Talk:COVID-19
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the COVID-19 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 21 days  |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | Page history | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about COVID-19.
|
 | WikiProject COVID-19 consensus WikiProject COVID-19 aims to add to and build consensus for pages relating to COVID-19. They have so far discussed items listed below. Please discuss proposed improvements to them at the project talk page.
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to . |
 | This article is written in Hong Kong English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 |
|
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2024
edit | It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at COVID-19. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |
Changing this:
"A low level of blood lymphocytess may result from the virus acting through ACE2-related entry into lymphocytes.[157]"
to the following:
"COVID-19 can lower lymphocyte presence in blood and can be a valuable prognostic marker. This lymphopenia may be caused by several factors, including at least lymphocyte trafficking (especially to the lungs and large bowel)[add1][add2] and possibly direct infection through the ACE2 receptor.[157]"
[add1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9050483/
[add2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8473169/
The reason for this change is that there is well-recorded evidence as above that the lymphopenia is not only due to direct infection, and a consensus is not clear on what the primary cause of lymphopenia in COVID-19 is. There's clear cut evidence of it for trafficking, but the direct infection causing apoptosis is less clear but commonly posited in research. Noahkahn (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
This article as a YouTube "Information Panel"
editthe first two sentences of the lede is used extensively as a so-called "Information Panel," (which also provides a link to the article) on YouTube videos that discuss Covid-19.
As this garners considerable traffic and even more viewer impressions on YouTube, it seems inappropriate to include the first known case being in Wuhan within that very brief opening. Similarly, the article could say within the first two sentences that viralogists from Wuhan, China were the first to publicly identify the virus. (To be clear, I propose neither be included in the first two sentences of the lede and am just mentioning that to demonstrate the potential implications for framing such minutiae in portion of the lede that gets used for fact-checking purposes). The importance of Wuhan, China to the article of Covid-19 should be lower in the lede, or arguably not included in the lede at all.
For the sake of both prioritizing the most important facts within the article, as well as maintaining appropriate brief descriptions used by off-site platforms, I propose that the second sentence should be changed to discuss the severity, ie the spread and lethality, of the virus.
If you have opposing or alternative thoughts on the first two sentences, I am interested in hearing them. 2601:5CF:8000:6B60:4010:2BF9:AAE6:C475 (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Bad list of treatments
editIn the "treatment" section, image "An_overview_of_COVID-19_therapeutics.." lists Ivermectin, Chloroquine, which I know have been debunked. OsamaBinLogin (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)