Talk:Coronavirus disease/v2.0
v2.0 : draft in progress, help welcolme
editI searched dozens of papers for key characteristics of the COVID19. I need help for SARS, MERS. Seasonal flu is just for personal reference and is expected to be removed soon. If you have info for a cell, contribution welcome. Yug (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Virus | SARS-CoV-2[a] | MERS-CoV | SARS-CoV | H1N1, H3N2 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Disease | COVID-19 | Middle East respiratory syndrome | Severe acute respiratory syndrome | Seasonal flu |
Epidemiology | ||||
Detection date | December 2019 | June 2012 | November 2002 | Endemic (n.a.) |
Detection place | Wuhan, China | Jeddah, Saudi Arabia | Guangdong, China | Endemic (n.a.) |
Confirmed cases | 88,585[b] | 2494 | 8096 | 5~15,000,000/y |
Case fatality rate | 3,043[b] (3.44%) | 858 (37%) | 744 (10%) | 290-650,000 (0.1%) |
Basic reproduction number | 2.2 (95% CI:1.4–3.9)[2][3]
2.68 (95% CI:2.47–2.86)[4] |
1.3 | ||
Serial interval period | 7.5±3.4 days (95% CI:5.3–19)[2] | |||
Demographic | ||||
Age average | 49 | 56 | 39.9 | |
Age range | 21–76 | 14–94 | 1–91 | |
Male:female ratio | 2.7:1 | 3.3:1 | 1:1.25 | |
Health-care workers | 16[c] | 9.8% | 23.1% | |
Symptoms | ||||
Fever | 40 (98%) | 98% | 99–100% | |
Dry cough | 31 (76%) | 47% | 29–75% | |
Dyspnea/short breath | 22 (55%) | 72% | 40–42% | |
Diarrhea | 1 (3%) | 26% | 20–25% | |
Sore throat | 0 | 21% | 13–25% | |
Ventilatory support | 9.8% | 80% | 14–20% | |
Prognostic/Evolution | ||||
Incubation | 5.5 days (1–14)[5][6] or
5.2 days (95% CI:4.1–7.0)[2] |
2-4 days | ||
Onset | Day 0 | Day 0 | ||
First medical visit | +4.6 days (95% CI:4.1–5.1)[2] | |||
Hospital admission | +7.0 days (4.0–8.0)[7] or | |||
Dyspnea/short breath | +8.0 days (5.0–13.0)[7] | |||
ARDS | +9.0 days (8.0–14.0)[7] | |||
Mechanical ventilation / ICU | +10.5 days (7.0–14.0)[7] | |||
Recovery | +22.2 days (95% CI:18–83)[8] | |||
Dead | +14 days (6–41)[9] or
hospitalization + 12.4[10] +22.3 days (95% CI:18–82)[8] |
|||
Notes |
Yug (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Wang, Chen; Horby, Peter W.; Hayden, Frederick G.; Gao, George F. (24 January 2020). "A novel outbreak of global health concern". The Lancet. 395 (10223): 470–473. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30185-9. PMC 7135038. PMID 31986257.
- ^ a b c d e f Li, Qun; Guan, Xuhua; Wu, Peng; Wang, Xiaoye; Zhou, Lei; Tong, Yeqing; Ren, Ruiqi; Leung, Kathy S.M.; Lau, Eric H.Y.; Wong, Jessica Y.; Xing, Xuesen (2020-01-29). "Early Transmission Dynamics in Wuhan, China, of Novel Coronavirus–Infected Pneumonia". New England Journal of Medicine. 382 (13): 1199–1207. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2001316. ISSN 0028-4793. PMC 7121484. PMID 31995857.
- ^ a b c Fauci, Anthony S.; Lane, H. Clifford; Redfield, Robert R. (2020-02-28). "Covid-19 — Navigating the Uncharted". New England Journal of Medicine. 382 (13): 1268–1269. doi:10.1056/NEJMe2002387. ISSN 0028-4793. PMC 7121221. PMID 32109011.
- ^ Wu, Joseph T.; Leung, Kathy; Leung, Gabriel M. (2020-02-29). "Nowcasting and forecasting the potential domestic and international spread of the 2019-nCoV outbreak originating in Wuhan, China: a modelling study". The Lancet. 395 (10225): 689–697. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30260-9. ISSN 0140-6736. PMC 7159271. PMID 32014114.
- ^ "Q&A on coronaviruses (COVID-19) : How long is the incubation period for COVID-19?". www.who.int. Retrieved 2020-03-02.
- ^ "Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report – 29" (PDF). World Health Organization. 2020-02-19.
- ^ a b c d Ronco, Claudio; Navalesi, Paolo; Vincent, Jean Louis (2020-02-06). "Coronavirus epidemic: preparing for extracorporeal organ support in intensive care". The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. 8 (3): 240–241. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30060-6. ISSN 2213-2600. PMC 7154507. PMID 32035509.
- ^ a b "Report 4: Severity of 2019-novel coronavirus (nCoV)" (PDF). WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Modelling MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis. 2020-02-10.
- ^ W, Wang; J, Tang; F, Wei (April 2020). "Updated Understanding of the Outbreak of 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in Wuhan, China". Journal of Medical Virology. 92 (4): 441–447. doi:10.1002/jmv.25689. PMC 7167192. PMID 31994742.
- ^ Famulare, Mike (2020-02-19). "2019-nCoV: preliminary estimates of the confirmed-case-fatality-ratio and infection-fatality-ratio, and initial pandemic risk assessment". institutefordiseasemodeling.github.io. Retrieved 2020-03-02.
https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf This is a good source (Angunnu (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC))
https://www.who.int/csr/don/24-february-2020-mers-saudi-arabia/en/ For MERS (Angunnu (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC))
Interesting but wouldn't it violate WP:SYNTHESIS? Cinadon36 15:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- There is no abusive conclusion, just informative data. Yug (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- Your case fatality rate looks like WP:OR. We should be citing what the literature reports on this, not trying to calculate the number directly from data we have available. Bondegezou (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations Yug (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, I think such numbers can be included on the page, at least for the coronavirus disease, but they all must be sourced. For example, where the basic reproduction number for the seasonal flu came from? My very best wishes (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Case fatality is not a routine calculation. We have discussed this numerous times and repeatedly come to that conclusion. Bondegezou (talk) 08:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- One simply needs a better source for ref [b]. This is 3.4% according to WHO [1], and this number is widely cited here and elsewhere. This is key number, and it absolutely must be included, even in the lead. Right now it only appears on the page in connection with false statements by Trump. Must be fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- The article should definitely talk about mortality rates, but it should do so based on numbers given in WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Bondegezou (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- One simply needs a better source for ref [b]. This is 3.4% according to WHO [1], and this number is widely cited here and elsewhere. This is key number, and it absolutely must be included, even in the lead. Right now it only appears on the page in connection with false statements by Trump. Must be fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- Case fatality is not a routine calculation. We have discussed this numerous times and repeatedly come to that conclusion. Bondegezou (talk) 08:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, I think such numbers can be included on the page, at least for the coronavirus disease, but they all must be sourced. For example, where the basic reproduction number for the seasonal flu came from? My very best wishes (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations Yug (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Your case fatality rate looks like WP:OR. We should be citing what the literature reports on this, not trying to calculate the number directly from data we have available. Bondegezou (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Bondegezou: I'am quite tired of the petty "CFR is not routine calculation". Per wikipedia :
- "Case fatality rate (CFR) — sometimes called case fatality risk or case fatality ratio — is the proportion of deaths from a certain disease compared to the total number of people diagnosed with the disease for a certain period of time."
- So yes, CFR is Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations. Then, interpretation need to be an informed reader about its limitations. The stage of the epidemic matters, the date, the undetected / detected ratio matters for a better understanding. This shouldn't encourage to censor the CFR routine calculation. It either fall on the reader to instruct her/himself by clicking on Case fatality rate and reading it, or to us to add ref notes duplicating the Case fatality rate article's content. But pretending we cannot do a routine division is surprisingly petty, while it also force-hand us to fall back upon outdated and therefor less relevant external sources, degrading the quality of the information we provide. Yug (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- The matter has been discussed multiple times now on the main article's Talk page and the consensus is that this is not a routine calculation. It is not "petty" to respect an expressed consensus. Bondegezou (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- FYI, I made the following change in the article: Added to the intro "...or SARS-1)" and "...or SARS-CoV-1)", as alternate names being used in the year 2020. Acwilson9 (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- The matter has been discussed multiple times now on the main article's Talk page and the consensus is that this is not a routine calculation. It is not "petty" to respect an expressed consensus. Bondegezou (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)