NHS source about COVID-19 (the subject of this article) is that there's no good evidence of any benefit from vitamin D. Alexbrn (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

They didn't say there's no good evidence of any benefit from vitamin D. To avoid misrepresentation, we should begin with what they said verbatim:

In October 2020, the UK National Health Service noted:

It's important to take vitamin D as you may have been indoors more than usual this year.

You should take 10 micrograms (400 IU) of vitamin D a day between October and early March to keep your bones and muscles healthy.

There have been some reports about vitamin D reducing the risk of coronavirus (COVID-19). But there is currently not enough evidence to support taking vitamin D to prevent or treat coronavirus.

To which we could add "The NIH said, regarding the association between vitamin D status and COVID-19 cases or severity, that "any estimate of effect is very uncertain". Humanengr (talk) 03:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

We are meant to summarize sources in our own words; quoting verbatim is a failure to do that. I'd be fine with any summary that sufficiently conveys the lack of evidence the NHS emphasizes. As to your current recommendation, putting the NHS's general recommendation in a COVID-19 article implies it's what they're saying about Vitamin D and COVID-19; it isn't. Also "noted" is a problem word. Alexbrn (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The NHS did not say there is a lack of evidence; that misrepresents what the NHS said. To address your point re 'noted', we could start with In October 2020, the UK National Health Service, in a 'Coronavirus update', stated: …. Re quoting, per WP:QUOTE, quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words.. That's the best guidance we have for this; else we end up with one of us putting words in the mouth of the agencies. Humanengr (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

You think "lack of evidence" is different in meaning from "not enough evidence"!? WP:QUOTE is an essay with no policy weight. But to quote core policy (WP:V): "Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible; when quoting or closely paraphrasing a source use an inline citation, and in-text attribution where appropriate" [my emphasis]. It should be possible to summarize "there is currently not enough evidence to support taking vitamin D to prevent or treat coronavirus"; let's see. I'd be happy with "There is insufficient evidence to verify reports that vitamin D is of benefit in preventing of treating coronavirus", and leave it at that. Alexbrn (talk) 05:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed there is currently not enough evidence to support taking vitamin D to prevent or treat coronavirus. But that does not mean there is a lack of evidence re vitamin D reducing the risk of coronavirus (COVID-19). The referents in those two sentences (reducing the risk of coronavirus (COVID-19) and preventing or treating coronavirus) are not coextensive. The former can include reducing the severity of symptoms.

I'm ok with your "there is currently not enough evidence to support taking vitamin D to prevent or treat coronavirus" as long as we preface that with the sense of NHS's first sentence, that "there are some reports about Vitamin D reducing the risk of coronavirus (COVID-19)". Humanengr (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Those were not my suggested words. I proposed "There is insufficient evidence to verify reports that vitamin D is of benefit in preventing or treating coronavirus". I'd be fine prefacing this with an "As of October 2020". This summarizes the source. Let's see what others say. Alexbrn (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for the mis-copy; I'm ok with that text. But that --does not-- summarize the source. It plainly omits the sense of the first sentence. Humanengr (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no "sense" other than reports exist. This is followed by an explanation of the lack of evidence. "Reports" in medical terms are worth next-to-squat. Alexbrn (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain on what basis NHS included the following two sentences under the heading of 'Coronavirus update'?

It's important to take vitamin D as you may have been indoors more than usual this year. You should take 10 micrograms (400 IU) of vitamin D a day between October and early March to keep your bones and muscles healthy.

Humanengr (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Because being indoors a lot can lead to deficiency. That has nothing to do with preventing or treating COVID-19, which is the topic of this article. Alexbrn (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Does 'preventing or treating coronavirus' cover all aspects of 'reducing risk from coronavirus'? In particular, does it cover reducing severity of symptoms? Humanengr (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

That's a general question, but if something was shown to "reduce severity of symptoms" sources would surely classify that as a treatment benefit. Alexbrn (talk) 07:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not a treatment; it's a daily dosage regimen that reduces symptoms if one should subsequently be infected. It would be presented as a 'treatment' only if given after infection. (From what I have read, a bolus after infection has not been shown to be effective.) Neither is it a 'preventative'; it reduces severity of symptoms but not the binary risk of infection. In sum, it's not covered under either 'prevention' or 'treatment'. Humanengr (talk) 08:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

"a daily dosage regimen that reduces symptoms" ← Source? Alexbrn (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Make that a daily dosage regimen has been reported to reduce severity. Several of the 7 studies reviewed by NIH in the 'Association between vitamin D status and COVID-19 severity' § — reported — albeit, with NIH's Very low ranking, i.e., where the estimate of effect is very uncertain — that supplementation prior to diagnosis reduces severity. Humanengr (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

By "several" you mean three; four did not. So, "mixed results". And the investigations are assessed not in the context of "dosing regimens" but "vitamin D status" - which is something more applicable to certain populations. Somebody exposed to a lot of sunlight will not be deficient. We already say "there is limited evidence that vitamin D deficiency increases the risk of severe COVID-19 symptoms", which seems fair. Alexbrn (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Re ‘limited’ vs ‘some’: from the NIH 1st para — “Some studies found a negative association between vitamin D status and COVID-19 incidence.” Humanengr (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

So now we're on to incidence? We know from the NHS source there is insufficient evidence about that. I think at this point if you have a precise proposal, please spell it out. Alexbrn (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for that misdirection and thx for prompt to reread more closely. (We all — NIH included — make mistakes: their Table 6 lists six studies re association of vitamin D and cases, but their 'cases' text doesn't cover Hernandez 2020; their intro para under 'severity' states there are seven studies, but their text and Table 7 address eight.)

Two studies (Annweiler 2020 and Annweiler 2020a) addressed supplementation and found it negatively associated with both severe COVID-19 and death. Yes, the estimate of effect is very uncertain, but no studies contradicted those findings. The NIH lead sentence in the 3rd para under 'severity' Results associating vitamin D status with COVID-19 severity scores were mixed is misleading as the only negative was Annweiler 2020 reporting there was no difference when only receiving a bolus when diagnosed.

Propose adding: Supplementation with vitamin D has been found to be negatively associated with both severe COVID-19 and death, although the estimate of effect is "very uncertain".[NIH]. Or more readably: Vitamin D supplementation has been associated with a reduction in the severity of symptoms and death from COVID-19, although the estimate of effect is "very uncertain".[NIH].

The details re Annweiler (with some reordering for readability): Supplementation for a year was significantly negatively associated with having severe COVID-19 [Annweiler 2020a]; Supplementation before diagnosis (Annweiler 2020); within a month before, up to a week after diagnosis, or for a year before diagnosis [Annweiler 2020a] were negatively associated with death post COVID-19 diagnosis. Humanengr (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I have significant concerns with the phrasing, especially for the NHS info, as it appears to have been flipped on its meaning. They're primarily referencing Vitamin D deficiency, with possibilities of deficiency causing increased COVID risk and social distancing resulting in more people being deficient. The above phrasing gives an (unintended) emphasis on use of Vitamin D (whether deficient or not) to reduce risk, rather than the consensus view which appears to be that Vit D deficiency increases risk. Even the verbatim quoting has this issue, because the page is written on the overall Vitamin D recommendations, and quoting this COVID disclaimer here could end up giving WP:UNDUE weight since this isn't an article about Vitamin D. Put more simply, You should take 10 micrograms (400 IU) of vitamin D a day between October and early March to keep your bones and muscles healthy in this context could imply that the Vitamin D is recommended for COVID specifically, rather than general health. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: I agree with that analysis of the dangers, but think the wording as of now is okay. Alexbrn (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Are you referring to the current wording on the article page (citing only the systemic review directly, rather than NHS/NIH) or the proposed update above? Bakkster Man (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

this version. But I added the recent review since then (also fine IMO). Alexbrn (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: As a heads up, the article currently has a very different wording, with no mention of Vitamin D deficiency at all. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Humanengr: I don't think those proposals are very neutral as they give undue weight to the poor underlying research rather than reflecting the principal knowledge in the secondary source (i.e. that there is no good evidence of benefit). Alexbrn (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The proposals characterize the secondary source using the wording of the NIH. Where do you see the underlying research characterized as 'poor' or that the principal knowledge in the secondary sources shows "there is no good evidence of benefit"? Humanengr (talk) 05:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

In Wikipedia terms such studies are "poor" because they do not convey the accepted knowledge we are meant to reflect (hence, they fail WP:MEDRS). We should reflect the analysis and synthesis of the secondary source rather than majoring on the primary source's details and then squirreling the knowledge away at the end of the sentence in scare quotes, as you have done with "very uncertain". Bringing your own analysis to the table (the nonsensical "no studies contradicted those findings") is bad, and bespeaks of a POV. The summary of this source is "no good evidence". In lieu of newer sources I suggest we're done here. Alexbrn (talk) 06:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

What if the summary is longer than the summarized? Or, to summarize, your version uses more and different words than the original. Shtove (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:AGF. I was taking the NIH as presenting accepted knowledge. Hence, not "poor". No studies contradicting that finding were presented by NIH. Re the scare quotes, I had forgotten WP-en uses the American convention; and am fine with reversing the order: Although the estimate of effect is very uncertain, vitamin D supplementation has been associated with a reduction in the severity of symptoms and death from COVID-19.[NIH] Humanengr (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I am struggling with the concept of "studies contradicting that finding". It makes little-to-no sense in the context of evidence-based medicine where this is either evidence, or not (generally not "contradictory" evidence). Are you invoking the idea that Vitamin D is maybe harmful? Where is this concept coming from? In any case, we have an updated source now. Alexbrn (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Did the NIH present anything contradicting what they presented from Annweiler: vitamin D supplementation [prior to diagnosis] has been associated with a reduction in the severity of symptoms and death from COVID-19? Humanengr (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Sound like an weird original research question. What does a "contradiction" of "very uncertain" even mean? If you mean "very certain", then no they did not. Alexbrn (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

You're still don't grokking the basic point. The "very uncertain" refers to the amount of reduction, not the fact of reduction. Nothing 'original research question' about it. Humanengr (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

You're inventing meaningless things that bear no relation to sourced text, so I'm going to disengage. If new sources/proposals come to light there may be some point to this. Alexbrn (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm reading and understanding the text and you're not. Disengaging. Ciao Humanengr (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead section: death

The lead section of the article summarizes statistics on various levels of symptoms but gives no statistics on death rates. I think it would be advisable to include them. --184.147.181.129 (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Pandemic on March 11, 2020

Odd that there is no reference in the article to the fact that WHO declared an official pandemic on March 11, 2020.

--100.4.145.81 (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

This is covered on the page COVID-19 pandemic, linked from here, that's about the pandemic specifically. This page generally focuses on the disease itself. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

fake "review" article?

The article has over 400 citations, similar to a review article. I.e. it states "A person who is infected can transmit the virus to others up to two days before they themselves show symptoms, and even if symptoms never appear.[57]" But, I could not find anything in the linked document that supports the statement! Has anybody actually tried to verify the citations and therefore the respective statements? -Unsigned comment by 94.222.93.65

Citations for the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (an official EU organization) source you refer to are given here, as linked from the cited page. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Symptoms inconsistency

Under "Signs and Symptoms" in the second paragraph it says

"Most people (81%) develop mild to moderate symptoms (up to mild pneumonia) ...[46] At least a third of the people who are infected with the virus do not develop noticeable symptoms at any point in time"

Am I misunderstanding this? How can 81% develop mild to moderate symptoms but at least a third do not develop noticeable symptoms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PermutationCitizen (talk • contribs) 8 May 2021 21:46:37 (UTC)

It's transcluded from the lead of Symptoms of COVID-19 - I made a change there and purged the page to clarify that the 81% etc are of people who show symptoms. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• SARS-CoV-2 without background.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Role of the mitochondria in the immunopathology

Can anything relevant be said about the role of the mitochondria in relation to the immune response (see [1], [2])? If yes, it would be worth mentioning it here I think, all the more as I start seeing some non-scientific (des-)information about the role of the mitochondria in COVID-19 and Long Covid on the Internet, so it would be good to be able to put it in context. Thanks --Chris Howard (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Are there better source? That journal is not great, lacking MEDLINE indexing. Alexbrn (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

How do you see in PubMed if an article has MEDLINE indexing? The two of them are both indicated as Review articles in PubMed:

• Burtscher J, Cappellano G, Omori A, Koshiba T, Millet GP (October 2020). "Mitochondria: In the Cross Fire of SARS-CoV-2 and Immunity". iScience. 23 (10): 101631. doi:10.1016/j.isci.2020.101631. PMC 7524535. PMID 33015593.
• Ganji R, Reddy PH (2020). "Impact of COVID-19 on Mitochondrial-Based Immunity in Aging and Age-Related Diseases". Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience. 12: 614650. doi:10.3389/fnagi.2020.614650. PMC 7835331. PMID 33510633.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

and there are some more:

• Gatti P, Ilamathi HS, Todkar K, Germain M (2020). "Mitochondria Targeted Viral Replication and Survival Strategies-Prospective on SARS-CoV-2". Frontiers in Pharmacology. 11: 578599. doi:10.3389/fphar.2020.578599. PMC 7485471. PMID 32982760.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
• Dutta S, Das N, Mukherjee P (2020). "Picking up a Fight: Fine Tuning Mitochondrial Innate Immune Defenses Against RNA Viruses". Frontiers in Microbiology. 11: 1990. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2020.01990. PMC 7487669. PMID 32983015.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Do these indications help any further? --Chris Howard (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all those sources lack MEDLINE indexing. According to the MED project, all those reviews cannot be used since this is a medical topic. Perhaps, the above editor and the MED project will make an exception. I'm ok with those reviews being used, however, I focus on virology/science articles. --Guest2625 (talk) 06:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Lab Leak Again

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Lab Leak Again --Guy Macon (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC) Guy Macon is spot on, this is what I'm referring to. There is growing consensus regarding that COVID-19 came from a lab, but yet it's still not in the article. Is this Wokepedia?

Censorship based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT

As has been widely reported in recent days, the hypothesis that Covid-19 might have escaped from a laboratory has been given increased credibility. We should not claim it to be a fact, but nor should we censor it when reliable sources reported it. Unfortunately, some users are now doing the latter - repeatedly deleting any reference to the hypothesis without any valid explanation beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. One user even deleted it with the edit summary "crappy sourcing", which looks rather silly when the source is Science, one of the world's most respected scientific journals. Jeppiz (talk) 09:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

So far as I can see, nobody has cited WP:IDONTLIKEIT other than you. That source has been discussed extensively at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation. See WP:NOLABLEAK for a handy overview of what the best sources are saying. Alexbrn (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure, and I have strongly defended the ideas behind WP:NOLABLEAK in multiple discussions in the past year. However, the situation has changed as many experts no longer exclude it (as multiple reliable sources show). Science is not static and as it evolves, so should articles reflecting it. When NOLABLEAK was written, it very accurately reflected consensus among experts at the time. During May 2021, that consensus is no longer there. When we see Dr. Fauci admitting he cannot exclude it whil WP users on this page feel they know better than him by being able to revert by just stating "Not true" and calling Science "crappy sourcing", then we have moved away from reflecting current academic debate to instead put up some WP users as the experts. That's not how it's supposed to be. Sure, covering Covid is challenging as science continue to learn more about it at a rapid pace - but that's no excuse for us to ignore it. Jeppiz (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The situation has not changed, in the best sources. No decent source "excludes" the extremely unlikely possibility of a lab leak, and neither does Wikipedia - so that would seem to be a straw man point. When/if the science moves on as reported in solid RS (as opposed to the politics/journalism/letters and otherwise lesser sources), then we can adjust accordingly. Until then how it's covered in Wikipedia looks sane. (Quite apart from anything else the premise as stated here, "Covid-19 might have escaped from a laboratory", is nonsensical, COVID-19 is a disease and this is the article about that disease. The article about the virus is Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.) Alexbrn (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk about splitting hairs! Vitkogames (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

In general, it's good not to make Wikipedia look like it's edited by scientific illiterates. Alexbrn (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2021

Change "Use Commonwealth English" to "EngvarB" per tfd outcome Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#To_convert 81.2.252.231 (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done (Diff) TGHL ↗ 🍁 16:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

fungus comorbidity

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-57027829 - should this be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.30.115 (talk • contribs)

It'll need secondary sources WP:MEDRS or it's just an anecdotal report. I would think we would've seen it before now otherwise. MartinezMD (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's one, review of 43 case studies. [3] Bakkster Man (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a good source. With only 43 cases out of millions, it can be mentioned but should be very limited, one sentence perhaps. MartinezMD (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking just a link to Mucormycosis somewhere in the complications section. There wasn't a good spot, so I added a sentence at the end for rare complications. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that's a great source. However, that review article is not in MEDLINE. Can a review article not in MEDLINE be considered MEDRS? This seems relevant to the discussion just right below. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WikiProject COVID-19

Please join this broad discussion on how we discuss and explain COVID origins. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Study on risk of reinfection after seroconversion

I think this study should be considered to incorporate into the article, specifically immunity section. https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab495/6287116 Spiralfeel (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be a primary study. We generally favor secondary reviews, based on the results of multiple primary studies. Check CDC, WHO, ECDC, et al as well for similar secondary sourcing which we could use in the article. Thanks! Bakkster Man (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Barcelona Spain, March 2019

Reuters reported JUNE 26, 2020 "Coronavirus traces found in March 2019 sewage sample, Spanish study shows" see https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-spain-science-idUSKBN23X2HQ Did this get corrected? If not surely it should be in the 'History' section. 143.159.171.46 (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC) For what it's worth this passed fact checking by USA Today https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/07/07/fact-check-coronavirus-found-march-2019-wastewater-sample/5350878002/ 143.159.171.46 (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the WHO was reviewing reports like this (including ones from Italy), but I never saw a conclusion. We generally want to wait for secondary sources confirming (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP), especially since antibody tests can be unreliable. Bakkster Man (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

"In particular, the PCR testing technique could have produced false positives, although the researchers report following the FDA testing protocol^. It is also improbable that some of the viral material was infectious, so the results of this study should not be interpreted as proof of orofecal transmission." No one was ever able to replicate their findings. False positive. MartinezMD (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Revert: protective effect of smoking on COVID-19

Hi MartinezMD. I noticed your revert on the COVID-19 page (positive effects of smoking on COVID-19). I understand that this wasn't asserted in the page before. This claim keeps coming up in the media now and then. So, I wanted it called out specifically and debunked. Does it still not make sense to include here? Iciplascarfern (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd say it's hugely undue in this, the top-level COVID-19 article. It's already covered at COVID-19 misinformation#Tobacco. Alexbrn (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense at COVID-19 misinformation#Tobacco. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, makes sense. Thank you Alexbrn and Bakkster Man Iciplascarfern (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request - 30 May 2021

http://doi.org/10.1210/jendso/bvab037 This secondary review article from the University of Oxford summarises six large scale research papers confirming a) the role of sugar (fructose) in the development of severe COVID-19, and b) how this factor is likely to affect vaccine efficacy.

Suggested edit: Under section 6.8 "Healthy diet and lifestyle" at the end of the first paragraph, add "The University of Oxford recommends limited fructose consumption in order to minimise inflammation, a key contributor to morbidity in COVID-19"

19discus19 (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Weak source (the journal is not MEDLINE-indexed e.g.); odd claims. Not usable. Alexbrn (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

In addition, the fact that academics at a university publish an article in a journal is never a reason to say that "The University of X recommends". That is a failure to understand how academia works. Researchers at the same university can, and very do, hold different opinions. Publishing an article doesn't mean speaking in the name of the university. Jeppiz (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Transmission section no sources

The transmission section has no sources. Does someone know how to fix the problem? --Guest2625 (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed! Thanks for pointing this out Guest2625 There was a problem with the translcusion.-- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

New Lab Leak Evidence

There has been new lab leak evidence and has been displayed in the reliable sources like The Daily Telegraph and Financial Times, so why does this article not include these and because of this new evidence why doesn't it label the nature emergence of the virus as a conspiracy theory? The new evidence can be found here. unsigned comment by AccurateJournalist

@AccurateJournalist: Welcome to Wikipedia! Unfortunately, your edits had a few issues. Most notably from what you mentioned above, the Daily Telegraph is not a very reliable source, particularly for the claims being made. We generally follow a policy to favor WP:SCHOLARSHIP over news sources (especially useful, since I could find another news article contradicting the one you posted), when available, and those sources don't reflect what you wrote. Which brings me to the second concern, we also follow a policy of neutral point of view writing, meaning that no matter how much we're convinced of something, we still need to present things from a neutral viewpoint. So phrases you used, like "appeared to be scared" and "it emerged" are avoided for the connotations they give (see Words to Watch). You may find it beneficial to edit other areas of Wikipedia outside COVID-19 topics while you learn your way around the policies, and how to write encyclopedically. Especially as there are relatively strict sanctions around the topic due to their contentious nature. I hope that helps explain. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: The trouble is no source is completely accurate even if we go by government sources like the BBC or other newspapers. I chose The Daily Telegraph and Financial Times because I thought they were the most accurate and least biased. We should not be getting things from left wing sources only, we should be using left and right wing sources so that the articles remain unbiased and accurate. If we keep using left wing sources, the public don't get all the information. I joined Wikipedia because there are faults in articles and I wanted to correct them, not have people delete true news. unsigned comment by AccurateJournalist

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I urge you to read through the Wikipedia policies and guidelines to understand the requirements for editing. Particularly WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT. Also, please check out WP:TALK for how to use the talk page (you should be signing your comments, as described in the guideline). Bakkster Man (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: Sorry about that, I was just trying to make a positive difference by publishing true news. AccurateJournalist (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Possible infections among WIV researchers in November 2019

This article, published on June 3, 2021, says the following:

Three researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, all connected with gain-of-function research on coronaviruses, had fallen ill in November 2019 and appeared to have visited the hospital with symptoms similar to COVID-19...

While it is not clear what had sickened them, “these were not the janitors,” said the former State Department official. “They were active researchers. The dates were among the absolute most arresting part of the picture, because they are smack where they would be if this was the origin.” The reaction inside the State Department was, “Holy shit,” one former senior official recalled. “We should probably tell our bosses.” The investigation roared back to life.

Should information about this be added to this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

No. This is not disease-specific, but is probably being discussed at Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Alexbrn (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 June 2021

At the end of the first paragraph of the Pathophysiology section, please add "An envelope protein on COVID-19, as well as providing integrity to the virus, disrupts integrity of the cell-junction proteins in human lung tissue, triggering inflammation and creating opportunities for the virus to enter the blood via the damaged lung tissue." (Or, feel free to workshop this a bit if you want.)

Source: Owens, Brian (June 8, 2021). "How the Coronavirus Attacks the Lungs -- and How We May Be Able to Stop the Damage". Inside Science. Retrieved June 9, 2021. (this source also links to the Nature Communications paper) 92.24.246.11 (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

 Note: The paper in question, referenced in the above source: [4], and its peer review comments: [5]  A S U K I T E  23:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Run n Fly (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 June 2021

Please change the word infectious to contagious 2A00:23C6:748F:2F00:E135:3EFF:DBC:506F (talk) 08:53, 17 June 2021 (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. The word "infectious" appears 25 times in the article; please specify the sentence where you want it changed. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Can someone please update the upper end of the duration (which currently says 10+ months) to 14 months known? A recently published article can be used as a source. I don't have the requisite number of edits to make this change myself (which is ironic, because this would be an edit of mine…quite the catch 22)

theZcuber (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

TheZcuber, we'd probably need a WP:MEDRS citation for this. Maybe something from this PubMed search query would help. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Given that there's currently no reference whatsoever, how would a news article from an otherwise reputable source not be an improvement? It's not like the claim is in dispute. theZcuber (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Earlier estimates of IFR

In the section titled Earlier estimates of IFR, the first sentence is:

At an early stage of the pandemic, the World Health Organization reported estimates of IFR between 0.3% and 1%.

This range (0.3% - 1%) is what is stated in the first reference from the end of february 2020 (WHO Situation Report – 30), however there was a correction the next day in the second reference (WHO Situation Report – 31) where they replace the lower bound:

Since the publication of modeling estimates in yesterday’s ‘Subject in Focus’, one research group (Ref. 12) has provided a correction of their estimate of the Infection-Fatality Ratio (IFR), with the new estimate being 0.94% (95% confidence interval 0.37-2.9). This replaces the lowest estimate of IFR of 0.33%, but remains below the highest estimate of 1.0% (Ref. 11).

In the correction they don't mention the new lower bound but if I read the papers that the WHO references correctly the new range was about 0.5% - 1%. --78.82.228.158 (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

added co-factors

Please change

According to scientific reviews smokers are more likely to require intensive care or die compared to non-smokers,[227][228] air pollution is similarly associated with risk factors,[228] and pre-existing heart and lung diseases[229] and also obesity contributes to an increased health risk of COVID-19.[228][230][231]

into

According to scientific reviews smokers are more likely to require intensive care or die compared to non-smokers[227][228]. Acting on the same ACE2 pulmonary receptors affected by smoking, air pollution has been correlated with the disease. Short term[A] and chronic[B][C] exposure to air pollution seems to enhance morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.[D][E][F] Pre-existing heart and lung diseases[229] and also obesity contributes to an increased health risk of COVID-19.[228][230][231]

A. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039338 B. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd4049 C. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12060795 D. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124487 E. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109861 F. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127973

Ricsnap (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Ricsnap

 Done Thank you for your contribution. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 22:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

WHO nomenclature for variants - Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta

Could someone edit the variants section and add information of WHO nomenclature of variants? The source from the WHO website is here - https://www.who.int/en/activities/tracking-SARS-CoV-2-variants/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdulKareem92 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your suggested contribution, @AbdulKareem92. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 22:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 July 2021

There are some undocumented complications, such as fungal infections, and osteonecrosis. 2409:4073:19C:D0B7:359D:15A:FE9B:A35B (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Not done. Please make your request in the format "please change X to Y". MartinezMD (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Discrepancy between cited source and a sentence in the long-covid section

The section "Longer-term effects" reads like a majority of people who got COVID will have long-term lung damage (28+ days). It states that "The majority of CT scans performed show lung abnormalities in people tested after 28 days of illness.[257]". Checking the source, the word "majority" never occurs and the only percentage mentioned is 98.1% (quite a bit more than a "majority"). Looking for the number 28 (days), it is also only ever mentioned in relation to this 98.1% figure. The source is about "Studies on radiologic progression of severe COVID-19 infection" (severe cases only) and "the current literature on the clinical and radiologic manifestations of post-recovery COVID-19 toward the end of hospital admission and after discharge" (hospitalized cases only) rather than anyone who had COVID-19. There does not appear to be a study cited that did chest CT scans on non-hospitalized or non-severe COVID-19 cases, i.e. nothing can be said about that group (let alone the asymptomatic group) based on this citation. The current text seems inaccurate to me.

Feel free to improve/alter the suggestion, but looking at other edit requests, I see that one should provide an exact from-to change request. I would propose to replace this text:

The majority of CT scans performed show lung abnormalities in people tested after 28 days of illness.

With:

Among severe cases of hospitalized patients it was found that "up to 98.1% of all chest CTs will show abnormalities at > 28 days since symptom onset".

2.243.40.146 (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Good catch. To make it clearer I changed it to "In people requiring hospital admission, up to 98 % of CT scans performed show lung abnormalities after 28 days of illness even if they had clinically improved." Severity was based on the CT findings, not necessarily the clinical appearance. MartinezMD (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2021

The article currently says The virus can cause acute myocardial injury and chronic damage to the cardiovascular system. An acute cardiac injury was found in 12% of infected people admitted to the hospital in Wuhan, China, and is more frequent in severe disease. It focus too much on acute injury, and has no information on non-acute cardiac injury. I prefer this wording SARS-CoV-2 infection leads to cardiac injury and dysfunction in 20%–30% of hospitalized patients (Guo et al., 2020) and higher rates of mortality in patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disease (Shi et al., 2020; Wu and McGoogan, 2020).. The quote is from this source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Forich (talk • contribs) 04:04, 10 June 2021

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Run n Fly (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Complications

• Additions to the complications section. Please add:

- COVID-19 and severe illness from COVID-19 disease affects many different organ systems.

- Acute Kidney Injury is the most frequently seen complication in those with severe COVID-19.

- Risk factors for developing severe COVID-19 and complications from COVID-19 include age and male sex.

- Young people with severe disease also have high rates of complications (27%).:

• New inisights into disease as published recently:
• :

82.24.56.71 (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Hey there. It looks like this is a study. Because studies are done so frequently and often have very different results, we require review articles for biomedical information. Please see WP:MEDRS. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Question…

I’m genuinely confused why the following has a {{fact}} tag:

COVID-19 is caused by infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus strain.

Can anyone explain why? - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

lack of this kind of proof.23.241.29.53 (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Why would a SARS-CoV-1 article from 2003 answer a question about SARS-CoV-2 from 2020-2021? Anyway, this is easy to source, so I went ahead and added a citation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a common fringe theory, that SARS-CoV-2 isn't the causative agent and it's actually 5G or some other thing. Especially common is the reference to Koch's Postulates, which as our article shows has its limitations and is not an absolute necessity (take particular note of Koch's Postulate's use in HIV/AIDS denialism). You've sourced it now, that should leave this done and dusted. Keep an eye out for further fringe stuff. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Ow. My brain. lol –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Is Robert Malone's opinion relevant here?

https://news.yahoo.com/single-most-qualified-mrna-expert-173600060.html 23.241.29.53 (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

no it's quackery. Alexbrn (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

your argument is very convincing. wikipedia would have much higher quality if everyone was as thoughtful as you. quack quack 23.241.29.53 (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has already had to boot Malone-related misinformation.[6] Alexbrn (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

very reputable source you provide! i guess a dent you made in English makes you an expert in vaccine quackery as well.. 23.241.29.53 (talk) 10:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Btw, by 'wikipedia' you mean yourself. And you've been cited in some obscure blog and now brag about it. 23.241.29.53 (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Robert Malone is not the inventor of mRNA technology. Turtleshell3 (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

question was whether his opinion is relevant given he did plenty of peer-reviewed research on the topic. 174.78.59.103 (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Answer: No. Opinions expressed in news articles are only rarely relevant to scientific content, no matter who is expressing the opinion or what the expressed opinion is. For clarity, a statement like "the government is not being transparent with us" is an opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I see other opinions are present in the article, i.e. McNeil Jr DG (2 February 2020). "Wuhan Coronavirus Looks Increasingly Like a Pandemic, Experts Say". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 4 April 2020. In fact, this article is full of such citations. Double standard? 174.78.59.103 (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hospitalization rates of the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated.

In the united states (I don't have information worldwide) right now, the people dying and hospitalised from virus are almost exclusively unvaccinated. This is important information. https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-941fcf43d9731c76c16e7354f5d5e187 97.118.95.85 talk‎ 04:36, 22 July 2021‎ (UTC)

you mean, of those that survived both doses, very few got re-infected: https://wvforhealthfreedom.com/the-frequency-and-severity-of-adverse-events-following-covid-19-vaccination-far-surpass-those-of-all-other-vaccines-combined-being-reported-to-the-vaers-system/

and what about those that had COVID? https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting-immunity-found-after-recovery-covid-19 are they getting sick again?

should we split it by age group? https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/ or this: https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-by-Sex-and-Age/9bhg-hcku

how about adding secondary illness to it? and investigating whether there is a checkbox for doctors: if non-vaccinated, mark as covid, otherwise, mark as secondary cause?

cheers 98.173.54.72 (talk) 05:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The wvforhealthfreedom.com source is nonsense, relying on false claims of adverse events. I personally know literally hundreds of people who received various of the COVID-19 vaccination, and not a single one has had anything more serious than a rough day or two after the second shot. This including myself and people of all ages and health conditions in my immediate and extended family, friends, colleagues, clients, students, and others. If there were injuries anything along the lines of the fanciful claims being reported, it would be statistically nearly impossible for that to have eluded everyone I know to have been vaccinated. BD2412 T 06:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

you can check yourself numbers from VAERS database.. it is open data.. anyways, your anecdotal story means nothing. I know a few people who died after being vaccinated. 98.173.54.72 (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

VAERS is a public reporting system. You can – and someone once did – report that you turned into a green-skinned, muscle-bound Hulk after a vaccine. There are reports of car wrecks "caused" by vaccination. (This is not entirely implausible; think about how many people feel faint at the sight of a needle, or think they're too tough or too busy to sit around for 15 minutes to make sure that they aren't having an allergic reaction.) When you vaccinate millions of people, especially if you focus on vaccinating people who are already seriously ill, you expect a small percentage of people to die "after" being vaccinated. That doesn't mean that the vaccine directly caused it, and it definitely doesn't mean that getting COVID-19 would be safer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

you have issues with public reporting by medical professionals? how about with peer review? https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/time-to-assume-that-health-research-is-fraudulent-until-proved-otherwise/ 174.78.59.103 (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, a Trump-appointed federal judge just ruled earlier this week that VAERS data was inconsequential to a vaccination mandate. The expert for the plaintiffs opposing the mandate condeded that it was impossible to demonstrate a single legitimate VAERS report on the subject. BD2412 T 20:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Trump actually allowed with emergency act insufficiently tested vaccines.. not something to brag about. Also, from science to political courts, nice move. Should we investigate court decisions across time periods and different nations? But statistics has shown 0.7 correlation between prevalence of infectious diseases and preference of totalitarian government among state subjects, which your comment kind of confirms. 174.78.59.103 (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

[7] seems above is not true for different variants. 98.173.54.72 (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

First case of COVID-19

In the lead of the article, it says "The first known case was identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019." However, the first case of COVID-19 was on 17 November, 2019: www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3074991/coronavirus-chinas-first-confirmed-covid-19-case-traced-back. This article has even been used as a source on COVID-19 pandemic. --Cyrobyte (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

"Government records suggest first person infected with new disease may have been a Hubei resident aged 55, but ‘patient zero’ has yet to be confirmed" - not reliably confirmed. MartinezMD (talk) 09:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

missing comma

[Prevention | minor edit] add comma after the phrase "regularly wash hands with soap and water" --H7opolo (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States POV concerns

Please join discussion on WP:NPOV concerns at the Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States article. Prcc27 (talk) 03:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Missouri county coroner removed covid from death certificates to ‘please’ grieving families

Missouri county coroner removed covid from death certificates to ‘please’ grieving families, WaPo -- Valjean (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest this would be best suited for Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, where there's a direct discussion of the counting and estimation methodology. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Hardly relevant to a world-level overview of the pandemic. Might be relevant to COVID-19 pandemic in Missouri. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Request to add inputs from US Intel/ House Committee reports regarding the lab-leak hypothesis to the history section

In light of US Intelligence and Congressional reports regarding the lab-leak hypothesis, would it be possible to rephrase the history section and clarify that both the natural origin and lab-leak are possible origins of the virus? The present section starts off by stating only the former possibility. Senior Biden administration officials have labelled both hypotheses "equally likely, while a Republican-led committee report states that "the preponderance of the evidence proves the virus did leak from the WIV"

Bipartisan sources for the same:

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/08/02/new-report-says-covid-emerged-in-wuhan-months-earlier/
2. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/16/politics/biden-intel-review-covid-origins/index.html
3. https://gop-foreignaffairs.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/ORIGINS-OF-COVID-19-REPORT.pdf

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.236.178.90 (talk • contribs)

The US has a vested interest in entertaining nonsense ideas. On the topic of the possibility of lab leaks, see Russell's teapot. It is possible there's a teapot in the asteroid belt? Yes. It is possible. It is likely/Does the evidence suggest it? No. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Likely or unlikely is not the question. In WP the question is notable or not. It seems to me that the coverage, regardless of it's likelihood, has gotten there. See WP:GNG. MartinezMD (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

This is an worldwide overview of COVID-19, not a US-politics centric one. This can be covered in COVID-19 lab leak theory. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The WHO statement is not a US centric issue. I'm not here to argue how valid the leak theory is, only that the question is raised by prominent international sources. MartinezMD (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Variant Ordering

Currently the variants are ordered alpha, beta, delta, gamma. The ordering should be alpha, beta, gamma, delta; consistent with the Greek alphabet. Shazen27 (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Galectins

Would it be informative to have a section for Galectins after the Cytokine storm section? There are a growing number of studies and reviews whereby galectins 3 and 9 play a key role in the hyperinflammatory stage in the transition from mild to severe COVID-19. There are currently galectin inhibitors in clinical development for other inflammatory and fibrotic indications, and further investigation into the applicability of these inhibitors to COVID-19 is often proposed. This is an exciting area of recent scientific interest. A sample of articles:

• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0954611121002626
• https://peerj.com/articles/9392/
• https://f1000research.com/articles/9-1078/v2
• https://www.ualberta.ca/folio/2021/08/researchers-find-possible-culprit-of-inflammation-that-causes-death-in-covid-19-patients.html
• https://www.mdpi.com/2218-273X/11/8/1136/htm
• https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.07.21251281v1

Fpbear (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Variant comparisons

I think the last sentence on the SARS-CoV-2 variants para is misleading:

Using whole genome sequencing, epidemiology and modelling suggest the Alpha variant VUI-202012/01 (the first variant under investigation in December 2020) in the B.1.1.7 lineage transmits more easily than other strains.[76]

This could be taken to mean alpha is generally more transmissible then beta, gamma, delta, which might be the face value meaning for a non-specialist. However checking reference 76 the "other strains" generally predate the other variants listed. My suggestion is that as a minimum this is changed to:

transmits more easily than other strains known at the time.[76]

But ideally updated by a specialist using the correct terminologies (strain/variant/...). WelchsUK (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 August 2021

Under 'Diagnosis' the following could be added with an appropriate recently published scientific article as there is still no authentic information added on this page on rapid antigen test (RAT) in patients with COVID-19.

"SARS-CoV-2 can be detected by using rapid antigen (RAT) that directly detects the presence or absence of the antigen. A study on 17,171 suspected COVID-19 patients demonstrating the diagnostic accuracy of RAT kits in diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 revealed that RAT kits show a pooled specificity of 99.4% (95% CI: 99.1–99.8) and sensitivity of 68.4% (95% CI: 60.8–75.9). In this study, nasopharyngeal specimens and symptomatic patient’s samples were more sensitive in RAT, while cycle threshold (Ct) values were found to have an inverse relationship with sensitivity" [Reference]

Reference: SS Khandker, NHH Nik Hashim, ZZ Deris, RH Shueb, MA Islam (August 2021). “Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Antigen Test Kits for Detecting SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 17,171 Suspected COVID-19 Patients”. Journal of Clinical Medicine; 10: 3493. doi:10.3390/jcm10163493. Ayoncx70 (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

 Note: It appears that Ayoncx70 is using Wikipedia primarily as a platform to promote a MA Islam and his research through refspamming. – NJD-DE (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Not done. Testing sensitivity is covered in the COVID-19 testing article. This is a general article and detailed discussion about specific percentages would be more appropriate there. MartinezMD (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Glycan

Is something about the new discovery about the glycans going to be added to this article?

Source 1

Source 2

76.189.128.198 (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Not new and already mentioned. Search for glyc on the page. -- Valjean (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

While there is one word glycoprotein in the article, I think there should be a larger discussion of glycans including galectins and the potential for galectin inhibitors. This is a rapidly expanding area of research in COVID-19 pathophysiology but not covered in the wiki article. Fpbear (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Minor spelling inconsistencies

The article is meant to be in Hong Kong English, yet many of the words follow American English spelling conventions. For example, "hospitalisation" and "hospitalization" are both present through the article. This isn't a major flaw, but bringing the grammar and spelling into order with the chosen dialect should be a fast and easy thing to fix. 78.152.233.71 (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: The article is tagged with the {{EngvarB}} template, for which the documentation states: {{EngvarB}} – for non-specific but not N. American spelling.

Therefore editors should feel free to convert North American spellings to EngvarB spellings. Peaceray (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Not clear? I plainly stated the changes. I'm confused what more clarification is needed unless you want me to go through every single spelling variant throughout the article. 78.152.233.71 (talk) 09:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 August 2021

X:Preventive measures include physical or social distancing, quarantining, ventilation of indoor spaces, covering coughs and sneezes, hand washing, and keeping unwashed hands away from the face.

Y:Preventive measures include physical or social distancing, quarantining, ventilation of indoor spaces,having a good hygiene such as hand washing and sanitation.

Citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7195988/ Khristine16 (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: No reason to remove well cited precautions, such as The most important strategy for the population to undertake is to frequently wash their hands and use portable hand sanitizer and avoid contact with their face and mouth from your source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Transclusion citation error in transmission

The first part of the "Transmission" section appears to be transcluded from Transmission of COVID-19. However, the second citation after the sentence "However, infection can occur over longer distances, particularly indoors." does not work properly. The message says "Cite error: The named reference Transmission of COVID-19 :1 was invoked but never defined". MaryMO (AR) (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Secondary and tertiary sources being preferred over peer-reviewed primary sources?

This is the first time I've looked through this article and at a glance I am noticing quite a large number of secondary and tertiary media sources being cited over peer-reviewed primary scientific literature that makes the same claim. For example, why is the sentence "Although one Italian study suggests it was present there as early as September 2019." citing Reuters for the claim instead of this easily-accessed primary source? Why is the article like this? Playing a game of telephone with imperfect sources like the Wall Street Journal over a contentious topic of geopolitical significance seems like an almost guaranteed recipe to spread propaganda and spin. 98.127.81.62 (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

It mostly has to do with adhering to WP:MEDRS, which vastly prefers literature reviews, as that doesn't run the risk of improperly synthesising material or editors coming up with their own conclusions and adding them to the article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Further, Wikipedia (as an encyclopedia) is a tertiary source. We do not describe "breaking news" for issues in medicine, especially because those primary sources need interpretation and evaluation by experts. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Unnecessary statement

Am I the only one that thinks the sentence

“In the past, many diseases have been named after geographical locations, such as the Spanish flu, Middle East respiratory syndrome, and Zika virus”

is unnecessary? Thank you, WikiJanitorPerson (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

It is redundant, and doesn't flow as well as the following (relevant) info: "...per 2015 guidance and international guidelines against using geographical locations (e.g. Wuhan, China), animal species, or groups of people in disease and virus names in part to prevent social stigma." Bakkster Man (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 September 2021

In the lead, change Contagious disease to Emerging infectious disease as per CDC and WHO definition. 79.70.190.198 (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. I think linking to the main article is better and provides more pertinent information. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia article for Wuhan University Center for Animal Experiment needed

The Intercept (source) describes experimental work done using humanized mice at the Wuhan University Center for Animal Experiment, which was formerly assumed to have been done at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It appears that a Wikipedia article for the Wuhan University Center for Animal Experiment is needed. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Racial Inequalities on impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

Hi all, thanks for the introductory discussion of disproportionate racial impacts due to COVID-19 this page. I'm considering creating a new page on "Racial Inequalities on impact of the COVID-19 pandemic" which further discusses how specific racial groups are impacted unequally (details on my talk page). Your comments and thoughts would be appreciated. Rshrid (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic MartinezMD (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 kills Michael James Renfrow

on august 4, 2021 COVID-19 kills Michael James Renfrow time: approx. 8 pm where: Henderson, Nevada that is all of the details i know this was written by Trystan J. Renfrow (Michael renfrow's grandson.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Firepikachu2009 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Firepikachu2009: I am sorry but I do not know who Michael James Renfrow is. Was he a Wikipedia editor or someone else? Peaceray (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 September 2021

"change quarantining to home quarantine" Cnmndz (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Cnmndz made the request pretty clear. "quarantining " appears only once in the article. MartinezMD (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

SFR, could you not mark minor but clearly understandable requests as "not clear"? I've seen you do it on this page several times now. 109.78.253.48 (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Prevention Paragraph (5)

I recommend adding "Measures were taken to prevent the spread of Covid-19. In the United States, large gatherings were banned, lockdowns were taking place, and mask mandates were in place." into this paragraph because it sums the precautions that were taken in the United States/around the world. It will make it easier for the readers to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aweger (talk • contribs) 23:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Symptoms Paragraph

Symptoms: - Headache - Loss of smell or taste - Nasal congestion/runny nose - Cough - Sore throat - Fever - Breathing difficulties

For the symptoms paragraph, I would recommend making it a bulleted list, so it is easier on the eyes for readers and is easier to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aweger (talk • contribs) 23:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Introduction Paragraph

I would recommend adding information about the first case of Covid-19. It talks about when we suspected Covid-19 starting, but do not narrow down the actual date. " The first case of Covid-19 in the United States was diagnosed on January 20, 2020." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aweger (talk • contribs) 00:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

That date would be more suitable for COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. If you have a reliable source for the actual date of first human transmission feel free to share, but to my knowledge the best reliable information we have is estimates. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Covid-19 is human made

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Based on the features revealed from covid-19, it is a human made virus that origins from Wuhan in China. From where Chinese do not eat bat raw and the virus can't exist in temperature over 30 °C, then this can tell there something same as influenza that does not exist anymore and no one remind it too. Zaki Frahmand 4 October 2021, 9:40 UTC

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2021

Add this text after solidarity trial description. In August 2021 WHO rolled out the next phase Solidarity trial under the name Solidarity PLUS trial in 52 countries. The trial will enroll hospitalized patients and test three drugs for potential treatment of COVID-19. These drugs include artesunate, imatinib and infliximab. Chiirag (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Even if reliable were a given, I don't see the need for inclusion. There are many ongoing trials and investigations. The only relevant ones are the ones that make a significant impact after review. MartinezMD (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Question

I've got a question about the death toll. A source tells me that the death toll has already reached 5 million. Can you update the infobox? The link is below.

"https://www.reuters.com/world/global-covid-19-deaths-hit-5-million-delta-variant-sweeps-world-2021-10-02/"

Thanks for your help.103.246.36.61 (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by 142.180.9.40

Another question on the reference for link 15, aren't stats from one month into the pandemic a bit old at this point? Shouldn't they be updated by now with more current information? We've had over 17 months of data since then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.180.9.40 (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 October 2021

Hello, would like to add two medical journal sources for SARS-CoV-2 variants emerging in 2020. Sentence in question is "Several notable variants of SARS-CoV-2 emerged in late 2020." . I also think the wording should be changed from "late 2020" to "throughout 2020" but that's not imperative. The journal links are this one and this one. This should justify the removal of the citation needed template immediately proceeding the full stop. Thanks in advance Obama gaming (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done RFZYNSPY ^talk 07:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2021

Hello, would like to see if this journal article fits the Medical Citation Needed proceeding the sentence "After strict quarantines and a mink euthanasia campaign, it is believed to have been eradicated." [regarding the Cluster 5 spread in Denmark]. Relevant statements include "leading to the culling of many millions of mink, in fear that the latter would transmit strains more virulent, more contagious, or resistant to vaccines in development", & "Fearful of seeing SARS-CoV-2 variants selected in mink such as “Cluster 5” spread more easily among people, and to be more deadly or to have a negative impact on the deployment of anti-COVID-19 vaccines, the Danish Government decided to cull 17 million farmed mink". There is also another journal article, albeit only available as a PDF but it's free. Thanks in advance. Addenum: this article also seems very useful. Obama gaming (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the work in finding these articles, the last one you added on served best in the article. —oscitare ^(talk | _contribs) 07:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Can someone answer the damn question?

I asked a question a few days ago. A couple of sections above. Can someone please answer this?103.246.36.61 (talk) 04:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The answer is that it's hard to know exactly how many COVID-19 deaths there have been, as different methodologies for estimating the number of deaths yield different totals, although they generally agree that it is close to 5 million. The Reuters article should be good enough for stating that Reuters has reported the death toll as exceeding that number. BD2412 T 04:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I don't have access to the page. I am not an admin. So can the Reuters article be added. Thanks.103.246.36.61 (talk) 06:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2021 (2)

Add reference to this statement: "The disease is mainly transmitted via the respiratory route when people inhale droplets and small airborne particles (that form an aerosol) that infected people breath out as they breathe, talk, cough, sneeze, or sing". Citizenpane2 (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done through Transmission of COVID-19. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

References