Talk:SARS-CoV-2/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Wuhan ivdc ccdc betacoronavirus.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

twitter discussion that might be of interest on this page

https://twitter.com/arambaut/status/1216026183118344196 JuanTamad (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Paper on this virus asks for assistance in editing

Evolution of the novel coronavirus from the ongoing Wuhan outbreak and modeling of its spike protein for risk of human transmission from SCIENCE CHINA Life Sciences.Since I am not a medical major and my English is not good, I ask other colleagues for help.Ask wikis who are good at related fields to make appropriate additions based on the content of the paper contained in this source. Thank you.--舞月書生👉☎️👈∮Strive to be a good Wikipedians. 18:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• •  Remark:: from this paper,I find GISAID:CoV2020,but I can't add it in wikidata.--舞月書生👉☎️👈∮Strive to be a good Wikipedians. 18:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

It is a subscription link, it would be good were papers published openly at this particular time and then a "cite journal" ref link can be added as is normal for scientific/medical papers. An editor cannot seek to rely on a link they cannot read. Wikimucker (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Add an article about Wuhan virus in Journal of Medical Virology ：Homologous recombination within the spike glycoprotein of the newly identified coronavirus may boost cross‐species transmission from snake to human(Wiley

biorxiv)，Note that this is an unpublished version。--舞月書生👉☎️👈∮Active at zh.wikipedia, strive to be a good Wikipedian. 00:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

rename - Wuhan coronavirus

• As of January 24, 2020, the current name is "Wuhan seafood market pneumonia virus" according to this site: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?id=2697049
• Hi, propose we rename this using the common name that seems to have taken in the press. WSJ, CNN, NYT all following term Wuhan coronavirus. Note Wuhan is a location in China that seems to be primarily associated with its origin.
• https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/21/health/wuhan-coronavirus-first-us-case-cdc-bn/index.html
• https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/21/health/cdc-coronavirus.html
• https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-virus-kills-two-more-patients-as-authorities-step-up-control-measures-11579614626

@DocJames: would this move be per policy? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Jtbobwaysf: some of this was discussed here. As I said there, "novel coronavirus" is just a placeholder name. I agree "Wuhan coronovirus" is more descriptive. The virus will likely not receive a formal name for a while, and then the article will need to be moved again then. --Nessie (📥) 00:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• @Jtbobwaysf: This is a copycat discussion, we already have a official proposal. Anyways, I strongly oppose the renaming because I believe that this move will not follow the Wikipedia Policy, because in my opinion, "Wuhan coronavirus" does not follow the Article title policy rule points of both "precision" and "conciseness". This is because the Wuhan coronavirus is new and not popular yet, so it does not have a popular name yet, and can easily be confused with other viruses, so it is unspecific and can be ambiguous, not following "precision". This also means that the title does not follow "conciseness", because there can be other "Wuhan coronavirus"-es for the same reason, because the virus is new and not popular yet, so the article will need to be changed again if there is another "Wuhan coronavirus". "Wuhan coronavirus" or even "Wuhan virus" is not even a popular phrase used in casual speaking yet, so the name of the virus may changed, as quote from the CDC website of January 22nd, 2020 (Pacific Time), this is a "rapidly evolving situation" and the title may change just as quickly as it rapidly evolves. 75.52.95.136 (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@NessieVL: is there an official naming policy? Or at wikipedia do we just use what the RS are using? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: in WikiProject Viruses, we usually go by what ICTV uses. But this is not officially a species yet, so i think we go with WP:COMMONNAME. --Nessie (📥) 12:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Yes, there is an official naming policy for article titles. The link was given at the official discussion in this talk page as of January 23, 2020, 4:13P.M. in the dialog box at the top of the discussion. It says that the discussion should talk about the points given in the Article title policy at "Wikipedia:Article titles", which are that the title has to be/have "Recognizable", "Naturalness", "Precision", "Conciseness", and "Consistency". I believe that "Wuhan coronavirus" breaks both precision and conciseness. 75.52.95.136 (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@NessieVL: seems is it going to be called Wuhan Coronavirus, and today I was seeing it called WARS (Wuhan Acute Respiratory Syndrome.) Probably we should move the article to something the press is using. Nobody is using this Novel Coronavirus. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: I suggest you start the formal process at WP:RMCM because of the related discussion and the high amount of interest in this article. Also Wuhan coronavirus exists as a redirect and we'd need some help with that part --Nessie (📥) 15:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: I dont think it shoukd be called "Wuhan coronavirus" or "Wuhan Coronavirus", as it is unprofessional and ambiguous and vague. I also don't agree with calling the virus "WARS (Wuhan Acute Respiratory Syndrome.)" because a different name could be given to the virus instead, and may make rare unnoticed symptoms that may change its nature enough to give it a new name. This is because I believe that this is, quote from the CDC website, a "rapidly evolving situation" as of January 23, 2020 (Pacific Time), and the proposals for the name may change drastically, as this is a new virus and hasn't gained a huge amount of popularity yet in common social culture.

Also, according to the CDC website on the new coronavirus from Wuhan, the human-to-human interactions are not clearly explained yet, so this is an unknown that I believe could greatly influence the name of the virus, because of the "Acute" part of "Wuhan Acute Respiratory Syndrome", as this may be long term, and the virus could have started way earlier and the supposed "Patient Zero" may have been late to report.

By the way, I also think "Snake flu" is an unprofessional, unconcise, and vague name used by news articles to grab readers to read their article and make a little money to subscribe to their news. 75.52.95.136 (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe people are also starting to call it "Snake flu" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.27.170.66 (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Survival time of virus outside animal or man body?

Is there any knowledge about the survival time of the virus outside of the animal or human body? It is important to know if for deciding if I can reuse my mask or I can enter a room in which an infected (or probably infected) person was.

They have deciphered the virus, so I think they are making tests of this kind because this is highly important. 09:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)~ You are right but since it is a new virus/disease, the time might be unknown to scientists, doctors, etc. I am not so sure about this as I am not a professional. But it's only my assumption.

For SARS I just checked it was 24 hours living time outside human / animal body. 130.92.100.253 (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Source of virus - snakes

There's some twitter traffic among virologists about the phylogeny. Probably not snakes, probably bats. May want to edit that section. JuanTamad (talk) 12:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jtamad: Yes the most reliable paper is https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.22.914952v2.full.pdf p.10 showing that during 16 years of investigations on Sars, they found many related beta-coronavirus in bats (more precisely in Rhinolophus) that they called Sars-like coronavirus, that Wuhan-cov falls into this class, and that (only) one of them found in Rhinolophus Affinis is very close to Wuhan-cov.

Very close means that Affinis virus is as close to Wuhan as the human h3n2 flu of 2010 is close to the one of 2019.

The snake stuffs is only a guess based on Codon_usage_bias in the virus genome and I don't think it is reliable for such recent zoonoses. Reuns (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jtamad: Highly agree. Seems that a lot of virologists are pointing out major flaws in the paper and believe that it is highly improbable for this coronavirus to have come from a snake, especially since there are no documented coronaviruses in the same family occurring in reptiles.

Dialtastic (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Treatment

Something like targeted chemo or radiotherapy could be used as treatment (I understand that this is over the top but I think that it still warrants putting some more information in the Treatment section). I read a news report on it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aerq4byr7ps) and they say flu antivirals have been tested but I don't know if broad-spectrum antivirals been tested on it yet, and if not perhaps the treatment section should be updated. 2A00:23C5:E41E:1200:D17A:344D:30C7:DA34 (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Cancer-treatments like chemo- and radio-therapy are wildly irrelevant. If you really read or saw that somewhere, then you may safely assume that everything else from that source is equally insane. But yes, antivirals previously effective on similar coronaviruses (SARS, MERS) are being tested. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Seconded - it'd be wise to avoid putting any far-flung treatment suggestions in the article. No sense inciting people to injure themselves. Ekalosak (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Request for Update on Outbreak

The article states that the outbreak reached Texas in America, but the case has not yet been confirmed to be the Coronavirus, so I would think it would be best to change it so Texas is no longer there in the article. ItsDaBunnyYT (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit protection of some kind

I've been kind of keeping an eye on this page throughout the day,and I've noticed some light vandalism. its probably a good idea to get some kind of edit protection going. - T — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6007:46:4551:8B4F:5C74:9DB2 (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support I support this, because according to Wikipedia, since popular news articles are a major target, administrative protection should be given. 75.52.95.136 (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support I have seen some foul language here in the talk page already, and I haven't even read the article yet. PCelestia (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@2001:558:6007:46:4551:8B4F:5C74:9DB2: I tried to get something through; Semi-protection just has too much colateral damage (contructive IP editors cannot edit). N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 12:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support: topic is too important to allow vandalism by IP idiots. TFSA (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support: At minimum require user sign in and prevention of hyper-new / bad users. Bad idea to lock down the entire article in my opinion. Kylerschin (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Incubation period

Can we add the information on the exact (or maybe the longest) duration of the flu incubation period? You know, the time since a person was infected by the bacteria until he/she is confirmed to have the flu and must be treated immediately at the hospital. Must be from highly reliable medical-related sources. Chongkian (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

You are right Chongkian but since it is a new virus/disease, the incubation period might be unknown to scientists, doctors, etc. I am not so sure about this as I am not a professional. But it's only my assumption. Sarthakdangol (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Xinhua News Agency (official Chinese state-run press agency) has reported that the longest incubation period of the disease is about 14 days. It also seems to be the number quoted on Chinese Wikipedia. Xinhua also mentions that judging from the experience with SARS and MERS, the incubation period may not be contagious.

Ribbon Diagram

The Ribbon diagram depicts a homology model of a single viral protein, the protease which cleaves the produced polyprotein into it's constituent proteins, rather than a whole virion or virus particle. The caption should specify this. Skeletoncowboy (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

True. Fixed. --分液漏斗 (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2020

Please change the photo in the infobox with this one, as it has a more detailed explanation about the virus details, as far as we know for now Lollixzc (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

 Question: The current image may be unfree, because it has insufficient information currently listed; to that extent I agree that it might be better to look for a different image. You listed the one suggested here as coming from The New England Journal of Medicine. What leads you to think that this one is free? Dekimasuよ! 11:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The image isn't free, the paper's permission section says: © 2020, Massachusetts Medical Society, the image needs to be deleted from commons asapHemiauchenia (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

As a new user I just read and saw all the details about copyrighted material in wikipedia: I did an error, so I think the image should be deleted as stated above by @Hemiauchenia:. Sorry for this error, hope to not do it anymore in the future :D Lollixzc (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Images must be properly labeled and follow the Wikipedia:Image use policy. Thank you for noting this mistake. Dekimasuよ! 15:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Removed 'kung flu' alternate name

"Kung Flu" as an alternate name for Novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV wasn't supported by reference [3], hasn't appeared in any coverage I've seen, and generally has the flavor of a joke, so I've preemptively removed it. If someone wants to add it back, please add a supporting citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:FE10:3BF0:0:0:0:2D (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/blain-we-know-next-nothing-about-what-kung-flu-does-next is a legitimate source with the mention of it. And regardless if it's origin was a joke or not, people know what it is and reference it by that name relatively often in serious discussion too in America. 198.90.104.65 (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Seconding the above. People are consistently referring to it as the "Kung Flu" in discussions on social media, chat programs, word-of-mouth, etc. Just because it was oroginally a joke doesn't mean it's not relevant. I mean, look at the Wikipedia redirection page for Boogaloo. Monstarules (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I have made a redirect, kung flu, as there are quite a few "journalists" that have used the name now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Good enough for now. We should petition to have it added to the page though, since many people are honestly using it now. Not sure where to add the poll. Monstarules (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Zero Hedge is not remotely reliable for this. Frankly I'd oppose any addition unless a major outlet like BBC uses it.  EvergreenFir (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

"Kung flu" is a joke name based on a heavy handed racial stereotype, including it as a legitimate alternative name makes wikipedia article look unprofessional and stupid. its mention in the article might have also come directly from the wikipedia article itself, which would be Circular reporting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Not really - it's a play on the old Seventies tv-series. Nothing to wad one's knickers about.50.111.9.165 (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Infectious during incubation controversy

There is a statement in the virology section stating "The virus is infectious even during the incubation period."

While this is stated definitively in the Wikipedia article, this is not a confirmed fact, and has been disputed both by epidemiologists and US officials. (https://q13fox.com/2020/01/26/china-says-coronavirus-can-spread-before-symptoms-show-calling-into-question-us-containment-strategy/ )

I recommend that this statement be ommited until further information is discovered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.200.137.27 (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Sadly this controversy was caused not least by the Health Minister in China, Ma Xiaowei , see > https://www.foxnews.com/health/coronavirus-spread-during-incubation-period-chinese-official-claims

It will require a high level countervailing statement from top officialdom/WHO to clarify, if he is wrong. Wikimucker (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

From what I have understood about the comments, the CDC have only said that they don't have evidence for human-to-human transmission during the incubation period, but that doesn't mean the Chinese assertions are wrong. Sadly I don't have the source link to hand and I can't find it on Google. Tsukide (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I remember the US CDC (not the Chinese one) saying that. However China clearly has more data! Wikimucker (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Such as this ? Estimates based on (Chinese) CDC data: latent days 1-7, asymptomatic infectious days 8-16, symptomatic day 17+, R_0 = 4.08 +- 0.7, CFR = 6.5%. 89.206.113.120 (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Please unlock the article, I have vital info to contribute.

Guys, locking the article like this at the peak of this whole thing is grossly counterproductive, with so much info streaming in every day. You need to rethink your decision, because how can this article represent "the sum of all human knowledge on the subject" if you wont let people contribute in good faith? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.253.226.193 (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Because many people don't - vandalism was rampant - ergo, the protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.9.165 (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you just create an account and become an autoconfirmed user? 4 days and 10 edits and you'll be able to contribute, it's not that difficult. Hundreds of thousands of people are viewing this article everyday and to serve our readers we need to make sure the information added is accurate, which a lot of contributions by ip users are not. If you truly have "vital info" that you need to contribute then you need to make a semi-protected edit request. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You can request edits here, or use Template:Edit semi-protected. Any vital info can be added on your behalf. (An aside: is this the peak of this thing?) Dekimasuよ! 16:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

What you consider "vandalism" may have been people contributing their honest understanding and knowledge of the developing situation. It is so unfair to let one group judge others for their fair contribution, let alone refer to it in such disparaging terms. After all, what makes any of the knowledge in this article accurate to any extent at all? Scientific degrees, standing or "proper referencing", phlogiston anyone? Because I am well unhappy about it being all snakes the first week and bats the second, can't all those trained scientist tell the difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.253.226.193 (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

It was a mixture of honest information and stupidity (and really bad english). Not sure if I saw any vandalism before the protection but I sure saw a lot of crummy work. Just register like you were told. You will be equal to everyone in 10 days. Wikimucker (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Probable wrong bp count

Please edit the base pairs count of the CoV-2019 virus or provide a confirming source, it is probably wrong (not 30473 bases). --188.62.136.84 (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The NCBI genome ID link shows 29,903, so I have updated the article to 29,903. Beyond that, it would require more information to know what other issues there might be with the number. Dekimasuよ! 16:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

File: C-Tan-nCov Wuhan strain 01-20200123104509.jpg

FYI, File: C-Tan-nCov Wuhan strain 01-20200123104509.jpg has been nominated for deletion. -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 06:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

mouse chimeric virus

I understand the point of mentioning an ongoing concern about SARS re-emerging as some background, but is it really the best place to mention it here where we are talking about virology? There just doesn't seem to be enough justification for mentioning a particular group's particular construct over this issue (virus with altered spike protein don't get caught by antibodies and vaccines targeting the original spike protein, yeah imagine the SURPRISE!), and I wonder what the consensus is on keeping/removing it. (The paragraph was copied from the outbreak article, by the way.) --Artoria2e5 🌉 12:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

As you said, the background point is fair, but it is also mentioned as context in the next paragraph. I agree with your assessment and have removed the paragraph for now. Dekimasuよ! 13:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Typo that needs fixing...

In the 'Reservoir' section, there's mention of the Huanan Seafood Market, but then 4 sentences later it's misspelled as "Hunan". 165.225.50.174 (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi Protection Request 24 Jan

Can this page be semi protected and perhaps brought under the watchful eye of an Admin with a science background who understands the difference between news and scientific research. ???? It has the potential to cause fake news issues in the current circumstances. Wikimucker (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wikimucker:  Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. That said, articles are typically only protected if they've seen heavy and continued vandalism from multiple users. Preemptive semi-protection isn't usually done. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Elhef Thanks for all that but I would point out that a lot of outbreak news is still coming in here thick and fast and really this article should be a science/medicine one with proper citations and relatively little outbreak news to clutter it up. Wikimucker (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikimucker, ElHef I have a background in science/medicine though I'm more familiar with cancer research than virology. I cleaned up some of the redundant, incorrect details just now and reorganized the article to model influenza. Open to feedback. Moksha88 (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, what's your perspective on including details of the virus in this article, 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak? I think it makes more sense to merge the virus details from that article into this one. Moksha88 (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Moksha88 If you could please. The science in this article will be fast moving and many papers will be published as 'open source' research rather than fully and correctly peer reviewed so unlike cancer research where a paper could be 6 months old by the time peer reviewing is completed and publication is final.

We will likely get papers straight off the computer screeen over the next few weeks here. It will require very delicate handling in terms of assertions made, "allegations" that are not reviewed in any way, and how this fast moving science is presented properly in wiki terms. A crap paper may even contain a nugget of gold we don't know about.

I do not have the science to pretend to be capable of editing an article like this beyond this point. If you would allow for less rigour than in your own field, for now anyway, you could be the perfect editor this page requires now that the 'newsy' data is moved to a different article. Wikimucker (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikimucker, I'll do my best. I'm more adept at the medical/clinical section than the virology bits as it's been at least a decade since I completed any coursework on the topic. Moksha88 (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wikimucker: Please do not suggest that open access research (or even better, reproducible research that is based on free-licensed software) is not (in general) peer-reviewed: the phrase 'open source' research rather than peer reviewed could be interpreted to mean that. There are some fields, such as high energy physics and cosmology/extragalactic astronomy where almost all research is both green open access and, after a delay of typically 1-12 months for the peer review process, peer-reviewed; the article remains green open access after the peer review, and increasingly often gold open access too. Of course, many open-access and closed-access articles fail peer review. Boud (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Boud: OK amended in italics to " rather than fully and correctly " . Please read my originally worded comment as 'perfect is the enemy of good', in the circumstances. Thx. Wikimucker (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wikimucker: Thanks :). This is getting off-topic, and there's no point you making further edits here, but while peer review is a procedure fundamental to science as a systematic way of seeking knowledge (and from the Wikipedia POV is the main objective criterion we can use for deciding on medical articles to use as sources), it is not at all a guarantee of good science; see Reproducibility#Reproducible_research, e.g. this Nature article. Which also gets back to the open access aspect, which is expected to constitute a key element of improved standards in reproducibility. Boud (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Boud If you read the bit at the very beginning of the section then everything I actually asked for is in place now, what with you showing up. :)

You could simply delete this entire section of the talk page with my blessings.

You may also need to trim other discussions from the period up to ~the ~24th as they are now only clutter since the Wuhan outbreak article was spun out around that day. Obviously only the newsy rather than the sciency talk. As I said to Moksha88 this article has to be carefully curated by the scientists from now on and some of that will be 'fast science' in the circumstances. Wikimucker (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Country List Commas

I'd go in and add them myself, but I've long since forgotten my account details. Could somebody please add commas to the list of countries that have confirmed infections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.123.18 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources for Subgenus: Sarbecovirus

Where are the sources for the classification as Sarbecovirus? this is from February 2019, this virus was not known then, and this and that neither mentioned ›Sarbecovirus‹ nor ›lineage B‹. Of course, there is good reason to think so, but without reference, it is just speculation. NCBI 2697049 classifies this virus as ›unclassified Betacoronavirus‹. – Sivizius (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Sivizius, the third source you noted ("that") says "The 2019-nCoV is a β CoV of group 2B". Does "group 2B" refer to lineage B there? (I note that Betacoronavirus also says something similar, using the nextstrain site as its reference. But that site doesn't label the clades, so as a non-expert I don't know what "lineage B" corresponds to on that tree.) Dekimasuよ! 04:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Dekimasu, yes, group 2B Cov does refer to BCoV lineage B. The "group 2" part is redundant with "β CoV", by the way. PMC1797546 gives a good example for lineages C/D as group 2C/D; you might get some good hits on "SARS 2B" too. --Artoria2e5 🌉 12:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Molecular model

This is the first open source molecular model I've found:

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E6%96%B0%E5%9E%8B%E5%86%A0%E7%8B%80%E7%97%85%E6%AF%92#/media/File:Coronavirus_2019-nCoV.png

kencf0618 (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Is that different from the one that's in the article already, besides being rotated? Dekimasuよ! 13:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Image in the taxobox

I have changed the image in the taxobox to an image of MERS Cov, as it is in the same genus as 2019 nCov and we don't have an image of 2019 nCov without copyright issues (doubtless one will eventually come out from the cdc though) no images of SARS exist on commons either that aren't under threat of immediate deletion (the image in the taxobox of the coronavirus article was pointed out to me as being taken in 1975 and therefore could not possibly be SARS, but the wording in the image description on commons is misleading). Unlike an image of an animal or a plant, I don't really think that the image in the taxobox matters all that much, as all coronaviruses look roughly the same. Any objections? Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it is acceptable in the context (it is clearly labeled as closely related, and not as the virus itself), but it has been commented out by another editor. I would suggest reinstating it until we can find something better. Dekimasuよ! 15:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@分液漏斗: would you object if the file is replaced with this?

Image of generic coronavirus taken in 1975

(ec) This is actually explicitly covered at MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic. Similarly, an image of a generic-looking cell under a light microscope might be useful on multiple articles, as long as there are no visible differences between the cell in the image and the typical appearance of the cell being illustrated" [emphasis added; true, this is from an electron microscope]. Clearly the MERS image is informative insofar as it illustrates the "corona". There is currently some edit warring over the image on the main page, but I think this makes it clear that keeping the MERS photo should be our default for now. Dekimasuよ! 15:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

My thinking was that using the image of MERS was less repetitive than using the same 1975 Coronavirus image (that I've just linked) that is used in the main article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

That was just carried over from the edit conflict, and wasn't intended to indicate preference for one image over the other. I think both are acceptable and each is better than having no image. Dekimasuよ! 15:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I feel it is worth updating here that I have changed the image to that of a CDC SARS virion image that I just uploaded to commons as it has an 80% similarity to 2019 nCoV Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I have changed the image to a high definition render of 2019 nCov from CDC, which I have also added to the main Coronavirus article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Epidemiology and Reservoir

Epidemiology: Nov 2019 or earlier

I suggest to add a sentence about the statement from Daniel R. Lucey, an infectious disease specialist at Georgetown University. About a significant finding. About the first human infections must have occurred in November 2019 and maybe earlier. How about the draft paragraph below? With notable source.

According to Daniel Lucey at Georgetown University, the first human infections must have occurred in November 2019 and maybe earlier.

References

Francewhoa (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

---

What's his source other than just intuition? I think it should only be added if other sources collaborate the statement.Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Jon Cohen's recent article reads that the source is Daniel R. Lucey. Who is a senior scholar with the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law and an adjunct professor of Medicine-Infectious Diseases at Georgetown University Medical Center. Francewhoa (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a 2nd noble source published yesterday January 28th, 2020. An article by Kat Eschner in Popular Science.. Francewhoa (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Popular science isn't a reliable source for stuff like this, we should be citing the peer-reviewed journal articles used in the article instead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

It is clear that this is the judgment of one researcher, rather than an independent finding. The source is still used in the article as part of the uncertainty over when and where infection first took place, but it doesn't need to be taking over the section. In the case of the second addition, listed below, it was saying "Now it seems clear that [the] seafood market is not the only origin of the virus" before we had described in the rest of the reservoir section why focus was being placed on the role of the seafood market. In general we still have an issue in this article with frequent readdition or overemphasis on individual researchers and teams, which certainly have interest in making their work seem important. I'm not particularly stating that that's what's happening here, but we should make sure the emphasis continues to remain on the virus rather than on the institutions and experts who are naturally working on it. Dekimasuよ! 09:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Reservoir: Seafood market NOT the only origin

I suggest to add a sentence about the statement from Daniel R. Lucey, an infectious disease specialist at Georgetown University. About a significant finding. About the seafood market is not the only origin. How about the draft paragraph below? With notable source.

Daniel Lucey, an infectious disease specialist at Georgetown University, stated that “Now it seems clear that [the] seafood market is not the only origin of the virus”.

References

Francewhoa (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Not sure it serves any purpose while the story of the actual discovery during December 2019 is still very murky and unclear in itself. Furthermore there are a number of specialist in this paleo epidemic research field and another posits October 2019 or thereabouts. > https://www.statnews.com/2020/01/24/dna-sleuths-read-coronavirus-genome-tracing-origins-and-mutations/ . I am sure the paleo researchers will arrive at the truth, or agreement in time. Just not really sure if now is that time myself. I think that section of the page would have to be written by someone knowledgeable in that field and with attribution to a number of research strands. Wikimucker (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I think we have to go on the conclusions of the cited papers, rather than people who aren't involved in the research Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

This edit overwrote a full day's worth of changes in order to reinstate the two sentences objected to above (at least one of which, I think, was retained in some form). It used the edit summary "Added publisher name to source". Please do not perform edits like that without regard for what has come in the interim, and please do not use misleading edit summaries. Dekimasuよ! 00:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I feel like it's worth noting here than Francewhoa has prior edits on his talk page for poor sourcing Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2020

The name of the virus should be changed to "2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease". And it should be clarified that the name is an interim name and the final decision on the official name of the virus will be made by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses.[1] 6V^X5 (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

This article isn't about the disease caused by the virus, but the virus itself, SARS and SARS coronavirus and MERS and MERS coronavirus are distinct and distinct from SARS outbreak Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

 Note: Marking this closed as  Not done per Hemiauchenia's response. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

This was later added in a different from by another editor. I have made it clear that this is not a name for the virus ("On 30 January 30 2020, 2019-nCoV was designated a global health emergency by the World Health Organization (WHO).[citation needed] The WHO has coined the interim term '2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease' to describe the disease caused by the virus."), but transferred the information to the epidemiology section. Please feel free to remove if necessary. Dekimasuよ! 00:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Change image

Can you insert the file 2019-nCoV-CDC-23312_whitout_background.png instead of 2019-nCoV-CDC-23312.png Dixy52 (talk) 06:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be a request to use File:2019-nCoV-CDC-23312 whitout background.png (sic). Any thoughts on why this image would be better than the one we're using now? Dekimasuよ! 06:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dekimasu: It's just an aesthetic issue... infoboxes do not have a white background, so the photo outline stands out. Using a photo without background does not present the problem. P.S.)Excuse me for mistakes, I'm using the translator --Dixy52 (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The file is around four megabytes as opposed to the 3.5 megabytes of the current image, on the other hand the red tinge that irritates me is also gone. The currently used image is transcluded as it is currently on the front page, overall I like the change and will implement it as a test Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The photo without background lost some details. --Kwangung (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kwangtung: the photo's look identical in quality to me under close examination, what details are lost, other than a slight missing blurred portion at the top of the image?

Bottom left. If that's acceptable then carry on. --Kwangung (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, the missing parts in the bottom left are few. In that part I simply eliminated with the rubber the remaining white of the automatic selection. I can assure you that I was very careful to keep the entirety of the details by deleting most of the background --Dixy52 (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed I fixed the file @Kwangung:— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dixy52 (talk • contribs)

 Fixed @Hemiauchenia: Now the file is 3.73 MB, not 3.5 like the older one but it's still a step forward --Dixy52 (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2020

Under Epidemiology: "the number is cases is" to be fixed with "the number of cases is" 46.99.37.234 (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Lcodyh803 (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

eh? Wikimucker (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding link from Indonesian Wikisource

Hello, I found links from Indonesian Wikisource: Information about 2019 Novel Coronavirus, (CDC) Because the wikisource has no articles about 2019-nCoV in English it is so interested to add link from Indonesian Wikisource to this article. This article originally published in English by Center of Disease Control in the United States and translated to Indonesian in Wikisource. Because there's no equivalent Wikisource article in English can someone add link from Indonesian wikisource to English Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2020

Please add Canada as location of outbreak - Toronto, ON has 3 confirmed cases thus far. 205.189.58.93 (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Thanks, but Canada is one of the "more than twenty other countries in Asia, Europe, North America, and Oceania" where there have been cases. The focus of this article is not on where the outbreak is taking place. For that, please see 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. Dekimasuよ! 14:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

{{2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus data/Patients characteristics}}

Characteristics of zoonotic coronavirus strains
MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV, SARS-CoV-2,
and related diseases

	MERS-CoV	SARS-CoV	SARS-CoV-2
Disease	MERS	SARS	COVID-19
Outbreaks	2012	2002–2004	2019−present
Epidemiology
Date of first identified case	June 2012	November 2002	December 2019
Location of first identified case	Jeddah, Saudi Arabia	Shunde, China	Wuhan, China
Age average	56	44	56
Sex ratio (M:F)	3.3:1	0.8:1	1.6:1
Confirmed cases	2494	8096	676,609,955
Deaths	858	774	6,881,955
Case fatality rate	37%	9.2%	1.02%
Symptoms
Fever	98%	99–100%	87.9%
Dry cough	47%	29–75%	67.7%
Dyspnea	72%	40–42%	18.6%
Diarrhea	26%	20–25%	3.7%
Sore throat	21%	13–25%	13.9%
Ventilatory use	24.5%	14–20%	4.1%
Notes

I found a nest of academic review on https://thelancet.com/coronavirus. Also, I used one of their work (Jan. 24th) to create the following table, on the right. Where should it go ? Can you find the right place for it. Yug (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC) (1am here, I go to bed ! cannot dig further ! XD ) This article has further data on the symtoms and co :

• Jan. 30th : Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study ; Nanshan Chen, Min Zhou, Xuan Dong, Jieming Qu, Fengyun Gong, Yang Han et al.

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

• If anywhere, I would think this would go in Coronavirus, which contains information on all three viruses. Dekimasuよ! 04:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

References

• This template needs updating. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 15:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC).
  

Species jump

The "source" for it not being identified that it crossed species is 10 days old. Having looked at its genome it is very similar to those that have species jumped, there are a lot among the scientific community that have a lot to say about this and none of them think that it originated from humans. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30154-9/fulltext 2A00:23C5:E41E:1200:F9C0:5AE3:B36E:1A03 (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Novel

Is this word an official part of the name? We need a source for that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see #Requested move 31 January 2020. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC).

Error in virus classification in infobox

It is unclear to me what is causing the error, but the top of the taxonomy box currently reads "Taxonomy template does not specify a parent (fix): Incertae sedis/Riboviria". I have not been able to determine what is inserting the "Incertae sedis/Riboviria" text here, but it seems like only having the realm listed as Riboviria should be sufficient in this case. We don't want to be creating Incertae sedis/Riboviria. Can someone figure out how to change this? Dekimasuよ! 05:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not unique to this virus's article. I recommend discussing the general problem taxonomy infobox problems at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Viruses. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 06:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

"Possibility_of_being_lab_created"-not in the source

Please delete this. I've read the source that is linked, and there is nothing of such a conclusion. The article claims that there are some small parts of the RNA that resemble HIV but thats it. This is just fearmongering — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momowomo2000 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Already removed. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It is worth asking for extended protection to prevent such nonsense? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Probably best to extend protect now. The Lab Created story today seemingly originates in an Indian Institute of Technology in Delhi. These IITs are reputable institutions.

This is not the first claim in recent days that the NCOV was deliberately engineered as a bioweapon either but most of these claims were in nutjob media outlets until now, as one would expect. I won't call this paper nonsense in deference to the IITs in India but this claim needs delicate handling since the paper states that the presence of 4 short strands of matter also found in HIV-1 is "unlikely to be fortuitous" ....their words. Full Paper > https://biorxiv-cache.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/2020.01.30.927871.full.pdf Wikimucker (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be best not to assume that because its a consipracy its not true, although if it is true I think that it will only be similar to the conspiracy as they almost always make up more facts or twist them (assuming its not a blatant lie). I think it is very unlikely its a bio-weapon or someones school project gone wrong but I'm not qualified to talk about that, I can tell you that there is a probability greater than zero that a teapot is orbiting mars so I can say the same about this. 2A00:23C5:E41E:1200:F9C0:5AE3:B36E:1A03 (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I warned about this a week ago on the likelihood of 'fast science' and non peer reviewed papers making waves. See my semi protection req on the 24th up the page. This is the kind of stuff I feared and warned about. S'All. Wikimucker (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

There is a good deconstruction of the IIT paper here > https://theprepared.com/blog/no-the-2019-ncov-genome-doesnt-actually-seem-engineered-from-hiv/ Wikimucker (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2020

[In virology] CHANGE: Human-to-human transmission of the virus has been confirmed. Reports have emerged that the virus is infectious even during the incubation period, although as of 27 January 2020 officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the United States stated they "don't have any evidence of patients being infectious prior to symptom onset."

TO: Human-to-human transmission of the virus has been confirmed. Reports have emerged that the virus is infectious even during the incubation period, with an estimated latency period of 7 days preceeding an infectious but still asymptomatic period of 9 days before becoming clinically symptomatic. Nonetheless as of 27 January 2020 officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the United States stated they "don't have any evidence of patients being infectious prior to symptom onset." 89.206.113.120 (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

References

 Question: This looks like a useful addition if it can be verified properly, particularly because we don't require it to be the result of academic consensus (the CDC counterstatement is left in). However, the DOI direct link does not serve as a source for what is being cited here. It does not say anything about "a latency period of 7 days preceding an infections but still asymptomatic period of 9 days". It is, as its title indicates, a preprint of a study on the effective reproduction number of 2019-nCoV. Dekimasuよ! 04:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Ah, I see. No, they input possible values for L (latency) and D (the average latent infectious period), but their study does not include any data indicating that those values are anything other than hypothetical. It says (48–49) "According to China CDC, we set L=7 days and D=9 days" but it does not say or cite where the supposed China CDC values come from. Dekimasuよ! 04:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

It says (64f) that they tested different duration input variables, but that the numbers coming from the CDC proved the most robust at modelling current epidmiological observations. I find it essential for the article to mention that while already being infectious way earlier, first symptoms possibly don't occur until as late as 17 or more days after infection, which happens to substantially exceed the proposed quarantine of 14 days for repatriated foreigners. But who am I to argue the Administration. 89.206.114.52 (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Since you have toggled this back to unanswered, I will follow up that in my opinion a single mathematical model really isn't sufficient to argue the length of latency or when subjects begin to be infectious without direct evidence. This is all the more the case because the unpublished paper here makes other extraordinary claims, such as the basic reproductive number over 4 and the claim that the virus has a comparable fatality rate to SARS. There is a large number of unpublished papers circulating and we have to do our best to represent what seems to be the emerging consensus. I do not think the 17-day claim is in the mainstream at this time, but perhaps others may disagree. Dekimasuよ! 16:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 Note: Marking this closed since there's active discussion around the request. If consensus develops, a new request can be made, or more likely, one of the editors able to implement it will do so. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Lancet

New source from The Lancet about the projected spread here [2]. Interesting Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

"Wuhan seafood market pneumonia" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wuhan seafood market pneumonia. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 67.70.33.184 (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Recoveries

Out of 213 patients confirmed dead, 187 is confirmed recovered. And while lethality typically takes place earlier in the progress of a disease, these two numbers are indicative of how lethal the infection. This section is describing very much in detail all the pertinent information in this regard except for potential mortality rates:

"As of 31 January 2020 (02:30 UTC), there were 9,776 confirmed cases of infection, of which 9,658 were within mainland China.[15] Cases outside China, to date, were people who have either travelled from Wuhan, or were in direct contact with someone who travelled from the area.[16] The number of deaths was 213 as of 31 January 2020 (02:30 UTC).[15][17] Human-to-human spread was first confirmed in Guangdong, China, on 20 January 2020[18] and has subsequently been confirmed in Germany, Taiwan, Japan, the United States and the United Kingdom.[19][20]"

SOMEONE PELASE REPLACE THIS LINE:

The number of deaths was 213 as of 31 January 2020 (02:30 UTC).[15][17]

TO THIS LINE

The number of deaths was 213 while the number of recoveries was 187 as of 31 January 2020 (02:30 UTC).[15][17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B049:8066:48AE:30A9:D0D7:D404 (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• I believe the reason we have not added this in the article is that the number of recoveries are only among the confirmed cases. It has also been reported that there are asymptomatic cases, and there is no way to know how many people have recovered without being diagnosed. The number of deaths, on the other hand, is more certain. However, it is reasonable to have a conversation about whether the number of verified recoveries should be added. Dekimasuよ! 05:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

So perhaps we should put: "Of the confirmed cases, 213 have died and 187 have recovered as of 31 Jan 2020". But this would be opening a can of worms and would lead people to think that the death rate for the disease was over 50%. I suspect that it isn’t as for provinces outside Hubei the death rate is 9 died and 81 recovered i.e. a 10% death rate. Cases outside Hubei are probably much better supervised as I suspect Hubei is in chaos, and the hospitals are only taking the worst of the cases. Most of the milder cases are probably still at home and many may have recovered without being reported. This is a good summary of the problems we have working out the death rate. Mike Young (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2020

I expanded the chinese wikipedia page, wish someone can help add valuable researches including non peer reviewed preliminary papers on bioRxiv and etc. in enwp. 复读姬 (talk) 21:06, 2 February 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. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

New coronavirus may be transmitted through the feces

"New coronavirus may be transmitted through the feces. Now this issue should be taken very seriously, because the virus is found in the feces, and whether the feces are infected with the virus is highly vigilant. In some places in Hubei and Jiangxi, there is indeed a habit of using toilet bowls, and they are still washed in fish ponds, which really needs to be brought to the attention of prevention and control." (South Plus)

https://news.qq.com/zt2020/page/feiyan.htm#news

https://amp.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3048611/coronavirus-scientists-identify-possible-new-mode-transmission

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/02/02/asia-pacific/science-health-asia-pacific/coronavirus-feces-risk-of-spread/#.XjdI8mRX5kx Nickayane99 (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

These are obvously citing a study in the NEJM, can you provide a direct link to the study? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any sources saying it has been transmitted that way. We probably need to wait for the sources on this. Although the English sources here would be sufficient to report that viral RNA is contained in feces, in and of itself that probably wouldn't go in the article. Dekimasuよ! 03:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia & Dekimasu, I found the NEJM manuscript and referenced it here. Moksha88 (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added the reference and a short sentence here, without discussing whether transmission actually occurs this way for now. Dekimasuよ! 04:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for late reply

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2001191?query=featured_home Nickayane99 (talk) 08:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2020

Researchers from NTNU created database with 120 safe-in-man broad-spectrum antiviral agents and identified 31 drug candidates for treatment of 2019-nCoV (https://drugvirus.info). Aianevsk (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2020

Please delete "Projects studying the effectiveness of Hepatitis C treatment sofosbuvir, a RNA-dependent RNA polymerase inhibitor, were also started in late January 2020.[82]" because This preprint has been retracted. I assume it is rejected by the Lancet and therefore not available anymore.

Please delete "82 Elfiky, Abdo (28 January 2020). "Sofosbuvir Can Inhibit the Newly Emerged Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in Wuhan, China". (Preprints with the Lancet, Powered by SSRN). SSRN 3523869 Check Dirk Jochmans (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

DONE Wikimucker (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)