Talk:SARS-CoV-2/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Requested move 22 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move to the suggested title, though there is a significant level of dissatisfaction with the current title. Moving it to "Wuhan coronavirus" or a variant of it is resoundingly unpopular particularly later in the discussion, with large numbers of editors pointing out multiple documented issues with over-enthusiastically naming diseases after places. While it's clearly a common name for the disease, it is neither the common name, nor is it officially used as the name by official organisations. The current title is clearly something of a compromise, with the not-very-catchy 2019-nCoV being the official designation, and "novel coronavirus" being a commonly used, relatively neutral media term for it. Reasonable suggestions for other, less cumbersome titles have been made, with specifically 2019 novel coronavirus and 2019-nCoV both being discussed favourably, but there is simply no way a closer could legitimately extract a consensus for either of those from this discussion, which is understandably focused primarily on flaws with the originally suggested title.

I would suggest a new discussion to see if a positive consensus for one of the other, cleaner, neutral titles can be found - but the consensus in this discussion is very much a negative one. ~ mazca ^talk 18:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) → Wuhan coronavirus – Widespread use in top shelf sources Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Here are a few sources that are using it Note Wuhan is a location in China that seems to be primarily associated with its origin. CNN, NYT, WSJ Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Amend proposal to move to Wuhan coronavirus per obvious capitalization error. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Procedural comment. Clearly, this is ready to close in 12 hours. However, it was also moved from 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) to Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) without discussion by a now-blocked sock on January 19. The previous title is not great, because it is simply the same title twice, in violation of WP:AT. However, the current title is also really the same title twice; and the move would normally be reverted if it could be determined there was previously a stable title. [Follow-up: It was at Wuhan coronavirus, the title rejected here, between its creation on January 9 and January 16, so it is safe to say there is no stable title.] I would thus advise leaving open the option of initiating a new move request to simply 2019-nCoV (or 2019 novel coronavirus) when closing this request. (I have not !voted here, but I am involved in editing the article, so I will leave it to another RM closer.) Dekimasuよ! 06:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support There will be more novel coronaviruses. Tradition with epidemics is to indicate location and type e.g. Spanish Influenza and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome. We can now confirm epidemic within city of Wuhan, and Wuhan as epicenter. Common usage is growing for Wuhan Coronavirus. Erudite_Ed —Preceding undated comment added 22:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support Although the CDC and WHO seem to still be calling it Novel, it does look like a majority of news websites are using Wuhan - a couple more examples of its use: NPR, Business Insider, The Guardian, so it looks like Wuhan is turning into the more common term. Lcodyh803 (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Lcodyh803: The CDC and WHO websites are professional government and international websites, and are reliable sources, using professional and scientific names. NPR, Business Insider, and The Guardian are all news websites using "Wuhan virus" just to catch the readers attention to give info in the title. Wikipedia is not just a news website, it is a factual encyclopedia, and should have factual, encyclopedically like titles, that follow Wikipedia's article title policy. Just because Wuhan is a "common term" does not mean it is an officially scientifically approved term. The name of this virus has not been given yet as of January 24, 2020 (Pacific Time), as this virus is still new. The common name could change later, when the virus becomes more widely known and popular. "Wuhan coronavirus" sounds unprofessional and rudimentary to me, which was explained in this discussion. 75.52.95.136 (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Move to Wuhan coronavirus - The c should be lowercase. "novel coronavirus" is a placeholder name, and not an official name by any stretch. --Nessie (📥) 19:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• No Support: change article name to "Wuhan pneumonia". TFSA (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@TFSA: Why should you change the article name to "Wuhan pneumonia"? What are the reasons? The reasons have to follow the article title policy. Also, this is a proposal to change the title to "Wuhan coronavirus", not "Wuhan pneumonia". Because of these reasons, I believe your claim may be not relevant to the discussion we have. 75.52.95.136 (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Not Support, I propose to name it as "XiaodongWang Coronavirus", the governor of Hubei province, whose group do nothing but keep the virus spread countrywide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatworld2020 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Greatworld2020: This is a proposal to talk about changing the article title to "Wuhan coronavirus", not "XiaodongWang Coronavirus". Also, the names of viruses are not usually bamed after people in that format, so your request sounds unlikely. Also, please base your reasons on the article title policy page. Thanks! 75.52.95.136 (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support The term "novel coraonavirus" is just a placeholder due to the fact that it is a new strain: "Wuhan coronavirus" is both being widely used, as above, and is more likely to endure as a name. MadameButterflyKnife talk 19:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@MadameButterflyKnife: I disagree on the part where it is more likely to endure as a name. The CDC shows that this outbreak is a "rapidly evolving situation" as of January 24, 2020 (Pacific Time), at this link, so the name can also probably rapidly evolve too, as new things are discovered about its human to human transmission which have not been discovered yet as of January 24, 2020 (Pacific Time). 75.52.95.136 (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

You're correct that this is just a placeholder. However, viruses never have a place name in them, so it's not going to stick. If we did this, it would just need to be changed again.Mvolz (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mvolz: that’s not true at all, go to ICTV and you’ll find many many species of viruses named after places. --Nessie (📥) 22:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree "never" was a bit too strong (Although not to put too fine a point on it, but this is a strain of virus, not a species- strain names tend to have the name of the disease it causes, the antigens that make it different from other strains, the name of an animal if it's epizoontic) That said, it's still very unlikely for it to be named Wuhan coronavirus exactly, so the point still stands :). Mvolz (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose We should use the placeholder name until virologists give it a new name. Otherwise we'll just have to move it again. A redirect to here from Wuhan coronavirus is appropriate. Mvolz (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

CDC is calling it "2019 Novel Coronavirus, Wuhan, China" see [1]. If you want to be strict and follow CDC, why not use that? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not the name of the strain, that's the title of the webpage. In that page they don't name it at all, they just call it "a novel corona virus." The WHO spells it out for us: "This new virus was temporarily named “2019-nCoV.”"

• See also: Talk:2019–20 outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)#Requested move 16 January 2020. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support It will be easier to search for and distinguish with the common name. The only thing is thing is the C in coronavirus should not be capitalized. TheMemeMonarch (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• OK with Wuhan coronavirus, but maybe Coronavirus 2019-nCoV would also be a good choice if it hasn't really been named yet? Dicklyon (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose I, an anonymous user, strongly oppose changing the title of the article to any form of the phrase, "Wuhan Coronavirus", including but not limited to "Wuhan coronavirus" or "Wuhan virus". I have three reasons why it should not be changed.

First of all, the phrase, "Wuhan coronavirus", is an unprofessional and rudimentary name.

I strongly believe that the article's title should not be changed because it is not a news article. "Wuhan coronavirus" sounds unprofessional, and if this is a formal encyclopedia, then you should have a more professionial name. Also, there may be multiple "Wuhan coronavirus"-es. This is very general and vague and not specific. News headlines only use "Wuhan coronavirus" to summarize the place and to catch readers, so I think that this is a factual encyclopedia with a specific and non vague fairly scientific name. "Wuhan corona virus sounds very rudimentary. Wuhan is just to identify the event and where it started! A scientific name is better, so I oppose! It is very unprofessional!

Secondly, "Wuhan coronavirus" is likely to be changed again, due to its unofficial name format (nomenclature), both scientifically and socially.

Also, like Mvolz said, viruses should not officialy have a place name, so it will need to be changed again. We need to limit the amount of changes to this article, as multiple changes can also confuse readers. Also NessieVL, even though you will find "many many species" of viruses named after places, "Wuhan coronavirus" sounds very unprofessional, and I dont think virus names have two English words. So Dicklyon, in my opinion, I believe that changing the name would not be a good choice if it has not been named yet, because then the title would need to be changed twice, wasting time and effort and energy that could have been used in something else.

Lastly, Redirecting can be used instead, to redirect from "Wuhan coronavirus" into the main real page.

I also agree with Mvolz in a redirect for the search term, "Wuhan coronavirus", because a more professional name would suit the article better, and may enhance Wikipedia's reputation in terms of its element of professionality. Also, I disagree with TheMemeMonarch because only a redirected is needed. I really wonder if people here take redirects into consideration.

Please take my opinion into consideration even though I am anonymous. Thanks! By the way, I am exercising the "be bold" saying, and trying to be helpful to people and not vandalize. I have tried to rebuke all of the "Support" bullet points, and tried to support the "Oppose" points. 10:56 P.M., January 22 2020 75.52.95.136 (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose and leave as is, at least until until dust settles, for reasons mentioned by Mvolz and75.52.95.136. Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) IS the authoritative description used all by English speaking/publishing relevant medical entities at this time (WHO, ECDC, CDC etc). People will find info they need as is because of redirect.--Wuerzele (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose We have a redirect from Wuhan Coronavirus already. The correct medical name should be used. However there is a separate wiki article named "Wuhan Coronavirus Outbreak" which is correctly named. Wikimucker (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support It’s the common name for this virus. My only quibble is that coronavirus shouldn’t be capitalized.

As a comparison, the Spanish flu article currently uses the common name instead of the technical name (1918 flu pandemic). Apparently page views for that article increased significantly when the name was changed to the common name. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Blaylockjam10: The page views can just be a coincidence. If the name of an article was just changed into the "Spanish flu", then I believe that this is just a coincidence, because Wikipedia may have been primitive at the time, and was not as reliable either. You should compare whether your source is reliable too, because where did you get the page views from? Also, the page views can just be because if the content, because maybe it was just created. And even though the "Spanish flu" is the common name, the flu is more widely known and popular than the new coronavirus we have. According to the CDC website on the coronavirus in Wuhan, this is a "rapidly evolving situation" as of January 23, 2020 (Pacific Time), so the name can change quickly. Do not use the post hoc fallacy. 75.52.95.136 (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. As a note, (1918 flu pandemic) is not a technical name, nor should it be. The correct name is H1N1. The name mentioned is the name of the event, not the strain. Same here. The event page is named as it should be.
• Oppose, even the dumbass "science reporters" in the media know that a name will be generated by the proper medical authorities and are holding off on using a common name. Abductive (reasoning) 22:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no reason to change the name from the current medical terminology. If this terminology changes, then we should reconsider a name change. There is no reason to overrule medical terminology because a couple journalists found 2019-nCov too confusing a term. Acebulf (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support This is the common name of the virus. It is more recognizable than the current official name of the virus. PCelestia (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Ambivalence But one argument against that I would like to counter is that the current title should be kept because it seems more "professional"; this thinking goes against WP:COMMONNAME, which suggests this article should use whatever name settles as the standard name, even if that name is different to it's WHO designation. Also note that the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak article has been renamed. People may be interested to see the talk page there. Ypna (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose This is a scientifically based article for all information regarding the (yet to be named) Novel coronavirus. The article should retain its title because
  

1. It is currently the name adopted by WHO, CDC and NCBI.
2. Names used by News media are for delivering information to the general public and do not reflect the proper taxonomic name used by virologists
3. To answer Blaylockjam10, the Spanish flu article refers to the pandemic event of 1918. The article regarding the virus itself uses its scientific name (Influenza A virus subtype H1N1). Similarly, the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak article reflects the event, whereas this article should continue to use Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) until the WHO confirms its taxonomy. --Neodymium123 (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: WHO - yes; CDC - yes; NCBI - I don't see "2019-nCoV" in the content of the page, rather I see "Wuhan-Hu-1|China|2019-Dec" and then an alphanumeric code MN908947 for the particular genome (which would be too specific for the title here). Boud (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. There's a longstanding preference not to name viruses after populated locations, because of the perceived associated stigma. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Relevant quote from a plos blog: "Nomenclature is still up in the air. The first name, “2019-nCoV” for “novel coronavirus first seen in 2019,” is descriptive but not easy to remember. “Wu Flu” isn’t correct – it’s not a flu virus, nor is “Wuhan SARS” quite right because the new pathogen’s genome isn’t exactly like that of SARS. I’ll call it the Wuhan coronavirus until the World Health Organization decides on a name. WHO avoids places in disease names to avoid stigma, although I don’t see the Rocky Mountains suffering from lack of visitors due to the spotted fever that takes it’s name (which isn’t viral, but still)." Mvolz (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Relevant quote from a newspaper article: "None of these is likely to be the virus’ or the disease’s permanent name. They almost certainly would be unacceptable to the Chinese, and to the World Health Organization, which discourages the use of place names in the naming of diseases." Mvolz (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is a non-professional and misleading name for an article on a scientific topic. I would support the move to Coronavirus 2019-nCoV, which is proper scientific nomenclature. --TadejM ^{my talk} 23:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. We're no longer in the times of the Spanish flu (which, BTW, wasn't Spanish.) It's unscientific, damning and contrary to the accepted practice in modern epidemiology. --MaeseLeon (talk) 08:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. As already mentioned, the current name is the currently official designations for the virus. Having a redirect from a publicly used, but unofficial name to this article is fine, but I can't support a move to an article with an unofficial name. WHO has outlined that the name is temporary, but moving it to a later determined official name, if applicable, is something I'd support. Alternatively, moving it to Coronavirus 2019-nCoV, as TadejM mentioned. -- OliviaZoe0 ❤️ (She/her) (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support move to Wuhan coronavirus per WP:COMMONNAME. Note what the policy says: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used. Wuhan coronavirus is used by major news outlets. e.g. [2][3][4], etc., even used by the science journal Nature - [5]. Given that Novel Coronavirus 2019 is temporary anyway, so why use it? Hzh (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support For the simple fact that when the next zoonotic transmission occurs with a new strain in the following years, this will merely be confusion and make no sense and provide no context. -- Berkaysnklf (|talk) 12:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. Redirects and alternative names in article body are enough. Article page name is extremely encyclopedic, which fits in the context of an extremely complex topic anyway. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 13:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The intent of the request is met adequately by the redirect and a bold text 'popularly known as' in the lead. Keep the best available scientific name until a more formal scientific name is adopted (by the WHO?). xref WP:NOTNEWS. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support I said earlier that Wuhan coronavirus is the common name. However I now think that we should change the name to Wuhan coronavirus, then mention the scientific name somewhere within the start of the article. PCelestia (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it's too early to determine its common name. Benimation (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support move to Wuhan coronavirus per WP:COMMONNAME. Miniapolis 20:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I have no knowledge on how epidemics or pandemics work... but shouldn’t the name be something the general public can easily identify if they want to read an article about it? Wuhan coronavirus is likely a misnomer but you get my drift. At best, redirect. ⌚️ (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • If somebody searches using the (current) media name, Wuhan coronavirus, they will go automagically to this article and the second pair of words they will see in bold is Wuhan coronavirus. It seems to me that they are likely to be reassured by the scientific nomenclature that what they are reading is credible and not some fake news click bait. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support To add to the discussion re: media usage, Chinese state media is also using the phrase Wuhan Coronavirus. An unscientific run through Twitter reaffirms that this is by far the more popular way to refer to it, and frankly mitigates the stigma argument, given that PRC state media is particularly sensitive to public image. As Hzh pointed out, policy can be read to prefer articles using the popular name of a topic. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose WHO goes with "2019-nCoV".[6] So should we. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose and Close with No Concensus name is used by the WHO and other major bodies. Clearly no concensus on the topic is likley to be reached so this discussion should be closed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose because where do we draw the line? We could call it Wuhan coronavirus, but it has now spread to many Chinese cities, so why not China coronavirus or Chinese coronavirus instead? And it is even starting to go beyond China now. I think it is probably best not to jump the gun and to wait for an official announcement from scientific authorities before deciding on a new name; for now, the placeholder novel coronavirus will do. Buttons0603 (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose WHO uses 2019-nCov. Journal articles use nCov (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30154-9/fulltext). Let's go with what international scientific organisations and journals are using rather than some random newspapers. Adam Williams (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose It doesn't make sense to change an accurate name that can easily be reached through other pages. A redirect would be more accurate and consistent with current titling convention. TheExceptionCloaker (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose WHO's current nomenclature is as commonly recognized as the suggested name "Wuhan Coronavirus" which is mentioned by medias more than others. The final name is still debatable, however, this proposal during early stage of this pandemic situation is not as ideal as it is. For the record, Imperial College London used 2019-ncov1; earliest paper on the matter used novel coronavirus2; both Lancet articles also used novel coronavirus34. Thus my personal opposition to this notion of redirecting to "Wuhan coronavirus". 复读姬 (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Both the WHO and the CDC are referring to the virus as: “2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV).” The article should not be renamed until one, or both, of those authoritative sources rename the virus. Jason M. Smith 21:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javasmith (talk • contribs)
• rename CAR - Chinese Acute Respiratory Syndrome- As of January 27, 2020, as many as four cities with over 10 million people are now impacted: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.163 (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Calling 2019-nCoV the 'Wuhan coronavirus' kinda downplays its significance, since it implies that it's almost entirely localized in Wuhan (when it isn't, it just happens to be where it started to spread) (MERS-CoV is called the 'Middle East coronavirus' since it's almost entirely localized in the Middle East). Several contributors above me have also pointed out that WHO calls the virus '2019-nCoV', so yeah. jaclar0529 (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• For the record, the country with the second highest number of cases from MERS is South Korea, a country not in the Middle East. -- zaiisao ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose As several others have pointed out, naming viruses after locations or people is no longer an accepted practice in scientific communities. The outbreak and knowledge of the virus is still fairly new, and while we don't know what name will stick in the long-term, for now keeping the page name "2019-nco" with a redirect from Wuhan Coronavirus is the best solution. TorontoBio (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - The virus is officially named "2019-nCov" and hence it should remain at this page. The "Wuhan coronavirus" title should be treated as similar to the "Spanish flu" and be about the current pandemic, not the virus. Tsukide (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - More specifically, oppose for now. We're still early in the process, and changes to the "common" name seem entirely likely. The current title, "Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)", is used by relevant authorities, which makes it a good starting point. We should give it a few months and see how the name shakes out. Eventually the WHO and CDC will come up with another name, which will be a contender, and we can see if "Wuhan coronavirus" manages to stick the as the common usage. — Alan De Smet | Talk 17:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - as per arguments above, we should follow the scientific consensus on this one for the strain itself, we have 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak for the outbreak itself. --hroest 21:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Both CDC and WHO are using '2019-nCoV' as the name for the virus at this moment. Whatever the name "mainstream" media is using should not be the reason to rename the page. MrSeaman (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – A scientific name is preferred, particularly considering there have been instances of the virus outside the Wuhan region and the outbreak article already has Wuhan in the title. Master of Time (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Scientific name is preferred. It is not "Wuhan coronavirus" anymore in the near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.170.68.162 (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Wiki is not urban dictionary, its the official page name should remain factual names provided by relevant health organisations, not naming conventions of trending news sites. There is a reason why WHO did not name it Wuhan coronavirus in the beginning, the name can carry permanent and far reaching implications in today's day and age. It is already redirected from "Wuhan coronavirus" and listed as an alternative name, I don't see why we need to move it, at least not now. Things can change quickly in the future, let's wait for things to smooth out before changing something so important. H1230016 (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Against this move ,the whole world is saying 2019-nCoV Recto sama (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Moving it to something like 2019 Wuhan novel coronavirus would seem more appropriate Would (oldosfan) 06:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The scientific name is preferred. It would like to see this article by just scientific name (2019-nCoV) without word "novel coronavirus". German, Indonesian, Danish, Dutch, Catalan Wikipedias doesn't use names like "novel coronavirus" because it is ambiguous and can be confusing if any viruses other than 2019-nCoV is released and grammatically incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tsukide's reasoning that "Wuhan coronavirus" isn't a common name for the virus itself. "Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)" is overspecified, though, and I agree with the IP above that "2019-nCoV" by itself would seem adequate. 82.16.89.102 (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The WHO recommends against naming diseases after locations and people: NYT article from 2015, Poz.com article from this week. The name currently used by epidemiologists and the WHO is "2019-nCOV"; that's what we should use too, with a redirect from "Wuhan coronavirus" and similar terms. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose. we cannot repeat the problems we created with Sin Nombre virus and the 1918 Influenza pandemic. By calling the former the "Four Corners virus," massive economic harm was done to the indigenous populations who were already terrified of the novel and deadly hemorrhagic fever. As we now know, the "Spanish" flu truly has nothing to do with Spain whatsoever. It was a misnomer then, and it would be a misnomer now. We cannot repeat these mistakes, causing more damage when all science is trying to do is help. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose. Go with Scientific name, since this refers to the biology and other technical language, rather than the origin place of the virus. WHO uses 2019-nCoV, and so does much of the epidemiology world. Kylerschin (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I understand WHO's position, unfortunately, discrimination is already happening for better or worse. In addition, this is Wikipedia, we do not need to follow WHO naming convention. Article name not only serve as a identifier, but also serves as a TL;DR in grand scheme of things. "Wuhan" would be a meaningful qualifier in the years to come, while a string of letters and numbers would be meaningless. --Voidvector (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, unless the CDC and others adopt it as a/the permanent name for this virus. I'm not particuarly concerned with the move leading to discrimination, as that isn't Wikipedia's place/thing to correct, however I am concerned that such a move, at this time, would deviate from the ecyclopeidc nature of Wikipedia. I'm sure the Urban dictionary will define the "Wuhan Coronavirus" as a synonym to the "2019-nCoV", but we aren't the Urban Dictionary. The fact that the virus was first reported in Wuhan, China is noted in our article, and should remain there, as it is a relevant fact. However, that doesn't mean it has to be in the title of the page. Thus, unless the CDC and others adopt "Wuhan Coronavirus (WC)" as its official name, then we shouldn't change the article title to "Wuhan Coronavirus". ElectroChip123 (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, "Novel coronavirus(2019-nCoV)" is more official and identifies this virus properly. And it is as unambiguous as "Wuhan coronavirus". The latter, however, is rude and biased. Will you call Black Death "Europe disease"? If we want to do something meaningful and avoid geographical discrimination and enmity, "Novel coronavirus(2019-nCoV)" is a much better name.137.132.220.25 (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, was going to support initially but every time I hear it on the news, it's "novel coronavirus", not "Wuhan coronavirus". Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 21:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Every news article I see lately simply refers to it as "the coronavirus" — not preceded by 'Wuhan' or 'Novel'. 144.178.0.204 (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Darwin
• Oppose The WHO, the CDC, and the FDA use "2019-nCoV" Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• Remove parenthesis and Keep "2019-nCoV" or Rename the article 2019 Novel Coronavirus which is the current full name of the virus. Or just go with the abbreviated name 2019-nCoV. The current title is confusing as it gives part of the full name and the abbreviation of the full name in parenthesis. This makes no sense. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• Either move to 2019-nCoV or to 2019 novel coronavirus per Coffeeandcrumbs. The current title is neither one thing nor the other, and using part of the formal title as a disambiguator isn't usual practice.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• If we can read consensus for 2019-nCoV out of this discussion, that's great; with the amount of discussion that's taken place here, I was under the impression a new request would be needed for it. Dekimasuよ! 15:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Remember the controversies of the names of the 2009 influenza and MERS-CoV? We don't want that to happen again. Foxtail286 (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. One should never nominate a virus/disease with the name of a city/country/living human being, in respect of non-discrimination. JoshuaGhost (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Overlap with Outbreak Article

One question, what is the best approach to handle two articles with overlapping material? The outbreak article shares several sections with this one, and while we edit this article, the other article will lag. Moksha88 (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Material that is actually related to the progress of the outbreak should be in that article. That includes information on transmission and symptoms as well as its spread. Information on the virus itself (which includes most of the information about its phylogeny, for example), should go here. I have my doubts that the section on genetics in the other article is necessary at all (it could be reduced to part of the "context" there). Dekimasuよ! 05:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, this article should be able to use more medical terminology than the other one, which is attempting to provide information to the general public about an epidemic that could affect them. Tsukide (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Pursuant to this, I have removed the new addition of a large "cases reported" table divided by country. The geography of the current outbreak is only tangentially relevant to the virus itself, which is the topic of this article. The table is still at the outbreak's page and can be edited/updated there as necessary, but I object to the addition of that table here without establishing consensus for its inclusion. Dekimasuよ! 11:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Dekimasu I merged 'Signs & Symptoms' with the outbreak article. I think what's missing is an article devoted to the clinical syndrome because now the 'Treatment' section is misplaced, like Influenza vs Influenza virus Moksha88 (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I generally agree with this. For the time being, I have added part of a sentence to describe the "symptoms" that are already listed under "treatment". I think the treatment section is fine to keep for now, since the effectiveness of various treatments is specifically related to the characteristics of the virus. As you noted, there isn't yet a specific article on the syndrome or apparent agreement on what it would be called (noting as well that the pneumonia redirect listed a few sections below is likely to be redirected to the outbreak article, rather than continuing to point here). Dekimasuよ! 04:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Dekimasu, I'm just seeing this now and deleted the symptoms part. I paraphrased the symptoms part because kidney disease and pneumonia are not technically symptoms, they are diseases. I didn't think they were that important to keep, but maybe we can compromise on a few symptoms that can be treated with medication, like cough. Moksha88 (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I still generally agree, although it might be worth continuing to note that the infection can progress to pneumonia or kidney failure. In some cases the symptoms are also indicative of method of transmission, so that is another reason to consider retaining them. Dekimasuよ! 09:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Details about the infection from the people perspective

Are there any details about duration of incubation period and progress of the symptom phase? Eg. how many days are the patients sick until they recover or which are the causes of lethality. Could anybody elaborate a bit about that? I think, it is quite important part which is missing in this article. Vks (talk) 07:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• It is important, but not really the topic of this article, which is the virus. For example, we have separate articles for Influenza and Influenza viruses, Tetanus and the Tetanus bacillus, or Zika fever and Zika virus. There is a sentence in the intro to the outbreak article that explains the length of the incubation period, although it seems to vary greatly. Dekimasuよ! 07:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Days from first symptom to death

"The China National Health Commission reported the details of the first 17 deaths up to 24 pm 22 Jan 2020. A study of these cases found that the median days from first symptom to death were 14 (range 6-41) days, and tended to be shorter among people of 70 year old or above (11.5 [range 6-19] days) than those with ages below 70 year old (20 [range 10-41] days."

• https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmv.25689 Nickayane99 (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nickayane99: Nice finding, thank you. Was it added to the article ? Yug (talk) 10:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Yug: Which article are you talking about thelancet article or this article? Nickayane99 (talk) 10:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nickayane99:I should not do 2 discussion in one. I created a new section dedicated to academic resources to exploit more. Yug (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

HIV link preprint is rescinded

Article about it is here Is this worth incorporating into the article? I've seen some panic about the preprint on twitter, so it's not like nobody has seen it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so, per WP:PROPORTION. It is a positive development, but there are many valid studies that we are still not citing at all, so I think it is best to let the HIV paper fade away. Dekimasuよ! 04:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Different sorts of plasma as treatment option

Cold atmospheric plasma is a physics based method to inactivate viruses which is working by emitting ultraviolet light, while the treatment option "convalescent plasma" is about antibodies taken from a patient's blood stream. Both were deleted in the article.Special:Diff/939101250 Perhaps in the hope, that somebody will improve the edit and put it back into the article (bold, revert, discuss cycle). The probability that this will happen is low, because the average editor of this article will need all his ressources for reading the references from Bangkokpost, NBC news and yahoo news which are occupying 80% of the overall reference section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManuelRodriguez (talk • contribs) 11:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The "treatment research" section is not intended to be about suggestions by Wikipedia editors about possible applications of novel treatments for 2019-nCoV infection. It is about conveying information from reliable sources to the effect that research on particular treatments has taken place (or is ongoing). The sources cited for this addition were not about 2019-nCoV and predated its discovery. If there are reliable sources stating that this research is taking place, we can revisit the removal. I note that only 3 of the 99 sources in the article are from the (still relatively reliable) news outlets you singled out, while dozens are on medical research or statements put out by global and national health agencies. Dekimasuよ! 02:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Horrendous mortality rate of 2019-nCoV due to confusion with fatality rate

A mortality rate of 3% means 45 million Chinese will die to Wuhan coronavirus disease in 2020 alone!

This must refer to the fatality rate.

PLEASE REPLACE:

However, preliminary research results have estimated a mortality rate of 2–3% among those infected. However, it was issued with a warning that "not all patients have concluded their illness (i.e., recovered or died)" (which leads to a strong under-estimation under circumstances of the then quasi-exponential growth with a time constant which was actually shorter than the mean time between disease confirmations and resulting deaths, ed.). Also the WHO has suggested that the mortality rate is approximately 3%.

WITH:

Meanwhile, early estimates put the fatality rate at 2–3%. However, it was issued with a warning that "not all patients have concluded their illness (i.e., recovered or died)" (which leads to a strong under-estimation under circumstances of the then quasi-exponential growth with a time constant which was actually shorter than the mean time between disease confirmations and resulting deaths, ed.). The WHO has also suggested that the fatality rate is around 3%.

thank you — 89.206.118.49 (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 89.206.118.49 (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

References

• Changed to a reference to case fatality rate per the objection above. Note that Worldometer also changed their wording from "mortality" to "case fatality rate" sometime in the last few days; it would have been good if we had noticed the issue earlier, but we were following the sources. Dekimasuよ! 02:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2020

New method for disinfecting the human body and rooms

We show for the first time that far-UVC efficiently inactivates airborne aerosolized viruses, with a very low dose of 2 mJ/cm2 of 222-nm light inactivating >95% of aerosolized H1N1 influenza virus. Continuous very low dose-rate far-UVC light in indoor public locations is a promising, safe and inexpensive tool to reduce the spread of airborne-mediated microbial diseases.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21058-w/?fbclid=IwAR1XsQ44IdRPBZ-aN2H04Jfi_Iw_i--XaPexV7K-si7wiRc6W_bCxiemA6c Ole Lund Christensen (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

As above, the "treatment research" section is not intended to be about suggestions by Wikipedia editors about possible applications of novel treatments for 2019-nCoV infection. It is about conveying information from reliable sources to the effect that research on particular treatments has taken place (or is ongoing). The source cited in this edit request is not about 2019-nCoV and predated its discovery. Dekimasuよ! 02:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Infection chain

"a chain of at least four people" - But the source is from a week ago. Are there any new findings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.209.23.76 (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

AFAICT the Webasto cluster has 5 steps all but confirmed by now, and more steps suspected:

1. (presumed) unidentified Chinese who infected the Webasto employees
2. 2 Chinese employees (source of infection unconfirmed, but probably human)
3. 7 German employees
4. 1 child (suspected: 2 other children + wife) of one of the 7, and 1 acquaintance of another one of the 7
5. 4, maybe 5 from travel group of acquaintance on La Gomera; possibly unknown number in kindergarten group of child.

Next week it should resolve if there have been further infections on Gomera. Note also that "5 steps" assumes the person in step 1 was infected by wildlife. Given that this person got infected in 2020, and probably after January 10 (the Chinese employees were infectious Jan 21 and had symptoms Jan 23), this is very unlikely.

So there is at least from the Webasto cluster still only definite proof for 4 steps until we have more infections caused by the 4-5 infected on Gomera. But at least 5 steps are almost certain, at least 6 very likely, and the actual number is likely to be closer to or above 10 given the considerable length of time from the initial infection to the 2 Chinese employees getting infected.

Note also that it is very unlikely a Bavarian native and a Chinese native are immunologically very similar as humans go (Gene flow from Eastern Asia extended to Eastern and North-Central Europe for >1000 years but did not reach much into or even past the Central European Mittelgebirge until very few generations ago). Yet the infectivity and disease progression for the Webasto cases (mostly people of Southern German origin) are about as average as it gets. Meaning the virus is about equally efficient in infecting all humans alike. Meaning it is already well-adapted to infecting humans in general. Meaning the infection chain is unlikely to be short. -- Dysmorodrepanis 01:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD1:5030:0:6834:8598:D1E5:CC5E (talk)

I don't see how the lenght of the observed infection chain is relevant. As long as the effective reproduction rate (not the base reproducion rate) remains above one, the infection chain is infinite. So why mention its current count? — 89.206.115.106 (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The underlying question seems to be whether or not a constant input from a source in the natural reservoir is necessary in order to explain the increase in cases. If there were reintroductions then an effective reproduction rate above one (among humans) wouldn't be needed for the virus to spread. At this point it is clear that the question has been answered; and there's no great difference between a chain of 4 and a chain of 5. Dekimasuよ! 14:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice of ongoing move request for related article: "2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak"

Be aware that there is an ongoing discussion for 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak to be moved, which may be pertaining as this article is directly related, and is happening here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019%E2%80%9320_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak#Requested_move_2_February_2020

Sleath56 (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Treatment and vested interests

It's obvious that pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in advertising their products, especially with such a huge amount of mainstream media coverage and likely numbers of potential clients (who either need the product or who buy it based on speculation).

On the other hand, ordinary people, medical scientists, health system managers, health ministers, serious journalists, ... have an interest and a right to have access to encyclopedic knowledge on what is being done for the various possible treatments and vaccines. "Trust us, we're working on it" is more likely to lead to speculation than sourced info. I'm fairly sure there have been ethical debates about whether it's justified to carry out some "testing" or provide clinically unproven treatments or vaccines to people who are likely to be exposed or to have been exposed; as far as I remember, there's no simple yes/no policy, it's rather a case-by-case basis to be judged by ethical committees or WHO. Independent of the ethics, the folk intuition is quite likely to be that testing should start on humans who are in Wuhan immediately.

Bottom line: using the best reliable sources and tending to provide more rather than less info, provided that it's properly sourced, is, IMHO, the best way of resolving this inevitable conflict. I don't think we can hide the info about what company produces what product - we can favour papers published on Biorxiv, but those don't block patents. And if we state the brand name of the product, that already effectively advertises for the company. Boud (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Biorxiv papers are not necessarily peer reviewed and thus not reliable sources within academia itself. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with all the above @Boud: I removed references to Gilead from the treatment section (twice) because their Remdesovir (already mentioned) is only a solution waiting for a disease, as ever. I don't see why they should get a mention when Abbott who make another of the listed products do not get a mention too. Wikimucker (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Biorxiv: assuming that this is similar to ArXiv, within academia, ArXiv sources are widely cited because they are recent and green open access and most of the time are submitted for peer review; some ArXiv papers remain in the long term historically groundbreaking discovery papers that are worthy of a Fields medal and a Millenium Prize; what is valid in your (EvergreenFir's) comment is that if an ArXiv reference remains non-peer-reviewed in the long term (more than 12-18 months), then most of the time, with some significant exceptions, it is not a reliable source. Nevertheless, academic honesty requires attributing the first paper to publish a result, even if it remains a permanent ArXiv preprint. Returning to Wikipedia, BiorXiv and 2019-nCoV, I would say that if a BiorXiv-not-yet-peer-reviewed paper is referred to by serious mainstream media or another serious source and it's less than 6-18 months old, then using it in a Wikipedia article will tend to be justified. Boud (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wikimucker: since you agree, how about restoring the Gilead info (a solution waiting for a disease is your phrase, not a phrase from an external reliable source, it seems) and adding the Abbott details of what Abbott is doing concretely, since you seem to know enough to be able to provide sources? Boud (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I think they are all in the mix for now and adding a compound name to the "treatment" list will suffice in the interests of readability. It could end up as a long list. Wikimucker (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

An ArXiv paper on theoretical physics is apples to oranges compared to biomedical stuff that can have a significant effect on human health, biomedical sources are subject (justly) to more stringent criteria layed out at Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine), If unreliable sources like this keep being added to the article it might justify the addition of extended protection, though I'd like to hear other users thoughts on this suggestion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

It's a fair point that biomedical papers will most of the time risk more consequences for human health than theoretical or experimental high-energy physics/astronomy or pure mathematics papers. On the other hand, BiorXiv is, it seems to me (I haven't checked to this level of detail) where the 2019-nCoV genome was first discussed - so I suspect this will have to be discussed on a case-by-case basis, with a balance between WP-is-not-news vs pressure to include the latest research. A "pending peer-review" tag for preprints that are not yet peer-reviewed, and another for "not-peer-reviewed-but-historically-relevant" would be useful. Boud (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the article is in good hands right now Hemiauchenia but that could change any time if a scientific squabble breaks out. So far so good though. Wikimucker (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: s/Treatment/Treatment research/

Any objections to changing the subsection title from Treatment to Treatment research? Given that there are not going to be any meta-analyses of peer-reviewed papers reporting randomised double-blinded controlled trials of 2019-nCoV treatments on any short time scale (less than 6-18 months, if not longer), for the moment under Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) there is no known treatment; instead there is only treatment research. We could also include a sentence which is not strictly a disclaimer, but rather a clarification that there are no known treatments, and instead there is ongoing research. Boud (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Support Generally. There are WHO guidelines which focus largely on alleviating symptoms, but most of the treatment section is a shopping list of drugs suggested as being of possible use, and we won't know for months.

None of them are new that I know of and none were developed specifically for coronavirus control, again that I know of. Wikimucker (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Meta-review of double-blinded controlled trial research papers will first need the trials to be performed after ethics committee approvals, then time for peer-review will be needed, then time for meta-review will be needed. So in the WP:RSMED sense, we won't know for easily 12-24 months or so. In terms of the spectrum from initial exploratory research through to WP:RSMED, that depends on individual judgment of what counts as "knows". Chances are the initial causality will be hard to disentangle between authoritarian quarantining and isolation effects and direct biomedical effects. Boud (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Should it also be moved below virology to appear just above "Vaccine research", then? Dekimasuよ! 03:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Remdesivir now officially on trial Boud and I added a reflink to that effect. Wikimucker (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

"Treatment research" now moved to 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease, started by Fungchilong today. Dekimasuよ! 16:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Lancet & Academic Task Force

Hello @all !
As said above, some very meaningful academic source are emerging allowing to upgrade the sources and quality of this article. thelancet.com/coronavirus is a great source with articles which are really worth reading, copying-citing, massively integrating into this this virus article. There surely are other that we may gain to isolate, point out here, and systematically integrate. Yug (talk) 10:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Date	<ref name="">	Title	Action/Section planned/successfully integrated to wp article and username if you wish to
2020.01.31	<ref name="LancetNowcasting"/>	"Nowcasting and forecasting the potential domestic and international spread of the 2019-nCoV outbreak originating in Wuhan, China: a modelling study"	(add your name)
2020.01.30	<ref name="Lancet99cases" />	Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study	{{2019-20_Wuhan_coronavirus_data/Symptoms}} :  Done Yug (talk) {{2019-20_Wuhan_coronavirus_data/Treatments given}} :  Done Yug {{2019-20_Wuhan_coronavirus_data/Patients}} : to do store 01.24 and 01.31-table1 data.
2020.01.24	<ref name="LancetNovel"/>	A novel coronavirus outbreak of global health concern	(add your name)
2020.01.24	<ref name="LancetPatients"/>	Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China	(add your name)

"Treatments given" template

I have some qualms about including the "treatments given" template here, although I respect that you took the time to put it together. First, the data is based on a small sample size (n=99) from a single hospital. We have no way of knowing whether this range of treatment is representative of treatments being given overall during the outbreak, or how the condition of the patients compared to patients elsewhere (or in later cases). Second, the range of palliative treatments given is very different from an assessment of the effectiveness of the treatments, which is what is implied by the current section title "Treatment research". Third, I think it detracts from the focus of the article on the virus itself. It is true that it may soon be time to make an article on the specific syndrome caused by the virus, but until that time I don't think this article is the right place to be putting additional information on the symptoms. We have already reduced the focus on signs and symptoms over the last week. The paragraph on mortality has crept back in to the epidemiology section, but I think it would be a mistake to expand the "Treatment research" section to attempt to describe what is taking place on the ground during the outbreak. I have not removed the template yet but would like to hear from others on this subject. Dekimasuよ! 13:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Dekimasu. I have the same concern for 3, article scope. For 1 & 2, I and we should accept this n=99 and treatments are the current state of the art, as of published literature. Well sourced state of the art information must be included. Question is where. Yug (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

There is a difference between data and knowledge, though. We need to ask ourselves what the data in the table tells us about the virus. In this case, I think the answer is very little. (In fact, many of the treatments listed were given to combat conditions unrelated to the coronavirus, like fungal infections. And I am pretty sure the WHO has specifically said that practitioners should *not* give 2019-nCoV patients corticosteroids, so if the purpose is to circulate the best information possible, this is not necessarily it.) Dekimasuよ! 14:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Overall the treatment section has on occasion contained dubious statements by commmercial interests with a product to sell, an I have trimmed it more than once. I would certainly be uncomfortable were it to grow much more than it has already. I described this issue on this page, as "a solution looking for a problem" once a mildly notorious failed Ebola drug crept into at one point. Wikimucker (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikimucker, what about the template in question here? (I have removed some more statements with possible commercial motivations again today, although it is important to assume good faith.) Dekimasuよ! 04:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Still looks good Dekimasu, like you implied yesterday there will inevitably come a point where drugs*.* are being mentioned or trialled and that probably will mean a separate 'treatments' article at that point. I have not seen anything that was not a good faith edit to be fair. Wikimucker (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Falsely describing infectious during incubation claim

So the virology section's statement about the possibility of infection during incubation accurately describes the WHO's statement on the matter, however the article implies there are multiple studies saying that it is infectious during incubation. I.e. "Studies have shown that the virus can be infectious even during the incubation period".

There was a single published study, a case report of a patient in Germany. The wiki article has two citations, one to the study and another to a statement by someone commenting on that exact same study. It is misleading to suggest there are multiple studies and to imply that this is some notable element of the threat of this virus. The article should be reworded to clarify that there is only a single case report of a patient infecting others before symptoms began, to not mention that the contact with the index patient was only 2 days before clinically significant symptoms did appear in that index patient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.151.199.92 (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I think this has been altered sufficiently now. The process often makes the sentences evolve over time, and here it was a case in which the original contrast was with a sentence on the American CDC which claimed the virus was not infectious during the incubation period. Dekimasuよ! 02:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the text in chapter Infection is not correct, see https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/paper-non-symptomatic-patient-transmitting-coronavirus-wrong. Both citations for "There is some evidence that the virus can be infectious even during the incubation period", refer to the same German paper that appears to be wrong. Incubation period is the time before symptons appear. And in the German case the chinese woman had symptons. The second reference I have for this is in German and is used by the German version of this article https://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/109147/2019-nCoV-Doch-keine-Uebertragung-durch-asymptomatische-Infizierte-in-Bayern. Malanoqa (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I read through the German one first and it appears to be making a careful distinction between being asymptomatic and cases that have "very light symptoms." The sciencemag cite seems to be good enough to show what you want to say here: the German study was flawed, so we can't support what we have now. The article also says "The fact that the paper got it wrong doesn’t mean transmission from asymptomatic people doesn’t occur. Fauci, for one, still believes it does. 'This evening I telephoned one of my colleagues in China who is a highly respected infectious diseases scientist and health official,' he says. 'He said that he is convinced that there is asymptomatic infection and that some asymptomatic people are transmitting infection.' But even if they do, asymptomatic transmission likely plays a minor role in the epidemic overall, WHO says." Some version of this is probably what things should be altered to now; we already have the second sentence in place. Dekimasuよ! 11:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Dekimasu for changing the text. For me it looks good now.Malanoqa (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Remove sprotect?

I think the IP edits are very useful for a rapidly changing topic (and it's sufficiently removed from the outbreak article imo). Thoughts on keeping it off sprotect as much as possible? Thanks Samir 17:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe semi-protect expires within the next 24 hours. As always, it will depend on how many disruptive editors there are.... Dekimasuよ! 18:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll monitor as well, ideally aiming for minimal protection times to avoid vandalism but still allow useful anon edits. Samir 18:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Not looking good so far. I left a COI notification, which was ignored, before the arrival of another likely associated editor who may have been canvassed offline. But I won't violate the 3RR, so please do help monitor these and other changes. Dekimasuよ! 05:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Followed by vandalism, followed by a copyvio.... Dekimasuよ! 06:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Another editor, in the account's first edit on Wikipedia, has added the same text and same source for the fourth time, down to the same nonstandard capitalization. Someone else will need to handle it this time, maybe including an SPI. And so so far, not the IP editors but accounts that signed up for the first time today are the ones causing trouble. Dekimasuよ! 06:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

A review article on 2019-nCoV

Dear All,

I had recently added a review article to this page that provided a bird's eye view on the novel coronavirus. Since one of the members had accused me of having COI, I would appreciate it if you could evaluate the review yourself and decide on whether it is worth being mentioned here on Further Readings. Considering the large number of published papers on Coronavirus, this resource could provide a concise overview of what is happening.

Here is the DOI: 10.15171/ijoem.2020.1921

Thank you, --StatWikiped (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I find your review OK, and Wikipedia prefer reviews, not original research. Clowns und Kinder (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Context is here. The removal/readdition is here. Personally, I am fine with having the link in the Further reading section if other editors here judge that it should be included on its merits. Dekimasuよ! 04:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Estimating the fatality rate

It is difficult for many reasons, especially when we are clear about the difference of statistical data, and reality. (e.g., How many are infected for real, vs official numbers?) But we could at least give a rough estimate if we put the fatalities against the respective population. HOWEVER look at this example:

• Fatalities NOW of 500, on average x days after these got recognized as positive.
• Positives count NOW of 30,000 but that's not our population
• Positives count x days before NOW -- is that our population?

If, for example, most of the deceased suffered for 10 days from entry into the statistic (probably first test result after admission to hospital?) to death, then the actual fatality rate of 2019-nCoV could go beyond 10%. (I hope it's not.)

So here is my question: Is it possible to have such a figure 'x' ? At least for the shutdown Hubei cities we could have some data already. But do they record them, do they publish ? --rosetta — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.213.149.52 (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

P.S. They give an example value of 14 days here (ATM at the end of page): https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.213.149.52 (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It should now be possible to discuss reliable sources related to these issues using the talk page at Talk:2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease for possible inclusion 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease#Prognosis. Now that the disease article has been split out, it makes more sense to discuss the case fatality rate issue there. If necessary, we can still discuss virulence and pathogenicity here, since those are more clearly aspects of the virus that is the core topic of this article. Dekimasuよ! 05:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

FYI MRC outbreak research centre has come out with new estimates for both case fatality rate and infection fatality rate: https://twitter.com/MRC_Outbreak/status/1226765905306234881, https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/news--wuhan-coronavirus/ (COI: spouse is coauthor of https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-2019-nCoV-severity-10-02-2020.pdf) As per Dekimasu, probably doesn't belong in this article (except for perhaps infection fatality rate in epi section? But probably not cCFR.) Mvolz (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Sunda pangolin as Intermediate species

Sources: [7], [8], [9]. Ancientman0 (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, see #Need to be careful what "studies" we allow in the article above. I think the current reference to it is more than adequate at this point. Once we see actual scientific studies we can reconsider, but the snake story is a good reminder not to put too much confidence in preliminary results. At the same time, if the 99% figure proves accurate there will be things to change in other parts of the article as well. Dekimasuよ! 02:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

hot wet reduces infection

https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2020/02/08/climate-immunity-incompetence-indonesias-zero-recorded-coronavirus-cases-raise-questions.html suggests that coronaviruses including this one do not spread where there is hot wet climates. I realise this speculative - but there maybe something in it worth putting in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

My guess is, probably not at this point. There are cases in a lot of hot and wet places: Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore, Hong Kong, the Philippines, etc. If there is medical research done on this specific coronavirus, perhaps it can be revisited, or it can be discussed further at Talk:Coronavirus for the general case. Dekimasuよ! 08:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Recovery

John Hopkins (Hospital) is able to provide amount of confirmed recovered persons. Has anyone found an official statement regarding the duration or 'wear off' by the host to recover from the virus?

Name Update to Match WHO Decision

As of 10:37 EST, the WHO has announced their official name for this virus: Covid-19:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/11/world-health-organization-names-the-new-coronavirus-covid-19.html

https://globalnews.ca/news/6535635/coronavirus-name-covid19/

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019

Is it worth updating this page title to reflect the change, and redirect the old title?

SpurriousCorrelation (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

As written above by SomethingNastyHere, the WHO named the disease that is caused by the 2019 novel coronavirus COVID-19. It did not rename the virus, as far as we can tell at this time. That announcement is still expected from the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. "COVID-19" is short for "coronavirus disease 2019", making it clear that it is a name for the disease, not the virus. (What is less clear is whether the WHO cares very much about the distinction between the species and the disease, since it mostly cares about controlling the disease.) Dekimasuよ! 16:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks for the clarification. SpurriousCorrelation (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Change title of the page to COVID-19

The coronavirus from Wuhan, China has an official name and its COVID-19. Please make sure the correction is reflected in the article. Riyadhhussain1985 (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• See above. Dekimasuよ! 06:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2020

Add the official name of the 2019-nCoV (referred to as X) virus as Corvid-19 (refereed to as Y) to the page and change X to Y in most instances, source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-51466362 Gorge1234567890 (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Per source - The virus itself has been designated SARS-CoV-2 by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. Covid-2019 is the disease. Hzh (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Hzh, the Virus is named SARS-CoV-2 as Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 and the disease is named CORVID-19 as Coronavirus disease 2019. --Eric1212 (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see the discussion here: Talk:2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease. We should keep the WP:COMMONNAME. Graham Beards (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not agree with Talk:2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease, as far as i know, people are searching SARS for the 2003-2004 events... Actually, i consider SARS 2 / SARS-CoV-2 as a WP:COMMONNAME as coronavirus alone can't be used. --Eric1212 (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

We need to see evidence from reliable sources for the latter. Graham Beards (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

This answer should be clarified very soon as this is a current outbreak, seeking for newspaper should be very fast 1-3 days. Pro's seems to agree though : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/sars-cov-2-seqs/ --Eric1212 (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Move page to severe acute respiratory syndrome related coronavirus

The official scientific and medical name of the virus is now SARS-CoV, eventually we have to stop calling it nCoV because there will come a time that there will be a new coronavirus and will be Ned novel coronavirus Hushskyliner (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice of ongoing move request for related article: "2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak"

Be aware that there is an ongoing discussion for 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak to be moved, which may be pertaining as this article is directly related, and is happening here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019%E2%80%9320_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak#Requested_move_11_February_2020

Sleath56 (talk) 08:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)