Talk:Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019

COVID was in Italy before?

Has this one been discussed before? Chumpih. (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

A study suggests SARS-CoV-2 has been circulating in northern Italy. It "confirms that SARS-COV-2 was already circulating after mid-December 2019."

Yes, but not sure where in the maze of COVID discussions. Since it's not WP:MEDRS there's no point discussing it anyway, especially for its WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. Alexbrn (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps not so WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Here are multiple mainstream sources. Standard, BBC News, Forbes, nature. Chumpih. (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC) (Perhaps that BBC one is no good. The standard advice is that when we see a newspaper headline with a question mark, the answer is invariably "NO".). Another one Business Insider. Bloomberg. BBC again. Chumpih. (talk) 14:20, 14:35, 14:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I could find no evidence of previous discussion. Search. Chumpih. (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

More mainstream sources: Reuters, The Times (UK), SCMP, US News Chumpih. (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC) CNN Chumpih. (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

All failing WP:MEDRS. Until and unless this appears in a strong, appropriate source, it is fringe and undue. Alexbrn (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Above are several links to mainstream sites. Yet this is classed as 'fringe'? Is there any evidence to suggest that?Chumpih. (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The scientific consensus is that the virus is of Chinese bat origin, so all these ideas that it was around in Italy (or California, or wherever else) are fringe and shouldn't be amped up. Alexbrn (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Bat origin (zoonotic spillover) may or may not be true, and that's still a possible-to-likely pathway. Not "very likely" or "certain", and definitely not current "scientific consensus", so that idea should be probably be adjusted. But that's not the issue here. The question is if was doing the rounds outside China before 2020, and there are many reports to support that, including mainstream stuff, so again this is not 'fringe'.Chumpih. (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC) [ Edit to clarify: the scientific consensus on the origin of the virus is it's most likely zoonotic. Whether the zoonotic spillover was at Wuhan/Huanan is the 'possible-to-likely' bit, per WHO report on virus origins. Apologies for the bogus straw-man. Chumpih. (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC) ]

It is, by definition fringe since it is outside the mainstream view. It's also a staple among some conspiracy theorists (the COVID's not new it's just being exploited for political purposes crowd). There are no reliable reports it was "doing the rounds" in 2019, just some half-baked suggestive research. And in case it is probably not part of the pandemic "timeline" since the pandemic had not started. Alexbrn (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

"Slippery slope" arguments are fallacious: if someone's presenting unsubstantiated theories then they can be swiftly countered. But to call reputable journals' output "half-baked suggestive research" is profoundly concerning. What is the agenda being enforced here? Chumpih. (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia's agenda is to ensure we reflect accepted knowledge and keep fringe ideas in unreliable sources properly in context. What we have currently is fine. Alexbrn (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Alexbrn, stay with good RS and, for exceptional information such as pre-December-2019 cases of COVID, the burden is on the editor to find at least a couple of MEDRS to back it up. Forich (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

According to this research in the CDC's Emerging Infectious Diseases journal, the first confirmed case of COVID-19 in Italy ("Sequence analysis... showed 100% identity to the reference sequence Wuhan-HU-1") dates to 21 November 2019: [1] Is this an unreliable source or "half-baked suggestive research"? Rosenkreutzer (talk) 09:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

It is 100% clear to me that the outside China 2019 reports should be mentioned in a distinct section, at the end of the article, because none is strongly supported by enough data, and if correct, any of them would imply that the main timeline (in Wuhan) is incorrect. Same for the SCMP 16 November (non-confirmed) "case", or anything that doesn't fit the WHO report, which is based on the same data as the main timeline of this article, though obviously including more insiders testimonies (Wuhan CDC..). @Alexbrn @Mateussf 2A01:E0A:852:9590:F4EF:13FE:91EA:4BE8 (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

There is evidence from multiple sources, some in the peer-reviewed Italian journal Tumori Journal, that Covid-19 was present in Italy before it could have spread from the Wuhan outbreak. The fact that this "doesn't fit" the WHO narrative is not evidence against its validity. Dismissing reports from reputable news sources as "a staple among some conspiracy theorists" and "half-baked" is prima facie evidence of bias. Whoever wants to challenge the peer-reviewed research that concludes Covid-19 was present in Italy earlier, must cite peer-reviewed studies which invalidate it. That has not been done. This article fails to meet the Wikipedia NPOV standard. Insulation2 (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Insulation2 I don't think you understand the science. Most pre-pandemic reports weren't seriously reviewed prior to publication, often in low quality journals. There are plenty of sources saying that the tMRCA is in November and with either the A or B haplotype, ie. the one found in Wuhan in December. The epidemiology agrees with that. Contamination and lab mistakes are relatively common and explain most of the pre-pandemic reports. The WHO report is open peer-reviewed since months and was written with many relevant parties, including the lab which reproduced the Italian 2019 serologies and didn't find any clear match. 2A01:E0A:852:9590:3444:3EFF:1EA1:24AA (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Double use of the same article

Reference 9 and 10 are the same article, only 10 is using the full article of 9, and they credit them at the beginning. By citing different sources with the same origin, it will diminish the quality of this work. The lack of subsequent confirmation of these allegations also suggests more caution should be used in the sentence "As early as the second week of November 2019" e.g. "It has been alleged that as early..."

To add to article

Information to add to this article: the roadblocks that appeared around the Wuhan Institute of Virology between October 14 and October 19, 2019. Or is this mentioned in some other Wikipedia article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Common Dreams and Salon

I am concerned by the following passage:

As early as the second week of November 2019, contrary to the denial of the Pentagon, the American National Center for Medical Intelligence shared intelligence based on "monitoring of internal Chinese communications" that warned US allies, Israel, and NATO of a potential novel coronavirus pandemic coming out of Wuhan; then-president Trump downplayed the threat of the novel coronavirus.[4][5]

There are multiple problems here. First of all, the two references are to Common Dreams and Salon. Salon is yellow at RSP, and Common Dreams is not mentioned but likely worse than yellow. I would suggest instead basing it on sources that are clearly WP:RS. Here is one.[2] Secondly, I per WP:WIKIVOICE we should not take sides on disputed information. Instead, we should describe the controversy. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)